HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-02 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 February 2, 2015
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
Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:10 PM
1.Community Partner Presentation: West Bay Opera at the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre
Study Session 6:10-7:10 PM
2.Potential List of Topics for Joint Meeting with the City Council and
Library Advisory Commission
7:10-7:15 PM
3.Prescreening of a Proposal to Re-zone the Former VTA Park and Ride
Lot at 2755 El Camino Real From Public Facility (PF) to Community
Commercial (CC(2)) with a Concurrent Comprehensive Plan Land Use
REVISED
At-Place Memo
2 February 2, 2015
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.
Designation Amendment From Major Institution/Special Facilities to
Regional Community Commercial, Allowing Development of a Four
Story Mixed-use Building With Below Grade Parking
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 7:15-7:25 PM
Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 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.
Consent Calendar 7:40-7:50 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
4.Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement
5.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14
(Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Establish New Smoking Restrictions for Outdoor Commercial Areas,
Outdoor Eating Areas, Public Events, Work Sites and Service
Locations; Include Penalty Escalation for Repeat Offenders; Require
Cigarette Butt Receptacles and Signage Immediately Adjacent and
Within Areas Covered by the Ban, Including Designated Smoking Areas
(First Reading: December 15, 2014 PASSED: 9-0)
6.Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 3864
Corina Way
7.Palo Alto Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future (Staff Requests
Item be Continued to the Study Session of March 2, 2015)
8.Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and
Setting March 2, 2015 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed
Weed Abatement
9.SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Governing Public Art in
Municipal Projects (First Reading: January 12, 2015, PASSED: 9-0)
10.Approval of Staff Work Plan Developed in Response to the December
15, 2014 City Council Colleagues Memo on Climate Action Plan
3 February 2, 2015
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.
Implementation Strategies to Reduce Use of Natural Gas and Gasoline
through Fuel Switching to Carbon Free Electricity
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
7:50-9:50 PM
11.Council Update Regarding City’s Technology and the Connected City
Initiative, Including the Status of the City’s Participation in the Google
Fiber City Checklist Process; and Approval of and Authorization for the
City Manager to Execute Two Professional Services Contracts with
Columbia Telecommunications dba CTC Technology & Energy for
Consulting Services for (1) a Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan in an
Amount Not-to-Exceed $144,944 and (2) a Complementary Wireless
Network Plan in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $131,650; and Adoption of
a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Fiber Optics Fund in
the Amount of $276,594
9:50-10:10 PM
12.Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation and
Winter Closure for 2015
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
4 February 2, 2015
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 Tuesday, February 3, 2015 7:00 PM
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Downtown Development Cap Study: Summary of Phase 1 Data Analysis
City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Second Quarter, Fiscal
Year 2015
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5406)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Partnership Presentation: West Bay Opera
Title: Community Partner Presentation: West Bay Opera at the Lucie Stern
Community Theatre
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
José Luis Moskovich, General Director of West Bay Opera, will make a presentation with
video and production images, outlining the Opera’s current Season and their history in
successfully staging great performances at the Lucie Stern Theatre.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5475)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: LAC Joint Study Session - 02/02/2015
Title: Potential List of Topics for Joint Meeting with the City Council and
Library Advisory Commission
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Library
Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint meeting with the Library Advisory
Commission on February 2, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.
Strategic Goals
New Facilities
Annual Statistics
Understanding Library Users/Behaviors
Ongoing Performance Measurement
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5466)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Prescreening for 2755 El Camino Real
Title: Prescreening of a Proposal to Re-zone the Former VTA Park and Ride lot
at 2755 El Camino Real From Public Facility (PF) to Community Commercial
(CC(2) with a Concurrent Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Amendment from Major Institution/Special Facilities to Regional Community
Commercial, Allowing Development of a Four Story Mixed-use Building With
Below Grade Parking
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council conduct a preliminary review (pre-screening) and provide
comments on the proposal to staff and the applicant, particularly focused on the proposal to
rezone the site from Public Facilities (PF) to Community Commercial (CC2) and to concurrently
change its Comprehensive Plan land use designation to Regional Community Commercial. No
formal action may be taken at a pre-screening, and Council comments are not binding on the
City or the applicant.
Executive Summary
The subject site at 2275 El Camino Real was sold as surplus property by the Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and thus requires re-zoning from Public Facility (PF) to another
zoning district. The applicant first proposed re-zoning to Planned Community (PC) and is now
proposing re-zoning to Community Commercial (CC2) because in early 2014, the Council
instituted a “time out” on re-zonings to PC. Via pre-screening, the applicant is requesting non-
binding input from the City Council. Following the pre-screening, the applicant will decide
whether they wish to continue with the original PC application or withdraw that application and
file the application to re-zone to CC2.
With the proposed re-zoning to CC2, the applicant is also proposing to construct a four-story
mixed-use building with two dwelling units, 29,188 square feet of commercial space, and 109 at
and below ground parking spaces at one of the busiest corners in Palo Alto: the corner of El
Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Consistent with the pending PC re-zoning application, the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
applicant has proposed granting sufficient right of way to the City as a “public benefit” to
improve the intersection.
This pre-screening will allow City Council to review and discuss the proposed re-zoning and
Comprehensive Plan amendment as well as issues associated with the development concept
described in the applicant’s narrative and conceptual plans, essentially providing input as to
whether the proposal warrants the applicant’s and staff’s time to pursue and analyze. The
Council could also offer its opinions as to whether or not the requested, standard zone district
(CC-2) is appropriate for the site (as opposed to alternatives), and whether or not adding the
“D” combining district is desirable in this case. The purpose of the preliminary review or “pre-
screening” is also to begin the public discussion of the proposal and to focus public and
environmental review on the issues of greatest importance to the community.
Background
The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) owned the site for many years and the site served as
a commuter Park and Ride lot. This use declined over the years; the VTA determined the lot
was no longer needed and classified it as a surplus parcel. The VTA then distributed a Request
for Proposal (RFP) for the sale of the property in 2012. The applicant (Pollack Financial Group,
Inc.) purchased the property in 2013.
Prior Project Preliminary Reviews
On February 2013, Council had conducted a preliminary review of the project that was
associated with the Planned Community PC project the applicant submitted in June 2013. The
staff report is available at this URL:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/32991. The Council meeting minutes
are found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33725. They state that
Council gave initial project feedback on components such as massing and architecture, public
benefits, pedestrian and automobile improvements, parking and several other components of the
project.
On May 2, 2013, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review of the
PC project that the Council had reviewed in the February prescreening. The ARB staff report
may be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34107.
In June 2013, the City received the applicant’s Planned Community (PC) zoning application (still
on file) for a four-story, 31,776 square foot (sf) commercial building at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
of 1.52:1 on this site. The Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) conducted a public
hearing on September 11, 2013 to “initiate” the PC rezoning process, and continued the public
hearing to a date uncertain. PT&TC meeting excerpt minutes are provided for Council as
Attachment D. The meeting minutes is found at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36222. The P&TC staff report is
found at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/35767.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The PC application cited nine offerings as public benefits “not otherwise attainable by
application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts” with value to the City
estimated by the applicant as:
1. Widening of Page Mill Road, $281,350.
2. Land Dedication a portion of Page Mill Road, $121,820.
3. Upgrade Pedestrian Tunnel with panel doors locked/controlled by City staff, $100,000.
4. Installation of Pedestrian Light Poles on California Avenue, $850,000.
5. Installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations on California Avenue, $259,320.
6. All Electric Building generating less carbon, $251,250 over 10 years.
7. Ten-Year Eco pass and CalTrain pass for the site’s employees for 10 years, $112,500.
8. VTA Lot for Public Use during California Avenue redevelopment, $38,880.
9. Urban Amenities, i.e. public art, trees and pedestrian design, $150,000.
The Council temporarily halted the Planned Community (PC) process in February 2014, to re-
examine the PC process as a whole. With the PC rezone process under review for an unknown
period of time, the property owner is exploring other options for the site, including the
proposal to rezone the property using one of Palo Alto’s existing commercial zoning
designations. Rezoning the site to a standard zone would not carry the “public benefits”
requirement set forth in the Planned Community Chapter of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC), although the applicant’s team has indicated that they would agree to proposed public
benefits as voluntary conditions of approval.
Prescreening Request and Process
On November 4, 2014, the applicant submitted an application for preliminary review of the
concept to rezone the property from Public facility (PF) to Community Commercial (CC(2)) and
assign the Community Commercial land use designation. Given the significance of the proposal,
staff determined the pre-screening application to be the most appropriate next step in the
process.
PAMC Section 18.79.030(c) states that City Council concurrence is necessary to conduct a
preliminary review at Council level. On December 15, 2014 the City Council voted to approve
the applicant’s request that the City Council conduct the prescreening hearing, and set the
hearing for February 2, 2014. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.010 states that
the purposes of a preliminary review are:
a) To maximize opportunities for meaningful public discussion of development projects, at
the earliest feasible time, for the guidance of the public, project proponents, and City
decision makers.
b) To focus public and environmental review of development projects on the issues of
greatest significance to the community, including but not limited to: planning concerns;
neighborhood compatibility; Comprehensive Plan consistency; economics; social costs
City of Palo Alto Page 4
and benefits; fiscal costs and benefits; technological factors; and legal issues. These
procedures are not intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval or
disapproval of any given development project.
c) To provide members of the public with the opportunity to obtain early information
about development projects in which they may have an interest.
d) To provide project proponents with the opportunity to obtain early, non-binding
preliminary comments on development projects to encourage sound and efficient
private decisions about how to proceed.
e) To encourage early communication between elected and appointed public officials and
staff with respect to the implementation of City policies, standards, and regulations on
particular development projects.
f) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan
and development regulations.
Comments provided during this prescreening are not binding on the City or the applicant.
Following the prescreening, the applicant will determine whether to continue with the current
PC application, or withdraw the PC application and file a new application.
Project Description
The proposal is a request by Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Pollock Financial Group, Inc.
for a “Pre-Screening” of the proposal to rezone the property from Public Facility (PF) to
Community Commercial (CC(2)) and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from
Major Institution/Special Facilities to Regional Community Commercial. The rezoning is
intended to allow for the future redevelopment of the site.
The conceptual development plans include a 32,517 square foot (sf), four-story, mixed use
building containing two one-bedroom residential units and commercial space, with three levels
of below grade parking and limited surface parking facilities, on a 19,563 sf site. The building
would be 50 feet tall with a mechanical roof screen adding eight additional feet, for a total
height of 58 feet. The on-site parking facilities would be accessed from a driveway on El
Camino Real. A total of 109 vehicle parking spaces would be provided both at grade under the
building, and within a three-level, below-grade garage. The applicant has requested up to a
10% reduction in the parking requirement, given the provision of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan (TDM). The applicant’s project “Narrative” is provided in Attachment B.
Discussion
Zone Change Request
The current PF zoning of the site was appropriate for the former VTA parking lot use but is not
well suited for future use of the site by a private property owner. The allowable land uses for a
PF zoned property under private ownership are limited. If the property is not owned by a
public entity such as the City, County, or State, the uses are limited to a park, a school, or a
medical facility. For this reason, the applicant has proposed the rezoning of the parcel. While
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the property is adjacent to existing multifamily uses, the property is located at the corner of
Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. This is a busy intersection with multiple lanes of traffic
flowing in each direction. This is not the most appropriate environment for residential uses.
Commercial uses would be better suited for the busy intersection, especially at the lower floors.
Residential uses may be appropriate at the upper levels, further away from the busy street.
The applicant has proposed the Community Commercial (CC(2)) zone district for the site. The
CC zone district is intended to create and maintain major commercial centers accommodating a
broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of community wide or
regional significance. The (2) sub-district is intended to modify the site development
regulations of the CC district. For this site, the (2) sub-district would allow 50% more lot
coverage and requires 10% less landscape open space. The CC(2) zoning occurs along the El
Camino Real in proximity to California Avenue, with Retail and Pedestrian sub-district (also
known as a “combining district”) overlays.
Other commercial zones typically found along El Camino Real are Service Commercial (CS) and
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) (as reflected on the zone districts map, Attachment A). These
zone districts would be other options to consider for the rezoning of the property.
The CS zone district is intended to create and maintain areas accommodating citywide
and regional services that may be inappropriate in neighborhood or pedestrian oriented
shopping areas, which generally require automotive access.
The CN zone district is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas
primarily accommodating retail sales personal services, eating and drinking
establishments, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood
under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential
areas. While the property is surrounded by residential uses, the Sunrise assisted living
facility to the northwest, and the Silverwood multifamily condominium complex to the
north east, the location is not a neighborhood shopping area.
As Council adopted for the site at 441 Page Mill Road, Council could also consider imposing the
“D” combining district, so the development proposal would have to go through the Site and
Design Review process. Staff has provided a zoning comparison table (Attachment C)
comparing the existing PF zoning, the proposed CC(2) zoning, the CS zoning, and the proposed
project.
The primary difference between the proposed CC(2) zoning and the CS zoning is the allowance
for commercial floor area ratio or (FAR). The proposed CC(2) zoning allows a commercial FAR of
2:1 (which is 39,126 sf on this site), where the CS zoning is limited to a commercial FAR of 0.4:1
(which is only 7,825 sf on this site). Both zone districts allow a residential FAR of 0.6:1 (which is
11,737 sf on this site.)
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment
City of Palo Alto Page 6
The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan indicates the site’s current land use designation is Major
Institution/Special Facilities. This designation was appropriate for the former VTA parking lot
use, but would need to be amended if the zoning is changed. With the proposed zone change
to CC(2), the applicant requests that the land use designation be amended to Regional
Community Commercial. This would be the appropriate designation for the requested CC(2)
zone district.
This land use designation is intended for larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider
variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade
areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores,
apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, ad non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples
of areas with this land use designation are Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village
and the University Avenue and California Avenue downtown areas.
The property lies within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, which is cited in the Comprehensive
Plan as a mixed-use area adjacent to the California Avenue Business District that is served by a
multimodal transit station. The Comprehensive plan talks about opportunities for transit
oriented development and new housing. The CS zoning option discussed above would typically
have a land use designation of Service Commercial, which includes facilities providing citywide
and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car
Zoning Compliance
The attached zoning comparison table (Attachment C) shows the CC(2) development standards
in comparison to the proposed project, as well as those of the existing PF zoning and the CS
zone district. While the pre-screening will effectively determine whether staff time should be
spent analyzing the applicant’s proposal, a preliminary review suggests there are some areas
where the proposed project would appear to conflict with the proposed CC(2) zoning.
The first conflict with CC(2) zone development standards is the Build to line requirement. The
code requires that 50% of the building be built up to the build to line along El Camino Real, or
two feet behind the property line. However the new building would be approximately 10 feet
from the property line, creating a distance of 20 feet from the curb to the building face. While
the greater setback would seem more desirable at this significant street corner, an exception to
the code would be required. (Note that Council has also requested staff to bring forward
changes to the build to line requirement on El Camino and that planning initiative is underway.)
Another potential conflict with CC(2) standards involves the interior and rear yard 10-foot
setback requirement. It appears that the exhaust vent and stair tower leading up from the
below grade garage would encroach into these setbacks and an exception would be required to
allow this encroachment. In addition, there is a 20-foot Page Mill Road “special setback”
affecting approximately half of the Page Mill Road frontage of the property which would
potentially conflict with the current development proposal, which is proposed 10 feet from the
property line, apparently because of the desire to accommodate plans to modify the right turn
City of Palo Alto Page 7
lane and provide an access easement to enable a wider public sidewalk along the Page Mill
Frontage. These are items that would need to be considered through the review process.
Finally, the proposed stair tower at the top of the building would rise nine feet above 50 feet
and would require a height exception.
California Avenue Concept Plan
The Draft California Avenue Concept Plan, currently under review and not yet finalized for
Council adoption, identifies the following issues to address:
1. Vision for sustaining and improving:
California Avenue business and retail district;
Park Boulevard; and
Fry’s Site.
2. Manage change to preserve and enhance the quality of life in existing neighborhoods;
3. Parking;
4. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity; and
5. Open space and park amenities.
The draft plan does not indicate a change to the subject property’s zoning or land use
designation. The applicant’s current proposal does not appear to be in conflict with the
elements of the draft plan.
Parking Reduction Request
The plans indicate a total of 109 on-site parking spaces, six of which would be provided at
grade. A parking ratio of one space per each 250 sf of gross floor area is required by the PAMC
for office uses; therefore, 117 parking spaces would be required for the proposed 29,188
square feet of office space. Since three additional parking spaces would be required for two
one-bedroom dwellings, the total parking requirement for the project would be 120 parking
spaces. The parking deficiency is 11 parking spaces (or 9 percent).
The applicant proposes implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan
to reduce the parking demand associated with the project. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 18.52.050, the applicant is entitled to request a parking adjustment of up to a 20
percent reduction, if deemed appropriate by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment and, in this case, the City Council.
Neighborhood Compatibility
The subject property is located on a corner lot on one of the most significant intersections in
the City. There is little question that it would be appropriate for any new development for the
site to be a strong building that would hold this significant corner and provide a gateway to the
Stanford Research Park, while at the same time addressing the adjacent residential and senior
living uses.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Next Steps
1. Submittal of formal zone change and Comprehensive Plan land use designation
amendment application (and withdrawal of the PC application currently on file);
2. Environmental Review/ Initial Study process pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act;
3. Public hearing by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) on the
amendments to the site’s zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and if
a “D” overlay is recommended, a P&TC hearing and recommendation on a Site and
Design Review application; and
4. City Council hearing and action on the rezoning, land use amendment (and on the Site
and Design Review application, if the “D” combining district is assigned.
Resource Impact
The applicant submitted a preliminary review fee deposit, against which staff time to process
the application is charged, as a part of the City’s cost recovery program.
As part of the formal PC process, an applicant is required to submit a fiscal impact analysis to
provide information on cost of benefits of the project to the City. This is not a required item for
the prescreening; however, the applicant had previously provided a fiscal analysis of the
proposed project benefits to the City. This is provided in their Narrative document (Attachment
B). The proposed development would also result in a one-time development impact fee
payment to the City. The applicant’s Narrative requests that the City’s Transportation Impact
Fees be waived due to (1) the extensive voluntary offering of the land dedication for right of
way to implement the turn lane, (2) the access easement for the wider sidewalks, and (3) the
dedication of underground utilities rights (to the middle of Page Mill Road). The City currently
does not have a process for waiving development impact fees.
Environmental Assessment
Environmental review is not required for a prescreening, as no formal action will be taken on
the proposal. The prescreening is not considered to be a project under CEQA. If a formal
rezoning application is filed, a complete environmental assessment (Initial Study) will be
prepared in compliance with CEQA guidelines, prior to any formal hearing of the rezoning.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Zone Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Applicant's Narrative (PDF)
Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)
Attachment D: Excerpt PTC Minutes Sept. 11, 2013 on VTA PC initiation (PDF)
2755 EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT
Application Narrative
PF Zone for Surplus VTA Parking Lot
Change to CC (2) Zone District Designation
Applicant:
The Pollock Financial Group, Project Owner
Jim Baer, Palo Alto Land Use Consulting
Steve Emslie, Goodyear-Peterson-Hayward, LLC
Hayes Group Architects, Ken Hayes, Architect
November
2014
Page
2
of
31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
SECTION II: FINANCIAL ANALYSES
SECTION III: VOLUNTEERED CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL, CC (2) ZONE
DESIGNATION
SECTION IV: THE PROPOSED PROJECT
SECTION V: EXISTING CONDITIONS &
MITIGATIONS
SECTION VI: AMENDED GENERAL PLAN
AND DESIGNATION
SECTION VII: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN &
PROGRESSIVE
TRANSPORTATION
LEADERSHIP
SECTION VIII: MINOR PROJECT REQUESTS
ALLOWED UNDER CC (2) ZONE
Page
3
of
31
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION: PF ZONE CHANGE TO CC (2)
This Application is among very few that appear before the City seeking a change in the
underlying Zone District.
For the property located at 2755 El Camino, a Zone Change is necessary for any use by
any user. The property is in the PF Zone District that is limited to its use with such a
Land Use designation only as a Public Facility such as a park, library, school or similar
government based operation. 2755 El Camino on the N/E corner of Page Mill and El
Camino has been used as surface public VTA Parking for over 30 years. The VTA lot
was to allow commuters to park their vehicle during the day while they used VTA buses
to travel to work. 2755 El Camino is currently in the PF Zone District that is defined as
usable for a public function specifically identified for each location. As a property in the
PF Zone District, 2755 El Camino cannot be used for or by any user other than as a
public parking lot. Under current use designation for 2755 El Camino PF Zone District,
the site is identified as a parking lot.
Several years ago by applying a rigorous, multi-year process, the VTA determined that
2755 El Camino was a “surplus” parking lot that was badly under-used and found not to
be of value to Palo Alto VTA transit riders in this location. More than seven years ago,
VTA began discussing the future use and sale of 2755 El Camino. More recently the
VTA Board formally designated 2755 El Camino as Surplus and, thereafter, publicly
marketed 2755 El Camino or sale. Through several rounds of bidding with some users
and developers choosing not to proceed to a closing of the purchase, The Pollock
Financial Group emerged as the leading candidate and has now purchased the VTA
Surplus Lot at 2755 El Camino.
In order to make any use of 2755 ECR, it is first necessary to change the PF Zone
District.
The Applicant , through extensive consultation with City staff, has determined that the
best zone for the use of the site and greatest advancement of urban design goals, and with
compatibility with neighboring properties and with providing some rental housing, is the
mixed-use zone CC(2).
Title 18.28.010 defines uses under the PF Zone District as:
The PF public facilities district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility,
educational, and community service or recreational facilities.
Page
4
of
31
1.2 CC (2) IS THE BEST ZONE DISTRICT SELECTION
First we provide the definition of Community Commercial (2). Thereafter we analyze a
related series of Comprehensive Plan provisions that encourage our Mixed Use project
of a size to be compatible with the neighboring properties both of which have
substantially greater square footage than the proposed 2755 El Camino project.
a) Community Commercial (2) Sub district CC (2)
The community commercial (2) (CC(2)) Sub district is intended to modify the site
development regulations of the CC community commercial district, where applied
in combination with such district, to allow site specific variations to the
community commercial uses and development requirements in the CC district.
1.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
ENCOURAGES THE PROJECT
POLICY L-4:
Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its
commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance
Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.
POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
POLICY L-6:
Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-
residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district
boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.
POLICY L-7:
Evaluate changes in land use in the context of regional needs, overall City welfare and
objectives, as well as the desires of surrounding neighborhoods.
POLICY L-9:
Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning
process to create opportunities for new mixed use development.
POLICY L-10:
Maintain a citywide structure of Residential Neighborhoods, Centers, and Employment
Districts. Integrate these areas with the City’s and the region’s transit and street system.
Page
5
of
31
POLICY L-16:
Consider siting small neighborhood-serving retail facilities in existing or new residential
areas.
POLICY L-48:
Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with
surrounding development and public spaces.
The Comprehensive Plan supports a Mixed Use Residential/Office building for 2755 El
Camino. The Comprehensive Plan, in several provisions, encourages a building the size
and density of the proposed 2755 El Camino project. The City goal is to place a strong
building for the corner of Page Mill and El Camino that draws vehicle users and
pedestrians into the 11,000,000 square feet of buildings of the world-renowned Stanford
Research Park with some strong indication that there is an arrival. The Comprehensive
Plan encourages that the size end density of new buildings shall be compatible with
existing buildings. Sunrise Assisted Living, to the north of 2755 El Camino is a PC Zone,
is a much larger building at 65,000 square feet on a site of 41,000 square feet (l.6 FAR)
and of 50 feet in height. To the east, the Silverwood buildings are 3 stories, 44,195 square
feet and more than 1.4 times as large as the 2755 ECR Project.
To the south is Westwood Court Apartments that is also a PC Zone as a for-sale housing
project with 35 units totaling with a conservative FAR of 1.53%. Placing 2755 El Camino
next these larger buildings is consistent with policies and programs of the Comprehensive
Plan.
A 2.0 FAR is allowed for 2755 El Camino under the CC(2) Zone District with 50 feet in
height allowed when the project abuts either an RM-40 Zone or a PC Zone. Our 2755 El
Camino project abuts two PC Zone District properties and completes the block as the
only project that is not a PC Zone.
Page
6
of
31
SECTION II
FINANCIAL ANALYSES
2.1 COMMERCIAL AREAS PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL SURPLUS
CITY REVENUES OVER OPERATING COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SERVING THE LARGER COMMUNITY
More than one Council Member has spoken in a public hearing that commercial areas are
“losers for the City by requiring greater operating funds and services from the City than
beneficial payments to the City.” We believe this is mistaken and unhelpful for best
decision-making.
The City retained a fine organization specializing in Municipal finance in the 2000
decade. This firm is Applied Development Economics, “ADE”. After several years of
analysis, ADE prepared a report for the City dated May 5, 2009. The purpose of the
study was to aid City Staff and policymakers to best plan for an updated Comprehensive
Plan. We provide as Exhibit #1 a brief 4-page segment of the ADE work to assist with
your favorable analysis of the 2755 ECR Project.
Page 2 of the ADE Study:” shows the fiscal net revenue or cost for the major land use
categories.
Commercial uses generated a surplus of $12,949,122 for the City in 2008. We provide
the graph used by ADE below. On page 3 of the ADE Study a Commercial use generated
$300 per employee as a surplus to the City budget based on 2008 budget data. The 2755
ECR Project generates a $33,000 annual surplus for the City unrelated to offsite sales
taxes or property taxes.
Page
7
of
31
2.2 PRIMARY FINDINGS OF FINANCIAL CONSULTANT FAVOR
THE 2755 ECR PROJECT
In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s requirement, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
(KMA), a third party financial consultant hired by the City, conducted an economic
analysis to evaluate the proposed public benefits package in relation to the greater FAR
that can be achieved for the project through rezoning of the site to Planned Community
(PC) District. Although The City had asked for this analysis to be done in the
context of the applicant’s PC project, we feel the results have relevance to the
Conditions of Approval for our CC (2) project as well. The City required the
following tasks be accomplished in the analysis:
Task 1: “To estimate the incremental profit that the Applicant could realize as a result of
allowing a higher density project under PC zoning as compared to a lower density project
under Service Commercial (CS) zoning,” which the City proposed as the applicable
measurement standard.
Task 2: “To estimate the value of the public benefits package proposed by the Applicant
in exchange for the PC zoning.” KMA reviewed the applicant’s backup data and their
request for increased FAR in exchange for a public benefits package. KMA reviewed
each public benefit and then used their own experience, having worked with many other
public benefit assignments in other cities, to determine if the applicant assessed
reasonable values to the public benefits.
KMA’s introduction states:
“It is our understanding that KMA’s analysis will be used to assist the City in deciding
whether or not to grant the PC zoning request and to determine whether the value of the
public benefits proposed by the Applicant is adequate.”
Some of the summary conclusions are:
a) “KMA concludes that the value of the public benefits proposed by the
Applicant is equal to approximately $2,055,000, as compared to an
incremental development profit of $1,478,000 that could potentially be
realized from the PC zoning over the “base case” CS zoning. Therefore, the
public benefits exceed the incremental profit by roughly $577,000.”
b) Finally, “Therefore from a financial feasibility and development risk point of
view, it is our opinion that the Applicant is making a rational decision to
develop the PC zoning alternative rather than the CS zoning alternative based
on the public benefits package currently proposed.”
Below is an excerpt from Analysis giving explanation of why Applicant shows the value
of Public Benefits of $2,300,000 vs. KMA’s estimate of value of $2,055,000:
Page
8
of
31
In summary, KMA has determined that a reasonable estimate of the value of the public
benefits proposed by the Applicant, pending further review of the two items noted, is
$2,055,000.” This statement pertains to the previous, but similar $2.3M Public Benefits
package.
Exhibit #2 gives the full Keyser Marston report.
Page
9
of
31
SECTION III
VOLUNTEERED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,
CC (2) ZONE DESIGNATION
VALUE $2,540,922
3.1 TWO LAND DEDICATIONS, SUBSURFACE RIGHTS AND
CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK: Value: $1,850,922
With this new CC (2) zone application, there is no requirement for Public Benefits as
there was with our previous PC zone application. However, based upon our meetings
with staff and with council members, it is clear that certain of the items previously
proposed as Public Benefits are indeed of material importance as “community benefits”
to the City. Given that the new CC (2) project generates less revenue than our
previously proposed project, while having more cost than the previous PC project, we
are not able to offer the same Public Benefits package. However, in the interest of
developing our project with as many of the benefits to the City in our PC Zone project as
the more restricted project can afford, we are prepared to offer certain of those benefits
on a completely voluntary basis. We request only that our efforts to provide many of the
Public Benefits that were associated with our PC Zone project application will enable
staff to process our application on an expeditious basis, since we are some 22 months in
the City process already.
We deem the most important community benefit or Condition of Approval to be the
dedication of land for the addition of a right hand turn lane onto El Camino headed
north, or to widen and deepen the two left hand turn lane pockets from Page Mill
heading west to El Camino heading south, whichever the City and Cal Trans deems to
be most useful. The owner is in the unique position to be able to offer this land,
although it does come at a cost and loss of economic value to the project, as is outlined
below.
There are two components of land to be dedicated to the City and the County that
Applicant proposes to include as Conditions of Approval for the CC (2) Zone District
designation. The form of land dedications will be determined with the City Attorney’s
office and the Public Works Department. If the City prefers not to accept a fee simple
interest because of future liabilities associated with hazardous materials (or for any other
reasons), we will provide easements, or whatever form of ownership rights desired by
the City to achieve City land use controls and goals. The Applicant will reserve the right
to place subgrade tieback anchors necessary for the concrete underground garage.
Page
10
of
31
DEDICATED LAND AREA #1: LAND DEDICATION TO ALLOW WIDENING
OF PAGE MILL/OREGON EXPRESSWAY ON THE N/E CORNER OF EL CAMINO
TO ADD A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE ONTO EL CAMINO HEADED
NORTH, OR TO WIDEN AND DEEPEN THE TWO LEFT TURN POCKETS FROM
PAGE MILL HEADING WEST TO EL CAMINO HEADING SOUTH.
The land to be dedicated to the City in Land Area #1, Exhibit #5, is valued in our
investment analysis at $1,442,727, based on land evaluations prepared by independent
appraisers. Given the CC (2)’s 2.0 FAR zoning allowance, our architects have
confirmed that 36,368 total square feet of commercial improvements could be developed
on the site (18,184 x 2), after the public easement reduction in site area. However, the
proposed project does not represent the maximum square footage allowable. In
addition, voluntarily giving up valuable square footage from an already narrow site
poses certain architectural challenges to come up with the right balance of size, height,
useable space options and aesthetics, parking, and community benefits. In choosing to
dedicate land for the dedicated turn lane, we calculate the rentable square footage we
lose for the project to be 1,058 SF, Exhibit #6. Given our pre-leased rate of $6.25
SF/NNN/month, we calculate a loss of $79,350 in annual effective revenue. Assuming a
5.50% capitalization rate, we calculate a market value of that piece of dedicated property
to be $1,442,727.
In addition, the Applicant must build new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street edge
conditions with scraping existing street speed and reflective bumps, and other design
and utility features. The cost to build a new curb, gutter and compacted sidewalk of 289
lineal and 2,682 square feet is $281,350. Were it not for widening Page Mill, there
would only be patching of the sidewalk and none of the other work. We provide as
Exhibit #7 a detailed budget for sidewalk costs.
DEDICATED LAND AREA #2: SUBSURFACE RIGHTS TO THE CENTER OF
PAGE MILL ROAD TO ALLOW ANY CITY OR COUNTY CONSTRUCTION AND
THE INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES BY THE CITY. PUBLIC
SIDEWALK EASEMENT OF 5 FEET IN WIDTH ON 2755 ECR SITE TO CREATE
A TOTAL SIDEWALK WIDTH OF 10 FEET.
We would grant to the City a greater and better-defined easement for underground rights
under the portion of Page Mill Road adjacent to the project. The area subject to such
easement will be 12,182 square feet. We value this subsurface easement at $121,820,
assuming only $10.00 per square foot. We provide Exhibit #4 for civil engineering
plans identifying the extent of the easement previously granted which does not overtly
include subsurface rights under Civil Code Section 829 and Section 831. Exhibit #8
also illustrates the extensive (multi-million dollar) installation of underground utilities in
this area. The easement would ensure that the City has the right to modify or add to
such utility infrastructure, which right now is, at best, uncertain.
Our project assumes that the 5 feet of public sidewalk will be on property owned by the
Applicant. Applicant offers to permit such public easement rights, provided that
Page
11
of
31
Applicant would retain fee ownership of the land in order to retain subsurface rights
required to construct a portion of the underground garage to be constructed for the
project. We greatly discount the value of the perpetual easement, using $5.00 per square
foot, as a result of such retained subsurface rights. The sidewalk area is 1,005 square feet
as shown on Exhibit #3. We value the surface public sidewalk easement at $5,025 ($5 x
1005).
Exhibit #3 illustrates the site plan and a vertical plan for the sidewalk easement area.
We also provide Exhibit #9, a legal letter regarding Land Dedication #2.
The land valuations referenced above are not relevant to any determination of
Applicant’s entitlement to obtain approval for its project, since the project has been
designed to comply with the requirements of the CC (2) zone. The valuations are
submitted to evidence the fact that Applicant has gone to great lengths to provide the
City with a project for consideration that will not only be a viable economic project for
the Applicant and the tenant(s) thereof, but will provide the City with much-needed
rights to alleviate traffic congestion, ensure the City’s rights for any further
infrastructure under a portion of Page Mill adjacent to the project and to provide a
broader sidewalk adjacent to the project to benefit members of the public at the Page
Mill and El Camino intersection. The offered rights are at a considerable economic cost
to Applicant and with considerable economic (and other) value to the City.
3.2 TRAFFIC DEVICES FOR SHERIDAN AVENUE:
Value: $90,000
The 2775 E Camino project has no significant traffic impacts. Rather, with its voluntary
conditions of approval, the 2755 El Camino project greatly improves traffic performance
at El Camino and Page Mill. Nevertheless, some neighbors have asked that the 2755 El
Camino project assist with traffic problems on Sheridan Avenue for vehicles that head
east on Sheridan to then turn right on Ash and then right again in order to travel to Page
Mill. This is a problem that has been in existence as a significant matter since the
opening of Chipotle Restaurant. The 2755 ECR Project does not significantly worsen the
conditions on Sheridan and will improve neighborhood traffic with these calming
features.
1. Widening Page Mill $1,442,727
2. Curb Sidewalk, Gutter $281,350
3. Land Area #2 $126,845
TOTAL Land Dedication Value
$1,850,922
Page
12
of
31
3.3 CONTRIBUTION FOR CALIFORNIA AVENUE UPGRADES:
Value: $600,000
The 2755 ECR Project contributes towards the installation of the pedestrian light
standards along California Avenue for the area planned for redevelopment by the City in
its efforts to greatly upgrade the California Avenue Area Shopping District. The City has
not included these pedestrian lights for installation at the City’s cost or within the City’s
allocated budget for California Avenue. These lights are comparable to those in the
Downtown area that add to its success as a regional pedestrian and retail center.
Contributing toward the upgrade of pedestrian light standards for California Avenue as it
becomes an upgraded Downtown for the Stanford Research Park, College Terrace and
the California Avenue District will become more suitable for serving customers and
pedestrians. There is a powerful nexus between the 2755 ECR Project and completing
the California Avenue improvements because the pedestrian movement from the Stanford
Research Park to California Avenue will be greatly enhanced by the 2755 ECR Project
with substantially increased daytime clients and visitors to California Avenue. This
fulfills the objectives of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines.
OR INSTEAD OF THE CONTRIBUTION LISTED ABOVE IN 3.3, THE
APPLICANT OFFERS THE ALTERNATIVE CONTRIBUTION IN 3.4
3.4 PREVIOUSLY OFFERED, SUGGESTED CONTRIBUTIONS
Value: $600,000
Aside from the right hand turn lane dedication, we do not know what benefits are most
desired by the city at this time. Therefore, if some of the items below are more desirable
than a $600,000 contribution to the Cal. Ave. Lights, the City may choose from the
previously offered items below or allocate the contributions for another city project.
A. FOR PAGE MILL/EL CAMINO INTERSECTION STUDY
AND UPGRADE PLAN: Value: $275,000
The Transportation and Planning officials have determined that it may be of
greatest community value to improve the entire intersection at El Camino Real
and Page Mill/Oregon Expressway Intersection over time, rather than just
improving our N/E corner. As a first, necessary step, The City of Palo Alto
and the County of Santa Clara must prepare a collaborative traffic study of
what is deemed to be the worst traffic intersection, which must be submitted
to Cal Trans for its approval for any work at the intersection. The Applicant
will be the catalyst for this improvement, providing a contribution of
$275,000 toward completion of this study and planned solutions.
Page
13
of
31
The County and the City are now completing a study only of Page Mill from
El Camino to Foothill.
B. CONTRIBUTION FOR ELECTRICAL VEHICLE
CHARGING STATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PUBLIC PARKING: Value: $175,000
Electrical Vehicle charging stations for California Avenue public surface
parking lot and for the two California Avenue public parking garages. At this
time, we anticipate installing 6 charging stations. We believe, based on our
interactions with the CPA Utility Department, that the $175,000 contribution
offered by the Applicant can be well leveraged to obtain up to $350,000 of
governmental subsidy funds for a total of $525,000 of potential value creation.
C. PUBLIC RIGHT TO USE THE VTA LOT FOR PUBLIC
PARKING: Value: $39,000
Normal parking will be disrupted during the construction of new California
Avenue upgrades. Offering our parking lot could greatly assist the businesses
along California Avenue for employee parking.
There are thirty-six striped and legal parking spaces on the 2755 ECR site.
The City can use the parking area beginning late 2014 through mid-2015
when underground construction work can be begin for the 2755 ECR Project.
The value per day for a parking space charged for daily passes by the City in
the California Avenue District is $6.00 per day. This value is comparable to
monthly fees for some private parking spaces in the Downtown.
The VTA parking lot 36 spaces at $6.00 per day =
$216/day for 180 days = $38,880
D. ADDITIONAL VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION:
Value: $111,000
Page
14
of
31
SECTION IV
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Applicant proposes a strong Urban Design leadership mixed-use building with two
fourth floor one-bedroom apartments and the remainder of the building, 29,188 SF
commercial-only project for this crucial site as the primary entry to the 11,000,000 square
feet of Stanford Research Park (SRP). Since its inception in the late 1950s, SRP has
remained an internationally renowned technology and professional office and R&D
center and if any site serves as the Eastern Gateway into the park, this is it. A full set of
plans is included with this application
4.1 THE PROJECT FULFILLS MANY CITY DESIGN AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS
The 2755 ECR Project fulfills City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Programs, Policies
and Goals and enhances the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, Exhibit 10, and
the regional principles now being promoted by the Grand Boulevard Multimodal
Transportation Corridor Plan. One of Jim Baer’s 2011-2012 projects, 101 Lytton, has
won a highest award from the Grand Boulevard Task Force. We are confident that the
2755 ECR Project will win a GBI award, Exhibit 11, because of its transit-oriented
features.
The following is a specific segment of the El Camino Design Guidelines, which indicates
the type of building identified for the 2755 ER site. Our design specifically fulfills the
objectives of the El Camino Real Design guidelines. Section 2.2.1.2 California Avenue
Area Strategic Sites of the Palo Alto – South El Camino Real Design Guideline adopted
on June 6th, 2002 states:
“…In particular, the properties at the intersection of Page Mill Road and El Camino
Real need to be architecturally prominent with a strong street presence so that they serve
as anchors for the southern end of the district. Having strong anchors is critical for
extending the momentum of the California Ave intersection down to Page Mill Road…”
“Buildings should feature a prominent corner to anchor the large scale intersection. El
Camino Real frontage should feature extensive windows, as well as pedestrian amenities
such as an arcade of canopy, seating, and planters…”
With a long-term lease commitment in place by one of the premier community serving
banks in Silicon Valley (private banking by appointment with no drive -up ATM traffic),
our site’s tenant further complements and serves the workers that symbolize Silicon
Valley as the technology hub of the US. SRP’s smart, high tech, cutting edge,
entrepreneurial workers and companies are the lifeblood of Silicon Valley, having unique
financial needs, which this bank serves. We feel our proposed use best fulfills the vision
conceived for this Gateway site into Silicon Valley. A localized bank can also be a
substantial reducer of trips generated because of its proximity to the employees at SRP.
Page
15
of
31
4.2 SITE AND ZONING
The 2775 ECR Property consists of a single parcel that is currently a vacant surplus
parking lot owned by VTA that carries a PF Public Facilities Zone District designation
that allows use only as a parking lot. We evaluate the parcel as if it were subject to CC
(2) Zone District Site Development Standards.
PAMF 18.16 CS ZONE FAR
PF CC2 Permitted Proposed Project
Parcel Size 19,563 SF 19,563-*1,379
SF
*18,184 SF *18,184 SF
Commercial
FAR
NA 2.0:1 36,368 SF (2.0:1
FAR)
29,188 SF
(1.6:1 FAR)
Residential FAR NA 0.6:1 10,910 SF
(0.6 FAR)
3,329 SF
(0.18 FAR)
Total NA 2.0:1 36,368 SF
(2.0:1)
32,517 SF
(1.78:1)
* Public easement reduction
The 2755 ECR Project described in Section 4.2 is based on achieving a CC (2) Zone
ordinance seeking only 32,517 square feet for the new mixed-use building with only 1.78
FAR at this strong corner intersection.
4.3 PROPOSED MIXED USE BUILDING
We propose to demolish and recycle, in accordance with Palo Alto’s waste and recycling
requirements, the existing surface parking lot and rezone the property to a CC (2) zoning
designation. The Applicant proposes a new four-story commercial and residential mixed-
use building of 32,517 square feet. 2755 ECR will also develop three levels of
underground parking with additional on grade parking stalls on the 19,563 square foot
corner site. The permitted and proposed FAR are calculated based on the 19,563 square
foot site area with 1,379 square foot of public access easement deducted for a final site
area of 18,184 square feet. A square footage analysis and supporting parking facility
calculations are provided in the submittal documents. The 1.78 FAR for the 2755 ECR
Project is modest for a complex CC (2) Zone District, where 2.0/1.0 is permitted
With Stanford Research Park and the original Hewlett Packard facility up the street from
the project site, the northeast corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real serves as an
entrance to the world-renowned Stanford Research Park of nearly 11,000,000 square feet,
Silicon Valley and to the California Avenue neighborhood of Palo Alto. As a Gateway,
the mass of the building reinforces the corner and provides outdoor space for pedestrians
at grade and a rooftop terrace on the fourth floor. Floor plans are in Exhibit #12.
Page
16
of
31
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE
BUILDING AREA
Residential Commercial
Floor 1 221 square feet 7,040 square feet
Floor 2 78 square feet 9,099 square feet
Floor 3 78 square feet 9,099 square feet
Floor 4 2,953 square feet 3,949 square feet
SUBTOTAL
3,330 square feet 29,187 square
feet
TOTAL
Gross Floor
Area
32,517 square
feet (FAR 1.78)
4.4 PARKING
A combination of on-grade and below grade parking facilities supply 109 parking stalls
total. Per PAMC Section 18.52.050, adjustment by the planning director of up to 20% in
parking reduction is permitted when a transportation and parking alternative such as
TDM is in place. At the City Council study session, council endorsed a 10% parking
reduction with a TDM plan. We plan to provide a TDM plan satisfying planning and city
council requirements in exchange for a parking reduction of between 5 and 10%, to be
negotiated with staff.
4.5 BUILDING FACADE WITH PEDESTRIAN SCALE
As one approaches Page Mill from El Camino Real, the building presents a modern two-
level stone facade with deeply recessed windows that anchors the corner as it floats above
a ribbon of ground-floor frameless glass. When one approaches the building from the
foothills or Hwy 101 toward El Camino, the building façade draws inspiration from the
landmark saw-tooth HP building as serrated window segments form a repetitive pattern in
the façade, providing sun control on this southeast façade as well as a focus on the
intersection and view of the hills beyond. The serrated glass plan wraps around the
corner of the building pulling the energy of the activities of the intersection around the
corner. Sun-shading FINS control interior solar insolation as well as providing visual
interest and depth in the two-story glass plane on this façade. The new building
reinforces the corner of the block with increased height and creates a welcoming ground
floor pedestrian experience. It includes integral planters forming a building base with
clear, frameless glass windows above, allowing visual access into the ground floor like
the AT&T building across the street. A horizontal metal canopy reinforces the two entry
Page
17
of
31
doors that face both the plaza and the street and provides a pedestrian-friendly scale at the
corner. We provide preliminary elevation plans and renderings as Exhibit #13.
4.6 PUBLIC ART
The 2755 ECR Project provides public art in excess of the City’s new 1% art allocation
requirement. The Public Art consists of a dramatic electronically controlled and colored
water feature and a plaza with decorative items in the paving and walls and benches. The
water feature will be a spectacular gateway, technological art statement that is a fitting
entry to the Stanford Research Park. Exhibit #14 is a rendering of the public art.
4.7 MANY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN & TRANSPORTATION
LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS
The 2755 ECR Project has no significant impacts under City of Palo Alto and CEQA
standards, including no traffic impacts. Nevertheless, the 2755 ECR Project provides
extensive transportation benefits described in Section VII. These expensive features, are
of great leadership and benefit to the community, but that represent great leadership for
the 2755 ECR Project as a role model for any future project. The 2755 ECR Project also
serves as an advanced leader and role model for sustainable design features leading to the
better than LEED silver equivalency that are costly to the Applicant but that are not
treated as Public Benefits.
The direct costs for these exceptional features are about $700,000 as are fully discussed
in Section VII. These features are not treated as elements of public benefits but as private
leadership for the Palo Alto community.
Page
18
of
31
SECTION V
EXISTING CONDITIONS & MITIGATIONS
5.1 RFP AND SALE OF SURPLUS PARKING SITE BY VTA
The Applicant purchased from the Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) the parcel
located at the Northeast (logical northeast) corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real
(APN 132-36-084). This location of 19,563 square feet was purchased for $4,182,000 at
$213.77 per square foot as a formerly surplus parking lot for VTA bus commuters. VTA
has determined that 2755 ECR has not been used by a significant number of VTA
commuters. As a result of this high level of disuse, VTA has declared 2755 El Camino to
be a “Surplus Site”. By having become a “Surplus Site” VTA widely distributed an RFP
for the sale of 2755 ECR. After several rounds of offers in 2012 and 2013, the Pollock
Financial Group was chosen as the qualified purchaser of 2755 ECR and the Pollock
Financial Group has purchased 2755 ECR. We provide a parcel map and aerial
photographs as Exhibit #15.
5.2 CURRENT ZONING: FROM PF to CC (2)
Current zoning for 2755 ECR is (PF) Public Facilities under PAMC 18.28.060. As a
Public Facility only the existing surface parking lot is a permitted use. Accordingly, the
site must undergo a zone change. The Applicant originally considered a PC Zone and
held 4 public hearings. Because of the suspension of PC Zones in February 2014, Staff
and the Applicant have determine that a CC (2) Zone Change may be most suitable for
development of the site as compatible with City goals and neighboring buildings.
5.3 NO EXISTING BUILDING & NO HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
There is no building and has been no building at 2755 ECR for nearly fifty years. As a
result, there is no historic characteristic of the site with any existing building that is an
historic resource. Throughout its history, the site has been occupied by residential
structures, a store and a restaurant. The site has been used as a VTA public parking lot for
nearly 50 years.
Page
19
of
31
5.4 ADJACENT PC ZONE DEVELOPMENTS SUPPORT THE
CONTEXT OF THE 2755 EL CAMINO PROJECT
The 2755 ECR Project is amidst several well-developed and consistently occupied set of
mixed-used buildings. The directly adjacent properties, Sunrise Assisted Living and the
Silverwood Condominiums are both PC Zones of greater mass and density than the
proposed 2755 ECR Project.
The Sunrise building is 65,000 square feet and is more than twice as large as the 2755
ECR Project. The Sunrise FAR is also larger than the 2755 ECR Project. The Silverwood
buildings are 44,195 square feet much more than 1.5 times as large as the 2755 ECR
Project.
Both of these projects were subject to much less intense zoning before the PC Zone
approvals.
We provide massing models of both Sunrise and Silverwood in the following pages of
this Narrative.
Page
20
of
31
CN/RM 40 zoning development at 2701 El Camino Real (Sunrise Senior Housing)
Page
21
of
31
RM40 zoning development at 435 Sheridan Ave (Silverwood Condominium)
Page
22
of
31
5.5 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT SUPPORTS THE 2755 EL
CAMINO PROJECT
Directly north of and adjacent to 2755 El Camino is 2701 El Camino, the Sunrise
Assisted Living Facility that was approved as a PC Zone District in 2004 for the specific
development of the now existing building and its landscaping and parking to be used only
for Senior Assisted Living. Sunrise Assisted Living provides 81 dwelling units for
Assisted Senior Living. The Sunrise Assisted Living Project is 4-stories and 50 feet tall
with one-level of underground parking. We will seek a building of fifty feet in height just
as did Sunrise Assisted Living.
Directly east of 2755 El Camino is 435 Sheridan Avenue ((Silverwood Condominiums)
that is a PC Zone District developed in 2000. 435 Sheridan consists of 35 residential
condominium units on a parcel of 57,400 square feet. 435 Sheridan is 3 stories tall over a
partially elevated parking garage that provides adequate parking. 435 Sheridan is about
40 feet tall.
South across Page Mill along the entire El Camino frontage is a well-developed block
consisting of 3 projects all under the CS Zone District.
a) 2805 El Camino is a major retail center for AT&T cell phone sales and service
designed by Hayes Group Architects.
b) 2825 El Camino is a three-story mixed-use building with quality office uses
for the first two floors and with the third floor consisting of two, fine 2 & 3
bedroom residences that are leased and have not been schedule as “for sale”
units.
c) 2875 El Camino formerly Stanford Dry Cleaners has been redeveloped with a
new one-story commercial building of 3,200 square feet. Jim Baer has been
involved with all three of
these
projects. Hayes Group Architects is the
architect for 2805 El Camino and 2875 El Camino.
Jim Baer has been involved with Sunrise Assisted Living, 2805 El Camino, 2825 El
Camino and 2875 El Camino. Hayes Group Architects is the architect for 2805 El
Camino and 2875 El Camino. West of the site across El Camino are the City of Palo Alto
soccer fields of about 5 acres that are subject to a PF Zone District.
Southwest of the site across El Camino and across Page Mill is the Palo Alto Square
Office Center with the two tallest office buildings of 10 stories each located along El
Camino Real. Palo Alto Square is a PC Zone District developed with a total of six office
buildings with 320,468 square feet of office space, all served by a large surface parking
area. Palo Alto Square is occupied by professional office and general business service
offices. Amenities at Palo Alto Square include a movie theater and full time, 24-hour
security. We provide several context plans and photos as Exhibit #16.
Page
23
of
31
5.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
A review of regulatory records for the Site indicated that there were no violations at the
Site. Additionally, no environmental liens were found for the Site. However,
neighboring properties located adjacent to and up gradient of the Site have impacted the
underlying groundwater with petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The Site is located within the northeastern portion of the Hewlett Packard-
Varian plume where residual VOC contaminant levels are very low. We provide as
Exhibit #17 a summary letter from our environmental engineer ICES.
A. SITE INVESTIGATION
Soil, groundwater, and soil vapor investigations were conducted at the Site in 2012. The
results of the investigations indicated that groundwater beneath the Site has been
impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents from the neighboring properties. The
detectable contaminants in the groundwater within the Site include diesel, motor oil, cis-
1, 2-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene.
B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant plans to build a four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building
with three levels of underground parking at the Site. The underground portion of the
construction activities will include temporarily lowering the groundwater table,
foundation excavation, shoring, and installing the foundation and underground parking
garage. The excavation will extend to a depth of approximately 35 feet below the
existing street level to accommodate the building foundation and underground garage.
C. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN
Based on the presence of the low levels of contaminants that were identified in previous
site investigations, the Water Board approved a Risk Management Plan (RMP) for the
Site. The RMP describes mitigation measures for the proper handling and
recycling/disposal of the lightly impacted soil and groundwater that will be encountered
at the Site during excavation, shoring, and underground parking garage construction
activities. Associated worker health and safety requirements, permits and regulatory
agency approvals, and dust control measures will also be addressed. Additionally, the
RMP describes vapor mitigation measures that will be implemented during the
construction activities of the proposed building to reduce the exposure of soil vapor
contaminants to future occupants of the building.
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board will provide oversight for
the activities presented in the RMP.
Page
24
of
31
5.7 COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS PROTECTING
NEIGHBORS
Among the features that protect adjacent neighboring properties are the following:
a) 2755 ECR provides a setback on the eastern property line shared with 435
Sheridan of mostly 23 feet. This setback greatly exceeds the 10 feet required
for a property in the CS Zone District abutting a residential PC Zone District
such as 435 Sheridan.
b) 2755 ECR provides a setback on the northern property line shared with
Sunrise Assisted Living of approximately 25 feet. 25 feet greatly exceeds the
setback of zero feet required for a property in the CC (2) Zone District
abutting a PC Zone commercial property.
c) The 2755 ECR building, complies with the Daylight Plane requirements of the
CC (2) Zone District relative to its neighboring properties that are both PC
Zone Districts. The top of the elevator tower is over 50’ tall but is considered
rooftop equipment and is hidden behind an allowed roof screen. A rooftop
mechanical/elevator tower is neither treated as exceeding the building height,
nor as FAR for an unoccupied space. We provide daylight plane and setback
diagrams as Exhibit #17.
d) The 2755 ECR Project reduces noise impacts because of elimination of the all
hours parking that brings cars to the current parking lot site early morning.
e) The 2755 ECR Project greatly mitigates traffic impacts for neighboring
properties by directing all traffic to enter its site only from El Camino and not
from Page Mill.
f) The 2755 ECR building screens its neighboring properties from either Page
Mill or El Camino from heavy traffic noise.
Page
25
of
31
5.8 NOISE AND TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS
a) The 2755 ECR Project reduces noise impacts because of elimination of “all
hours” parking that brings cars to the current parking lot site early mornings.
b) The 2755 ECR Project greatly mitigates noise for 435 Sheridan and 2701 El
Camino by providing its building as an obstacle for traffic noise from El
Camino and Page Mill.
c) The construction of 2755 ECR will include highly rated double pane windows
and exterior walls that protect building occupants and neighbors from noise
effects.
d) Traffic impacts are mitigated for neighboring properties by directing all traffic
to enter 2755 ECR only from El Camino and not from Page Mill.
TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE
Land
Use Size¹ Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate² Total³ Rate² In Out Total Rate² In Out Total
Office 29.1
ksf 11.03 322 1.56 40 5 45 1.49 8 35 43
VTA Transit Reduction
(2%)³ (7) (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) (1)
VTA TDM Reduction (5%)3
(17)
(2)
0
(2)
0
(2)
(1)
Dwellings 2 6.65 14 0.51 0 1 1 .62 1 0 1
Existing VTA Lot Trip
Reduction4 (8) (1) (9) (4) (7) (11)
Net New Office Trips 312 29 5 34 5 25 31
The land to be dedicated by 2755 ECR for widening Page Mill directly east of ECR will
allow for highly successful, trip-reducing factors such as: (i) an improved right turn lane;
and (ii) two left turn pockets of greater depth. Through Page Mill widening and through
the collaboration among the applicant and it consultants, the City, and Santa Clara
County, traffic management will substantially improve at Palo Alto’s most congested
intersection. The traffic mitigations we are providing reduce CEQA impacts to less than
significant. We include with our CEQA submittal the full traffic analysis and report by
Fehr & Peers. The initial analysis suggests that there will be a reduction of two seconds
for every lane at all four directions of the Page Mill/ECR intersection.
Page
26
of
31
SECTION VI
AMENDED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
6.1 AMENDMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The 2755 ECR Parcel is currently designated as “Publicly Owned Land.” Nearly all of
the El Camino frontage parcels within a couple of blocks of 2755 ECR are designated as
Service Commercial for the Comprehensive Plan. We seek a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to change designation for 2755 ECR from “Publicly Owned Land” to
“Community Commercial (2).”
6.2 COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
OBJECTIVES
The 2755 ECR Project fulfills City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Programs, Policies
and Goals.
Employment Districts are relatively large areas of the City dominated by office uses.
The broad land use goal is to impart a stronger sense of community to those who work or
live here and to strengthen the connections between these areas and the rest of the City.
Page
27
of
31
SECTION VII
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN & PROGRESSIVE
TRANSPORTATION LEADERSHIP
7.1 ADVANCED SUSTAINABLE BUILDING DESIGN: $TBD
The environmental design features include the following, as never before:
a) Achieving LEED Silver standards or better for the new site and building by
complying with the Palo Alto Green Building Code.
b) Installing two private and two public Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations on
site.
c) Superb management and remediation of the on-site underground water
contaminated as part of the EPA superfund site known as the COE Plume.
d) Highly efficient design of irrigation for landscaping and street trees.
e) Refuse and perishable efficiencies with progressive purchasing policies for
building tenants with comprehensive recycling, composting and other
treatment of disposable items.
Page
28
of
31
7.2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS INDICATES NO SIGNIFICANT
TRAFFIC IMPACTS; SIGNIFICANT PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE NEW PROJECT
The Traffic Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers indicates that the 2275 ECR Project will
produce fewer than 100 peak hour trips in either the morning or evening peak hour.
Therefore, a Congestion Management Program (CPM) traffic analysis is not required.
The Traffic Analysis also indicates that the El Camino Real/Page Mill/Oregon
Expressway intersection operates at acceptable service levels (LOS E or better). Fehr &
Peers determines that there are no significant traffic impacts under analysis of both (i)
the existing 2012 site and (ii) the existing 2012 condition plus the proposed new 2755
ECR Project of 32,517 square feet. In addition, the preliminary analysis shows that the
intersections will operate more efficiently and will significantly improve traffic at this
intersection with the addition of the land dedication by 2755 ECR to allow widening of
Page Mill at El Camino.
Traffic analysis at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road
Lincoln Westcott November 4, 2013 Page 8 of 9
Page
29
of
31
7.3 EXTENSIVE TRAFFIC CONTROLS AND IMPROVEMENTS
The 2755 ECR Project provides many innovative state-of-the art parking and traffic
benefits.
a) Bicycle pods for use of rental bicycles by tenants and neighbors of the 2755
ECR Project.
b) Provided that vendors approve the need at the 2755 ECR Project site, the
Project will provide “Zip” or Enterprise WeCar vehicles for short-term rent by
tenants and neighbors.
c) The 2755 ECR Project will provide Cal Train Transit Passes for building
tenants for ten years at cost of about $15,000 per year and will cover all
building employees.
d) The 2755 ECR Project will provide a comprehensive TDM Plan that should
reduce single occupant vehicle trips by 20% or greater that translates in
significant traffic reduction.
e) The 2755 ECR Project will participate in and contribute to the Stanford
Shuttle for this part of town and for the Stanford Research Park.
This has been calculated based upon city impact fee ordinances.
Page
30
of
31
SECTION VIII
MINOR PROJECT REQUESTS ALLOWED
UNDER CC (2) ZONE
8.1 PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE
a) City Permit and Plan Review Fees prior to Issuance of permits.
b) Transportation Impact Fee. We seek waiver of this fee because of our
extensive traffic improvement work.
c) Housing Impact Fee to be paid prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
d) Parks, Library and Community Impact Fee to be paid prior to occupancy.
e) Citywide Transportation Impact Fee. We seek waiver of this fee because of
our extensive traffic improvement work.
Page
31
of
31
EXHIBITS
Will update this list after the body of the Narrative is finalized
1. Fiscal Background Report, Applied Development Economics
2. Keyser/Marston Financial Analysis
3. Land Dedication Diagrams
4. Underground Utilities Map
5. Detailed Budget for Land Dedication, Appraisal Info, DLA Piper Letter
6. Pedestrian Light Poles Diagram
7. EV Car Chargers Sampling
8. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines
9. Grand Boulevard Initiative
10. Floor Plans
11. Elevation Plans and Renderings
12. Public Art Rendering
13. Parcel Map and Aerial Photograph
14. Zoning Map
15. Context Photo
16. ICES Summary Letter
17. Daylight Plane and Setback Diagrams
18. Parking Diagram
19. Table 4 of Title 18.52
20. Mei Wu Acoustics Report
21. Transportation Demand Management Plan
22. Fehr and Peers Traffic Report
23. LEED checklist
24. Project Schedule
2755 El Camino Real Mixed Use Project
Zoning Compliance Table
Attachment C
CC(2) Zone District
Standards
(for mixed use)
CS Zone District
Standards
(for mixed use)
PF Zone District
Standards
Proposed
Project
Minimum
Setbacks
Front yard 0’-10’ to create an
effective 8’-12’
effective sidewalk
width
0’-10’ to create an
effective 8’-12’
effective sidewalk
width
20 feet 10’-3” feet
30 foot
sidewalk
Rear Yard
(abutting a
residential zone
district)
10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet plus
Interior side yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet plus
Street side yard
setback
5 feet (20 foot special
setback for ½ the Page
Mill frontage)
5 feet (20 foot special
setback for ½ the Page
Mill frontage)
20 feet (20 foot
special setback for
½ the Page Mill
frontage)
9’-6”
Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built
to setback and 33% of
side street
50% of frontage built
to setback and 33% of
side street
N/A 0% at front
and 82% at
side
Maximum Site
Coverage allowed
100% or 19,563 sq. ft. 50% or 9,781.5 s.f. 30% or 5,869 sq.
ft.
53% or 10,368
sq. ft.
Landscape/open
space coverage
20% 30% N/A
Usable Open
Space
20 sq. ft. per unit 20 sq. ft. per unit N/A 200+ per unit
Maximum Height
(When located
within 150 feet of
a residential zone)
50 feet due to
adjacency to RM-40 or
residential PC
50 feet due to
adjacency to RM-40
or residential PC
35 feet when
adjacent to a
residentially zoned
property
50 feet
(Stair tower
exceeds height
allowance)
Daylight Plane 10’ up 45 degree angle
none beyond 10’
10’ up 45 degree angle
none beyond 10’
10’ up 1:2 slope 10’ up 45
degree angle
Maximum Density 30 units per acre or 13
units
30 units per acre or 13
units
2 units
Maximum
Allowable Floor
Area (FAR)
Residential floor
area
0.6:1 = 11,738 s.f. 0.6:1 = 11,738 s.f. N/A 0.17:1 =
3,330 sq. ft.
Commercial floor
area
2.0:1 = 39,126 0.4:1 = 7,825 s.f. N/A 1.49:1=29,187
Total Mixed Use
floor area
2.0:1 = 39,126 1.0:1 = 19,563 s.f. 1.0:1 = 19,563 s.f. 1.78:1 =
32,517
Minimum ground
floor Commercial
FAR
0.15:1 or 2,934 sq. ft. 0.15:1 or 2,934 sq. ft. N/A 0.35:1 = 7,040
sq. ft.
Parking
Requirements
Total parking
spaces required
Office/bank 29,187
sf at 1 per 250
=117 spaces
1 bedroom DU 1.5
spaces per unit = 3
spaces
120 spaces required 120 spaces required
120 spaces
required
109 spaces
(Request for
11 space
reduction due
to TDM a 9%
reduction)
1
Planning and Transportation Commission 1
Verbatim Minutes 2
September 11, 2013 3
4
EXCERPT 5
6
2755 El Camino Real [13PLN-00239]: Request by the Hayes Group on behalf of the Pollack 7
Financial Group, Inc., for initiation of a new Planned Community zone district and Comprehensive Plan 8
land use designation to allow a new four-story, mixed-use building with three stories of below grade 9
parking on a 19,563 square foot lot (formerly a ‘park-and-ride’ parking lot). Zone District: PF. The 10
applicant proposes to have the Commission and Council consider nine offerings as public benefits “not 11
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts” with 12
value to the City estimated by the applicant as: 13
14
1. Widening of Page Mill Road, $281,350. 15
2. Land Dedication a portion of Page Mill Road, $121,820. 16
3. Upgrade Pedestrian Tunnel with panel doors locked/controlled by City staff, $100,000. 17
4. Installation of Pedestrian Light Poles on California Avenue, $850,000. 18
5. Installation of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations on California Avenue, $259,320. 19
6. All Electric Building generating less carbon, $251,250 over 10 years. 20
7. Ten-Year Eco pass and CalTrain pass for the site’s employees for 10 years, $112,500. 21
8. VTA Lot for Public Use during California Avenue redevelopment, $38,880. 22
9. Urban Amenities, i.e. public art, trees and pedestrian design, $150,000. 23
*Quasi-Judicial 24
25
Chair Michael: Which is 2755 El Camino Real. A request by the Hayes Group on behalf of Pollack 26
Financial Group, Inc. for initiation of a new Planned Community (PC) zone district and Comprehensive 27
Plan land use designation to allow a new four story, mixed-use building with three stories of below grade 28
parking on a 19,563 square foot lot. Can we begin with the staff report? 29
30
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, Chair Michael. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I have with 31
me here today Margaret Netto who is the Planner and was around for the prescreening and preliminary 32
architectural review meetings on this proposed concept. I wanted to call your attention just first of all we 33
are trying an experiment with our staff reports leading with the Commission purview. There was a bit of 34
a discussion on how do staff reports flow and what comes first. So you’ll find a recommendation further 35
down in the staff report. So we want to make it clear that the purview of the Commission tonight is the 36
initiation of the Planned Community. There is also a request for Comprehensive Plan land use 37
designation or redesignation. Currently the site is Public Facilities (PF) and was the Santa Clara Valley 38
Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride lot. So the project is a rezoning through the Planned 39
Community process. First step in the formal process is a visit with the Planning and Transportation 40
Commission (PTC). So we realize there are a number of items that you’ll have questions on and want to 41
discuss. I’m going to turn it over to Margaret to present the project, but their applicant is also here to 42
describe the development plans. And Margaret. 43
44
Margaret Netto, Contract Planner: Good evening Commissioners. The Planning and Transportation 45
Commission is requested to consider the initiation of a new Planned Community zone district and 46
Comprehensive Plan land use plan designation amendment for the property at 2755 El Camino Real, the 47
former VTA Park and Ride lot. The project is a new four story office building of 31,776 square feet of a 48
floor area of 1.62. Please note that this is an update from the staff report. Three levels of underground 49
parking facilities are also proposed. The parcel has a zoning designation of Public Facilities with 50
associated comprehensive land use plan designation Major Special Facilities. 51
52
On February 11th the Council conducted a preliminary review or a prescreening of the concept for the 53
four story commercial development and on May 2nd the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a 54
preliminary review of the concept plans for the four story commercial project. The design was revised 55
2
following Council and ARB discussions. Council and ARB reviewed a 33,000 square foot commercial 1
building with a 1.71 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The project is now proposed as 31,776. As proposed the 2
project features three levels of underground parking and vehicular access via right turn in and out of El 3
Camino Real. The Council gave initial feedback on components such as massing, architecture, public 4
benefits, pedestrian and automobile improvements, parking, and several other components of the 5
project. 6
7
The proposed community benefits include land dedicationing and widening of Page Mill Road, upgrade 8
pedestrian tunnel, instillation of light poles on California Avenue, and installation of electric vehicle 9
charging stations, an all electric building, ten year Eco Pass and Caltrain Pass, VTA lot use for public use, 10
and urban amenities. The project concept proposes a maximum height of 50 feet above grade, generally 11
consistent with the PF, Service Commercial (CS), and PC zoning. The proposed roof screen would extend 12
an additional 7 feet above the roof. There are however special height and daylight plane requirements 13
for PC zone sites that abut residential PC property. Given this the proposed building is over 35 feet in 14
height and within 40 feet of a residential zone a height daylight plane exception would be required. 15
16
The subject property is also subject to special setbacks. The VTA site shows the easterly half of the site 17
along Page Mill Road subject to the 20 foot special setback. The adjacent property, the Silverwood 18
Apartments, meets that 20 foot setback. The proposed project would encroach into the setback. 19
Correspondence was received on September 5th from the adjacent property owner to the west, the 20
Sunrise Assisted Living Planned Community project. The property owner states that he is not in favor of 21
this project being upzoned for office given the adjacency of the Sunrise Assisted Living facility and 22
residential property next door. He said that he had made a proposal for the office project on the Sunrise 23
site before the Sunrise PC was submitted and was turned down by the City of Palo Alto as he was told 24
office was not, more office space was not a use that they wanted to see here. The site was considered 25
at the time, well it is, the site was considered a Housing Inventory Site in the Housing Element. The 26
applicant has met with Jeff Morris at Sunrise Assistant Living and also the Board of Directors of 27
Silverwood. 28
29
If the Commission recommends initiation this project would be subject to CEQA and that’s the California 30
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental document would be prepared in accordance with 31
CEQA following initiation of the PC. Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments on the 32
proposal and initiate the Planned Community request. Also staff recommends that the Commission 33
provide direction and identify key issues for the applicant and staff to consider prior to the preparation of 34
the environmental document and staff report for the design, for the Architectural Review Board. And that 35
concludes my staff report. Thank you. 36
37
Chair Michael: Ok, so thank you very much. So before we ask the applicant for, to make a presentation 38
just for the record noting this is a quasi-judicial matter. Are there any disclosures to be made by any of 39
our Commissioners? So hearing none at this point and so I’m new in this role. I want to make sure that 40
we’ve opened the public hearing and I wanted to give the applicant time to make his presentation. And I 41
think for this purpose you have up to 15 minutes. 42
43
Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes 44
Group Architects and I’m joined tonight by Jim Baer with Palo Alto Land Use and together we’ll be 45
presenting the project on behalf of our client, Pollack Financial Group. I’d like to introduce the principals 46
of Pollack Financial quickly to you, we have Jim Pollack, we have Jeff Pollack, and we have Lincoln 47
Westcott here in the audience tonight and so they’re excited about the project. 48
49
Pollack Financial is an experienced developer having completed many projects on the peninsula including 50
some projects in Palo Alto. And Hayes Group Architects has been around and done many projects in Palo 51
Alto including at least 12 on El Camino Real. We are very familiar with the El Camino Real Guidelines and 52
South El Camino Real Guidelines, the Grand Boulevard concept. We’ve been engaged on this project for 53
about a year and a half and we’re looking forward to presenting it to you tonight. So thank you for 54
allowing us. 55
56
3
So the goals that we have for tonight’s hearing are on the screen and those are the same goals that we 1
had when we went to the City Council. We had a prescreening with them because the complexities with 2
the project and because of all the issues surrounding what, what are our opportunities for public benefit. 3
And so we had a prescreening with them. They commented on the architecture and the public benefit, 4
but the goals for tonight as then were, are to comment on the building design and tonight we’ll show you 5
the changes sort of since we went to the City Council and the ARB. We’ll show you that evolution. 6
Review the parking requirement and the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) with the TDM 7
reduction that we’re requesting and then review the public benefits. I’ll cover the first two and then Jim 8
will briefly cover the public benefits, but there’s a lot to elaborate on there so I would encourage you to 9
ask lots of questions. I know you will, but Jim would be able to then elaborate on those at that time. 10
11
We all know the site here on the corner of Oregon Expressway/El Camino Real. It’s about 19,553 square 12
feet. The surrounding zoning we have the PC zone to the north, the Sunrise Senior Living. We have 13
reached out to Jeff Morris. We have the PC Silverwood Condominium project next door to the east. 14
We’ve met with their homeowner’s association and their building manager. And then the soccer facility 15
across the street, Palo Alto Square, and then some smaller Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and CS 16
development projects across the street on, across Oregon Expressway where we have the AT&T store 17
and some other, we in fact did the AT&T store. 18
19
Current architectural evolution, so this was at the City Council prescreening we had this proposed project 20
and what we’re responding to here was, were the El Camino Real Guidelines which really focused 21
attention to this corner specifically and asked for buildings of higher, of taller height, building mass, 22
buildings with lots of glass, signature type architecture on this critical corner. The comments that we got 23
back from City Council we listened and what we heard was the building was too massive, it’s too close to 24
the corner, the corner massing needs to be setback, is, are we able to reduce the height of the building, 25
there’s a public plaza that we were proposing on the north side of the building away from the traveled 26
intersection. They didn’t think that it was large enough and really not maybe usable. And then they 27
asked us to soften the building more with warmer materials and so on. 28
29
So then we went to the ARB. We had this version, which is radically different from what you just saw. 30
We pushed the fourth floor back. It’s still a 50 foot building to there, but out here, it’s about 40 feet, 41 31
feet maybe. Comments that the ARB had were the recessed fourth floor is a good move. They were 32
supportive of that, fit better with the district. They thought that the tenant entrance, which we show on 33
the ground floor over here, should face the corner more and maybe address El Camino Real like the El 34
Camino Guidelines suggest. We had a saw tooth pattern for solar mitigation along this sort of southeast 35
side, southwest side, southeast side of the building and they thought that we could still do that to 36
mitigate solar and I agree, but they thought maybe it made more sense to face the view. So we’ve 37
actually flipped that to face the view, but we do have the serrated saw tooth edge that wraps the 38
building now and they thought it might be more interesting if it actually wrapped the corner. So we’ve 39
studied that and you’ll see the proposal tonight. They too thought the building entrance should be 40
strengthened. They thought the planters although they liked the planter as a buffer they thought it was 41
a little bit too tall, maybe it should be more seat wall height. And then the Chamfered corner should 42
relate to the saw tooth form as I just explained. The materials on this building are not unlike the 43
materials that we’re proposing today, but the building looks much more developed I think, much more 44
elegant given the comments that we got from them. 45
46
The modifications are the saw tooth windows. We’ve actually reversed them so now it flows around the 47
corner. The geometry of that corner is more elegant and it picks up the geometry of those saw tooth 48
windows. The fourth floor is still stepped back. We have a terrace up there that will be usable by a 49
fourth floor cafeteria for the tenant. And the building is pushed back to create a larger sidewalk, 20 feet 50
on El Camino, 11 feet on Oregon Expressway. We have this warm stone and metal cladding materials as 51
well as high performance glass. The urban design features include an enhanced plaza and I can show 52
you that in a second. And then at the front entrance we pulled a canopy around, we’ve moved the 53
entrance doors, and we have an address on the building there. 54
55
4
This is the site plan. Oregon Expressway is here on the bottom. Page Mill Road, I’m sorry, El Camino 1
Real here to the north. The main entrance comes off of El Camino Real. All circulation comes in here. 2
Nothing along Oregon Expressway. You enter here, park under the building here or go down into the 3
three levels of parking structure below. This is the public or the open space plaza if you will that we have 4
as a forecourt. We have 20 feet of sidewalk in front of the building to where the building mass is that 5
you saw and then another 13 feet to the front door. So we effectively have about 33 feet from the curb 6
to the building wall on the first floor. The planters are enhanced as they wrap around the corner. We 7
have a 4 foot planter here with a seat wall, 11 foot sidewalk on Oregon Expressway, and then trees that 8
would kind of complete the urban design linkage along Oregon Expressway. We’re proposing a water 9
feature that we’re still working on; want your feedback on that. We think it would be a nice idea and 10
down here at this end the ARB wanted us to find a way to screen this transformer and so we’re proposing 11
a vine wall around the transformer at the edge of the property. 12
13
This is the building when viewed from across the street. You see the Silverwood Condominium project 14
here, our building with the fourth floor setback, very elegant, very exposed. I think ground floor to 15
engage the street and also provide some protection. The planter provides protection from feeling like the 16
inhabitants are right on top of the street. So we like that feature. 17
18
This is just a summary of the floor areas from the City Council study session or prescreening we were at 19
33,500. Margaret Netto mentions that in her report. The preliminary ARB we took almost 2,000 square 20
feet out of the building. For you tonight we’ve taken another 2,000 square feet out of the building from 21
a parking standpoint. We’d have a 29,776 square foot building and a 2,000 square foot employee 22
amenity that I mentioned on the fourth floor, which would be the cafeteria. So we’re looking at a 23
building from a zoning parking standpoint is 29,776 square feet, which requires 119 parking stalls, which 24
is indicated right here by this calculation. And we are proving 113 parking stalls vis-à-vis our TDM plan 25
that we can get into detail on as you ask questions, but essentially the TDM plan is really asking for a five 26
percent TDM reduction of 6 stalls where 119 would otherwise be required. So we kept inching that down 27
to this point today. 28
29
I think the next part here is for Jim and he will comment on easement, property dedication, and public 30
benefits. Ok, I am actually, I am done with it now. So. 31
32
James Baer, Palo Alto Land Use Consulting: Public benefit, I’ll try to be quick and allow you to ask 33
questions of those that were too quick. The first constitutes three land dedications that we value and 34
these are on all these values because this is an initiation only we’ve got to be really rigorous with the 35
level of backup and detail we provide when we come to you for a recommendation in a first or second 36
hearing after tonight’s hearing, and we want to assure you that we will do that. We will be the first 37
project that has done something that the staff and policy makers have asked but not been done before. 38
The City is hiring an urban economist, applied development economics, who’ve worked for the City a 39
number of times to help look at the value of, that is being created for us through the PC zone so that 40
that’s well understood and the City is best able to analyze the value of what we’re providing, but they 41
want to look at how those work. It’s always a question. Did we get enough? Did we give away too 42
much? How does this work? And so we will be working with applied development economics. That will 43
not refine what we present as values per public benefit. Those will be by much greater rigor and detail 44
as we move through this process and get your comments and staff comments and all of that. 45
46
In the three land dedications, do you want to go to the? There are three components. One of them is 47
the widening of Page Mill. And that allows several alternatives that Jaime Rodriguez of Transportation 48
Division has worked with the County on and that is to either initially it started as creating a dedicated 49
right turn lane. The County in its interactions has said it might be more valuable to create deeper left 50
turn pockets. You may recall that heading west the left turn pocket, the first pocket’s shallow, the 51
second pocket is so shallow that two cars can’t get in there. Either of those will be studied by the City 52
and County and come up with the best transportation reduction and success through that corner, which 53
is the worst corner in its performance in Palo Alto and the most heavily trafficked. The County will be 54
doing work unrelated to our giving land on the southern side of the median. It’s a terrible right turn lane 55
at the AT&T building that Ken and I were involved with, but was not an issue that was asked at the time 56
5
and there are some ways in which the right turn lane works with the parking and all that that is not 1
successful. The County is doing that not because of our land dedication, but because of their control of 2
the land in Page Mill, which is County managed. 3
4
No, I’m doing public benefits right now. Let’s go to the second one. The second is one that Cara and I 5
have talked about without yet being persuasive. In the supplement that we’ve provided there was a 6
description of these three land dedications and this item was that it is unclear in the way that we all wish 7
as City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and staff members that there’s no dedication that 8
says and this specifically allows you the right to do all the subsurface work you ever want to do and you 9
have the utility, it’s not worth showing the utility. There’s several million dollars’ worth of underground 10
utilities. Well you would hate to have is us transfer the property to a bad guy who either said “Grant me 11
another project and this right is part of our public benefit or don’t dig your utilities.” And that conflict can 12
just be avoided. We’re going to make it a perpetual easement for whatever purpose the City wants to 13
whatever depth. The City does not want easements because of hazardous materials and liabilities that 14
don’t happen with easements that do happen with fee ams. I’m sorry that I misspoke. 15
16
And the last one is we are dedicating on our land and this is not ever normally required a five foot wide 17
sidewalk in perpetuity on our land. Now why that isn’t required is because rights of ways are granted 18
outside of a person’s property. They become owned or easements by the City or County for every 19
property, so that this is the first time because of our widening Page Mill that the sidewalk needs to be on 20
our fee. There’s also five feet on the City land that we’re giving them, but they want five feet on our 21
property because there’s an underground garage and all those complexities, but those are the three land 22
dedications. 23
24
We’ve put in $100,000 of allowance over what we identify as real costs right now and that is Jaime 25
Rodriguez has mentioned to me in more than just passing, but not in detail, that there will be some 26
intersection changes and some street work that will not be provided by VTA, County, or Stanford 27
Research Park impact fees and we had not understood that before. We don’t know what the details of 28
that are, the number, but its allowance and we will be rigorous when we return to you. Thank you. 29
30
Upgrade the underground pedestrian tunnel is a partial VTA feature. When Hoover Elementary School 31
used to be where the soccer fields are and so for the elementary school the City had dug a tunnel under 32
El Camino to allow from roughly Sherman to cross through to the elementary school. It is a pedophile’s 33
daydream. It is steep stairs that are not to standards that any of us would like. It is really a dark, 34
unlighted, dank, nasty 150 foot tunnel. We will panelize those with doors that the City can open when it 35
wants in the future, but it needs to be made safe now and it’s not safe now. 36
37
Real quickly the next is we were asked by Jaime to provide $750,000 to the California Avenue 38
improvements because there were no pedestrian lights. There are intersection lights, but these are long 39
intersections, much wider the street separations than is true in the downtown. Meaning you can have 40
250 feet between Birch Street and the next street. So without pedestrian lights you don’t get a comfort 41
and a walkability. 42
43
Electric vehicle charging stations along California Avenue we are going to give the two parking garages 44
and one behind Federal Express (FedEx), the two charging stations as engineered by the City at our cost. 45
46
Chair Michael: So I see you’re close to the end, so why don’t you go ahead and finish? 47
48
Mr. Baer: Thank you very much. This is a significant one that requires only hooray as my explanation. 49
This will be the first and a role model for Palo Alto of the first 100 percent electric building. There will be 50
no gas. And this is because of the Palo Alto utilities now having 100 percent of its energy non-carbon 51
emitting. Some of its hydropower so it doesn’t count as renewable for water policy, but no carbon 52
emitted. And this goes along with the approval by the City Council of a 20 percent target for reduced 53
carbon emissions. Well you do that by getting your buildings electric as well as by changing your driving. 54
So this is an all-electric building. A largest portion of the value that is an allowance only right now is it 55
will be more for operating costs and we can’t pass that on to a tenant in full. So we will have a very 56
6
smart, persuasive number when we come back. This is a plug number that may be somewhat less than 1
that. It will not be greater. 2
3
The next is half of the, 10 year Eco Pass and Caltrain Pass, 112,500 and those are very valuable in this 4
corridor for trains and for the VTA buses along El Camino along Page Mill. Urban design features that we 5
will provide greater detail on when we return are trees, benches, things like that that cannot be 6
compelled because they aren’t on our property. And there’s State law that says the City cannot impose 7
improvement of City land in conjunction of approval of a project. So those would count as a public 8
benefit, but we can’t yet be persuasive about what they all mean. 9
10
The VTA parking lot while California Avenue is under construction it will not have adequate parking. And 11
so we will make our parking available and the value was set by Jaime as much as by me, which is what 12
do we pay per day for parking permits? We’ll give you that, but we want you to give us the parking lot in 13
September/October until April when we need to start our underground work. 14
15
And the final one is that I leave as an open issue for you. There are excess impact fees because we have 16
a larger building. And so the question is what were you being given a larger building and the impact fees 17
are based on per foot basis is that kind of overly aggressive to ask for any of that impact fee as part of 18
public benefit. And the answer is if not we come back with adjusted numbers that do or do not make use 19
of an impact fee. 20
21
That’s it, if there are any questions I’ll certainly be glad… oh, I did want to make one comment on Jeff 22
Morris’ letter. I was in contracted by the property. I brought Jeff Morris in as my partner. I ran the PC 23
zone. We were well received by the City with one office application, got to be complex PC zone as the 24
Sunrise and Sunrise Assisted Living offered 35 or 50 year triple net lease so there would be no building to 25
building or so it was a wonderful economic return for Jeff. I’m no longer the partner there, but I ran the 26
PC zone for, I was in contract and the controller of the land and did the PC zone for Sunrise Assisted 27
Living, but it’s incorrect to say that the City said go pound sand for any office use there. Thank you very 28
much. 29
30
Chair Michael: So what, I’d like invite any members of the public who would like to speak on this matter 31
to submit a speaker card to Secretary Ellner. Do we have any cards? Ok. So the process that we like to 32
follow on this matter is maybe coming back to the Commission before having members of the public 33
comment. Any clarifying questions that Commissioners may have of the applicant or of staff just take up 34
to five minutes each in terms of asking any clarifying questions that you might have about this proposal. 35
So Commissioner Panelli. 36
37
Commissioner Panelli: This is going to be directed to staff and to applicant. I’m a little confused by the 38
FAR calculation. It says that the FAR for this project is 1.52, but that appears to be a FAR based on 39
subtraction (interrupted) 40
41
Ms. Netto: Subtraction of the 2,000 square feet of amenities. 42
43
Commissioner Panelli: Yeah. Now I can understand doing that for parking considerations, but why are 44
we using (interrupted) 45
46
Ms. Netto: So the current FAR should be the 1.62 instead of (interrupted) 47
48
Commissioner Panelli: Wasn’t it 1.71 or? 49
50
Ms. Netto: That’s when it was 33,500. So as part of the request it says 33,500 at 1.71, but the request is 51
actually for 31,776. 52
53
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. 54
55
Ms. Netto: So that would put the FAR at 1.62. 56
7
1
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, so that was just a mistake in the document? 2
3
Ms. Netto: Yeah. 4
5
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. 6
7
Mr. Baer: I’m going to be technical; 180403065b defines those features that are excluded from gross 8
floor area. So when an employee amenity area such as the cafeteria outside of the downtown because it 9
is a trip reducer is excluded from FAR it’s not made up by the applicant. By code for both parking and 10
calculation of FAR, but your analysis is correct and so is Margaret’s. It’s a bigger building than we’re 11
claiming because the 2,000 feet are exempted from being treated as FAR so the size of the building 12
without the exclusion of the 2,000 feet is 31,776 feet. When you exclude as FAR under the, under PAMC 13
the code it’s 29,776 and we’re indifferent to your recognizing the level of FAR for policy making. We do 14
hope that and the code provides for not requiring parking for those amenities. Is that clear? Too much? 15
16
Commissioner Panelli: Too much. If I ask you what time it is, just tell me what time it is not how the 17
watch was made. 18
19
Mr. Baer: Thank you. I’m sorry for my advocacy. Thank you. 20
21
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And then the Caltrain and Eco Passes I thought those were being used for 22
mitigation, for TDM. 23
24
Ms. French: We haven’t prepared the environmental document. This is part of their proposal rather than 25
in mitigation at this point. 26
27
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, well I guess for the applicant then I’m a little confused. Are you proposing 28
these to mitigate the need for parking or are you proposing it as a public benefit above and beyond what 29
you would need to do to get this project done? 30
31
Mr. Baer: The, we do not have a substantial traffic impact as our Traffic Engineer Robert Eckols from 32
Fehr and Peers can demonstrate partly because of the dedication of land in the Page Mill that greatly 33
reduces trip generation over existing and future conforming uses. So we are not required for a CEQA 34
mitigation and we are not required a TDM plan with these passes even for the parking reduction. The 35
TDM plan is sophisticated and it asks for park, these shuttles, VTA and Eco Passes and we are doing 36
those though that is not what the five percent parking reduction is based on, it’s other factors. 37
38
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. 39
40
Mr. Baer: Again I yammered too much. 41
42
Commissioner Panelli: It’s other factors, ok. Those are the only questions I have for the moment. I’ll let 43
my other fellow Commissioners ask some questions. 44
45
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 46
47
Commissioner King: Let’s see, so I’ll ask of applicant first a couple questions. So regarding that 48
pedestrian tunnel proposal so are you saying that you’re going to do things to make it safe for nonuse? 49
This is not making the tunnel safe for use? 50
51
Mr. Baer: That’s correct. The, it is, it’s a sad little chain link fence that’s drawn across the top of the 52
stairs rails. So you aren’t supposed to enter down into that, but it is not, with doors that shutter the 53
tunnel, which is really a nasty, dark, dank tunnel. One alternative when we look at what more would you 54
want in public benefit that the Council wasn’t wild about and I’m not saying the Planning Commission 55
shouldn’t be, was do you want us to fill the stairs and bring it up to grade and make a little tap dance 56
8
plaza that could be very attractive and prevent people from walking down the stairs? Not that it couldn’t 1
be opened up in the future if that were the need, but it did not get high gravity and I hope staff will 2
agree that Council didn’t say that’s a great idea. It was more like if you’ve got limited value that you’re 3
going to put in the public benefits I’m not sure making that plaza level is significant. We look forward to 4
your comments. 5
6
Commissioner King: Ok. The other question regarding the all electric, was that… this is addressed to 7
applicant as well. Was that a request on behalf of the City staff or Council that that amenity be proposed 8
or was that on the part of the applicant to propose that? 9
10
Mr. Baer: An experienced and wanted to be successful applicant listens to staff, listens to the newspaper, 11
it listens to policy makers. This was not a direct ask by anyone. The applicant is offering this and it’s 12
mildly complex because how do you value it? It’s not, an electric dishwasher is not a lot more expensive 13
than a gas dishwasher and neighbor is the conduit rather than the gas line. The operating costs are 14
more, but we were not asked to do this we looked at it and said, I’ll take pride in saying if you’re in this 15
business of PC zones you’re in the leadership business as best you can and so this was offered by us. 16
Thank you. 17
18
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then I would just make a sort of a general comment that unless 19
I’m mistaken we were received at places tonight this flyer 2755 El Camino Real that had some updates 20
and some fairly important information updates to your proposed benefit calculations. And one, it doesn’t 21
really say who it’s from, there’s no cover letter and most importantly for me it’s frustrating to me when 22
things come from the applicant, I understand people, citizens write letters all the time last minute so 23
those things I believe are appropriate to come here, but there are, if people are either watching at home 24
and are getting their information from the website or in the future if someone I go back and see oh, what 25
was the information available at that meeting, that’s not available to those people. So I get frustrated 26
when these things are presented the night of the meeting. 27
28
Mr. Baer: If that’s the PowerPoint presentation I’ll let Ken answer. If it’s this document, which is called 29
Supplement Number One, to Version Number One and is dated (interrupted) 30
31
Commissioner King: It’s not, just to sort of cut you off, but it’s this one. 32
33
Mr. Baer: Because this was delivered 10 days ago. 34
35
Commissioner King: Yes, and that was available I believe on the website. The, there is, I have some 36
frustration on my part that this is very hard to track. It’s a complex project; it’s very hard to track. 37
There are updates, not all of them dated and so it took a lot of work trying to sort together what was 38
happening, the dedications were complex. 39
40
Mr. Hayes: Regarding the document you have in your hand, I apologize for the confusion. This is only a 41
copy of the presentation we showed you tonight. 42
43
Commissioner King: I understand and it’s important enough that in general I would believe that this is 44
something that the public would have access to there, if they’re watching on television or in the, they 45
would have a hard time seeing detail and if they’re looking on the web in the future this won’t be there 46
as far as I know unless it gets (interrupted) 47
48
Ms. French: We, I’ll interject that we can go ahead and upload that in relationship to this project on our 49
website. 50
51
Commissioner King: Ok. Please do. And let’s see if I, I would like to ask if staff, let’s see… so I was 52
confused by the, your report refers to daylight plane height exceptions and I think you addressed it 53
verbally in your presentation, but I don’t see in here anything graphical or that would help us understand 54
exactly what those limits are. Am I missing something? 55
56
9
Ms. French: So the image on the screen is indicating daylight plane requirements for a PC zone adjacent 1
to residential PC. And do you want to describe that Ken? 2
3
Mr. Hayes: Yeah. This is actually a 45 1:1 daylight plane starting at ten feet at the property line because 4
of the Silverwood Condominium PC zone, residential PC multi-family next door, the actual daylight plan is 5
1:2. So it’s a shallower daylight plane. We’re complying with the daylight plane that is generally 6
accepted when we’re dealing with RM-40 properties and so on. So this is an exception to the PC 7
ordinance that staff has indicated can be evaluated by the Planning Commission, City Council, and part of 8
the PC zoning approval. 9
10
Commissioner King: Ok, so that graphic shows compliance based on an, so really it’s noncompliance. 11
You’re showing what the daylight plane is (interrupted) 12
13
Mr. Hayes: We’re showing what it is, correct. 14
15
Commissioner King: And that is not compliant with the PC zoning? 16
17
Mr. Hayes: Correct. 18
19
Commissioner King: Ok, and (interrupted) 20
21
Mr. Hayes: Adjunct to PC with a residential. 22
23
Commissioner King: Got it. And is there some reason why we don’t have a graphic showing what it 24
should be? Normally I would see, you’re showing where it is and then (interrupted) 25
26
Mr. Hayes: We don’t have that graphic. 27
28
Commissioner King: Ok. That would be helpful to see how far out of compliance you are. And that’s, so 29
the daylight plane there is no setback, the setback is part of that same graphic. 30
31
Mr. Hayes: There is a setback of 10 feet and we are complaint with the setback. 32
33
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. 34
35
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 36
37
Commissioner Alcheck: My questions are for staff. So first is it appropriate tonight to be discussing and 38
evaluating the proposed public benefits? 39
40
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney. That is one of 41
the factors that the Commission looks at when deciding on initiation, so it is appropriate. 42
43
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Maybe staff can help me understand the second to last paragraph on page 44
eight because it sort of snuck in there and the City Manager has directed that for a significant PC project 45
such as this the City should commission an independent third party analysis of the potential scale and 46
adequacy of the public benefits being proposed for the project with a consideration for the public benefit 47
and the provision for the full value to the City in exchange for the land use changes being requested. 48
Such analysis would be required if the project moves forward. Is the City Manager suggesting something 49
different than what I thought or understood our role was in this process? 50
51
Ms. Silver: Well, in the past the Commission and Council has not had a true economic pro forma study 52
analyzing the value of the community benefits so the City Manager’s direction to staff is to start to 53
require those types of pro formas for all PC projects. The first pro forma that you will be seeing is in 54
connection with the 395 Page Mill project and we will also be preforming one for this project. 55
56
10
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok now if like, is this direction that was given also in the City Council review when 1
they reviewed this project or? 2
3
Ms. Silver: Yes, the City Council will also have access to that. 4
5
Commissioner Alcheck: No, I mean was the City Manager’s direction something suggested by the City, 6
the reason why I’m asking is because there’s on page 15 we have community comments where an 7
adjacent owner sort of suggests… before I get into that, Sunrise PC what year was that? 8
9
Ms. French: I want to say 2001, 2003 perhaps? 10
11
Commissioner Alcheck: Does the City have any recollection that there was sort of some negative 12
suggestion that office space was not welcome there? 13
14
Ms. French: I do not have that recollection. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. I just, the reason why I mention this is because sort of the one comment we 17
have suggests inequity if you will, but I think almost every property surrounding this property is a PC if 18
I’m not mistaken: across the street, behind it, to the left, across the next street. And so it sort of strikes 19
me as sort of an opportune environment to be looking at what all of those property owners were asked 20
or what they proposed as public benefits in relationship to the public… you get what I’m saying? We 21
have a number of properties there that exceed a lot of our limitations. What were those properties asked 22
to provide as, by the way of public benefits in terms of the analysis of the public benefits suggested 23
here? I think to some extent we’ve been grappling the public benefits question. I think I’m a little 24
concerned with this idea that we would initiate a, this process. At what point and time would we get a 25
third party to evaluate public, the public benefit question? Who sets the criteria for that? In light of the 26
fact that we’ve sort of discussed how that criteria is actually very difficult to agree on. So this really 27
threw me for a loop because it makes it difficult to actually discuss this in this context because it suggests 28
that we need ask somebody else. 29
30
Ms. Silver: Yes Commissioner Alcheck. Those are very good comments. This is a rather new policy as I 31
mentioned. We have not yet rolled it out completely on a project. We did do a very in depth economic 32
analysis in connection with the Stanford University Medical Center that was a development agreement, 33
not a PC. So it’s slightly different, but the same concept. And when that project went through there was 34
an overall recognition that that economic analysis was very helpful to decision makers. And I think that 35
the Council has indicated that an economic analysis in connection with PC projects is a worthwhile task. 36
The parameters of that economic analysis I think are still under review and so it would be very 37
appropriate at this time for the Commission to weigh in on what factors should be looked at. 38
39
Commissioner Alcheck: is there, I guess I’d like to know what staff thinks about the notion of that 40
analysis happening before this decision is made. What I mean to say is before we initiate and discuss 41
whether the threshold has been met or what can, what needs to happen in order for the threshold to 42
meet for us to review an analysis done by a third party so that that informs the decision that we’re 43
making. I don’t like the idea of holding up a project, but this sort of suggests that we’re… what if we 44
come back and the analysis is so different than the discussion we have? And it, those, that’s my concern. 45
I’m not sure how we’re going to address that tonight. But ok, we’ll come back to it. 46
47
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 48
49
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So one of the things we’ve talked about is the idea that the benefits, public 50
benefits are in some sense should be in some way commensurate, but not equal, but commensurate with 51
the benefit to the developer of the increased development. So is that the kind of analysis that we would 52
get input on from an expert figuring out that, so that we could evaluate the value of the public benefits in 53
comparison to the value to developer? Is that the intent here? 54
55
11
Ms. Silver: So again this is an evolving process and I think at this stage it would be most helpful to get 1
input from you on what issues you think are the most important, but that type of analysis I think is 2
certainly what the City Manager is looking at. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. And a question for Jim Baer. I’m not going to go into too much detail 5
about the electric vehicle chargers. People expect me to talk about them anyway, but one of the things 6
interesting is I think there’s a mention in there about a level three charger. And one of the things is 7
because of the large power requirements for a level three charger one of the reasons that one, it make 8
sense to put one in when 101 Lytton was being built is because since all the electrical work was being 9
done doing it the same time and similar for the Edgewood Plaza. So I’m wondering whether it makes 10
sense to put the level three charger that, the DC quick charger, on California Avenue where they would 11
have to be bringing power and all that infrastructure or whether it makes sense to put it on site where 12
you’re already doing a big infrastructure for the power. And I’m wondering if you’ve thought about that? 13
14
Mr. Baer: The request to put it on site, please go ahead with that with any specific you choose. The 15
issue that you raised on doing it for public garages on California Avenue, level threes are two hour 16
charges not 12 hour. 17
18
Vice-Chair Keller: Correct. 19
20
Mr. Baer: So they have a high attraction and they are not fungible in their plugging with other chargers. 21
But so the issue that Arthur raises is a good one, when we walked with the electric utilities guys and 22
looked at the transformers serving those light poles on parking garages and its not intense amount of 23
energy being generated out of those transformers and not intense use. So the question does become do 24
you want two level twos and we can’t quite get a level three without putting in a whole new power 25
system. Those are the issues that we hope that you will direct your staff to work with us on before we 26
return. I just don’t know enough and impromptu saying would just be we want to do it right and well 27
and successfully with filling an important need, and we need more guidance from policy makers and from 28
electric utility staff. 29
30
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. 31
32
Chair Michael: So I just have two questions at this point in our process. One actually relates to the 33
information that the applicant has submitted about the traffic impact and the building as currently 34
proposed has 113 parking spaces. And there’s an estimate of the number of peak hour trips being 35
approximately 50, I believe? And as Mr. Baer stated this intersection is probably the most heavily 36
trafficked and the most heavily congested in the City. And I believe that there’s a number of other 37
potential projects in the pipeline that might have cumulative impact on this intersection. So I wonder if 38
you could explain for us how the calculation works in terms of the traffic impact and the peak hour trips, 39
number of people who will be parking there. 40
41
Robert Eckols, Senior Associate, Fehr and Peers: So in terms of the peak hour trips… oh, Robert Eckols 42
from Fehr and Peers, Senior Associate. So the number of trips that would be generated by the project is 43
actually around 39 and 35 now. And that was partly because City staff directed us to take a look at how 44
many trips were actually coming in and out of the parking lots. So we actually went out and did counts 45
to find out how many trips were coming in and out. But basically its well, it’s under 50. So that’s the 46
trips and they come from all directions so they’re in multiple lanes and we assume about 50 percent of 47
them would come down Oregon Expressway so that that’s loaded up a little higher than the other 48
directions. 49
50
So in terms of the level of service and we looked at three different scenarios now, we looked at existing, 51
existing with the project, we looked at a near term, which actually included the trips from the 395 Page 52
Mill and from the Equinox development. So we added those into the roadway so we looked at that 53
condition and then when we looked at a cumulative where we actually got the 2035 forecast from the 54
company that’s actually doing the new model update. So we did do three different scenarios with and 55
without the project. And what we found in that analysis was that again the addition of the project kind 56
12
of bumped up the average delay, which is how we determine level of service by roughly a couple of 1
seconds. And then what we saw when we looked at the right turn lane is that it actually pushed it back 2
down to where there’s actually a net benefit. So in the existing conditions you actually reduce the delay 3
at the intersection. This is for every vehicle there by about two seconds on average trip. And so then 4
when you go out to the future conditions like a cumulative where by then the traffic is built up and the 5
intersection is like level of service F then what happens is actually by adding this right turn lane you get a 6
larger benefit because as you reach worse levels of service, delay goes up exponentially so if you do any 7
improvement to reduce the traffic movement or improve traffic flow then it actually brings down the 8
delay quite a bit. 9
10
And I know there’s some interest in how this right turn lane, does it just help the right turn people or 11
does it help the intersection overall? It does help the intersection overall because today, I live here in 12
Palo Alto so I drive through that intersection, you often will see people stopped in the right lane because 13
someone is walking in the crosswalk or there’s a bus there. So as soon as that vehicle stops it typically 14
blocks the through movement there. So what happens with a right turn lane is that it, the right turners 15
get out of the way through movements so now more through traffic can go through so, so again that 16
reduces the amount of time we have to give to that approach and so other approaches can benefit. So 17
the delay savings kind of is on several of the movements, not just the right turn. 18
19
Chair Michael: Ok. 20
21
Mr. Eckols: So do you need any others or another, get all the questions. 22
23
Chair Michael: I think that’s good for now, but don’t go anywhere. I just had one more question and this 24
relates to the analysis of public benefits that the Planning Commission is required to make and maybe Mr. 25
Baer would be the person who would respond to this and that is that as you may know earlier this year 26
the Commission made some effort to understand what level of analysis should be applied to public 27
benefit in relationship to our recommendations regarding a PC zone application. And one of the things 28
that comes up is a distinction in terms of benefits that might be intrinsic to the project and benefits 29
conferred by the developer, which are extrinsic to the project. And we had the question of what exactly 30
this meant and what difference it might make to the City, but I wonder if you could maybe just go over 31
your list of public benefits or just help clarify to what extent are the benefits that are proposed here 32
intrinsic and/or which ones may be extrinsic? 33
34
Mr. Baer: I appreciate the question and want to point out that one Council Member in the study session, 35
Council Member Klein, raised the same question. Is some of this improvement of the intersection a 36
private benefit and Fehr and Peers evaluate that to say you can get to the site from any direction at the 37
level of traffic burden that it now has, that the right turn lane doesn’t improve access or improve 38
efficiency other than for the intersection, not for the project. I’m going to use that as the question of is it 39
intrinsic or extrinsic and I’m sorry I’m going to use my long pass lawyering, but update it with land use. 40
There were some seminal California cases some to do with beach access that said you can’t impose as a 41
condition of a project improvements to public land or that are unrelated to the project’s use of the site. 42
And I will say that for the benefits we’re proposing other than perhaps the urban amenities that would be 43
off site, but that may not be imposed, but if there’s a nice park bench and better trees and all that that of 44
course benefits the project and has an intrinsic value. 45
46
But pretty much all the others I think it’s fair to say are extrinsic in their value: the tunnel, the I’m sorry, 47
I don’t have them in front of me… I mean the California Avenue improvements, the improvement of Page 48
Mill is a substantial improvement for the benefit of the public with a very minor intrinsic aspect, which is 49
if you’re one of the drivers through that intersection it improves it for you just as it does for the guy who 50
works at Hewlett Packard or Wilson Sonsini, but not uniquely. I hope that’s, I will respond more if you 51
have a follow on question. 52
53
Chair Michael: I think that’s fine for now. So before coming back to Commission at this point we’d like to 54
hear from the speakers from the public who’ve submitted cards and if anyone else is here who’d like to 55
speak hasn’t submitted a card please, please feel free to do so. 56
13
1
Vice-Chair Keller: The first speaker is Robert Moss to be followed by Chris Donlay. 2
3
Robert Moss: Thank you Chairman Michael and Commissioners. Well what you have before you tonight 4
is another typical PC scam. I’m not surprised that Jim Baer dropped a late minute, last minute changes 5
so that the public couldn’t see them. That’s his OP for GM and PC’s. 6
7
Let me tell you what you should be doing tonight. You should be rezoning the site so that it’s consistent 8
with the El Camino Design Guidelines, which by the way I helped to create. This project violates almost 9
every aspect of that. So the site should be developed as CN because one of the aspects of the El Camino 10
Design Guidelines is you have CN zones adjacent to housing and there’s housing on both sides of this 11
project. 12
13
Second, you want to talk about public versus private benefits. Two of the public benefits which are listed 14
are not public benefits. $400,000 for an all-electric benefit, building isn’t a public benefit. And $112,500 15
for passes is something the developer’s required to do to give transit passes in order to justify reducing 16
the number of parking spaces. 17
18
I found it also very strange that in the staff report the title says there’s a 33,500 square foot building, 19
partial building. The first paragraph says it’s 31,766 and the document that was just passed out tonight 20
it says it’s 29,766. I suppose if we got two more submissions we’d be down to about 25,000 square feet. 21
So how big is this sucker? I’m going to assume it’s 31,700 and I’ll tell you what the public benefits and 22
the private benefits are. The additional office space will bring in at a modest rent of only $6 per square 23
foot per month, $1.5 million more than would be allowed under CS zoning. So in two and a half years 24
they’ve gotten back all the money they’ve identified for public benefits and from there on its just gravy. 25
26
So this project is classic, it’s not giving us a real public benefit. It’s going to have… oh, and parking. The 27
parking spaces that you require it’s not four per 100,000 square feet it’s closer to seven. So even if 20 28
percent of the people take transit this project needs 180 parking spaces. It’s grossly under parked. 29
30
Finally as you know this is in the Coe contaminated area and a three level underground garage is 31
absolutely unprecedented. When I told the Water Board about this they were shocked and I got a letter 32
back from Marger Papler listing the many different mitigations that are required to keep people from 33
occupying the building and literally being poisoned. Let me assure you if a project like this was proposed 34
in Mountain View no underground parking would be allowed. So rezone it CN and bring it in under 35
current zoning and kill the PC. 36
37
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Chris Donlay to be followed by Deborah Italiano. 38
39
Chris Donlay: Good evening, my name is Chris Donlay. I live on Pepper Avenue, which is just a block 40
away from the proposed site. You may recall my presentation on the July 31st meeting about the in-41
horribly congested traffic and spillover parking problem we have in this neighborhood. Bringing such a 42
huge project and cramming it in such a small space will only make this worse. I won’t go into the 43
numbers as the previous speaker did, but I concur it’s under parked and it’s over occupied. And while we 44
as a neighborhood feel that rezoning may be a good idea we do not believe that cramming such a huge 45
project into this site is a good idea. 46
47
And really occupancy and traffic and parking should all be looked at. In fact, I suggest that the project 48
should be delayed until the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the parking projects being done for 49
the Jay Paul project are complete so we can see how this really affects the entire neighborhood as well 50
as taking into account all the cumulative projects that are going on since I understand that typically that’s 51
not done. So we have grave concerns from a block away. We ask you to consider those. Thank you. 52
53
Chair Michael: Thank you. 54
55
Vice-Chair Keller: The next speaker is Deborah Italiano. 56
14
1
Deborah Italiano: Thank you gentlemen. I’m a resident or an owner at Silverwood just so you know so 2
that’s from whence my comments come. There’s a few issues that I see for proximity. When we’re 3
looking at the east facing of the building relative to Silverwood it’s not just the proximity relative to 4
sunlight and that of course has to be verified, but if you look it’s also the issue about cars and vehicles 5
coming in and out past that building. It’s going to basically be traffic by people’s bedrooms and living 6
rooms. So at minimum they should be reconsidering where the traffic, where the driveway is. 7
8
The other issue is regarding sunlight as well. The building faces much more south than I would have 9
imagined, more south than Silverwood. And so it’s not just how it hits the building, it’s also how it blocks 10
sunlight onto the courtyards at the front. So that also should be looked at in the investigation. 11
12
The transformer is the third issue. I heard a little bit about it the last time there was discussion of 13
covering it or making it look better, but if there could be consideration also for where that is. I 14
understand it’s right next to Silverwood. So that also is not wonderful to have that as your neighbor. 15
16
And then there was discussion of Silverwood and Sunrise being consulted. If, I don’t recall, I don’t know 17
if it’s listed here what the results of those discussions were. If there’s content descriptions about that. 18
Thank you. 19
20
Chair Michael: Thank you. So at this point let’s bring this back to the Commission for any further 21
comments you have or actually this is your first opportunity to make your comments known about the 22
proposal. And when appropriate we can entertain a Motion. Five minutes each. 23
24
Commissioner King: I have more questions before comment if I may? 25
26
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 27
28
Commissioner King: Yeah. So question of, this could be sort of this of staff. So the urban amenities 29
proposed, are those on site or are those off site to the project? The public benefits of $150,000 of urban 30
amenities? And if staff is uncertain, applicant can feel free. 31
32
Ms. French: I think the applicant would know what they’re putting into that tally of numbers. I mean 33
they said earlier in their presentation that the street trees they were considering as part of the public 34
benefit, so I don’t know if those are being added in as, in that number. You might see if the applicant 35
can answer. 36
37
Commissioner King: Would the applicant care to address that? So my question is the $150,000 of urban 38
amenities addressed. Are those on site, off site, a combination? And in the absence of the PC, how 39
much would you have to spend in any event on those amenities including landscaping? 40
41
Mr. Hayes: Well, I think the amount that we spend needs to be confirmed. If it’s a direction that we, that 42
we have support in we will come back and have real specific detail on what that could be. On typical 43
projects it’s very easy to spend $150,000, which is why we put that in as a placeholder at this point, but 44
it would include enhancements to the public sidewalk, the additional trees, benches along the sidewalk, 45
as well as public art. 46
47
Commissioner King: So I guess my question is we’re being asked to consider this as part of the initiation, 48
how much of the, I’m looking for incremental. So how much of that even with an 8,000 square foot 49
building that you, the current entitlement or the likely non PC entitlements would allow, how much are 50
you spending incrementally more than that or that’s would happen anyhow? 51
52
Mr. Hayes: I would think that we would be spending; we’re spending incrementally more than that 53
because under a CN zone or CS if that was a CS we would probably just have minimal walkways, the 54
building, and some on site landscaping. So I think we would go above and beyond what would typically 55
be considered part of a CN project. 56
15
1
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. We’ll consider that a work in progress at this point then. And I do 2
have a question for the traffic consultant if I may. So I’m, it appears that for instance I’m looking at the 3
peak morning trips and I’m seeing 43 on one of the reports we were given. Can you confirm, is that 4
incrementally above the current use or that’s? 5
6
Mr. Eckols: Those are the, well actually the 43 was before we took out the discount for the parking 7
spaces. So the 43 would be the net new trips of the project and then there’s a small discount because 8
there’s like 7 or 8 trips coming (interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner King: Ok, got it. In general. And so the part I was unable to find was the total trips. 11
What does that show then as the total trips associated with the project in that morning peak hour? 12
13
Mr. Eckols: Well under the 43 that was basically the total trips minus two percent transit discount that we 14
got because it’s on El Camino, which is 1 trip and then there’s also the TDM reduction, which is 2 trips in 15
the peak hour. And so basically the 43 is really in this case because we’ve treated it as an empty lot that 16
was the total trips. 17
18
Commissioner King: Ok. And so I guess the two questions I have are one, if I think 110 employees in 19
that building how can there only be and I, it would be shocking if there are, they all carpooled and all fit 20
in 3 people into one car, but I don’t understand how you could possibly get 43 trips for 110 employees. 21
22
Mr. Eckols: Because typically and certainly in the Bay Area people arrive over at least a two hour period. 23
So remember that we’re only studying one peak hour. So the trips are distributed over the, all the 24
employee trips are distributed over the at least two hours and in the Bay Area it can be over three. 25
26
Commissioner King: Ok. I understand. So I did not understand that. So 43 times the two peak hours is 27
at least… and then my other question is so then we call 7:00 to 9:00 peak at least in Palo Alto anyone 28
who’s ever tried to take Oregon Expressway west to El Camino would see peak that continues on through 29
10:00, 10:30. 30
31
Mr. Eckols: In this case the, we used the probably 8:00 to 9:00 time period because that would be high 32
volume and because the intersection is right at capacity you don’t get a whole lot more additional trips 33
through there. So it’s going to be, it may be level of service D let’s say in the morning or E and that may 34
extend over a couple periods, but we’re always analyzing just the peak hour is what we report. 35
36
Commissioner King: Ok, got it, thank you. And then another question for staff, which is so a member of 37
the public stated that under TDM that there is a requirement to get the parking discount to provide 38
passes and that was in contrast to the applicant and I thought maybe staff supported that, that a TDM 39
plan to meet the parking discount does not require passes, transit passes to be paid for employees, that 40
it merely requires a plan as evidenced in the 30 pages of documents we’re showing here that basically is 41
informational. It provides encouragement and information to employees, but not actual cost sharing of 42
transportation. 43
44
Ms. French: Yes. Just to weigh in on that when somebody asks for a parking adjustment there are a 45
variety of methods to get there, one is onsite employee amenities, their cafeteria is one such. Then one 46
of them is transportation and parking alternatives, TDM with some options is listed in there and for that 47
they can ask for up to 20 percent reduction with TDM measures, but they’re not defining which ones they 48
must do. For instance Eco Pass is not even listed in our table there. 49
50
Commissioner King: Thank you. 51
52
Ms. Silver: If I could also chime in on that one. The community benefit of the Eco Pass and the Go Pass 53
is proposed for only a period of 10 years. The TDM programs that the applicant can apply for would be 54
subject for, to the life of the project. 55
56
16
Commissioner King: Ok, and well the following would be how can we enforce that? So for the life of the 1
project and if that, if they said “Hey, we’re closing down the TDM, we’re done, we don’t like this,” then 2
what happens? 3
4
Ms. Silver: Well they’d be in violation of the parking requirement. 5
6
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, thank you. 7
8
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 9
10
Commissioner Alcheck: So every once in a while someone asks me what I think of the 50 foot height 11
limit. They want to know my opinion on it and my response is its effective. I am not opposed to 12
exceeding 50 feet. I believe that this process is not set up to deter 50 feet, it’s my impression that the 13
process is designed that when you want to exceed certain limitations the City wants to be heavily 14
involved, which is different than the City is blatantly discouraging 50 feet. I think it’s a matter of 15
perspective. We can’t keep making exceptions to 50 feet and pretend like we don’t permit 50 feet. We 16
permit 50 feet in the context of some sort of coordinated I guess negotiation of public benefits. 17
18
So I want to sort of suggest to my fellow members that I don’t think Neighborhood Commercial is a 19
suitable designation here. I don’t think that this is a suitable site for retail space, personal services, 20
restaurants. I don’t think it’s appropriate. I don’t think that entertaining the notion of a Planned 21
Community at this site is objectionable considering that every adjacent property is a PC. So the notion 22
that we can’t articulate a very specific solution for this site seems contrary to what this Commission and 23
the City has been involved in doing with all the adjacent sites. So simply on the basis of not liking a PC 24
or not liking the PC process I don’t think justifies not entertaining this project. And I don’t think that an 25
alternative of, I don’t think the alternative zoning designations are suitable. 26
27
You have the very unfortunate luck of proposing a PC after the last PC, which is essentially building a 28
police station in exchange for building something. And you can imagine how that skews our effort to 29
evaluate what it is as a public benefit. The last guy that came in here asking for to do whatever he 30
wanted got had to build, he’s proposing to build a police station on our behalf. You’re suggesting that 31
you’re going to give us five feet of sidewalk. You understand, it’s like… 32
33
I don’t know if we need a third party to analyze how many square feet they’re getting down the street 34
and how, what the cost is for the police station and then give me the cost per square foot. I don’t need 35
a third party to tell me they’re building this many square feet so they should pay X. I don’t know if I 36
need that, but I definitely need more direction with this public benefit situation. I think that’s what really 37
bothers me about this process because I don’t know if I need more safety in what you described as a 38
pedophile friendly area because I would assume that if there was a pedophile prone area that the Palo 39
Alto Police Department is all over it. And so when we had the police station discussion we had the Police 40
tell us and inform us whether or not they felt this was the type of thing they needed. I think that it’s 41
important to appreciate that when we review this process and so I don’t scare easy, but it is an 42
uncomfortable position to be in to suggest that I know what will benefit the public better than the public. 43
And so without more direction from City Council as to what really we need, it’s difficult to evaluate some 44
of your suggested public benefits. 45
46
Again I don’t believe that it is a valuable component here to determine how profitable a building will be in 47
an effort to determine how much they should contribute. There is no developer who is not overly 48
optimistic about the potential of his building to be successful. If they weren’t insanely optimistic they 49
wouldn’t be in the game because it’s a dangerous game. And I, it’s just we don’t know what’s going to 50
happen in eight years or five years and they may be sitting on an empty property and the suggestions 51
that they’re going to be rolling in it will be irrelevant. 52
53
I just want to mention one other thing that I’d like us to consider, which is that I think the 1979 El 54
Camino Guidelines are outdated. We’ve, there’s been discussion about change. There’s drafts that the 55
ARB has put forward if I’m not mistaken, there’s discussion about what the guidelines should now look 56
17
like. I don’t know if we should just assume that those apply here simply because they exist. And 1
particularly because the PC gives you the flexibility to do what you want. I’m not sure that the other PC 2
projects that are adjacent to this one comply with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines so to what 3
extent should our analysis focus on how this site should be developed in a way that is compatible with 4
the sites adjacent to it. 5
6
So the last thing I want us to kind of keep in mind and I know I’m over. There’s a discussion here about 7
height and daylight planes. There are already special height and daylight plane requirements for PC 8
zones when they are adjacent to residential properties. I think that it would be valuable to us if we 9
understood what this option of, let’s see, it’s for example I believe it says here “shall be subject to a 10
maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of 10 feet at the applicable side or 11
rear side line increasing at a slope of 3 feet,” etcetera, etcetera. It would be interesting to see what 12
would this look like if it conformed to the existing PC requirements when they’re adjacent to a residential 13
PC zone and what these, this, these applicants are asking, how are those different? So that because to 14
some extent we’re talking about ok we can talk about a PC and then now we’re also talking about an idea 15
of making exceptions to the already existing PC guidelines. So it’s like further and I think it would help to 16
understand those, to visualize those differences, especially with respect to the concept of public benefits 17
because you would assume that if we were going to go even further than we normally do on a PC then 18
we’d want to be able to compare that. 19
20
And finally I made this point earlier. I really think that I would be informed by I guess a table that 21
showed what all the PC zones that surround this, all the PC sites that surround this site maybe you 22
choose a 500 feet radius because there’s a ton of them, what their public benefits were because until we 23
have in my opinion to my fellow Commissioners until we have sort of a more tangible criteria to evaluate 24
this, I think our evaluation should follow the evaluation we’ve applied in the past. So we should to some 25
extent use the precedent of the neighbors and the other PC sites to evaluate what sort of contributions 26
we would expect until I guess we can give him more direction as to how they want to evaluate it. That’s 27
it, I’m sorry for going over. 28
29
Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 30
31
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. The, I first want to start out by saying that I think the PC 32
process is meant to be a deliberate process. So my first suggestion right away is that we continue this 33
item until, well, I would suggest not the next meeting, but the meeting after that at the earliest to give 34
enough time for the public to react or comment on what they’ve heard or read after the minutes are 35
transcribed tonight. 36
37
Chair Michael: So is this a Motion or just are you? 38
39
Commissioner Panelli: No, I’m not ready to make a Motion yet, but I’m throwing that out there for my 40
fellow Commissioners to just think about in the back of their minds as I talk about some of the other 41
comments, as I share some of my other comments. 42
43
I don’t feel like I have enough information yet. And let me pick up on where Commissioner Alcheck was 44
talking about. One of the things I’ve seen the City of Austin, their Planning Commission or Planning staff 45
do really well is they’ve got this really nice idea of the building envelope. So what they do is they require 46
their applicants to say given all setbacks, daylight planes, height restrictions, etcetera what is that 47
envelope look like? And then take your project an overlay it with that and let’s see where the overlap or 48
underlap is because there might be a good reason to say well we’ll give you a little bit extra here if you 49
take away, if you go in on the envelope over here. I think that would be very helpful in this case. I think 50
it would help us understand what the real tradeoffs are. So I’d like to see that when it comes back to us. 51
52
When I think of public benefit I don’t think of it as a mitigation of the problems that your project is 53
creating. And I think when I look at that list some of them feel like they are intrinsic. Can’t say that for 54
certain, but that’s my first instinct. I’d rather say that the public benefits are either something that 55
enhances for the benefit of all or helps to solve problems that already exist. And to me the biggest 56
18
problem with that intersection, you, your corner is part of it, but the real problem is pedestrian traffic 1
trying to get across Page Mill going north or south on El Camino or west or east, however you want to 2
describe it. That intersection is creating a heck of a lot of problems. 3
4
Mr. Donlay talked about living on Pepper Avenue and they have a lot, I know they have a lot of cut 5
through traffic because I’m one of them. And the reason that there’s so much cut through traffic is that 6
that right turn lane on northbound El Camino to try to get onto eastbound Page Mill/Oregon Expressway 7
even when it’s a green light for through traffic on El Camino the right turn lanes cannot turn because 8
they are waiting for pedestrians who come off the curb going north and then by the time those 9
pedestrians clear you’ve got the pedestrians coming south who cross from the other side. And that’s a 10
similar problem that those people are going to have taking a right turn off of Page Mill onto El Camino. 11
And what I’m concerned about is even with that dedicated right turn lane there are going to be so many 12
cars backed up that it’s actually going to back up, fill up the right turn only lane and backup into the right 13
hand westbound Page Mill lane unless we have a real solution for getting people across that stretch of El 14
Camino. 15
16
So we talk about a public benefit to address a, the nonuse of a tunnel that exists. I’d rather see some 17
creative solution from the applicant to figure out how to get people from one side to the other without 18
blocking traffic going right from El Camino onto Page Mill or right from Page Mill onto El Camino. And 19
that’s what I’d like to see when this comes back. 20
21
One thing that we haven’t talked about a whole bunch yet and there’s an implication that this would be 22
CS or CN and I’d like to understand from staff what would the, if we were not going to do a PC, if we 23
were going to say let’s first figure out what this should be and then determine what, let’s determine that 24
first and then determine what the difference between that and a PC is, why are we saying it’s a CS? Can 25
I get some color there? 26
27
Ms. French: Sure. Much of the El Camino Real is zoned either CS or CN, Commercial Service, Commercial 28
Neighborhood. There are some areas, Cal Ave. in particular and as we get up to Town and Country that 29
are CC, Community Commercial (CC). So there’s another commercial zone. There are some instances of 30
noncommercial zones that are residential and this site at one time was on our Housing Element for 31
housing so at that time it’s no longer on our new certified Housing Element. So we wouldn’t suggest a 32
residential zone, so it’s really those three now with zoning we try to be similar to what’s nearby so across 33
the street it’s CS. We just rezoned the 441 Page Mill site not long ago to CS from Single Family 34
Residential (R1), so that’s a recent action so staff would suggest CS as the more appropriate. One of the 35
speakers brought up CN as appropriate next to residential. Again we can look at these are not residential 36
zones. Technically they are PC zones that have residential use so we can certainly look at that. What is 37
the density of the residential zones? They are not Multi-family Residential (RM-15), that’s for sure. The 38
Sunrise and the Silverwood group they’re much denser than that. So usually the CN is a RM-15 39
residential density. 40
41
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, thank you. So when, going back to this concept of public benefit, what I think 42
we have to weigh as a Commission is if this were CS or CN, which would the maximum, this project is 43
exceeding that maximum FAR by how much? Can you just? 44
45
Ms. Netto: Yes, it’s a 0.4 for the CS district. 46
47
Ms. French: Compared to the 1.5. 48
49
Commissioner Panelli: So it’s effectively about 21, 22,000 square feet of additional FAR beyond what 50
would normally be provide, allowed, provisioned for? Yeah, about 22,000 square feet. So the question 51
is, that we I think have to ask ourselves is the problems or headaches associated with an additional 52
22,000 square feet or three point whatever times the intensity commensurate with the public benefit? 53
And I’ve talked about this in the past before where what I’m really worried about is where we get one 54
time benefits for perpetual problems. And perpetual benefits to the developer, let’s face it. So I don’t 55
19
know how we reason through this, I am not ready to make a decision tonight and that’s why I wanted us 1
to think about continuing this to a date uncertain. 2
3
Chair Michael: Commissioner Keller, Vice-Chair Keller. 4
5
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly there seems to be two operative questions. The first operative 6
question is does this general use make sense at this location? We’ve talked a little bit about the, and I 7
think that what I’ve heard from my fellow Commissioners is that this isn’t necessarily a good site for 8
retail. It’s probably not a good site for housing. And that not, there’s a question as to what promises 9
were made when the Sunrise facility was put in whether commercial would be allowed near here and I’m 10
going to defer that to be answered the next time, but forgetting about that question the issue is what 11
makes sense here and this is a use that is potentially a reasonable use. I’m not sure if its intensity is 12
appropriate at this location, but the use makes some sense. The intensity is the question that also needs 13
to be addressed. So that’s the first thing. 14
15
The second thing is that if we agree that the use is appropriate at this location and the intensity is 16
appropriate at this location then the question is are the public benefits appropriate for the PC project. 17
Now I understand Commissioner Alcheck’s comment by analogy to saying, I was driving 75 miles an hour 18
down 101 and all those people speeding ahead of me, you didn’t catch them, but you caught me. Why 19
are you giving me a ticket when you didn’t give those people a ticket? And that’s my interpretation of 20
Commissioner Alcheck’s question. Basically all those people sped down the road and gave minimum 21
public benefits, why do I have to give them? And I think the issue is because there’s been significant 22
complaint in the community about public benefits that turned out to be non-benefiting the public or 23
turned out to not really maybe or for their private benefits or they didn’t materialize as real benefits. So 24
there’s a consensus that I think comes from Council direction, I don’t think it’s merely from the City 25
Manager, I think it’s Council direction that we should evaluate the nature of the public benefits and 26
consider that comparison with the value to the developer. 27
28
Now the question is how do you compute the value to the developer? And I don’t know anything as 29
much about the nature of real estate economics as Commissioner Alcheck. After all I’m a computer 30
scientist. I don’t buy and sell real estate, I don’t develop, I’m an analyst. And so in that regard what 31
seems to me makes sense is from first principles what you do is you figure out what the net present 32
value is of the development under the approved, under the allowable zoning. So if the allowable zoning 33
if we consider that as the CS zone or the CN zone, what could be built under that zone and what’s the 34
net present value of that benefit, of that to the developer. Then you take the net present value of the 35
development to the developer of the proposed development and there’s a delta there. There’s some 36
benefit to the developer of that. Now the question is you don’t expect the City to get 100 percent of that 37
otherwise there’s no incentive to build and there’s also risk factor. You don’t expect the City to get zero 38
percent of it or to get a fixed amount. It should be some sort of, there should be some calculation there 39
and I don’t feel qualified to make the calculation of what this difference is. 40
41
And therefore it seems to me that this is a situation in which a third party expert reviewer as a consultant 42
to the City reviewing the project can come up with what this net present value is to the developer and 43
whether it’s paid out, when the benefit is paid up front or whether it’s paid over a period of time as the 44
calculation can do and I’m happy with some of it paid up front and some of it over time, however you do 45
it is reasonable to consider and remember that if it were CS or CN there would be ground floor retail and 46
that’s also taken into account because it’s 100 percent office I understand and therefore the rent you get 47
for the ground floor retailer are less than the rent you would get from office being on ground floor. So 48
that also needs to be taken into account with respect to net public benefit. So that’s the basic 49
calculation. 50
51
If I may go into specific issues about public benefit comments. So I also consider myself an amateur 52
traffic engineer, just like Commissioner Panelli sometimes, and what seems to me is that I like the idea of 53
the improvements done to the right turn lane on westbound Page Mill road onto northbound El Camino. 54
Probably also a big problem with this intersection is the thing that we missed, and I actually asked the 55
City to do something about it, but there was nothing happening and that was where the AT&T building is, 56
20
that right turn was not fixed when it could have been. There could have been an opportunity for 1
dedicating that land to the City, but the City wasn’t interested and Caltrans didn’t know what to do, so I 2
think it was a missed opportunity. But I think there’s an opportunity here to fix that. 3
4
And the issue is that because of the scoop turn on the kitty-corner from the proposed development with 5
a pork chop island. There’s actually land there and what can happen is we can take the, this is kind of 6
hard to describe, but we can realign the northbound median on El Camino Real and move it westward so 7
that there are two left turn lanes, I think there’s two over there, two left turn lanes, plus three through 8
lanes plus a dedicated right turn lane. By realigning the intersection in that way we can improve it so 9
that the right turners are not blocking the through people and the through people are not blocking right 10
on red turners. 11
12
Now I understand that there’s an issue about pedestrians, but when traffic is flowing left in one direction 13
you can have a dedicated green arrow for the right turners in the other direction and I would recommend 14
that in both of these places. So there’s the potential for that and I think that would also significantly 15
improve traffic over a period of time. It would also have the benefit of reducing the cut through traffic 16
on Pepper Avenue and Olive Avenue. 17
18
Chair Michael: So I have a question on that. Is that something that would be within the discussion of this 19
applicant or is that just sort of a general thought? 20
21
Vice-Chair Keller: Well I think that to the extent that this applicant wished to propose providing funding 22
for the City working with Caltrans to realign that intersection that could be a public benefit just as is 23
being done here. That can be considered and I think it’s not necessarily, it’s proximate, but it’s actually it 24
is a public benefit for to which funding can be provided to do that because there would be a cost involved 25
in the realignment. So I want that to be considered. 26
27
Another thing to be considered is as I mentioned the issue is, it’s going to be a lot cheaper and more cost 28
effective to put the DC quick charger or something that’s called level three charger onsite with no cost for 29
install or use as comparison to putting it on California Avenue. It’s easier to put level two chargers on 30
California Avenue because the infrastructure requirements are a lot lower. So that makes sense. 31
32
In terms of electric, all electric building it sort of reminds me of the old all electric kitchen idea people 33
had, but the issue is that you get Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) points and 34
LEED benefits presumably for having an all-electric building I presume. So in some sense that is, to 35
some extent the project benefit is also the consideration that there may be a cache for renters to rent in 36
a space that is all electric and if you do the appropriate insulation and whatever the cost may not be that 37
much greater than that in terms of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and such. I don’t 38
know if there’s photovoltaic panels you’re putting on the roof that can also mitigate the cost of the 39
electricity. 40
41
In terms of the Eco Pass and Caltrain I think that that does to some extent fit in the TDM measure. The 42
question is the extent to which the TDM for that is already covered by other things, the extent to which 43
you actually exceed the TDM requirements because of our 4 per 1,000 parking requirement. On the 44
other hand we understand that occupancy especially for a lot of buildings is increasing below four, I 45
mean more than 4 per 1,000 and therefore there would be an increased need for parking so to the extent 46
that we have, that Eco Pass and Caltrain that would mitigate in an informal sense the increased parking 47
demand that will realize from increased occupancy. And unfortunately we don’t have a way of capturing 48
that in our zoning ordinance yet. 49
50
And the final thing is PC zone excess impact fees, well the impact fees by law are mitigations for impacts 51
and therefore they are not public benefits. Those are impact fees. Thank you. 52
53
Chair Michael: So thank you for that. So in my brand new role as Commission Chair I’m discovering one 54
of the first of the benefits is getting to speak last at which point many of the thoughts that I might have 55
expressed have been masterfully covered by colleagues. Just to clarify terminology I think one of the 56
21
questions that’s coming up is whether something is beneficial to the public or to the project or whether 1
it’s intrinsic or extrinsic. And I think what I believe is meant by an intrinsic benefit is something which 2
meets a need or a desire of the public. This might be for affordable housing, it might be for open space 3
or landscaping, it might be for neighborhood serving retail, it might be public art, but it might be 4
something inherent in the building itself which fulfills one of these needs which has been expressed 5
perhaps in the Comprehensive Plan or otherwise as an objective that should be met by the public. An 6
extrinsic benefit as opposed to a developer creating a building that has affordable housing might be 7
something which is beneficial but it takes a form outside of the project. It might be payment into a 8
parking fund, it might be funding for needed infrastructure, it might be something sort of outside the, 9
sort of the four corners of the project. And you do have I think a mixture of those two things. But then 10
there are things which are benefits to the project. And we’re not thinking that that’s intrinsic, intrinsic is 11
something which meets this public need. So just terminology there. 12
13
A concern that I think has been expressed by the Commission and picked up by the public is that there 14
are some significant long range planning efforts underway with the City. In this area it is the California 15
Avenue Fry’s Area Concept Plan. There’s the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. And I think both 16
of these long term planning efforts have been, involved substantial effort and are actually in their final 17
stages. And it raises for me the question of whether as we have this surge of economic recovery and 18
development activity and proposals which are coming forward, some of which are quite interesting and 19
maybe very exciting should they be approved on a project basis ad hoc if you will or is it something 20
which is best done in relationship to clear principles and division of the City, the specific context that 21
might be provided by the neighborhood plan or by the applicable parts of the Comprehensive Plan. So 22
almost a question of we’re in this home stretch relative to some of these significant planning efforts. 23
Should we maybe be cautious about jumping the gun on things that might not otherwise be consistent in 24
fulfilling those principles and those visions? 25
26
And I think in particular the, this one location, this one intersection highlights the dangers of cumulative 27
impact. At one point, at some point there’s going to be like the one building too many. It’s just all traffic 28
will sort of come to a screeching halt and life as we know it will sort of be altered. And I don’t think this 29
project is that project, but I think the City Council, everybody needs to be highly cognizant of that as we 30
move forward and when if this project is approved it comprises part of that cumulative development 31
impact. 32
33
So I think our process and the piece that is held by the Planning Commission should be consistent and 34
predictable. I think we should be objective and we should be analytical and we should make our decision 35
based not only on the rules as they apply to us, but also on the relevant data. And as I’ve heard from 36
my colleagues I’m not sure we have enough data to initiate this project this evening although we may 37
have that in short order. In particular I guess over and above the request for additional information 38
made by my colleagues I believe this new process which Council and the City Manager have undertaken 39
to begin could be and maybe should be applied to this project relative to getting an independent 40
objective report on the economics of the public benefit as applied to our initiating the PC. I would 41
imagine that that’s not terribly time consuming, but we haven’t done it before. Maybe a question for 42
staff, do we have a sense of what would be involved if we continue this matter to either a date certain or 43
a date uncertain with a request that we come back with that report? 44
45
Ms. Silver: I think it would probably take four to six weeks to get that report to you. 46
47
Chair Michael: Ok. Well, I think those were my main concerns. I think that the Commission often is very 48
interested in any comments from neighbors. We did get a written letter from Mr. Morris. Unfortunately 49
he was not here this evening. If the matter is continued to a subsequent date perhaps he would have 50
the opportunity to make his comments known above and beyond what he submitted in writing. But 51
those were my main questions. Maybe at this point from the Commission if someone would like to make 52
a Motion? Commissioner King. 53
54
Commissioner King: Yeah, I’m sorry to interrupt, but I have a question for staff regarding process. So 55
my understanding now from the staff report is that if we were to take a vote and choose to not initiate 56
22
the PC that the applicant has a path that they can go appeal that to the City Council. Can you one, 1
confirm that and two, confirm the timing on that? My goal would be, I fully respect for the applicant that 2
their clock is ticking. They have money out. They are spending a lot of money waiting. And so they 3
might choose to say, to have us vote even if we vote no maybe a better answer to them and then have 4
them appeal it to Council so I, I would like to throw that out for discussion and ask the staff of the 5
process. 6
7
Ms. French: So technically it would not be an appeal. It’s a legislative request. The continuance is not 8
unheard of of an initiation. You’ve done it several times, most recently for the 395 Page Mill project. You 9
did continue your consideration of an initiation. And having said that yes, if you did continue it the 10
applicant could request consideration by Council. I think the better choice would be to come back with 11
data and information for your continued consideration of initiation because you may want to initiate the 12
project after you’ve received additional information. 13
14
Chair Michael: So it’s my understanding that the Council very much appreciates the diligence of the 15
Planning Commission in raising various questions and working with the applicant and the community, 16
providing a forum to bring out all the relevant information, and I believe that the comments made by my 17
colleagues on the Commission are all directed at information that would be relevant either for us or for 18
Council. And we would hope that if we do have a Motion and a vote that results in continuing the matter 19
that it be continued to a matter that’s very, a date that’s very soon and that we fulfill our job of building a 20
complete record of development information that would facilitate prompt action by Council based on 21
whatever recommendation that we would make. 22
23
Commissioner Panelli: So I’d like to ask this both of staff and the Commission. I almost wonder if we 24
should make a Motion to initiate this process while at the same time suggesting that the applicant hasn’t 25
overwhelmed us with or demonstrated that the project proposed meets the criteria that would result in a 26
decision by this Commission to approve that initiation. And if we do, if we come back at the next 27
meeting and we still feel that way we can at that point continue it and give them a third opportunity or 28
we can suggest we don’t think you’ve met the criteria and the reason why I sort of feel like that’s the 29
better approach is because it’s ultimately the same approach. And frankly I think there’s a lot of work 30
that still needs to be done and there’s a lot of discussion that still needs to be done, but I think the 31
community will show up potentially more sincerely if they think that this is, we’re really evaluating it. I’m 32
really just concerned with the notion that it’s sort of surprising we don’t have anybody here from Sunrise. 33
You know it’s surprising we don’t have any, we have two speakers here that are neighbors. So I don’t 34
think any of us would be comfortable approving this project as is. I don’t think that we can’t, it’s just I 35
don’t see really the difference to be honest. 36
37
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 38
39
MOTION 40
41
Vice-Chair Keller: So quickly there’s a big difference between initiating tonight and continuing and 42
rejecting the project. If we reject it then the process is for the applicant to go to Council and that 43
basically is automatic in some sense. Because if the applicant wants to build a project they go, the only 44
way to do that is to get the Council to initiate the PC zone. That’s number one. 45
46
Number two is that if we initiate tonight this project in general will not come back to us until we are 47
actually dealing with a completely fleshed out, completely designed project with a complete set of public 48
benefits which we can then accept or reject some months or years from now. It is only an extraordinary 49
project do we get a point in time to get a midpoint analysis of it between when we initiate and when we 50
deal with the completed PC ordinance, complete design, and everything done. 51
52
So my sense, the third thing is that if we continue it, we get the opportunity to gather more information 53
and we have the opportunity to give clearer direction to the applicant, which I don’t think we’ve done 54
that much now. So that when we initiate the PC zone, excuse me, if and when we initiate the PC zone we 55
have given clear direction to the applicant so the applicant can then go off and do the design work and 56
23
when it comes back to us it’s hopefully in consonance with what we recommended. But we have not 1
given clear recommendations now and I think that the record is incomplete in terms of what is needed. 2
3
So I’m going to basically make the Motion that we continue this item to a date uncertain with the request 4
that staff expeditiously obtain the information needed so that this can come back to us as soon as 5
possible without undue delay. 6
7
SECOND 8
9
Commissioner Panelli: I’m going to second that. 10
11
Chair Michael: There is a Motion by Vice-Chair Keller seconded by Commissioner Panelli. Vice-Chair Keller 12
do you have anything further you’d like to say about your Motion? 13
14
Vice-Chair Keller: Just very quickly I’d like to expand slightly on what Commissioner Panelli said. So if 15
you think about this the building envelope that you’re allowed to build under existing zoning, there’s the 16
building envelope that you’re allowed to build under standard PC zoning and then there’s the building 17
envelope that’s being created in terms of the exceptions to the PC zoning and I think we need to 18
understand how this project relates to all three. Thank you. 19
20
Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 21
22
Commissioner Panelli: Like I mentioned before, I think a continuance is warranted and I think I’ve 23
mentioned this before that I think in every case where an applicant brings a request to initiate a PC that 24
we should almost automatically continue it because I think that we need, first of all we need to give a 25
little bit of time for the applicant to address our questions and concerns, but also time for the public to 26
comment and react to what’s been discussed here today. I agree with my fellow Commissioners though 27
and I think we’ve all said it that we’d like to see this done as expeditiously as possible so we’re saying a 28
date uncertain, but hopefully that date uncertain will be sometime in the next six weeks let’s say. That’s 29
all I have. 30
31
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck? 32
33
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 34
35
Commissioner Alcheck: So I’d like to propose a Friendly Amendment. First, if it’s going to be a three 36
meeting process then we might as well just call it a three meeting process. That’s sort of what I’m 37
getting at. If we’re going to automatically continue every PC thing then let’s just call it what it is. That’s 38
all I’m suggesting. 39
40
But I appreciate your comments, I actually agree with, you’ve convinced me. I think we should continue 41
it. I’m not suggesting we don’t continue it and initiate, but what I would like to suggest is a Friendly 42
Amendment that we don’t see this again until we have the “City Manager directed financial analysis.” I 43
don’t think based on what you’ve just argued, it doesn’t make sense for us to set a, have a discussion 44
about public benefits that will ultimately lead to a final package presented without having a review of the 45
pro forma, which I don’t want to suggest I love that idea at all, but if that’s going to be the way we do it 46
I would, it seems contrary to the position you just stated that we would get that financial analysis at the 47
third and final time we review this at which point changes would be very difficult to make. 48
49
Chair Michael: So is that Friendly Amendment acceptable to the maker of the Motion? 50
51
Vice-Chair Keller: So I’m wondering what staff feels about the idea of at least getting a preliminary 52
analysis of the nature of the financial comparison of the public benefit with the benefit to the developer? 53
And what the time frame for that would be? 54
55
Ms. Silver: Yes. I stated that I thought it would be four to six weeks. 56
24
1
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 2
3
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok, so then in that case I’m happy to accept the amendment. 4
5
Commissioner Panelli: As I. 6
7
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 8
9
Commissioner King: Oh sorry. Thank you. So I’m going, I’m maybe bending things a bit here, but I 10
wanted since I haven’t really, I think it’s positive to give information to the applicant about where we are 11
and I haven’t really done that. So I’m going to use, I’m going to in supporting the continuance just 12
address a bit. 13
14
So let’s see, so the crux of this is really the public benefit. Without public benefits it’s an 8,000 square 15
foot entitlement is the way I see it. And you’ve got the list of numeric public benefits and some might 16
argue I think at the Council study session there was a discussion of it’s a gateway building and so maybe 17
in my mind I don’t consider that intrinsic benefit significant enough to create a PC so for me it’s really 18
about these costs. And as far as the other thing I’d like to do some form of rough analysis and I know 19
we’ve had a developer that said “Oh, we don’t like back of the envelope,” but I’ve done my back of the 20
envelope calculations and so if we’re saying there’s roughly an 8,000 square foot entitlement now and 21
that we’re going to have 32,0000 because that 2,000 of amenity is leasable space even if it’s not 22
countable towards FARs. We’re looking at about 24,000 square feet of upgraded entitlement and I’m just 23
using a number, I’m happy for someone to correct me, disabuse me of this being a reasonable number of 24
profit of maybe $500 a square foot. Maybe it’s $300, maybe it’s $700, but I would guess it’s somewhere 25
in that range and so that’s roughly $12 million; maybe $8 to $15 is what I would see as a potential 26
benefit to the applicants. And so if in fact that the public benefits don’t seem to be commensurate to me 27
with the potential profit. And again I’m really anxious and excited to see a third party analysis to see 28
how far those numbers are off. 29
30
And then regarding the amenities; so regarding the impact fees, trying to count those I consider that, I 31
personally believe that to be insincere and whether it’s PC, not PC putting that on there just doesn’t to 32
me engender trust about the process and counting the numbers. The use of the VTA that will benefit 33
somebody I assume, that’s great. That’s fairly de minimus. The urban design features, again we’re 34
unclear as to whether that’s really double counting what might be required for the project anyhow. That 35
passes further discussion. The all electric I’m, I would hesitate to count that. We don’t, I don’t think we 36
have a policy or even a discussion as a City as to the benefits of all electric and where that should be 37
appropriately applied so I discount that one. And then the electric vehicle charging, the lights instillation, 38
and the upgrade I personally consider those zoning, that’s zoning for sale. It’s really not related to the 39
project it’s you giving, the applicant giving the City money to purchase things that the City should well be 40
able to do on their own in my mind. 41
42
And then the real public, to me the key public benefit if we look at the downstream cumulative effects of 43
the traffic, if you look at those numbers if the 2035 numbers are accurate the changes to the intersection 44
are a material benefit and I think Vice-Chair Keller addressed the fact that we missed a potential 45
opportunity, although I don’t think it was PC for the parcel across the street to improve that right turn 46
lane there, which would have been a significant public benefit. So I think we have this opportunity now, 47
so this is the real to me this is the real benefit. How we value that I think is challenging. For the 48
applicant other than some hard costs and they haven’t addressed how much of this is hard cost versus 49
the land value. If the entitlements don’t change with them giving the, transferring these, doing the land 50
dedication and the widening then there’s really zero cost to them. They’ve paid for the parcel, they’re 51
getting their same entitlements and so there really isn’t a cost to them other than hard costs and any 52
legal costs. 53
54
So in my mind if I were, if someone were to come to me and say “Oh, how, what would we do in this, for 55
this parcel?” I look at the existing entitlements and then I would look at the, what are the costs to the 56
25
applicant. Let’s use our $600,000 that they’re proposing on Item One and then I use $500 a square foot 1
profit so really it would upgrade 1,200 square feet. And maybe that should be larger for the 2
entrepreneurial risk that they’re taking, but I come up with a project more in the 10,000 square feet 3
range than 30,000 square feet based on what I perceive as the current public benefits. So thank you. 4
5
Chair Michael: So I want to give the applicant time to respond to some of the things that you’ve heard 6
the comments and the questions from the Commission before we take a vote on the Motion. And I 7
believe if you’d like to respond in any way let’s give you three minutes. 8
9
Mr. Baer: Thank you for your comments and I hope I’ll leave a minute for Ken if he would like to speak. 10
It’s hard not to say one thing and have it come off as arrogant and perhaps it is. I’ve done 25 planned 11
community zones in my long career, which is nearing an end and they’ve not been disapproved. I’m 12
saying that to say we really try, it’s not backslapping or anything. We really try to be in touch with policy 13
and we were giving by previous Director Curtis Williams a dollar value as the goal based on 101 Lytton, 14
which is a project I was involved with, saying you’ve got to be at least this many dollars per square foot 15
of public benefit. I’m not going to give you that number tonight although we’ve exceeded it substantially 16
in this. 17
18
But I do understand and appreciate that the most significant partially intrinsic, partially extrinsic benefit is 19
to really fix up that intersection. And if that includes figuring out and being able to have a conversation 20
how to better understand the pedestrian movements that hold up traffic, to better understand the pork 21
chop, to better understand all those features we get that that has the opportunity to be the most 22
valuable. Now Mr. King I would like to caution the strength of your thought that it’s what it costs you to 23
give land away that you’ve already purchased. It’s not the value of that to the public is benefit. And I 24
hope we can discuss that openly later. And of course your notion of, I appreciate you’re saying there’s 25
some X value of increased gross value and we do need to look at what the costs of creating that value 26
are so that we look at a net value and we will do that vigorously when we return. 27
28
It’s an expensive site and it’s very expensive to mitigate the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume for 29
the underground parking. It’s an expensive building, but we will do that. Your approach to even start by 30
saying it’s really the net value after your cost to do the building you want to look at I appreciate that very 31
much. 32
33
Thank you all for your diligence. These are never easy. Often times the public hearings are not happy 34
with or without extensive public comment and we learned a lot. We learned more than you may have 35
thought by experience in listening and I hope you will allow without seeming as if it’s advocacy some 36
opportunity to meet with your before our next hearing just to hear and understand what is the issue of 37
pedestrian movement? What are some of the other features? And you’ll discount those things that are 38
harsh advocacy by me and the applicant or Ken Hayes and you’ll find some value in the questions we 39
ask. So thank you very much tonight. I think we learned much more than you may have grasped even 40
without there being precision and emotion saying “X, Y, and Z.” I think we got a lot of very valuable 41
information. We appreciate your time. We will return with a project that you will be proud to initiate. 42
Thank you very much. 43
44
Mr. Hayes: You don’t have to reset it, but I would like to say thank you for your time tonight. And to 45
point out that I do think that this corner is a critical gateway corner. I mean it’s the most probably 46
traveled intersection in Silicon Valley. It’s the gateway to Stanford Research Park. It’s the gateway to 47
Palo Alto. It’s a very recognizable site and I think and opportunity to do something great for that 48
property and to kind of anchor it. 49
50
I want to point out that this building is not a large building at 31,700 square feet for that corridor. And if 51
the building had housing in it, and that’s not what we’re proposing, it’s not what staff is recommending or 52
anything, but under the PC ordinance that we’re talking about we would be allowed 50 foot height limit 53
and if it had 60 percent residential and we would be allowed to have the daylight plane that we’re 54
showing today at that 45 degree. For some reason the ordinance is written in such a way that if you 55
don’t have housing you have a more restrictive daylight plan and building height, which is rather 56
26
confusing. So if the building had 60 percent housing we could have 50 feet in height and a 45 degree 1
daylight plane, which is what we’re showing tonight because we think the site does deserve a taller 2
building, larger mass and be more consistent with the outdated El Camino Real Guidelines. So that’s I 3
just want you to kind of put that in your framework. Thank you very much tonight. Appreciate your 4
comments. 5
6
Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Just before we vote I just want to note that I think we may be 7
breaking new ground here in terms of trying to introduce an additional step in our analysis of the PC 8
zone. I believe this is something that is consistent with the policy set by the Council and the expectations 9
of the community. It will probably take some additional time as we get into our learning of how to do 10
this process expeditiously, but hopefully it won’t impose undue delay. 11
12
And there has been a lot of public comment and coverage in the media even about whether or not new 13
buildings in Palo Alto are attractive or not. And I would just like to comment that my review of the 14
material submitted by the applicant suggests that there’s a pretty good faith effort to make a very 15
attractive project at this site. And other than the fact that I think that there’s insufficient information for 16
us to do our job this evening, but with the expectation that we will have that information quite promptly I 17
think that the level of thought and design and attention to good land use is something that is evident in 18
what we’ve seen tonight. 19
20
Mr. Hayes: This is not, this has been lost tonight. We do have a model over here if you have a chance to 21
look at it. 22
23
Chair Michael: Ok, thank you very much. And with that (interrupted) 24
25
Commissioner Panelli: Mr. Chair? 26
27
Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 28
29
Commissioner Panelli: I just want to quickly expound on my acceptance of the Friendly Amendment from 30
Commissioner Alcheck. And I want to make sure that this is heard loud and clear by the applicant. Even 31
though a dollar is a dollar it, a million dollars spent for a public benefit say on a piece of art for the City 32
versus a million dollars spent to solve a major problem that Mr. Donlay and his neighbors and Ms. 33
Italiano and her neighbors, are suffering or might suffer, I would say that a million… you can’t just take 34
the face value of $3 million. It depends how that money is spent. And so we shouldn’t just consider the 35
cost when we do this analysis, but actually the value of the expenditure or investment. 36
37
VOTE 38
39
Chair Michael: So with that let’s have a vote on the Motion. All in favor please signify by saying aye 40
(Aye). So the vote is five in favor with Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent. Thank you very 41
much. You’re welcome and we’ll close the public hearing and take a 10 minute break. 42
43
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2, Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 44
45
Commission Action: Vice-chair Keller motioned to move to date uncertain, second by Commissioner 46
Panelli for staff to expeditiously obtain the information needed to bring back to Commission without 47
undue delay. Directed staff to bring the item back before the Commission within the next six weeks. 48
Friendly Amendment by Commissioner Alcheck, Call three meeting process for what it is on PC initiations, 49
does not want to see the item coming back before them until the City Manager directed financial analysis 50
is done. Approved 5-0-2 (Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 51
52
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5107)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SUMC Annual Report
Title: Approval of Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and
Compliance with the Development Agreement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1.Find that the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Parties (Stanford Hospitals &
Clinics, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University) have complied in
good faith with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement for the 2013-
2014 reporting period; and
2.Find that the SUMC Parties are not in default with the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.
3.Accept the City’s Annual Accounting Report regarding the funds received by the SUMC
Parties as required under Section 12(d) of the Development Agreement. (Attachment
C.)
Executive Summary
The City Council is required to review the Development Agreement between the SUMC Parties
and the City of Palo Alto on an annual basis to ascertain compliance with the terms of the
agreement. The SUMC Parties have submitted the annual report for the 2013-2014 period
summarizing construction activities and other actions taken to fulfill the obligations of the
Agreement. Of particular note, the SUMC has achieved a 34.4% alternative transportation
mode split which exceeds the Alternative Mode Share target of 33% for 2021. Also, as
described in the supplement to the annual report, the SUMC Parties have paid approximately
$32.5 million in public benefit fees to the City since June 6, 2011, although no required
payments were made by Stanford in this reporting period. During the past year, the City
Council reviewed and approved the revised Infrastructure project funding proposal allocating
future use of the SUMC Infrastructure and Sustainability funds to a prioritized list of projects
through FY2018.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Background
On June 6, 2011, the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes,
a conditional use permit, annexation and design applications for the Stanford University
Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Projects”). The Projects
include the construction of a new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, construction of new School of Medicine buildings,
renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion, construction of a new medical office building and
parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way,
and SUMC design guidelines. A Development Agreement (the “Agreement”) vesting these
approvals was entered into between the SUMC Parties and the City and was effective on June
6, 2011 and continues for thirty (30) years from the effective date. The Agreement requires
annual City Council review of the SUMC Parties compliance. This report covers the SUMC
Parties activities during 2013-2014, the third year of the Agreement.
Discussion
As described in Section 12, “Periodic Review of Compliance,” the City Council is to review the
Agreement annually to ascertain the SUMC Parties’ compliance with the terms of the
Agreement. Section 12 also includes the reporting requirement for the SUMC Parties and the
City to demonstrate good faith compliance with the Agreement. The attached 2013-14 Annual
Report (Annual Report) dated July 3, 2014 (Attachment A) from SUMC describes the SUMC
Parties’ activities related to implementation of the Agreement.
Construction Activities
Construction activities during this period included:
Hoover Pavilion Renovation- Site work and renovation of the exterior and interior features
of the building have been completed and in December 2012, Hoover Pavilion re-opened
providing modern medical office and clinics to the SUMC community. The renovation
project is considered to be complete.
Hoover Pavilion Parking Garage- Site work and construction for the new 1,084-stall parking
garage was completed in the Fall of 2013. It is now open for use by patients and staff.
Hoover Medical Office Building- Construction is underway for the construction of the
medical office building, to be located adjacent to Quarry Road and the existing City of Palo
Alto electrical sub-station. Grading and excavation permits were issued in March 2014,
followed by the core and shell building permit in May 2014. Tenant improvement plans for
the building are currently under review by the City.
Welch Road Utilities Project- This project involves the replacement and installation of
utilities to support the New Stanford Hospital and the Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital
expansion. The project was considered to be complete in 2013. Two-way automobile traffic
currently operates on Welch Road.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital- Site preparation efforts at LPCH have been completed
during the reporting period including mass excavation, installation of shoring walls, and
utility line relocation. Construction of the hospital expansion is underway.
New Stanford Hospital- Site preparation and excavation activities are underway at the area
surrounding the site of the New Stanford Hospital (NSH). Substantial project progress has
been made since the 2013 issuance of the Office of Statewide Health Planning &
Development (OSHPD) foundation permit and core and shell permit for the NSH and the
City’s issuance of the building permit for the New Stanford Hospital Garage.
School of Medicine Building- This project involves the replacement of the Stanford
University School of Medicine building with new state-of-the-art facilities. The School of
Medicine development is not yet underway.
No new square footage has been constructed during this reporting period. Approximately
133,731 square feet of floor area has been demolished on the main and children’s hospital
sites, as well as the Hoover Pavilion site.
Compliance with Development Agreement Obligations
In addition to the construction summary and the summary of net new square footage added
within the past year, the Annual Report also summarizes the SUMC Parties’ progress in meeting
the terms described in Section 5 of the Agreement, “SUMC Parties’ Promises.” This section of
the Annual Report describes the SUMC Parties’ obligations with respect to the following items:
Health Care Benefits;
Fiscal Benefits;
Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips;
Pedestrian, Bicycle and Automobile Linkages;
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods & Communities, Affordable Housing, and
Climate Change.
The Annual Report summarizes the activities within the reporting year. The obligations are
further summarized in Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 – SUMC Parties’ Promises
(Attachment B). City staff has reviewed the information within the Annual Report and has
determined that it is complete and correct.
Traffic Mitigation and Reduced Vehicle Trips
The SUMC Parties have made substantial progress in meeting the traffic and alternative
transportation obligations of the Agreement. Specifically, they have accomplished the
following:
Purchased annual CalTrain Go Passes for all eligible employees as of January 1, 2012, three
years ahead of the September 1, 2015 requirement as stated in the Agreement;
Purchased additional shuttle buses for the Marguerite Shuttle service which now includes
five renewable diesel-electric hybrid buses and three all-electric buses;
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Hired a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) coordinator on March 13, 2012, three
years ahead of the September 1, 2015 requirement as stated in the Agreement, and
Achieved a 34.4% alternative transportation mode split during this reporting year for the
hospital employees, meaning 34.4% of employees are using alternative modes to get to
work rather than driving alone. This figure decreased from the last monitoring period
because the calculation methodology is different from years past. The new weighted survey
analysis methodology is more accurate and intended to be more representative of the
general Hospital employee population. The past year’s mode split were recalculated using
the new methodology and is shown in the table below.
Year Past Methodology New Methodology
2012 39% 32.5%
2013 40.9% 33.4%
2014 N/A 34.4%
The 34.4% mode split exceeds the Alternative mode share targets for 2018 and 2021.
The SUMC Parties and City staff will continue to monitor the TDM program throughout the
term of the Agreement and will report annually to the Council.
Supplement to the Annual Report
In addition to the SUMC Parties’ submittal of the Annual Report, City staff is to prepare a
supplement to the Annual Report (the “Supplement”), as described in Section 12(d) of the
Agreement. The supplement is to include an accounting of the funds received from the SUMC
Parties to satisfy the obligation outlined in Section 5 of the Agreement, a description of the
account balances, and a summary and description of expenditures from the funds. The
Supplement is contained in Attachment C.
In summary, the SUMC Parties have contributed $32,533,666 in public benefit funds as of June
30, 2014. Interest income during the reporting period was $760,834. The SUMC Parties will pay
an additional $11.7M upon issuance of the first hospital occupancy permit, expected in early
2018.
During the reporting period, the City has committed funds for the following:
$131,459 under the “Community Health & Safety” cost center for the Project Safety Net
Program. Project Safety Net Program is specifically identified in the Agreement as a
community health program that would be an appropriate program for the use of this
fund. Funds spent during the reporting period were allocated to salaries/benefits for
Project Safety Net staff and other expenses relating to the operation of the program.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
$1.2 million under the “Expansion Cost Mitigation” cost center for City Capital Projects,
specifically the implementation of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan which is
included on the approved prioritized list of infrastructure projects.
General Fund Sales and Use Tax revenues in calendar year 2013 resulting from construction-
related activities were approximately $413,713 based on the City Auditor’s review of the
Construction Sales & Use Tax Monitoring Report submitted by SUMC on June 30, 2014. The
City Auditor submitted a letter to SUMC (Attachment D) noting a minor discrepancy in the
Construction Sales & Use Tax Monitoring report due to a jurisdiction coding issue. The City will
be working with SUMC to resolve the discrepancy. Total General Fund Sales and Use Tax
revenues from 2011 to 2013 now total $485,437.
Residential Affordable Housing Fund – Return of Maybell Loan
In April 2014, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation returned $720,220, which staff deposited in
the Residential Housing Fund. This amount was for the Maybell project that was overturned by
voters. The funds originally came from the Stanford University Medical Center Development
Agreement funding to be used for affordable housing. The $720,220 will remain in the
Residential Affordable Housing Fund until an appropriate affordable housing project is
identified and the funds are approved by the City Council for use on the project. In 2013,
Council also approved a $2.6 million short-term loan for Maybell out of the Stanford funds.
This loan was not needed, consequently the funds were not transferred to the housing fund
and they remain part of the Stanford funds.
Future Use of Development Agreement Funds
On September 9, 2013, City Council approved a recommendation from the Policy and Services
Committee to establish a process for allocating the SUMC funds to future projects. Based on
those motions, staff generated an infrastructure project funding proposal for Infrastructure
Committee review. On March 3, 2014, the Infrastructure Committee recommended that
Council approve the infrastructure project funding plan that allocates existing and potential
future City funding to a prioritized project list. Funding sources to fund the prioritized project
list include the SUMC Infrastructure and Sustainability funds. On June 9, 2014 (ID#4889),
Council reviewed and approved the revised Infrastructure project funding proposal allocating
future use of the SUMC Infrastructure and Sustainability funds to a prioritized list of projects
through FY2018.
The Policy and Services Committee discussed the Health and Safety Funds at their September 9,
2014 and October 22, 2014 meetings. They received an update on the Project Safety Net
Program, which was allocated $2 million of the Health and Safety Funds by Council on May 13,
2013. They also received input on and discussed establishing the review committee, guiding
principles, goals and objectives, pace of fund disbursement and formulating the definition of
health and safety needs in order to set funding priorities for the unallocated $2 million in
funding. The discussion will continue in early 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Resource Impact
There are no negative impacts from the Agreement that affect the City’s General Fund. As
summarized above, the City has received approximately $34.5M in public benefit payments,
interest and unrealized gains and approximately $485,437 in construction sales taxes since the
start of the project based on the City Auditor’s review of the Construction Sales & Use Tax
Monitoring Report submitted by SUMC on June 30, 2014.
Policy Implications
This report does not represent any changes to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
Finding Stanford University’s compliance with the Terms of the Agreement is not a project
under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental assessment for the
annual compliance review is required. An environmental impact report for the entire SUMC
project was prepared and certified by the City Council prior to approval of the Development
Agreement.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2013-14 SUMC Annual Report (PDF)
Attachment B: Table 1 - Development Agreement, Section 5 (PDF)
Attachment C: SUMC Annual Report Supplement FY2014 (PDF)
Attachment D: City Auditor Letter to SUMC regarding Construction Sales & Use Tax
Monitoring Report Q1Q4_2013 (PDF)
2013-14 ANNUAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO | JULY 3, 2014
ATTACHMENT A
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 2
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS 3
HOOVER PAVILION SITE 3
WELCH ROAD UTILITIES 4
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 5
NEW STANFORD HOSPITAL 6
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 7
NET NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE 8
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS 9
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS 9
SECTION 5(a)(ii). FUND FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES 9
SECTION 5(a)(iii). FUND FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH AND SAFETY PROGRAMS 9
PALO ALTO FISCAL BENEFITS 10
SECTIONS 5(b)(i) AND 5(b)(ii). PAYMENT OF SALES AND USE TAXES 10
SECTION 5(b)(iii). FUNDING OF OPERATING DEFICIT 11
SECTION 5(b)(iv). PAYMENT OF UTILITY USER TAX 11
SECTION 5(b)(v). SCHOOL FEES 11
TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND REDUCED VEHICLE TRIPS 12
SECTION 5(c)(ii). MENLO PARK TRAFFIC MITIGATION 12
SECTION 5(c)(iii). EAST PALO ALTO VOLUNTARY MITIGATION 12
SECTION 5(c)(iv). CONTRIBUTIONS TO AC TRANSIT 12
SECTION 5(c)(v). OPTICOM PAYMENTS 12
SECTION 5(c)(vi). CALTRAIN GO PASSES 13
SECTION 5(c)(vii). MARGUERITE SHUTTLE SERVICE 13
SECTION 5(c)(viii). TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR 13
SECTION 5(c)(ix). MONITORING OF TDM PROGRAMS 13
LINKAGES 14
SECTION 5(d)(i). INTERMODAL TRANSIT FUND 14
SECTION 5(d)(ii). QUARRY ROAD FUND 14
SECTION 5(d)(iii). STANFORD BARN CONNECTION 14
INFRASTRUCTURE, SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING 15
SECTION 5(e). 15
CLIMATE CHANGE 15
SECTION 5(f). CLIMATE CHANGE FUND 15
SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 15
CONCLUSION 16
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 1
On June 6, 2011, the Stanford University Medical Center—comprised of Stanford Hospital and Clinics,
Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University—entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Palo Alto, committing to provide a range of community benefits in exchange for vested
development rights to develop and use the SUMC Project facilities in accordance with the approvals granted by the City, and a streamlined process for obtaining subsequent project approvals. The SUMC
Renewal and Replacement Project (“Renewal Project”)—driven by a growing demand for healthcare services, state-mandated seismic safety requirements, and the need to replace outmoded facilities with
modern, technologically advanced spaces—holds the potential to transform the way that healthcare is delivered and research is conducted.
Today, three years after the execution of the Development Agreement, SUMC Renewal Project activities
are continuing apace. Construction activity is well underway on both the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital expansion site and the New Stanford Hospital site, following OSHPD foundation permit
issuance. Meanwhile, Welch Road utilities upgrades and roadway surface improvements have been completed, and the new roadway has reopened to two-way traffic. And on the Hoover Pavilion site,
the new Hoover Parking Garage (PS-9) has been completed, and ground has been broken for the new Hoover Medical Office Building.
Against this backdrop, SUMC submits its third Annual Report in compliance with Section 12(c) of the
Development Agreement, and looks forward to continued collaboration with the City of Palo Alto in advancing the goals of both the Stanford University Medical Center and the broader community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
The Palo Alto City Council’s unanimous approval of the entitlements for the Stanford University Medical
Center Renewal and Replacement Project in July 2011 has paved the way for a historic investment in
new and replacement facilities at SUMC. The project approvals—including new zoning for the Project
sites, a conditional use permit, architectural review approval, and the execution of a Development
Agreement—allows for the construction of approximately 1.3 million net new square feet of hospital
facilities, clinics, medical offices, and medical research spaces, and will enable the hospitals to optimize
the delivery of healthcare services to patients, and maintain their position as leading providers of world-
class healthcare.
In order to facilitate this important replacement and expansion work, SUMC entered into a Development
Agreement with the City of Palo, which includes a comprehensive package of community benefits and
voluntary mitigation measures. In exchange for these benefits, the City has vested for a period of 30
years SUMC’s rights to develop and use the property in accordance with the project approvals, and will
streamline the process for obtaining subsequent approvals.
The terms of the Development Agreement (Section 12(c)) provide for a periodic review of compliance,
and require that SUMC submit an Annual Report to the City of Palo Alto’s Director of Planning and
Community Environment each year within 30 days of the anniversary of the agreement effective date
(June 6, 2011). The Annual Report is to summarize the progress on the Renewal Project, including a list
of net new square footage for which a certificate of occupancy has been received, and a description of
the steps that SUMC has taken to comply with the obligations listed in the Development Agreement. With
this report, SUMC fulfills these requirements. Within 45 days of receipt of this Annual Report, the City
will prepare a Supplement to the Annual Report, to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from
each of the City Funds and how they were used.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 3
The Renewal Project continues to steadily progress, with construction activities for both Hospitals now well underway. In the section to follow, SUMC provides an overview of central goals for the project
elements that presently are under construction or nearing construction, a synopsis of progress to date, as
well as a preview of near-term upcoming activities.
HOOVER PAVILION SITE
One of the first phases of the Renewal Project was the renovation of Hoover Pavilion to accommodate
modern medical offices and clinics. Renovation of the 1931 building began in Summer 2011, and included structural improvements, the installation of modern mechanical and plumbing systems, and the
restoration of many of the building’s original historic architectural details, including the reconstruction of the decorative finial that sits atop the Pavilion tower. In December 2012, the Hoover Pavilion reopened its
doors and now houses community physicians, Stanford Hospital clinics, and the Stanford Health Library.
Meanwhile, other significant development milestones have been reached on the Hoover Pavilion site. Construction of the Hoover Garage (PS-9) completed in Fall 2013, and the garage is now open
and serving patients, visitors, and staff. The transformation of the Hoover landscape has also been completed; the site now includes varied landscaped spaces, including a lawn parterre, Redwood grove,
and Oak grove. The groves feature fifteen mature trees which have been transplanted from other locations on the Hoover site, many of which had been boxed and stored offsite during construction.
Most recently, construction of a new medical office and clinic building has commenced on the Hoover
site, on Quarry Road immediately west of the Hoover Pavilion, and northwest of the parking garage. City of Palo Alto grading and excavation permits were issued in March 2014, followed by the core and
shell building permit in May 2014. Since that time, excavation and shoring work has completed, and foundation and underslab utility work is currently underway. Tenant improvement plans for the building
are currently under City of Palo Alto review.
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
4 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
WELCH ROAD UTILITIES
The Welch Road Utilities Project (WRUP) laid the groundwork for the New Stanford Hospital and the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion, and has been a vital step in ensuring the underlying
functionality of the new medical facilities. Work involved the replacement of existing underground utility services along Welch and Quarry Roads—including water, gas, electrical, and telecommunications
infrastructure—as well as the construction of new utilities to serve the new hospital facilities once they are built. This effort also included the widening of Welch Road, one of the main arteries into the medical
center campus, and the construction of several roadway surface improvements such as sidewalks, crosswalks, planted medians, street lighting, and two new signalized intersections.
The WRUP work at Welch and Quarry Roads began in Fall 2011, and completed in July 2013.
Underground utilities have been replaced and rerouted, and roadway surface improvements are complete. New plantings of trees, grasses, and groundcovers in sidewalk planting strips and in medians
offer the beginnings of a vibrant corridor that will grow and mature with time. After nearly two years of construction work, during which time Welch Road operated as a one-lane, one-way road open only to
westbound traffic, Welch Road has now reopened to two-way traffic.
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 5
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL
In response to growing community needs for specialized pediatric and obstetric care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital is opening an expanded facility. The new hospital, to be located adjacent to the
current Packard Children’s Hospital, will provide patients and doctors with the most modern clinical advancements and technology, while also creating a more patient- and family-centered environment
of care, with additional single-patient rooms and more spaces for families to be with their child during treatment and recovery.
The Packard Children’s expansion will feature a new entrance lobby, public concourse with dining, three
floors of nursing units, and new patient rooms. Spaces have been designed with an attention to natural light and views, and the exterior grounds—more than 3.5 acres of outdoor areas and gardens—will
provide a park-like setting for patients, families, and visitors.
The Packard expansion completed its major site clearing activities in 2011 and 2012, and was issued a foundation permit by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) in November
2012; this was followed by issuance of an OSHPD core and shell permit in November 2013. Since permit issuance, mass excavation and shoring work has completed, and foundation and perimeter wall work has
been underway, along with concrete pours for the parking garage deck and walls. Two tower cranes have been delivered to the site, and steel erection has recently begun.
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS 2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
6 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
NEW STANFORD HOSPITAL
Stanford Hospital and Clinics is constructing new and replacement hospital facilities that will usher in a new era of advanced patient care. Growth in patient volumes and rapidly changing medical technology have rendered much of the existing midcentury hospital infrastructure inadequate, while new seismic safety requirements have accelerated the need to construct replacement facilities.
The New Stanford Hospital will substantially increase capacity, and will also address a rapidly advancing medical landscape. High-tech spaces such as Surgery, Radiology, and Intensive Care will be replaced to accommodate the latest advances in medical technology, while still retaining the flexibility to adapt to future innovations. Facilities will feature new patient rooms, an enlarged Level-1 trauma center and Emergency Department, and new surgical, diagnostic, and treatment rooms. And foremost, the new facility will create a healing environment responsive to the needs of patients, visitors, and staff. Upper-level pavilions will feature light-filled patient rooms, and a mid-level garden floor will offer dining, conference, and educational facilities, as well as social and spiritual support spaces.
Preparation work for the New Stanford Hospital has been underway since late 2011, and many significant project-enabling activities are now complete. Site clearing activities began in November 2012 and continued into February 2013, first with the demolition of PS-3, the existing Hospital’s patient and visitor parking structure, followed by the demolition of the medical office buildings at 1101 Welch. Patient and visitor parking has been relocated to the PS-4 underground structure during this time, and a temporary valet parking lot has been constructed near the Hospital entrance.
Significant project progress has been made since the 2013 issuance of the OSHPD foundation permit and core and shell permit for the New Stanford Hospital and the issuance of the City of Palo Alto building permit for the New Stanford Hospital Garage. Foundation work has been underway on the Hospital site, including the installation of seismic base isolators, and steel delivery to the site has recently begun. Meanwhile, construction of the Garage has progressed swiftly, with three levels of the garage now rising above grade.
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 7
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
The Stanford University School of Medicine will replace its outmoded research buildings with new
state-of-the-art facilities designed to support contemporary translational research. The new facilities
will accommodate 21st century medical advancements and enable the development of new medical
innovations. The new buildings will feature integrated laboratory suites, with easier access between
labs and support facilities, enabling transparency, flexibility, and collaboration. The new facilities will be
surrounded by landscaped areas and tree-lined walkways.
The School of Medicine development is not yet underway. In the interim, part of the site that will ultimately
be developed is currently in use as a temporary valet parking area for Hospital patients and visitors.
8 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
NET NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE
The following table summarizes the net new square footage for which a certificate of occupancy has
been issued.
2013-2014 SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
PROJECT COMPONENT GROSS SQUARE
FOOTAGE
NEW STANFORD HOSPITAL
1101 Welch demolished (40,100) Total (40,100)
LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL EXPANSION
701 Welch demolished (56,300)
703 Welch demolished (23,500)
Total (79,800)
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
None 0
HOOVER PAVILION
Misc. shops and storage demolished (13,831)
Total (13,831)
PROJECT COMPONENT GROSS SQUARE
FOOTAGE
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 9
This section of the Annual Report summarizes the steps that SUMC has taken to comply with their
obligations in Section 5 of the Development Agreement.
HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
SUMC provides certain intrinsic benefits to the community, as both a global leader in medical care and
research, and as a community healthcare services provider. The Renewal Project enables SUMC to
continue its important work, and the addition of more beds for adults and children will help to alleviate
overcrowding. Additionally, the new hospital facilities will provide critical emergency preparedness and
response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster.
Section 5(a)(ii). Fund for Healthcare Services
The Hospitals have designated the amount of $3 million for Healthcare Services which will increase
to $5.6 million by December 31, 2025. No further action is required until 2026. This amount will be
reconciled with the construction tax use payments as described in Development Agreement Section 5(b)
(ii)(C).
Section 5(a)(iii). Fund for Community Health and Safety Programs
SUMC has contributed a single lump-sum payment of $4 million to establish a Community Health and
Safety Program Fund for the City of Palo Alto. This fund is to be distributed to selected community health
programs that benefit residents of the City, including the Project Safety Net Program, a community-based
mental health plan for youth well-being in Palo Alto. A joint committee is to be established to evaluate
proposals regarding the other specific programs to receive funding, composed of two representatives
selected by the SUMC Parties and two representatives selected by the City; this committee shall make
annual recommendations to the City Council regarding proposed disbursements from the Community
Health and Safety Program Fund, and the City Council shall use its reasonable discretion to decide
whether to accept, reject, or modify the joint committee recommendations.
SUMC provided the entire required contribution to the Community Health and Safety Program Fund
on August 25, 2011. No further action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development
Agreement provision. As required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly
Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and
the purposes for which the expenditures were used.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
10 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
PALO ALTO FISCAL BENEFITS
The SUMC Renewal Project brings considerable fiscal benefits to the City of Palo Alto. The project
is expected to generate at least $8.1 million in sales and use tax revenues for the City, and multiple
mechanisms have been put into place to ensure that this target is met. The Development Agreement also
provides for further fiscal benefits to the City, including a payment by SUMC to fund the City’s operating
deficit, and the payment of utility user taxes and school fees.
Sections 5(b)(i) and 5(b)(ii). Payment of Sales and Use Taxes
As required by the Development Agreement, the SUMC submitted its annual Construction Sales and
Use Tax monitoring report to the City on June 30, 2014. The SUMC parties will continue to submit such
a report annually during the construction period for the Renewal Project so that the City can determine
the share of construction use taxes that it has received as a result of the Renewal Project. Each year,
within 60 days of receiving the monitoring report, the City will provide its determination of the amount
of construction use taxes that it has received as a result of the Renewal Project during the preceding
calendar year. In August 2026, the SUMC and the City will conduct a reconciliation process to confirm that
the City has received at least $8.1 million in construction use taxes as a result of the Project, as further
described in Development Agreement Section 5(b)(ii).
To date, SUMC has taken the following steps to maximize the City’s allocation of sales and use taxes
associated with Project construction and operation. Documentation of each of these items is included in
the 2013 construction use tax monitoring report already submitted.
• The SUMC Parties have obtained all permits and licenses necessary to maximize the City’s allocation
of construction use taxes derived from the project, including California Seller’s Permits and Use Tax
Direct Pay Permits. Copies of permits and licenses are attached to the 2013 monitoring report.
• SUMC has designated and required all contractors and subcontractors to designate the project site as
the place of sale of all fixtures furnished or installed as part of the project.
• SUMC has designated and required all contractors and subcontractors to designate the project site as
the place of use of all materials used in the construction of the project.
• SUMC has required all contractors and subcontractors to allocate the local sales and use taxes
derived from their contracts directly to the city. SUMC has used best efforts to require contractors and
subcontractors to complete and file any forms required by the State Board of Equalization to effect
these designations.
• Both Hospitals have obtained use tax direct pay permits from the State of California for their existing
facilities in order to increase the City tax allocation for the Hospitals’ purchases. The Hospitals will
maintain the use tax direct pay permit for the life of the project.
• Finally, SUMC has assisted the City in establishing and administering a Retail Sales and Use Tax
Reporting District for the Renewal Project, to enable the City to track the generation, allocation,
reporting and payment of sales and use taxes derived from the Project.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 11
Section 5(b)(iii). Funding of Operating Deficit
In order to assure that City costs associated with the Renewal Project do not exceed revenues to the City
resulting from construction and operation of the project, SUMC has provided to the City a single lump
sum payment in the amount of $2,417,000. This payment was made on August 25, 2011. No further
action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision.
Section 5(b)(iv). Payment of Utility User Tax
SUMC will pay the City a utility user tax at a minimum rate of 5 percent of all electricity, gas, and water
charges allocable to new construction completed as part of the project for the life of the project. This
rate may be increased by the City as provided by Section 2.35.100(b) of the Municipal Code. No new
construction has yet been completed for the SUMC Renewal Project, so this requirement has not yet
been triggered.
Section 5(b)(v). School Fees
SUMC will pay to the City—who is then to forward to the Palo Alto Unified School District—school fees
upon issuance of each building permit from the City or OSHPD, in the amount that is generally applicable
to non-residential development at the time of payment based upon net new square footage, as defined in
the Development Agreement.
School fees were paid in 2012 for LPCH and SHC in the amounts of $188,815 and $153,802,
respectively. These fees were paid in advance of issuance of building permits, as OSHPD policy now
prohibits the issuance of building permits for new construction without certification from the appropriate
school district that all required fees have been paid. In July 2013, additional school fees were paid in
the amount of $7,051 to account for additional program square footage for the New Stanford Hospital
and Garage. In May 2014, an additional payment of school fees in the amount of $16,119 was made to
account for the incremental square footage associated with the Hoover Medical Office Building, beyond
the 60,000 square feet originally planned.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
12 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
TRAFFIC MITIGATION AND REDUCED VEHICLE TRIPS
SUMC has taken a number of steps to mitigate the potential traffic impacts projected at full project
buildout. Already, SUMC provides a robust transportation demand management program, offering a
variety of incentives for employees to forego driving alone to work. As the Renewal Project moves
forward, SUMC will take the following actions outlined below.
Section 5(c)(ii). Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation
SUMC has agreed to contribute to the City of Menlo Park a total of $3,699,000 for use in connection with
traffic mitigation, infrastructure enhancements, and the promotion of sustainable neighborhoods and
communities and affordable housing. This contribution is to be made in three equal payments; the first
payment of $1,233,000 was made on August 19, 2011. The second payment of $1,233,000 was made
on December 5, 2012, following the November 2012 issuance of the first Hospital foundation permit. The
final payment will be made within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit.
Section 5(c)(iii). East Palo Alto Voluntary Mitigation
SUMC has contributed a single lump sum payment of $200,000 to East Palo Alto to be used for roadway
and traffic signal improvements on University Avenue. This payment was made on August 19, 2011. No
further action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision. In the
event that the SUMC does not meet alternative transportation mode goals specified in the Development
Agreement by 2025 and is assessed a $4 million payment under Development Agreement section 5(c)(ix)
(B), the City will be required to remit $150,000 of such payment to the City of East Palo Alto.
Section 5(c)(iv). Contributions to AC Transit
The Hospitals have committed to offering the following contributions to AC Transit within 30 days from
issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit:
• The Hospitals will contribute a one-time payment of $250,000 to AC Transit to be used for capital
improvements to the U-Line to increase capacity (Section 5(c)(iv)(A)).
• The Hospitals will offer to make annual payments to AC Transit in a reasonable amount, not to exceed
$50,000, to be used for operating costs of the U-Line to maintain a load factor for bus service to
SUMC of less than 1 (Section 5(c)(iv)(B).
• In order to encourage Hospital employees living in the East Bay to use public transit for their
commute, the Hospitals have committed to using best efforts to lease 75 parking spaces at the
Ardenwood Park and Ride lot, or an equivalent location, at a cost not to exceed $45,000 per year
(Section 5(c)(iv)(C)).
These offers have not yet been made to AC Transit because the first Hospital occupancy permit has not
yet been issued.
Section 5(c)(v). Opticom Payments
Within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit, the Hospitals will pay $11,200 to the
City of Palo Alto to be used for the installation of Opticom traffic control systems at the following seven
intersections: El Camino Real/Palm Drive/University Avenue; El Camino Real/Page Mill Road; Middlefield
Road/Lytton Road; Junipero Serra/Page Mill Road; Junipero Serra/Campus Drive West; Galvez/
Arboretum; and the Alpine/280 Northbound ramp. This payment has yet not been made because the first
Hospital occupancy permit has not yet been issued.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 13
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
Section 5(c)(vi). Caltrain GO Passes
The Development Agreement requires that the hospitals purchase annual Caltrain GO Passes for all
existing and new Hospital employees who work more than 20 hours per week at a cost of up to $1.8
million per year, beginning on September 1, 2015. This obligation is to continue for a period of 51 years.
Hospital management accelerated the purchase of the annual GO Pass for Hospital employees, and
began providing free GO Passes to employees commencing on January 1, 2012. Further details
regarding the GO Pass purchase can be found in the SUMC Alternative Mode Share report, which was
submitted to the City on May 30, 2014.
Section 5(c)(vii). Marguerite Shuttle Service
The Hospitals will fund the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount of $2 million for the purchase
of additional shuttle vehicles for the Marguerite shuttle service, as and when required to meet increased
demand for shuttle service between the project sites and the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station. In
addition, the Hospitals will fund as annual payments the reasonable costs, in an approximate amount
of $450,000 per year, to cover the net increase in operating costs for the Marguerite Shuttle. Demand
for the Marguerite shuttle increased in 2012, and the Hospitals funded the purchase of two additional
shuttles to meet this increased demand.
Section 5(c)(viii). Transportation Demand Management Coordinator
The Development Agreement requires that the Hospitals employ an onsite qualified Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Coordinator for SUMC, commencing on September 1, 2015, and continuing
through the life of the Renewal Project.
Because the Hospitals accelerated the purchase of the Caltrain GO Pass, the Hospitals also accelerated
the hiring of the TDM Coordinator. This position was filled in March 2012, and the TDM Coordinator
has been working to raise awareness among SUMC commuters about alternative transportation options
and commute incentive programs. This individual is also responsible for providing alternative commute
planning assistance and responses to customer inquiries, writing and editing electronic and print
communications, and coordinating and staffing outreach events, such as free transit pass distributions
and employee fairs; and providing alternative transportation information at new employee orientations
when requested.
Section 5(c)(ix). Monitoring of TDM Programs
The Hospitals are required to submit annual monitoring reports showing the current number of employees
employed over 20 hours per week; the number of employees using an alternative transportation mode as
documented by a study or survey to be completed by the Hospitals using a method mutually agreeable
to the City, and the efforts used by the Hospitals to attempt to achieve the Alternative Mode Targets
identified in the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement specifies payments to be made
in the event that such targets are not met during particular time periods. SUMC submitted its 2014
Alternative Mode Share Report to the City on May 30, 2014; this report shows an alternative mode split
of 34.4% for the Hospitals. As noted in the report, the 2014 mode split was calculated using a different
methodology from years past; the new weighted survey analysis methodology is intended to ensure that
the number of alternative transit users is not overstated in commute survey results, and that the commute
statistics are representative of the general Hospital employee population. This mode split exceeds the
Alternative Mode Share targets for 2018 and 2021.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
14 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
LINKAGES
To further encourage use of Caltrain, bus, and other transit services, and to enhance and encourage use
of pedestrian and bicycle connections between SUMC and Palo Alto, SUMC has funded or will fund the
following specific infrastructure improvements.
Section 5(d)(i). Intermodal Transit Fund
SUMC has provided to the City one lump sum payment of $2.25 million for improvements to enhance
the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center to the existing
intersection of El Camino Real and Quarry Road. Up to $2 million of this amount is to be used by the City
for the development of an attractive, landscaped passive park/green space with a clearly marked and
lighted pedestrian pathway, benches, and flower borders. SUMC paid the entire required amount for the
Intermodal Transit Fund on August 25, 2011. No further action is required by the SUMC to comply with
this Development Agreement provision. As required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City
will provide yearly Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures
from this fund, and the purposes for which the expenditures were used. The City is required to construct
the improvements prior to issuance of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
Section 5(d)(ii). Quarry Road Fund
SUMC has provided to the City one lump sum payment of $400,000 for improvements to and within the
public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connection from the west side of El Camino
Real to Welch Road along Quarry Road, including urban design elements and way finding, wider bicycle
lanes, as necessary, on Quarry Road, enhanced transit nodes for bus and/or shuttle stops, and prominent
bicycle facilities. SUMC paid the entire required amount for the Quarry Road Fund on August 25, 2011.
No further action is required by the SUMC to comply with this Development Agreement provision. As
required by Development Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements to the
Annual Report to provide an accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes for
which the expenditures were used. The City is required to construct the improvements prior to issuance
of the Hospital Occupancy Permit.
Section 5(d)(iii). Stanford Barn Connection
SUMC will construct up to $700,000 of improvements to enhance the pedestrian connection between
SUMC and the Stanford Shopping Center from Welch Road to Vineyard Lane, in the area adjacent to
the Stanford Barn. The SUMC is required to construct these improvements prior to issuance of the first
Hospital Occupancy permit.
ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14 15
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE, SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Section 5(e). Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing
SUMC will contribute a total amount of $23.2 million toward City of Palo Alto infrastructure, sustainable
neighborhoods and communities, and affordable housing. The Development Agreement requires this
amount to be contributed in three equal payments. The first payment, in the amount of $7,733,333, was
made on August 25, 2011; the second payment of $7,733,333 was made on December 5, 2012, following
the November 2012 issuance of the first Hospital foundation permit; and the final payment is to be
made within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit. As required by Development
Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an
accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes for which the expenditures were
used.
The City will use $1,720,488 of these funds in the same manner as funds collected under the City’s housing
fee ordinance.
COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OBLIGATIONS
CLIMATE CHANGE
Section 5(f). Climate Change Fund
SUMC will contribute a total amount of $12 million toward City projects and programs for a sustainable
community, including programs identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan, carbon credits, and
investments in renewable energy and energy conservation. The Development Agreement requires this
amount to be contributed in three equal payments. The first payment, in the amount of $4 million, was
made on August 25, 2011; the second payment of $4 million was made on December 5, 2012, following
the November 2012 issuance of the first Hospital foundation permit; and the final payment is to be
made within 30 days from issuance of the first Hospital occupancy permit. As required by Development
Agreement Section 12(d), the City will provide yearly Supplements to the Annual Report to provide an
accounting of the City’s expenditures from this fund, and the purposes for which the expenditures were
used.
SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SUMC will satisfy all Conditions of Approval by the dates and within the time periods required by the
project approvals, and has taken several steps in order to ensure that this requirement is met (Section
5(h)). The Conditions of Approval encompass conditions imposed by the Architectural Review Board,
mitigation measures enumerated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and conditions
attached to the Conditional Use Permit.
In order to implement, monitor, and report on the implementation of this diverse array of conditions,
SUMC, with input from City planning staff, has created two Excel spreadsheet tracking and reporting
tools. These spreadsheets serve as a centralized repository for compliance monitoring information and
documentation, and are updated by the SUMC project teams on a regular basis, and reviewed by the
City.
16 ANNUAL REPORT 2013-14
CONCLUSION
As the Renewal Project completes its third year, SUMC looks forward to continued engagement with the
City of Palo Alto as the project continues to forge ahead.
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 ‐ SUMC Parties’ Promises φτυχ‐υψ
υ SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2013‐2014
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
Health Care Benefits
5(a)(ii) Fund for Healthcare Services Financial assistance for Palo Alto
residents
Establishment of $3M SUMC
fund Yes
5(a)(iii) Fund for Community Health and
Safety Programs
$4M fund for selected
community health programs for
Palo Alto residents
Payment of $4M on 8/25/11 to
establish City fund Yes
Fiscal Benefits
5(b)(i), (ii) Payment of Sales and Use Taxes Activities to maximize sales and
use taxes paid to the City
General Fund sales and use tax
revenues in calendar year 2013
resulting from construction
related activities were
approximately $413,713 based
on the 2014 City Auditor’s
review of the Construction Sales
& Use Tax Monitoring Report
submitted by SUMC on June 30,
2014.
Ongoing
5(b)(iii) Funding of Operating Deficit $2.417M fund to address long‐
term deficits
Payment of $2.417M on
8/25/11 to establish fund. (B11)Yes
5(b)(iv) Payment of Utility Users Tax
5% tax on all electricity, gas and
water charges on new
construction.
No new construction
completed; tax is not applicable
at this time.
NA
5(b)(v) School Fees Payment of PAUDS fees for net
new square footage
$342,617 fee paid for LPCH and
NSH expansion in 2012. $7,051
fee paid for NSH and NSH
Garage expansion in July 2013.
Yes
ATTACHMENT B
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
B
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 ‐ SUMC Parties’ Promises φτυχ‐υψ
φ SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2013‐2014
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
$16,119 fee paid for Hoover
Medical Office Building
expansion in May 2014.
Traffic Mitigation and reduced Vehicle Trips
5(c)(ii) Menlo Park Traffic Mitigation
$3.7M payment for traffic
mitigation, infrastructure,
sustainable neighborhoods,
affordable housing
First of three $1.23M payments
made on 8/19/11. Second
payment of $1.23M made on
12/5/12. Final Payment to be
made within 30 days from
issuance of the first Hospital
Occupancy Permit.
Yes
5(c)(iii) East Palo Alto Voluntary
Mitigation
$200K for Roadway and single
improvements on University
Ave.
$200K payment made on
August 19, 2011.
Yes
5(c)(iv) Contributions to AC Transit
U‐line capital improvements,
low load factor ratios, parking
spaces at Ardenwood Park &
Ride
No activity. Payment to be made
within 30 days from issuance of
the first Hospital Occupancy
Permit.
NA
5(c)(v) Opticom Payments
$11,200 payment for Opticom
traffic control system at 7
intersections
No activity. Payment to be made
within 30 days from issuance of
the first Hospital Occupancy
Permit.
NA
5(c)(vi) CalTrain Go Passes
SUMC purchase of passes for all
hospital employees working
>20hrs/week
Go Passes have been purchased
per DA. (January 1, 2012) Yes
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 ‐ SUMC Parties’ Promises φτυχ‐υψ
χ SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2013‐2014
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
5(c)(vii) Marguerite Shuttle Service Purchase of additional shuttles
to meet demand
Purchased additional shuttle
buses for the Marguerite Shuttle
service which now includes five
renewable diesel‐electric hybrid
buses and three all‐electric
buses.
Yes
5(c)(viii)
SUMC Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)
Coordinator
SUMC hires coordinator to
promote alternative
transportation options
TDM Coordinator has been
hired. (March 2012) Yes
5(c)(ix) Monitoring of TDM Programs Yearly report regarding
alternative transit mode use
2014 Alternative Mode Share
Report submitted on May 30,
2014 indicates 34.4% of SUMC
employees using alt modes.
Yes
Linkages
5(d)(i) Intermodal Transit Fund
$2.25M payment to improve
pedestrian linkages to PA
Intermodal Transit Center
Payment of $2.25M on 8/25/11
to establish City fund. (C11) Yes
5(d)(ii) Quarry Road Fund
$400K payment to improve
pedestrian linkages along
Quarry Road
Payment of $400K on 8/25/11
to establish City fund. (D11) Yes
5(d)(iii) Stanford Barn Connection
SUMC budgets up to $700K for
pedestrian connections in the
vicinity of barn
No activity. Improvements must
be made prior to first hospital
occupancy.
NA
Table 1: Development Agreement, Section 5 ‐ SUMC Parties’ Promises φτυχ‐υψ
ψ SUMC Development Agreement Compliance: 2013‐2014
DA Section Description Summary Activity Complies?
Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities, and Affordable Housing
5(e)
Infrastructure, Sustainable
Neighborhoods and
Communities, and Affordable
Housing Fund
$23.2M payment for these uses
First of three $7.3M payments
made on 8/19/11. (E11) Second
payment of $7.3M made on
12/5/12. (E13) Final Payment to
be made within 30 days from
issuance of the first Hospital
Occupancy Permit.
Yes
Climate Change (F11, F13)
5(f) Climate Change Fund
$12M payment for climate
change‐related projects and
programs
First of three $4M payments
made on 8/19/11. (F11) Second
payment of $4M made on
12/5/12. (F13) Final Payment to
be made within 30 days from
issuance of the first Hospital
Occupancy Permit.
Yes
2013‐14 Annual Report Supplement
Prepared by the City of Palo Alto
December 19, 2014
Background and Purpose
On June 6, 2011, the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan amendments, zoning changes, a
conditional use permit, annexation and design applications for the Stanford University Medical Center
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (the “Projects”). The Projects include the construction of a
new Stanford Hospital and clinics buildings, an expansion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital,
construction of new School of Medicine buildings, renovation of the existing Hoover Pavilion,
construction of a new medical office building and parking garage at Hoover Pavilion, roadway
improvements along Welch Road and Durand Way, and SUMC design guidelines. A Development
Agreement (the “Agreement”) vesting these approvals was entered into between the SUMC Parties and
the City and was effective on June 6, 2011 and continues for thirty (30) years from the effective date.
The Agreement requires an annual report, prepared by SUMC that outlines the activities of the
preceding year and the efforts to fulfill the obligations of the Agreement.
Per the requirements of sections 12(a) and 12(c) of the Agreement, The City of Palo Alto is to prepare a
supplement to the annual report that contains an accounting of the funds described in the Section 5 of
the Agreement (“SUMC Parties’ Promises”) including the fund balances and expenditures and the
purposes for which the expenditures were used.
This annual report supplement covers the period during the third year of the Agreement: June 6, 2013
through June 6, 2014. Accounting for the funds outlined in the attachment extends through the end of
the City’s Fiscal Year 2014, June 30, 2014.
Public Benefit Fund Accounting
Attachment A to this report contains a spreadsheet of the funds received and the use of those funds
pursuant to the Agreement as of June 30, 2014. In summary, SUMC have paid approximately $32.5
million in public benefit fees to the city. The first payment of $20,800,333 on August 11, 2011 was for
the following funds:
Fund for Community Health and Safety, Project Safety Net (Section 5(a)(iii));
ATTACHMENT C
Fund for SUMC Project Operating Deficit (Section 5(b)(iii));
Fund for Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections from Intermodal Transit Center to El Camino
Real/Quarry Road Intersection (Section 5(d)(i));
Fund for Public Right of Way Improvements to Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections on
Quarry Road (Section 5(d)(ii));
Fund for Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities and Affordable Housing
(Section 5(e)), and
Fund for Sustainable Programs Benefit (Section 5(f)(i))
An additional $11,733,333 payment was made on December 5, 2012 for the following funds:
• Fund for Infrastructure, Sustainable Neighborhoods and Communities and Affordable Housing
(Section 5(e)), and
• Fund for Sustainable Programs Benefit (Section 5(f)(i))
The specific funding amounts as shown on the spreadsheet are consistent with Section 5 of the
Agreement. These funds have been assigned a unique cost center number for accounting purposes. The
spreadsheet also contains the investment earnings and the earnings allocation to the various cost
centers.
Public Benefit Fund Expenditures
Expenditures during FY 14 through June 30, 2014, as shown on the spreadsheet, were made from the
following funds:
Fund for Community Health and Safety, Project Safety Net: $131,458.78 was utilized for the Project
Safety Net program which is specifically identified in the Agreement as a community health program
that would be an appropriate program for the use of this fund. Funds spent during the reporting period
were allocated to salaries/benefits for Project Safety Net staff and other expenses relating to the
operation of the program.
Fund for Expansion Cost Mitigation (SUMC Project Operating Deficit): $1.2 million under the
“Expansion Cost Mitigation” cost center for City Capital Projects, specifically for the implementation of
the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan which is included on the approved prioritized list of
infrastructure projects.
Residential Affordable Housing Fund – Return of Maybell Loan
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation returned $720,220, which staff deposited in the Residential Housing
Fund. This amount was for the Maybell project that was overturned by voters. The funds originally
came from the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement funding to be used for
affordable housing. The $720,220 will remain in the Residential Affordable Housing Fund until an
appropriate affordable housing project is identified and the funds are approved by the City Council for
use on the project. In 2013, Council also approved a $2.6 million short‐term loan for Maybell out of the
Stanford funds. This loan was not needed, consequently the funds were not transferred to the housing
fund and they remain part of the Stanford funds.
No other expenditures were made during the reporting period from the other funds as part of the
Agreement.
City of Palo Alto
Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement (Fund 260)
Fiscal Year 2013‐14 Audited Balances
Expansion Cost Intermodal Transit Quarry Road Infrastructure & Climate Change Community Total FY 2014
Mitigation Improvements Afford Housing & Sustainability Health & Safety Actuals
cost centers 26000000 60260010 60260020 60260030 60260040 80260010
Beginning Balance 07/01/13 2,567,768.65 1,997,653.49 424,951.37 14,062,796.84 8,238,569.15 4,059,176.75 31,350,916.26
Revenues:
Revenues From Stanford ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Transfer from HIL‐Residential ‐ ‐
Interdepartment Service 3,190.86 3,190.86
Investment Earnings 760,834.41 760,834.41
Allocate to categories (760,834.41) (760,834.41)
Allocated Investment Earnings 34,665.70 50,629.95 10,770.27 356,417.49 208,804.14 99,546.87 760,834.41
Total Revenues 34,665.70 50,629.95 10,770.27 356,417.49 208,804.14 102,737.73 764,025.27
Expenditures:
Temp Salaries/Benefits 40,724.21 40,724.21
Contract Services for 27 University ‐ ‐ ‐
Contract Services 82,817.62 82,817.62
Other expenses 7,916.95 7,916.95
Transfer to Capital Projects 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00
Transfer to HIL‐Residential ‐ ‐
Transfer to HIL‐Commercial ‐ ‐
Total Expenditures 1,200,000.00 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 131,458.78 1,331,458.78
FY 2014 Revenues less Exp (1,165,334.30) 50,629.95 10,770.27 356,417.49 208,804.14 (28,721.05) (567,433.51)
Net total 06/30/2014 1,402,434.35 2,048,283.44 435,721.64 14,419,214.33 8,447,373.28 4,030,455.70 30,783,482.75
Less: Unrealized Gain/Loss 16,883.14 13,134.62 2,794.07 92,463.21 54,168.78 26,689.18 206,133.00
Reserve for Encumbrances 19,804.00 19,804.00
Net total available 06/30/2014 1,385,551.21 2,035,148.82 432,927.57 14,326,751.12 8,393,204.50 3,983,962.52 30,557,545.75
Future Revenues from Stanford:
Estimated January 2018‐1st hospital 7,733,333.00 4,000,000.00
occupancy permit
ATTACHMENT D
~!ty of Palo Alto
August 19, 2014 Office of the City Auditor
Mr. Matt Pearson
Director of Finance and Operations, Planning Design and Construction Department
Stanford University Medical Center
66 Willow Place ·
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Subject: Construction Sales & Use Tax Monitoring Report Ql 2013 -Q4 2013
Dear Mr. Pearson:
Thank you for submitting the Construction Sales & Use Tax Monitoring Report for Ql 2013 -Q4
2013 on June 30, 2014. This letter represents our response to the report, as required in the
Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement with the City of Palo Alto, Section
5(b)(ii)(B). The Development.Agreement states that the City is to 'provide its determination of
the amount of construction use taxes that it has received in the preceding calendar year, along
with documentation of the basis for the City's determination.
We determined the amount of taxes received by reviewing tax information from the State
Board of Equalization for the accounts listed in your report. The California Revenue and
Taxation Code, Section 7056, requires that sales and use tax data ren;iain confidential. As such,
the City may not disclose information on individual businesses and their tax amounts in
providing information on the determination of the amount of construction use taxes received in
the preceding calendar year.
We noted the following differences in local tax for calendar years 2011 through 2013.
Local Tax
Calendar Vear Per Stanford
2011 $10,624
2012 $57,207
2013 $417,385
Total $485,216
Printed with sov-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine
Local Tax Net
per Citv Difference
$10,624 $0
$61,100 ($3,893)
$413,713 $3,672
. $485,437 ($221)
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2667
650.329.2297 fax
Mr. Matt Pearson
Director of Finance and Operations, Planning Design and Construction Department
August 19, 2014
Page 2
The net difference is primarily comprised of offsetting taxes for the following accounts:
Local tax per Stanford less than local tax per City
102-152826 Preston Pipelines
019-684123 Redwood City Electric
102-155817 Vance Brown
Local tax per Stanford more than local tax per City
021-836959 Gonsalves & Santucci
We recommend that you request that Gonsalves & Santucci file amended tax returns for the
third and fourth quarters of 2013 with the State Board of Equalization. The detail in your report
shows that their tax returns were coded to tax area code 43998, Santa Clara County, instead of
tax area code 43006, City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has not received any taxes for these
two quarters.
If you have any questions, please contact Lisa Wehara, Performance Auditor, at 650-329-2570
or email lisa.wehara@cityofpaloalto.org.
Sincerely,
~~
Harriet Richardson
City Auditor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5423)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Second Reading - Smoking Ordinance
Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14
(Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Establish New Smoking Restrictions for Outdoor Commercial Areas, Outdoor
Eating Areas, Public Events, Work Sites and Service Locations; Include Penalty
Escalation for Repeat Offenders; Require Cigarette Butt Receptacles and
Signage Immediately Adjacent and Within Areas Covered by the Ban,
Including Designated Smoking Areas (First Reading: December 15, 2014
PASSED: 9-0)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed ordinance on second reading.
Executive Summary
The proposed ordinance would expand the City’s current Smoking and Tobacco
Regulations to include commercial areas, outdoor eating areas, public events, work sites
and service locations; include penalty escalation for repeat offenders; and require
cigarette butt receptacles and signage immediately adjacent and within areas covered
by the ban, including designated smoking areas. The ordinance was unanimously
approved (first reading) on December 15, 2014 after the City Council requested that the
issue of e-cigarettes be deferred and discussed by the Policy and Services Committee at
a future meeting (see Attachment B). As directed by the Council, the draft ordinance
has been modified to remove reference to vapor or electronic smoking devices and
make two corrections in the exceptions to be consistent with State Law. (See
Attachment A).
These changes are not sufficiently substantive to warrant another first reading by
Council.
Attachments:
A: Ordinance (DOCX)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
B: Draft Action Minutes December 15, 2014 (DOC)
Attachment A
“NOT YET APPROVED”
Ordinance No. __________
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Outdoor Smoking Restrictions in Commercial Areas and
Outdoor Dining
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
(a) That the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety
and welfare for the reasons set forth in amended section 9.14.005. The purposes of
this Ordinance are to ban smoking in commercial areas, all dining areas, and worksite
in order to reduce the risks of second hand smoke, reduce litter, and enhance
enjoyment of these areas.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.14: Smoking and Tobacco Regulations
9.14.005 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Protect the public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting smoking in public
parks, public places, service locations, city pool cars, child day care facilities, and some
unenclosed eating establishments.
(b) Ensure a cleaner and more hygienic environment within the city, reduce litter, and protect the City's natural resources, including creeks and streams.
(c) Enhance the welfare of residents, workers, and visitors by reducing exposure to second
hand smoke, which studies confirm can cause negative health effects in non-smokers.
(d) Balance the needs of persons who smoke with the needs of nonsmokers, including
children and youth, to be free from the discomforts and health threats created by exposure to second-hand smoke.
(Ord. 5207 § 2, 2013)
9.14.010 Definitions.
The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined
in this section:
(a) "Bar" means an area which is devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which serving
food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. "Bar" shall include bar areas
within eating establishments which are devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which
serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages.
(b) "City pool car" means any truck, van or automobile owned by the city and operated by a city employee. City pool car does not include vehicles operated by the police department.
(c) “Commercial Area” means an area, including all publicly owned sidewalks, alleys, parking
areas, public places, outdoor dining areas, service areas, etc. within areas zoned in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan as regional/community commercial (including Downtown, California Avenue Business District, Town and Country, and Stanford Shopping Center) and Neighborhood Commercial.
(cd) "Eating establishment" means a coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order café, luncheonette,
sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other establishment serving food to members of the
public.
(de) "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit.
(ef) "Employee eating place" means any place serving as an employee cafeteria, lunchrooms,
lounge, or like place.
(fg) "Employer" means any person who employs the services of an individual person or persons.
(gh) "Enclosed" means either closed in by a roof and four walls with appropriate openings for
ingress and egress or not open to the sky due to a cover or shelter consisting of a tarpaulin, tent
structure or other impermeable or semi-permeable materials or fabric.
(hi) "Motion picture theater" means any theater engaged in the business of exhibiting motion pictures.
(j) “Public Event” means events open to the general public, including but not limited to a
farmers’ market, parade, craft fair, festival, or any other such event.
(ik) "Public places" means enclosed areas within publicly and privately owned buildings,
structures, facilities, or complexes that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general public. Public places include, but are not limited to, stores, banks, eating establishments, bars, hotels, motels, depots and transit terminals, theaters and auditoriums, enclosed sports arenas, convention
centers, museums, galleries, polling places, hospitals and other health care facilities of any kind
(including clinics, dental, chiropractic, or physical therapy facilities), automotive service centers,
general business offices, nonprofit entity offices and libraries. Public places further include, but
are not limited to, hallways, restrooms, stairways, escalators, elevators, lobbies, reception areas, waiting rooms, indoor service lines, checkout stations, counters and other pay stations,
classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, lecture rooms, buses, or other enclosed places that are
open to, used by, or accessible to the general public.
(jl) "Service locations" means those enclosed or unenclosed areas open to, used by, or
accessible to the general public that are listed below:
(1) Bus, train and taxi shelters;
(2) Service waiting areas including, but not limited to, ticket or service lines, public transportation waiting areas, and public telephones;
(3) Areas within twenty-five feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place, where
smoking is prohibited, except when the public place is closed, between ten p.m. and six a.m., or
when the entrance or exit is for the exclusive use of employees and not accessible to the general
public;
(4) Areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas that are within twenty-five feet of bleachers, backstops, or play structures.
(km) "Smoking" means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, tobacco or any similar article
(In) "Tobacco product" means any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not
limited to cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, and smokeless tobacco.
(mo) "Tobacco store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is incidental.
(np) "Tobacco vending machine" means any electronic or mechanical device or appliance the
operation of which-depends upon the insertion of money, whether coin or paper bill, or other
thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a tobacco product and/or tobacco
accessories.
(oq) "Workplace" means any enclosed area of a structure or portion thereof used as a place of
employment as well as unenclosed workplaces, such as outdoor construction sites.
(Ord. 52.07 § 3, 2013: Ord. 4294 § 2, 1995: Ord. 4164 § 2 (part), 1993: Ord. 4056 § 4 (part),
1991)
9.14.020 Smoking prohibited - Public places. – Enclosed Places
Smoking is prohibited in all public places, unless such place is exempted pursuant to
Section 9.14.070. the Enclosed Areas of the following places within the City of Palo Alto,
except in places subject to prohibition on smoking contained in Labor Code section 6404.5, in
which case that law applies
(1) Workplaces;
(2) Public places;
Any places exempted by the California smokefree workplace law (Labor Code Section
6404.5(d)) are not exempt under this chapter. Smoking is prohibited by this chapter in all places
exempted by that State law, except as provided in 9.14.070.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.025 Smoking prohibited - Service locations. Unenclosed Areas
Smoking is prohibited in all service locations, except while passing through the service area on
the way to another destination.
(a) Smoking in all unenclosed areas defined as Service Locations shall be prohibited,
including a buffer zone within 25 feet from any doorway, window, opening, crack, or
vent into an Enclosed Area in which Smoking is prohibited, except while the Person
Smoking is actively passing on the way to another destination and provided Smoke does
not enter any Enclosed Area in which Smoking is prohibited. (b) Smoking is prohibited in unenclosed eating establishments and bars.
(Ord. 4164 § 3, 1993)
9.14.030 Smoking prohibited - City pool cars.
Smoking is prohibited in all city pool cars.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited - Public Parks and Public Events.
Smoking is prohibited in all parks, including at public events.
(Ord. 5207 § 4, 2013)
9.14.040 Smoking prohibited - Child day care facilities.
Smoking is prohibited in a private residence which is licensed as a child day care facility within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 1596.750 and Section 1596.795 and amendments.during the hours it is operated as a child day care facility and in those enclosed
areas where children may be exposed to smoke.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.050 Smoking prohibited - Fifty percent of Unenclosed eating establishments.
(a) Smoking is prohibited in a designated contiguous portion of not less than fifty percent of
the unenclosed seating area of an eating establishment.
(b) Every eating establishment shall at all times designate, and identify by posting signs
pursuant to Section 9.14.100 or by placing table top notices, a contiguous portion of the
unenclosed seating area as a nonsmoking area.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
Smoking prohibited – Commercial Areas and Public Events.
Smoking is prohibited in commercial areas, except places where smoking is already prohibited
by state or federal law, in which case those laws apply. This prohibition includes public events
held on public streets. A shopping center or commercial area may establish a designated
smoking area that is at least 25 feet away from any openings and includes receptacles to control
litter.
9.14.060 Reserved.*
* Editor's Note: Former Section 9.14.060, Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace,
previously codified herein and containing portions of Ordinance Nos. 4056 and 4164 was
repealed in its entirety by Ordinance No. 4294.
9.14.070 Exemptions.
The following places and workplaces are exempt from Section 9.14.020:
(a) Bars to the extent and in the manner provided in California Labor Code Section 6404.5; (a) Smoking at theatrical production sites is not prohibited by this subsection if the theater
general manager certifies that smoking is an essential part of the story and the use of a fake,
prop, or special effect cannot reasonably convey the idea of smoking in an effective way to
a reasonable member of the anticipated audience. This exception will not apply if minors
are performers within the production.
(b) Bingo games, consistent with prohibition on smoking contained in Labor Code section
6404.5 and licensed pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which do not permit access by
minors under eighteen years of age;
(c) Any property owned or leased by other governmental agencies;
(dc) A fully enclosed room in a hotel, motel, other transient lodging establishment similar to a
hotel, motel, or public convention center which is being used entirely for a private function and
which is not open to the general public, except while food or beverage functions are taking place,
including setup, service, and cleanup activities, or when the room is being used for exhibit
purposes, sixty-five percent of the guest rooms in a hotel, motel, or similar transient lodging establishment, and rooms within private residences when not operated as a family day care
home;
(ed) Tobacco stores with private smokers' lounges meeting the requirements of the applicable
portions of subdivision (d)(4) of Labor Code Section 6404.5.
(Ord. 4294 § 3, 1995: Ord. 4164 § 2 (part), 1993: Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines.
(a) No person shall locate, install, keep or maintain a tobacco vending machine except in a
place which under state law is not lawfully accessible to minors.
(b) This section shall become effective ninety days after its enactment. Any tobacco vending
machine not in conformance with this section upon its effective date shall be removed.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.090 Display of tobacco products for sale.
No person shall display or offer tobacco products for sale except in an area, or from within an
enclosure, which physically precludes the removal of the tobacco products without the assistance
of the person authorizing such display or offer, or an employee of such person.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.100 Posting of signs required.
With the exception of service locations, wherever this ordinance prohibits smoking,
conspicuous signs shall be posted so stating, containing all capital lettering not less than one inch
in height, on a contrasting background. Signs of similar size containing the international "no
smoking" symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it may be used in addition to or in lieu of any signs required
hereunder. Such signs shall be placed by the owner, operator, manager, or other persons having
control of such room, building, or other place where smoking is prohibited. Signs placed at each
entrance of buildings in which smoking is totally prohibited shall be sufficient.
(Ord. 4294 § 4, 1995: Ord. 4164 § 2 (part), 1993: Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.110 Enforcement.
Pursuant to Section 6 of Article IV of the Palo Alto City Charter, the city manager is hereby
granted authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter and Labor Code Section 6404.5.
(Ord. 4294 § 5, 1995)
9.14.120 Public nuisance.
Any violation of this chapter is a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with Chapter 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or Code of Civil Procedure Section 731.
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
9.14.130 Violation to be misdemeanors.
Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided in this code. Violations shall be punishable by:
(1) A fine not exceeding $250 for the first violation
(2) A fine not exceeding $300 for the second violation
(3) A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation within one year
(Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991)
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
Attachment B
Special Meeting
December 15, 2014
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council
Chambers at 5:37 P.M.
Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein arrived at 5:41, Kniss, Price,
Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd
Absent:
22. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Council for
Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking And
Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New
Smoking Restrictions for Outdoor Commercial Areas, Outdoor Eating
Areas, Public Events, Work Sites and Service Locations; Include
Penalty Escalation for Repeat Offenders; Require Cigarette Butt
Receptacles and Signage Immediately Adjacent and Within Areas
Covered by the Ban; and Include E-cigarettes.
MOTION: Council Member Price moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Kniss to
adopt an Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco
Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to:
1. Establish New Smoking Restrictions for Outdoor Commercial Areas,
Outdoor Eating Areas, Public Events, Work Sites and Service
Locations;
2. Include Penalty Escalation for Repeat Offenders; refer further
investigation of tobacco retailers licensing and indoor smoking,
including performing outreach to examine banning smoking in
multifamily residential units with shared ventilation systems;
3. Require cigarette buttr and signage immediately adjacent and within
areas covered by the ban.
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
City Council Meeting
Draft Action Minutes: 12/15/2014
INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
MAKER AND SECONDER to refer the issue of e-cigarettes to the Policy &
Services Committee for additional consideration.
AMENDMENT: Council Member Klein moved, seconded by Council Member
XXX to put e-cigarettes back in the Ordinance.
AMENDMENT FAIELD DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:11 A.M.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5458)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of Individual Review at 3864 Corina Way
Title: Appeal of Director of Planning and Community Environment’s
Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 3864 Corina
Way
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council decline to hear the appeal (Attachment B) of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment (Director)’s approval (Attachment A) of an Individual
Review (IR) application for a new two-story home at 3864 Corina Way, thereby upholding
(affirming) the Director’s decision.
Executive Summary
This item involves an appeal of the Director’s approval of a Single Family Individual Review (IR)
application for a new two-story, five-bedroom, four-bathroom home with attached two-car
garage to be located on a 7,659 square foot (sf) corner lot within the flood plain in the Adobe
Meadows neighborhood. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.77.075(g),
four or more Council Members’ votes would be needed to remove this item off the consent
calendar to set the matter for a future hearing.
The appellants, Ted and Jamie Stephens, who reside in the one-story home at 3860 Corina Way,
are concerned about the size, style and placement of the home, as well as the potential privacy
impacts. The proposed home site is the northeasterly corner of the cul de sac at Corina Way.
The appellants had submitted two letters during the review process that began July 2013,
followed by this appeal letter (Attachment B). The appellants had also signed a letter from the
neighborhood during the initial 21-day comment period. The project plans were revised several
times during the course of the City’s review process in an effort to address neighbor concerns
and to ensure conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines.
The December 18, 2014 Director’s approval letter (Attachment A) found that the revised
project is in compliance with the IR guidelines and R-1 Zone development standards. IR review
does not prevent second stories. Instead it is aimed at ensuring the second story does not
City of Palo Alto Page 2
impact the privacy and livability of adjacent homes. The height of the proposed home is 7’8”
below the allowed height on this property, given that the property is located within the flood
plain and the finished floor must be placed 2’6” above grade.
The approval letter describes the plan revisions made following the Director’s Hearing. Staff
mailed a second letter (an attachment to Attachment A) after the appeal was received to
correct errors in the approval letter; specifically, correcting dates, the spelling of the appellants’
last name, and the current status of the property as a vacant lot. The errata letter does not alter
the substantive conclusions of the Director’s determination.
The appeal letter restates the appellants’ concern regarding, generally:
the home’s compliance with the Privacy guideline (IR Guideline Five);
the visual and privacy intrusion of a two story home adjacent to the appellants’ home;
a trend of larger homes appearing in neighborhoods containing smaller homes;
the use of the code to define the setbacks, rather than the location of the home’s
entrance, with a statement of the appellants’ belief that staff’s setback determination is
inaccurate; and
the need for story poles to show the proposed building envelope, where these are not
currently required by the Zoning Code or IR process.
The Discussion section of this report provides bulleted lists of specific issues with the IR
Guidelines, as conveyed in the appeal (and via the appellants’ December 4, 2014 letter,
Attachment C) and summary responses to these issues.
Background
The City’s Individual Review (IR) procedure provides for City Council “call up” of appeals. When
the Director approves an IR application after a Director’s Hearing and a directly affected
property owner appeals the decision, the project is placed before Council on the consent
calendar for final action. If four Council members vote to remove the project from the consent
calendar, a hearing by City Council would be scheduled for a subsequent date. Otherwise, the
item may be approved on consent calendar, so that the Director’s decision stands and no
hearing is held. If the Council agrees to hear an appeal, a hearing is scheduled as soon as
practical (PAMC 18.77.075).
Project Description and Director’s Approval Process
The proposed home would have 3,015 sf of floor area and a maximum height of 23’7”. The
7,658 sf, vacant lot is located within the flood plain, such that the finished first floor of the
home must be placed at topographical height 10’6”, the based flood elevation, or
approximately 2’6” above the average grade. The flood plain status would allow the building
height to reach 31’3” above grade, per Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.12.040; the proposed
building height is 7’8” below the allowable, maximum height for this property.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
As shown above, the subject property is a corner site abutting three neighboring properties.
The appellants’ property’s interior side property line is coterminous with the subject property’s
interior side (and not its rear) property line. There is one cul-de-sac property abutting the rear
property line and another property’s rear corner touches a corner of the subject property. An
excerpt of the site plan is provided below, to help clarify this relationship.
The zoning code sets forth, in both written and illustrated format, how to determine a corner
property’s rear and side property lines (illustrated in PAMC Chapter 18.04 as corner lot
Front
Yard/
front
lot line Rear
yard
Street side yard
Interior side yard
Appellants’ property
Appellant’s property has no rear property
line, only side property lines
Applicant’s property’s interior side line abuts the
Appellant’s interior side line, according to PAMC
Applicant’s rear property line ->
City of Palo Alto Page 4
diagram, Attachment D). PAMC 18.04.030 Definitions, item 91 (A) states, “Front lot line
means… on a corner lot, the shorter lot line abutting a street…” and item 91 (C) states, “Rear lot
line means the lot line not intersecting a front lot line which is most distant from and most
closely parallel to the front lot line. A lot bounded by only three lot lines will not have a rear lot
line.” The appellants’ property has no rear lot line; the appellants’ rear yard is a triangular
portion measured from the rear point of the lot (per 18.04.030 (146)(C), which states that the
20 foot rear yard depth is “measured into the lot from the rearmost point of the lot depth to a
line parallel to the front lot line.”)
This site’s setback determination was made early in the process, following the zoning code
specifications. The street side line is the cul-de-sac because it is the longer of the two Corina
frontages.
The proposed project was revised several times over the course of the City’s review process in
an effort to address neighbor concerns and to ensure conformance with the City’s IR
Guidelines. The appellants were mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project,
and were emailed each time revised plans were submitted to request timely comments. Letters
from the appellants are contained in the project file (dated July 20, 2013, August 1, 2013, and
December 4, 2014).
The initial, tentative Director’s decision of October 14, 2014 was the subject of the Director’s
hearing on December 4, 2014. Following the hearing, the hearing officer modified one
condition (Condition #6), and inserted two additional conditions (Conditions #7 and #8) as part
of the Director’s approval. The Assistant Planning Director, as the hearing officer on behalf of
the Director, acted on the application within the code-prescribed timeline following the
Director’s Hearing.
Initial Submittal
The applicant submitted the IR application for a two-story home with attached, two-car garage
on July 1, 2013. Staff reviewed the plans for compliance with the City’s R-1 Zone Development
Standards and IR guidelines, and provided comments to the applicant in a letter on August 1,
2013 citing the reasons the application was incomplete and why the initial design did not meet
all of the IR Guidelines.
The appellants, with their neighbors, submitted a formal written letter on July 20, 2013,
commenting on the proposal. The letter includes a statement that the home would be
incompatible because it was of an “ultra-modern, linear design, and would be two times the
size of the homes in the neighborhood, and tower over them.” The appellants and their
neighbors also cited a privacy concern due to the proposed balconies. Staff forwarded the
concerns to the applicant, and met with the appellants, who requested an extension of the
initial comment period to August 7th. The appellants then submitted a second letter on August
1, 2013, discussing the privacy, massing and streetscape of the proposed home with respect to
the IR Guidelines. This letter was also transmitted to the applicant.
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Revisions
In May 2014, staff reached out to the applicant and learned that revisions were still underway.
Two revised plans were submitted in the summer and fall of 2014. The first revised plan set,
dated August 15, 2014, was not approved. The second revised plan set, dated October 2, 2014,
was tentatively approved by the Chief Planning Official, acting as the Director’s designee. The
revisions address many of the appellant’s initial concerns. Specifically, the appellants’
comments in September 2014 were addressed with reductions in the overall height and living
room volume, reducing the mass of the building, and ensuring that the footprint at the first and
second levels maintains substantial clearance to the daylight plane on all sides (as seen in the
streetscape drawing). In addition, the use of varied materials and projecting elements served
to soften the building mass and provide scale and horizontality. The tentative approval letter
alerted recipients about the 14-day hearing request period. Prior to the effective date of the
approval, the appellant requested a Director’s Hearing.
Director’s Hearing
The Director’s Hearing was held on December 4, 2014, continued from November 24, 2014. The
hearing was properly noticed, and the applicant and appellant attended the hearing, along with
neighbors. The appellants’ December 4, 2014 letter regarding the design was presented at the
Director’s Hearing and is attached to this report (Attachment C).
After the Director’s Hearing, one condition of approval was amended and two were added. The
Director’s decision letter of December 18, 2014 (Attachment A, as amended by the attached
January 8, 2015 “errata” letter), includes the approval conditions. The amended Approval
Condition #6 requires Director review of “a combination of trees and climbing vines on the
building wall to soften the building” and the new conditions are as follows:
Condition 7: Obscured glazing is required for windows adjacent to the east side yard on
the second floor. The obscure glazing shall be required up to six-feet in height,
measured from the finished floor. The windows may be awning-style windows or fixed.
Condition 8: The trees in the rear yard are to remain, or if they are to be removed,
comparable replacement screening vegetation shall be planted subject to approval of
the Director.
Appeal
On January 5, 2015, the appellant submitted this appeal (Attachment B), which indicates that
the appellant believes that:
the City should require a 20 foot setback to the building from their shared property line,
and that the property setbacks were not property determined, because the home’s
front entry faces the cul de sac (the street side property line) and the front entry
City of Palo Alto Page 6
placement should determine the rear setback (however, this shared property line is
code-defined as the interior side property line as shown on Attachment D);
the project does not meet IR Guideline #5 (the privacy guideline), particularly with
respect to noise, due to the placement and orientation of the first floor deck that results
in a ten foot separation between the proposed deck and the appellants’ patio;
the size of the proposed home is too large (1,000 sf larger than the neighboring homes),
with a boxy, rectangular “commercial” appearance contrasting with neighboring homes;
the staff opinions appear subjective, as the letter used the terms “fair, rather modest,
modest to moderate, and fairly well”;
the yard sign notice of the project was not continually posted during the entire process;
the proposal represents a trend of the “invasion of large homes” and the appellants ask
how to make sure the City is not setting precedents that will create long term impacts;
the Council should ask the staff to (1) review the setback requirements, (2) require the
applicant to erect story poles, and (3) provide the appellant with an alternative
approach that doesn’t “invade privacy”.
The appeal letter also refers to the appellant’s earlier letter of December 4, 2014 (Attachment
C), which includes an analysis of the project with respect to all five IR guidelines (“over 16 ways
the home does not meet the guidelines”).
Discussion
The IR program applies to construction of two-story homes and second story additions, and is
intended to mitigate effects on neighboring homes (Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.12.110(a)).
Development applications subject to IR must be consistent with these guidelines (PAMC
§ 18.12.110(d)). The IR program is “intended only to mitigate the effects of second story
construction” (PAMC § 18.12.110(a)). The IR program does not have a provision to deny second
story additions or two-story homes because the neighborhood is developed with one-story
homes. Only implementation of a single story overlay rezoning could prevent the construction
of a two-story home.
Errata
Attached to the approval letter (Attachment A) is the errata letter to correct errors identified
on the first page of the appeal letter, to reflect that:
The date of the Director’s Hearing was December 4th, not November 24, 2014;
The date of the Director’s letter was December 18th, not December 4, 2014;
The name of the requesters of the Directors Hearing is Stephens, not Stevens; and
The project site is a vacant lot (in the project description).
Staff has apologized to the applicant and the appellant for the errors, which were are result of
staffing changes over the holidays. The errata letter does not change the substance or date of
the Director’s decision or affect the appeal process in any material way.
IR Guidelines and Appellant’s Position
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Two story homes are reviewed by staff to ensure they meet all five of the IR guidelines and
comply with the R-1 Zone District regulations for development. The IR guidelines include
criteria related to: basic site planning (Guideline #1); neighborhood compatibility for height,
mass and scale (Guideline #2); resolution of architectural form, massing and rooflines
(Guideline #3); visual character of street facing facades and entries (Guideline #4); and
placement of second-story windows and decks for privacy (Guideline #5). The attached
checklist (Attachment E) provides “at a glance” IR Guidelines and associated Key Points that are
contained and illustrated in the IR Guidelines
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6479.
The appeal letter identifies Guideline 5 in particular, as having not been met by the proposed
design. However, in the appeal, the appellants also reference their December 4, 2014 letter
(Attachment C), which they had submitted to the hearing officer that day. The December letter
discusses the IR Guideline goals with respect to the proposed home, and contains charts
describing the appellants’ analysis of the project with respect to all five IR Guidelines.
Below is a summary of the appellants’ arguments and staff’s responses in italics.
Guideline 1: Basic Site Planning
The appellants’ chart, contained in their December 4th letter, reviews the project with respect
to the IR Guideline #1 Key Points, stating that:
the floor plan is boxy resulting in high impact mass;
the upper floor is not carefully positioned, that the north elevation is prominent when
compared to adjacent neighbors;
the prominent upper floor is intrusive to neighbors and is intended to stand out and is
significantly larger, in a different and more commercial style than homes in the vicinity;
and
nearly 700 sf additional ground floor level area is available but unused and, though the
second floor is partially setback, the northern elevation is still prominent and a visual
impact.
The design changes over the year of this process resulted in a shift of the building mass toward
the street, away from the interior lot lines, to provide a greater distance to the second floor
mass and orient the balcony toward the street. The second floor is now positioned to minimize
its impact on both the abutting lot and the view from the street corner.
Guideline 2: Neighborhood Compatibility
The appeal letter notes that the appellants have repeatedly requested the placement of story
poles to indicate the outline of the proposed home.
Staff does not require story poles for two story homes in the R-1 zone, since the Zoning Code
does not require them. They are expensive and would not be beneficial to resolving the issues
City of Palo Alto Page 8
raised here. The appellants note that they had reviewed the revised (current) plans with
neighbors, and included the neighbors’ comments as Attachment 1 of the appeal letter.
The appellants’ chart, contained in their December 4th letter, reviews the project with respect
to the IR Guideline #2 Key Points, stating that:
the overall height, flat roof and vertical height on the northern elevation conflict;
the scale of the upper floor and height, at twice the height of neighboring homes, make
the home incompatible with the neighborhood, as does the style (stacked boxes, which
creates a “lack of balance”); and
the adjacent homes are significantly overwhelmed by the height, boxy massing and
sharp contrasts of the proposed home, such that the applicant could have (a) included
more area at the first floor level, (b) reduced the strong vertical elements, particularly
on the northern elevation, despite the flood plain restriction, and (c) used a sloped roof
to better manage perceived height and scale.
The proposed design reflects a modern style of architecture. The style is different from
surrounding ranch-style architecture, however, the design is sensitive to surrounding properties
in that it focuses the mass away from residences, has a reduced height, and has obscure glazing
adjacent to the appellant’s property to further reduce privacy impacts. A portion of the house is
one-story and the one-story volumes are relatively low in height as well as set forward of the
second floor as suggested in the IR Guidelines, to lessen the home’s perceived scale as seen from
the street.
The Individual Review program is not intended to be a “design review” program that dictates
specific architectural styles. A variety of styles are common in the subdivisions of Palo Alto, and
many neighborhoods have a variety of styles presented within the neighborhood. Similarly,
there are other neighborhoods that consist of single-story, tract homes of a similar or the same
style.
Guideline 3: Resolution of architectural form
The appellants’ chart, contained in their December 4th letter, reviews the project with respect
to the IR Guideline #3 Key Points, stating that:
the home features odd second floor extensions that increase massing toward the
easterly and northeasterly neighbors;
the second floor is heavily weighted to the north, and does not balance against the
smaller southern portion; and
the masses are not well-proportioned and extend the scale in odd ways to promote the
interior floor plan, with decorative elements that create clutter (but are not shown in
the streetscapes), and the second floor is devoid with most elements appearing as a
monolithic block, and as a stucco, wood and concrete view across 60% of the property
line, affecting enjoyment and livability.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
The approval condition #6, modified following the Director’s Hearing to help mitigate the
concern regarding the wall facing the appellants, will result in the installation of climbing vines
in addition to screen trees to soften that elevation. Overall, the massing is composed with
unified forms and uses horizontal canopies and roof edges to accentuate horizontal proportions.
Guideline 4: Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries
The appellants’ chart, contained in their December 4th letter, reviews the project with respect
to the IR Guideline #4 Key Points, stating that:
the neighbors had expressed their opinion that the street facing façade is unattractive,
based on the building materials, the box-like elements, and the use of a front balcony.
As noted, during the process, more of the mass was placed toward the street to reduce mass
from placement along the interior lot lines. The balcony is proposed where it would have the
least impact upon the privacy of the abutting properties, and the IR program allows for a variety
of architectural styles. Facades are developed in a fashion stylistically consistent with the
building forms and with a close use of line, window composition and materials, as discussed and
illustrated within the IR Guidelines.
Guideline 5: Privacy
The appeal letter notes that noise will carry (conversations, private family activities and
celebrations) from the proposed deck across the 10 foot distance to the appellants’ existing
patio. The appellants’ chart, contained in their December 4th letter, also reviews the project
with respect to the IR Guideline #5 Key Points, stating that:
to address privacy issues, the applicants created a nearly monolithic, street facing,
second story wall with very few windows; and
the second story balcony on the northern side of the home may create privacy impacts
which cannot be known unless story poles are erected.
Second story windows facing the appellants’ property are narrow vertical windows, or high sill
horizontal windows, sufficient to provide visual relief from wall surfaces, while not impacting
privacy. The building itself (bedroom 3) blocks any view from the upstairs balcony towards the
appellants’ property. The two approval conditions added following the Director’s Hearing also
help mitigate privacy concerns, as follows:
Approval Condition #7 regarding the employment of obscured glazing on the second
floor windows facing the appellants’ property benefits the appellants and should address
their visual privacy concern.
Approval Condition #8 regarding retention of existing trees or replacement with
comparable screening vegetation per Director approval benefits the home to the rear
(the northern side) and should address the privacy concern there.
City of Palo Alto Page 10
In a suburban setting with these larger lot sizes, it is reasonable to expect that the side yards
and rear yards will be used for outdoor living, and that outdoor space would be located near
neighboring property lines. The privacy guideline only regulates the placement of second story
windows and second story decks (and balconies) as illustrated in the Guidelines. The deck at the
first floor along the interior side is tucked into the building footprint and does not extend to the
full allowance of three feet from property line; it is set back at least 10 feet from the common
property line with the appellant, and vegetation between the deck and the property line will
provide visual screening. The noise ordinance addresses noise violations.
Additional Response to Appeal
Brief responses are provided below (in italics) to address the points raised in the appellant’s
January 5, 2015 appeal letter:
The City should require a 20 foot setback to the building from their shared property line,
and the property setbacks were not property determined. The shared property line is
code-defined as the interior side property line as shown on Attachment D.
The project does not meet IR Guideline #5 about privacy due to the placement and
orientation of the first floor deck. See the discussion of Guideline #5 above.
The proposed home is too large (1,000 sf larger than the neighboring homes), with a
boxy, rectangular “commercial” appearance. “Too large” is a relative term, but is
understandable given that the new home is in a neighborhood context of Mid-Century
Modern Patio Houses. The flat roof form does create a more boxy appearance than a
pitched roof, but horizontal and vertical offsets, long canopies at window tops, ribbon
and corner windows, and horizontal material patterns on walls help reduce the
perception of visual mass. The proposed home does not exceed the R-1 zoning code
standards for floor area and lot coverage for the site. As noted, the design was modified
since the original submittal to reduce the perceived mass and scale of the building,
including its height and balcony size. Also, the horizontal proportions and use of
horizontal lines fits with the neighborhood. Given the existing neighboring homes, which
have slab-on-grade construction in the flood zone, any significant changes to
neighboring homes will result in taller structures, even if one story homes are proposed,
given the requirement for the placement of finished floor above the base flood elevation.
Staff opinions appear subjective, using the terms “fair, rather modest, modest to
moderate, and fairly well.” Compliance with the IR guidelines is subjective. These terms
do not reflect bias but rather, a perspective on how the project is consistent with the
guidelines.
The yard sign notice of the project was not continually posted during the entire process.
The code requires that the yard sign be placed initially to ensure neighbors are aware of
the submittal and where, when and to whom to send comments during the initial 21 day
period. The code (PAMC 18.77.075(b)) does state that the sign shall be posted at the
subject property until approval, denial or withdrawal of the application. Due to the
extended time between the applicant’s first submittal and resubmittal (one year), the
sign may have been removed during that time. However, the staff member who
City of Palo Alto Page 11
processed the application (no longer with the City) was in contact with the appellants
and other neighbors during the process, as evidenced by emails in the project file.
The proposal represents a trend of the “invasion of large homes” and sets precedents
that will create long term impacts. Each home design is evaluated during the Single
Family Individual Review process in context of the neighborhood with respect to the IR
guidelines; there is no legal precedent set by a single project.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Neither the IR Guidelines nor the R-1 Zoning Code requires the first floor area to be “maxed
out” to take up all of the available lot coverage. While the guidelines do address visual privacy
intrusion, noise intrusion is not expressed as an issue to address in either the Guidelines or
Zoning Code. Noise is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance. Also, it is not uncommon for
outdoor space to be located near neighboring property lines given parcel sizes, lot
configurations, and setbacks in Palo Alto. The City does not require story poles pursuant to the
IR process or Zoning Code for R-1 neighborhoods.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Attachments:
Attachment B: Corina Way IR appeal (PDF)
Attachment A: Director's Approval Letter (PDF)
Attachment C: December 4 Appellants' Letter (PDF)
Attachment E: Guideline Checklist v4 (DOCX)
Attachment D: Illustration of Setbacks (PDF)
SINGLE-FAMILY INDIVIDUAL REVIEW (IR)
Guidelines’ Key Points Checklist
The following checklist is intended to help staff ensure a project’s compliance with the
City of Palo Alto’s Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines. These Key Points,
illustrated in the Guidelines booklet, are techniques intended to help projects meet all five
Guidelines. Some are not applicable to new two story homes and some are not relevant
to second floor additions. This checklist should be used by applicants to communicate how a new single
family home or second floor addition will meet the five guidelines for approval in accordance with Zoning
Code Section 18.12.110(d). It is the responsibility of the applicant to complete and submit this checklist
with all other required materials during the application intake meeting. Staff may make further notations
on the checklist during the review process, as applicable. If a key point is not relevant to a project, the
“N/A” box can be checked.
Project Address: ________________________________ Date: _____________________
Checklist completed by: _____________________________________________________
Guideline 1: Site Planning Key Points
Approval Criterion: The driveway, garage and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s
existing site patterns (i.e. building footprint configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage
and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscape and pedestrian entry as seen from the street.
Technique
Used N/A Guideline 1 Key Points
Locate driveways and minimize paving to diminish the driveway’s presence and to
highlight yards and pedestrian entryways.
Locate garages to be minimally visible or significantly less prominent than the house.
Attached garages could be a one-car garage, narrower in width relative to the house,
setback from the house’s front façade, or otherwise subordinated to the house.
Configure the site plan and footprint of the house so it is a “custom fit” with the
neighborhood. Avoid imposing a compact rectangular building footprint on the site if
adjacent homes have sprawling, elongated or irregularly shaped footprints.
Create landscaped open space between homes to respond to the neighborhood context.
Locate an upper floor well back from the front façade and/or away from side lot lines if the
home is adjacent to small or one-story homes.
Avoid placing a second story such that it would emphasize the garage.
Explanation (if needed): ______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Staff Use Only Project Number: _______________________
Project Planner: ________________________________ Review Date: __________________
Guideline 2: Height, Mass and Scale Key Points
Approval Criterion: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or
upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to
the height and massing of adjacent homes.
Technique
Used N/A Guideline 2 Key Points
Avoid overwhelming adjacent one-story homes with large masses, monumental forms and
sharp contrasts in height. Incorporate a lower height and profile and place more floor area
on the first level than the second level whenever possible.
Avoid first floor levels placed high above ground level, tall wall planes, boxy forms, and
strong vertical elements, which accentuate mass and scale.*
Avoid a significant height contrast between adjacent roof edges including single-story roof
edges.
Place floor area within the roof volume to mitigate height, mass and scale.
Locate smaller volumes in front of large volumes or choose appropriate roof pitches and
forms to manage perceived height.
Avoid large unused attics and tall ceiling heights at perimeter walls. Instead, use the
underside of the roof form to define ceilings to provide interior volume.
*Flood plain properties – when a high first finished floor is required and a new two story home is proposed adjacent to an
existing one story home(s), additional techniques may be needed, such as placing a greater percentage of floor area at the
ground floor than the second floor, and lowering plate heights at all floors.
Explanation (if needed): ______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Guideline 3: Form and Rooflines Key Points
Approval Criterion: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass, and
distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale and proportion of
primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to
principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building.
Technique
Used N/A Guideline 3 Key Points
Avoid forcing building mass and rooflines to fit a detailed or interior design-driven floor
plan. Test roof layouts and massing profiles early in the design process and adjust floor
plans to create the best three-dimensional design.
Consider using the vocabulary of a particular architectural style to define a home’s visual
form, compose its massing and determine roof pitches, eave lines and details.
Avoid awkwardly placed second floor additions, poorly combined roof forms and
inconsistent roof slopes when planning an addition. Primary and secondary volumes
should be carefully proportioned and spaced for a unified design.
A good basic massing strategy is to use a few simple, well-proportioned masses accented
with a few smaller elements, such as bay windows or dormers. Using too many elements
can create clutter.
Adjust roof layout, ridge orientation, and roof pitch; vary eave lines, and lower eave height
facing the street or adjacent homes, where beneficial to reduce mass and enhance form.
Explanation (if needed): ______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Guideline 4: Facades and Entries
Approval Criterion: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression
(i.e the composition and articulation of walls, fenestration and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and the
supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and
integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door
design shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home.
Technique
Used N/A Guideline 4 Key Points
New facades and additions should have a unified visual character, not a collection of
fragmented forms and elements. Give special attention to elevations on the side of the
house and corners that may be highly visible from the street.
When composing facades, employ a clear use of line, order, hierarchy, and stylistically
consistent windows, and give attention to proportion and adequate spacing between visual
focal points.
To add visual interest and character to the design, incorporate architecturally distinctive
eaves, window patterns, shapes or groupings and use of materials.
Avoid using over-scaled or monumental entries that aggressively stand out on the house
or in relationship to other houses in the neighborhood due to size, height or vertical
proportion. Where there is a prevailing neighborhood pattern for an entry type, such as
front porches or entry courts, that entry type should be considered for the design.
Design garages, garage door openings and door panels to be modest in scale and
architecturally integrated with the home, when garages are visible from the street.
Explanation (if needed): ______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Guideline 5: Windows and Decks Key Points
Approval Criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight
lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity.
Technique
Used N/A Guideline 5 Key Points
Gather information on neighboring homes and yards and locate potential privacy-sensitive
areas on your site plan before you design.
Design the house to mitigate possible privacy impacts by providing non-transparent
glazing, significant landscaping, permanent architectural screens or sufficient distance
between houses. When necessary to achieve greater privacy, re-orient the direction of
windows or decks or adjust window size or sill height.
Avoid windowless building walls, especially walls visible from the street. Use smaller upper
floor windows and/or selective glazing at privacy sensitive locations. Windows may still
remain operable, particularly for ventilation for bathrooms and egress for bedrooms.
Second story decks are permitted only to the extent that they result in minimal loss of
privacy to side or rear facing properties. Deck size and potential use may be considered in
determining potential loss of privacy.
Explanation (if needed): ______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5479)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: PA Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future - Req.
continuation
Title: Palo Alto Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future (Staff Requests
Item be Continued to the Study Session of March 2, 2015)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommended Motion
Staff recommends that Council continue the discussion regarding development of the next
generation of shuttle and/or rideshare program to a Study Session on March 2, 2015, to allow
staff time to prepare.
Executive Summary
In the context of their discussion of a “phase two” expansion of the City’s Shuttle Program on
October 27th, the City Council adopted the following amendment to their motion, which was
continued to December 1, 2015:
“Direct staff to come up with a plan for convenient, easy to use shuttle and/or
rideshare program that provides mobility for around the entire city and [is] more
convenient than driving.”
Staff has interpreted this as Council direction to develop an expanded vision for the City’s
shuttle program. Continuing this discussion to March 2, 2015 will provide staff with time to
prepare, and to implement the “phase two” service expansions that were approved at the
October 27th meeting:
Increasing service on the Crosstown Shuttle Route to provide 30 minutes headways.
Soliciting private-sector funding to offset the costs of a new West Shuttle Route from
the University Caltrain Station into the Shoreline Business District in the City of
Mountain View.
Staff is currently reaching out to potential funding partners, working on contracts and
agreements to implement the increases in service discussed, and assembling additional data
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and information to respond to the Council’s request for additional metrics and a user friendly
app.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5444)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Weed Abatement Resolution
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and
Setting March 2nd, 2015 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed
Weed Abatement
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Fire
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Adopt the attached resolution declaring weeds to be a public nuisance and setting
March 2, 2015 for a public hearing; and
2) Direct staff to publish a notice of hearing in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Background
On March 21, 1977, the City Council approved an agreement with Santa Clara County for the
administration of weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto. This agreement has reduced
the City’s costs and staff time required for administration of weed abatement. For the past 36
seasons, the weed abatement program has been expeditiously carried out by the County
Department of Agriculture and Resource Management with results satisfactory to Palo Alto
residents.
Discussion
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 specifies weed abatement procedures. The chapter
requires property owners or occupants to remove certain weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010
that exist upon their premises, public sidewalks, streets or alleys. It also specifies the
procedures to be followed to abate weeds, in the event owners do not remove them. These
procedures are:
- Resolution of the City Council declaring weeds to be a public nuisance. This
resolution sets the time and place for hearing any objections to the proposed weed
abatement.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
- Public Notice. This notice informs property owners of the passage of the resolution
and provides that property owners shall remove weeds from their property, or the
abatement will be carried out by Santa Clara County (County). The City then
publishes a legal advertisement in the local newspaper announcing the date of the
public hearing.
- Public Hearing. The Council must conduct a public hearing, at which time any
property owner may appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or
removal. After the City Council hearing and considering any objections the Council
may allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are overruled, the Council
is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to proceed, at which point the County will
be asked to perform the work of destruction and removal of weeds.
The action taken by the Council at the February 2, 2015 meeting will set the public hearing date
for March 2, 2015.
Resource Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The City of Palo Alto administers the
weed abatement program with the County Department of Agriculture and Resource
Management with a minimal amount of staff time. All charges for the weed abatement
services are included as a special assessment on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots
and parcels of land. Such charges are considered liens on these properties.
The Weed Abatement Program is a cost recovery program and does not receive funding from
City or County general funds.
Policy Implications
This procedure is consistent with existing City policies.
Environmental Review
The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be
categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308.
Attachments:
Weed Abatement Resolution 2-2-2015 (DOCX)
SCC2015WeedAbateProgCommenceRep (PDF)
** NOT YET APPROVED **
Resolution No. ----
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring
Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting March 2, 2015 for a
Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed
Weed Abatement
WHEREAS, weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and
parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance
as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to
the public health as noxious or dangerous.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks,
and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to
constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets,
alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described,
and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office
of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the
description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the
several maps aforesaid, and, in the event of , there being several subdivision maps on which the
same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map.
SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be
abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the
2nd day of March, 2015, at the hour of 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, at the Council Chambers of the Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear
objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due
consideration;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is
directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter
8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 3. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and
removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa
Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Office on behalf of the City of Palo
Alto, and the expenses thereof assessed upon the lots and lands from which, and/or in the front
and rear of which, such weeds shall have been destroyed and removed.
** NOT YET APPROVED **
SECTION 4. The Santa Clara County, County Counsel has determined the Weed
Abatement Program to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________________ ______________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________________ _______________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
________________________________
Director of Administrative Services
_________________________
Fire Chief
2015 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OFPALO Al TO
Situs AP'( EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE
1119 FLFE AV 003-21-063 JUE, KENNETH R P OBOX83 PALO ALTO CA 94302-0083
93] GUThlJA ST 003-34-006 "GOUYET, ALBERT AND CALISA C 931 GUlliTIA ST PALO ALTO CA 94301-3H9
258 MIDDLEFIELD RD •120-02.-017 "CHAPIN, RONALD V TRUSTEE" 258 MIDDLEFI3LD RD PALO ALTO CA 94301-D42
733 RAMONA ST 120-27-063 "KODA, ROSS K TRUSTEE" P OBOX 156 SOUTH DOS PALOS CA 93E65
435 SEALE AV 124-09-•J29 ''BOWERS, THOMAS A TRUSTEE & ET 435 SEALE AV PALO ALTO CA 94'.:01'-3828
2225 ALMA ST 124-20-001 "LEE, STEPHEN AND YVETTE C" 2225 ALMAST PALO ALTO CA 94'.:0L-3905
425 STANFORD AV 124-3~-027 "NICHOLLS, MARIEL" 425 STANFORD AV PALO ALTO CA 94306-1149
739 COLORADO AV 127-34-101 "HUANG, HSING YET AL" 757 SEMINOLE Vv'Y PALO ALTO CA 943C3-4723
780 CLARA DR 127-35-030 "BANQUE, RAYMOl<D J'' 7&0 CLARA DR PALO ALTO CA 94303-3;105
3101 MCDDLEFIILD RD 127-53-007 FlSHERLLC 3101 MIDDLEFIELD RD PALO ALTO CA 94306
3085 MCDDLEFIE:,D RD 127-53-008 WINDY IDLL PY 3 LP 530 EMERSON ST PALO ALTO CA 94301
609 ASHTON AV 132-04-102 "DOROTHEA, DIANA'' 509 ASIITON AV PALO ALTO CA 94306-3610
3489 COV'v'FER ST 132-05-108 "MC CALLEY, RODERlCK. C ET AL" 3489 COWPER ST PALO ALTO CA 94306-3617
3 15 .o-=.rvE AV 132-32-029 "SM111{, BOYD C AND JL.,::, J 3201 ASH ST PALO ALTO CA 94306
0 OLIVE AV 132-32-037 Sl 43 LLC 10600N DE ANZ.A BL STE 200 CUPERTINO CA 953l4
195 PAGE MILL RD 132-32-C54 HOHBACH REALTY CO LP 29 LO~RYDR ATHERTON CA 94027
0 132-33-050 AT&T Communi~ations ATT: Kichard S. 870 N. MCARTHY BL VD. MILPITAS CA 95035-5125
325 FERNJ\NDC AV 132-34-012 "REHABILITATIO~ HOUSNG 1796 BAY RD EAST PALO ALTO CA 94303
290 iV.ATADERO AV 132-34-032 "RUEHL, KARL KAND SIGRID T 2391 GABRIEL AV MOONTAN VTEW CA 940i0-!415
405 CCRTNER 132-41-072 CURTNER INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 18801 BELGROVE CL SARATOGA CA 95070
4035 EL CAMINO \VY 132-43<39 PALO AL TO COMMONS 664 GILY1AN ST PALO ALTO CA 94301
4073 ELCAMlliO 132-46-107 ETON CAPITAL LLC 252 1 SOUTH CT PALO ALTO CA 94301-4241
2321 'PELLESLEY ST 137-02-024 "CCLPEPPER, JAMES A TRUSTEE" 2121 AMJERSTST PALO ALTO CA 9L3Q6-1205
23 records of 47 Santa Clara County Weed A.batementProgram Page 1
. ···.·· • ., .••. ,.,.__ ___ ,..,_. -,· •· -··•.-.•.••··.·,-• .•r••:ii. ': ' -.:;i·.• ·~
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5482)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: SECOND READING: Municipal Public Art Ordinance
Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Governing Public Art in
Municipal Projects (First Reading: January 12, 2015, PASSED: 9-0)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Executive Summary
The item passed on the January 12, 2015 consent calendar without comments or
changes.
Attachments:
ATTACHMENT A: Public Art for Municipal Projects Ordinance (DOC)
NOT YET APPROVED
150122 sh 0140129 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Municipal Code
to add Section 2.26.070 (Public Art for Municipal Projects) to Chapter 2.26
(Visual Art in Public Places)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as
follows:
A. Public art fosters economic development, enhances community vitality and
enriches the quality of life through the City.
B. Since 2005 Palo Alto has had a policy requiring City capital improvement projects
to devote 1 percent of the project’s construction budget to public art, and in 2013 extended
this requirement to private developments.
C. The City wishes to confirm and strengthen its municipal public art program to
enhance the funds available for public art and to increase flexibility to provide art experiences
that are timely and relevant throughout the community.
SECTION 2. The Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to add Section 2.26.070
“Public Art for Municipal Projects” to Chapter 2.26 (Visual Art in Public Places):
2.26.70 Public Art for Municipal Projects
(a) It shall be City policy to set aside one percent (1%) of its annual Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) budget, as defined in the section, for the purpose of providing for
public art. Except as provided in this section, all CIP projects shall be subject to this policy,
including but not limited to buildings, shelters, parking garages and lots, restrooms, small
structures, parks, medians, landscaping, plazas, gateways, bridges, walls, tunnels, and street
and road construction. Salaries and benefits of public employees supporting CIP projects shall
not be included in the CIP budget subject to this ordinance.
The following CIP projects are excluded from this policy:
(1) ADA Compliance Projects (not including projects where ADA compliance is a
portion of a larger project).
(2) Road, path and sidewalk repairs, including: traffic signals and upgrades, curb
and gutter repairs, sign reflectivity, road and parking signage, resurfacing of
roads or other existing hardscape areas.
(3) Emergency repair projects.
(4) Cyclical replacement and repair of trails, outdoor furnishings, or fencing.
NOT YET APPROVED
150122 sh 0140129 2
(5) Studies.
(6) Roof replacement.
(7) Mechanical, security, A/V equipment, HVAC, and IT installations, upgrades
and repairs.
(8) Art in Public Places CIP.
(9) Utilities projects, except where the project includes construction or
reconstruction of a building.
(10) Vehicle repair and replacement.
(11) Seismic upgrades and waterproofing.
(12) Projects where the majority of the cost is allocated to elements located
underground.
(13) Projects where prohibited by federal or state law, including projects or
portions of projects funded by grants from non-City sources that prohibit
expenditure of funds for art.
(b) Nothing in this Section is intended to prohibit the City Council from
adopting an ordinance or resolution establishing a public art contribution for any project
otherwise excluded from this policy or setting the public art contribution for any project at
greater than one percent of the CIP budget.
(c) Funds shall be deposited into the Public Art Fund. The City Manager or designee,
in consultation with the Public Art Commission, as appropriate, shall determine public or
publically-accessible sites for art funded by the one percent for art policy. Funds may be
expended on public art at any appropriate site within the City. Funds from two or more CIP
projects may be pooled to fund a single work of art. Funds may be used for permanent or
temporary public art. The City Manager shall establish procedures to administer this policy,
including procedures for selecting sites, artists and art works.
(d) The City Manager may adopt administrative regulations to implement this
Section.
SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
//
NOT YET APPROVED
150122 sh 0140129 3
//
//
//
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of
its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Community Services
____________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5463)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Approval of Staff Work Plan in Response to Colleagues Memo
on Fuel Switching
Title: Approval of Staff Work Plan Developed in Response to the December
15, 2014 City Council Colleagues Memo on Climate Action Plan
Implementation Strategies to Reduce Use of Natural Gas and Gasoline
through Fuel Switching to Carbon Free Electricity
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff requests Council approval of its proposed work plan to prepare a report responsive to the
December 15, 2014 City Council Colleagues Memo (the “Colleagues Memo”) on measures to
encourage utility customers to switch from natural gas and gasoline to electricity where
appropriate and to reduce the obstacles to such fuel switching.
Executive Summary
On December 15, 2014 the City Council directed staff to return by the first meeting in February
2015 with an initial report on the resources and timeframe required to evaluate the four fuel
switching related topics outlined in a Colleagues Memo. Staff has already completed or
currently plans to undertake significant analysis of the potential for, and the economics of fuel
switching in various areas, as described more fully in Attachment B to this Staff Report.
Because the City’s major remaining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are related to mobile
transportation and the use of natural gas, fuel switching to the City’s carbon neutral electricity
supplies will also be a major element of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP).
Staff is in the process of developing a detailed work plan with two phases to respond to
Council’s Colleague’s Memo. The first phase (Phase I) will determine the scope of the analysis
and identify any staff and/or consulting resources required to complete it. This phase is already
underway. Phase I will contain additional information to inform Council’s decisions about
whether to pursue or not pursue those actions related to fuel switching either identified initially
in the Colleagues Memo or in the Phase I analysis. Should Council elect to proceed, the second
phase (Phase II) will involve detailed analysis of proposed actions and measures identified in the
Phase I and the development of an implementation plan. Phase I will be undertaken in
City of Palo Alto Page 2
coordination with the S/CAP, and staff is currently planning to deliver it to Council around the
same time as the S/CAP in the Spring of 2015.
All measures and actions proposed as part of Phase I and Phase II must be specifically analyzed
and considered in the context of all applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements,
including, for instance, constitutional limitations on utility rates and use of ratepayer funds
imposed by Californians when they adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the Cap-
and-Trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous
requirements embedded in the California Public Utilities Code.
Background
The December 15, 2014 Colleagues Memo (Attachment A) directed staff to prepare a report,
outlining:
1) prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical devices to
replace those using natural gas;
2) possible building code changes to require, where feasible, the use of electrical
appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial buildings;
3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize fuel switching; and
4) an evaluation of additional strategies to support the addition of electric vehicles.
Staff has already completed or commenced several activities related to fuel switching. These
are summarized below, and are described in more detail in Attachment B:
On February 10, 2014, staff presented an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of replacing
residential natural gas fired appliances with electric appliances, given existing
technologies and rate structures.1 The analysis also addressed the cost-effectiveness of
converting from gasoline-fueled vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs). An update to this
analysis is already underway and is currently scheduled to be presented to the Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC) in Spring 2015.
Staff is currently doing the preliminary research to begin a cost of service analysis
(COSA) for the electric utility, which will evaluate if there are any rate design obstacles
to fuel switching. Prior to the conduct of the Electric COSA, the UAC and Council will
have an opportunity to discuss the possible rate designs and the issues to be considered
when choosing between them. The timeline for this policy discussion is in the spring of
2015.
After Council adopted the City’s EV policy2 in December 2011, staff undertook a variety
of programs to encourage wider adoption of EVs in Palo Alto, one of which was the
adoption of and EV ordinance that requires all new residential and non-residential
1 Staff Report # 4422, dated 2/10/2014: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38922
2 Staff Report 2360, dated December 19, 2011: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41528
City of Palo Alto Page 3
construction to install new EV chargers and/or needed infrastructure to accommodate
future chargers as seen in Municipal Code Section 16.14.370.
Discussion
The Colleagues Memo suggests consideration of a more comprehensive evaluation of fuel
switching in the context of the long-term S/CAP goals to dramatically reduce GHG emissions.
Staff’s proposed work plan for this effort is divided into two phases:
Phase I, already in progress, is to develop a detailed scope to address each area of focus
identified in the Colleagues Memo, including identification of potential measures or strategies
that would address requests 1 (outlining prospective programs and incentives), 2 (outlining
possible building code changes) and 4 (evaluation of additional strategies to support adoption
of electric vehicles) in the Colleagues Memo. In Phase I:
Staff intends to use the ideas, work products, and community input from the S/CAP
process to help inform its work in Phase I. In turn, the Phase I scoping work will
contribute to the analysis of fuel switching for the development of the S/CAP.
The deliverable for Phase I will be a report setting forth a project scope and timeline for
completion of Phase II (should Council elect to pursue it), including a list of potential
programs and incentives, building code changes, gas and electric rate options that may
be available, and potential additional strategies to encourage EVs. The Phase I report
will identify the tasks and timeline needed to analyze the cost implication to applicants
being affected by any mandates, to identify and assess any constraints that may exist
(including any imposed by legal, statutory or regulatory requirements) and other items
to be determined in the course of Phase I.
Staff may provide alternative approaches to Phase II requiring differing levels of effort
and expenditure of resources, since the Phase II report could require considerable staff
effort.
Staff currently anticipates that Phase I will be completed and will roughly coincide with
the completion date of the S/CAP in spring 2015.
Phase II, should Council elect to proceed with it after considering Phase I, will involve a more
detailed cost/benefit analysis along with more comprehensive policy and legal evaluations of
the options outlined in Phase I, particularly for request 3 (possible changes to utility rate
structures that would not penalize fuel switching) of the Colleagues Memo. In Phase II:
Staff will coordinate this effort with the Electric COSA, including analysis of the impact of
various rate designs on fuel switching and any legal, regulatory, cost-effectiveness or
City of Palo Alto Page 4
other barriers that may impose constraints on using rates as a tool to implement or
otherwise incentive fuel switching.
The deliverable for Phase II will be a report that can be used as a basis for accepting or
rejecting each option.
Because there is substantial work needed to develop a timeline and assess required resources
to look at the issues raised in the Colleagues’ Memo, staff plans to return to Council in Spring
2015 with the Phase I report (the more detailed scope and timeline) to inform Council’s
determination on whether staff should proceed with the Phase II effort. Council should be
aware that work activities related to fuel switching will be an integral part of the S/CAP.
Resource Impact
Completion of the Phase I report will require a total approximately 0.2 FTE per month of staff
time over three to four months from the following City departments: Sustainability, Utilities,
Development Services, Public Works, Planning and Community Environment and City Attorney.
The proposed Phase I scoping report can largely be completed with existing resources.
The level of effort, inclulding staffing and calendar time, needed to complete the Phase II work
will be identified in the Phase I report. Any additional resources needed, or existing or planned
work products that must be delayed to complete Phase II will be identified in the Phase I report
as well.
Policy Implications
This project will be coordinated with the S/CAP process and will provide data to support
decision making about possible programs to implement any carbon-reduction goals the Council
adopts as part of that process.
Environmental Review
Approval of staff’s proposed work plan for addressing the Colleague’s Memo on fuel switching
does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to section 21065 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Colleagues Memo Dec 15 2014 (PDF)
Attachment B: Fuel Switching Work Plan - Colleagues Memo (DOC)
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
December 15, 2014
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, and Klein
Regarding Climate Action Plan Implementation Strategy to Reduce Use
of Natural Gas and Gasoline Through “Fuel Switching” to Carbon-free
Electricity
Requested Action by Council:
Direct the City Manager to prepare a report to the Council, outlining (1)
prospective programs and incentives that would result in the use of electrical
devices to replace those using natural gas, (2) possible building code changes to
require, where feasible, the use of electrical appliances rather than natural gas
appliances in the construction and renovation of residential and commercial
buildings, (3) possible changes to utility rate structures that would not penalize
fuel switching, (4) evaluation of additional strategies to support adoption of
electric vehicles. The report should consider and take into account applicable
legal requirements, and identify potential legal, code or regulatory barriers that
would need to be changed to facilitate fuel-switching. The City Manager will
return to the Council by the first meeting in February with an initial report to
Council on the timeframe required to research and develop this report, and the
staff and related resources that will be necessary, as this initiative would be an
important component in the 2015 Work Plan.
Discussion:
Starting in 2013 Palo Alto is one of the first cities globally to provide 100 percent
carbon-neutral electricity to all of our utility customers and at rates 20% below
PG&E. This is an important accomplishment, but only addresses approximately
1/5 of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions previously generated in the city.
However, our clean electricity resource provides an exceptional opportunity to be
Page 2
used as a clean energy foundation to reduce our other major GHG sources, in
support of the city’s Climate Action Plan.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its
latest report, again emphasized the dire straits we’ll all be in if government at all
levels doesn’t take far more significant steps to achieve large reductions in the
generation of greenhouse gases.
Building on our carbon-free electricity resource, key next steps for Palo Alto are to
promote switching from appliances and other devices that presently use natural
gas to devices that are powered by our clean electricity, and to support the
adoption of electric vehicles and other fossil fuel-free transportation alternatives.
Natural gas enjoys good press, but is in fact only marginally better than coal, in
part due to the high amounts of “fugitive” emissions which are unintentional
releases of harmful non-combusted methane gas that are emitted into the
atmosphere during natural gas extraction and delivery processes. Our carbon-
neutral electricity is far better for the environment and we therefore believe that
Palo Alto should take a series of steps to promote change from gas use to use of
electricity. Additionally, we should pursue more steps to support adoption of
electric vehicles powered by clean electricity, replacing use of petroleum, our
largest source of greenhouse gases.
This is a bold and significant initiative and given its “game-changer” potential,
warrants a thoughtful assessment of the opportunities and constraints this
presents and a clear identification of the resources and time commitment to
develop the report. Council recognizes that staff must first return with that initial
report on timeline and resource requirements by early February, as a prerequisite
to the Council’s direction to proceed with the actual research and report being
requested.
This report has been reviewed by the City Manager and City Attorney and has
incorporated their comments.
Page 3
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
1
Attachment B:
5463 - Fuel Switching Work Plan
Colleagues Memo
Outline of Initiatives Currently Underway to Facilitate Fuel Switching
1) Residential Natural Gas to Electric Fuel Switching Analysis: In February 2014, staff provided
Council an evaluation of the cost effectiveness of residential natural gas-to-electric fuel
switching options for appliances and vehicles.1 The analysis concluded that residential
natural gas-to-electric fuel switching is not cost-effective at prevailing energy prices and the
prevailing cost of carbon, but could become cost effective at carbon costs of $130/ton for
water heating and $270/ton for space heating applications. The report also concluded that
fuel switching for water heating applications for new construction or during major remodels
may also prove to be cost effective. The analysis found that purchasing carbon-offsets was
the least cost option to neutralize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to natural gas
use. This analysis is being updated at present and is expected to be presented to the
Utilities Advisory Commission by Spring 2015.
With respect to fuel switching from gasoline-fueled automobiles to electric vehicles (EVs),
the analysis found that purchasing EVs can be more cost-effective than buying new gasoline
vehicles. Leasing EVs may provide additional cost advantages. The analysis did not review
natural gas to electricity fuel switching options for commercial buildings nor look at possible
changes to building codes to encourage fuel switching.
2) Utilities Cost of Service Studies: Staff is undertaking an electric utility cost-of-service
analysis (COSA) in 2015 to evaluate different electric rate making options and has begun the
initial preparations for that study. The primary focus of the Electric COSA will be on
ensuring that electric rates are equitable and represent the cost of service to customers, but
the report will also identify the impact of current and proposed rate structure options on
fuel switching, including the impact of tiered rates. Other issues to be considered as part of
the Electric COSA include:
the impact of current and proposed rate designs on the economics of rooftop solar,
the impact of rate designs on low-income customers,
the impact on energy efficiency (“conservation pricing”), and
the possibility of introducing time-of-use rates.
Any proposed rate designs must be specifically analyzed and considered in the context of all
applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements and guidance, including, for
instance, constitutional limitations on utility rates imposed by Californians when they
adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the Cap-and-Trade regulations adopted by
the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous requirements embedded in the
California Public Utilities Code
1 Staff Report 4422 dated 2/10/2014. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38922
2
A Gas COSA was completed two years ago and no changes to gas rate structures are
planned at this time. Starting in 2015, the City’s gas utility must participate in the State’s
GHG cap-and-trade program. On January 20, 2015, the Council adopted changes to the
City’s gas rates to include the cost of GHG allowances the City must purchase for the gas
utility in the State’s cap-and-trade auction (Staff Report 5397). Therefore, gas customers
will be paying for GHG emissions associated with their gas usage through their gas rates.
3) Encouraging Electric Vehicle Adoption: In December 2011 Council adopted an EV policy2,
which identified goals and projects. Since then, staff has undertaken a variety of programs
to encourage wider adoption of electric vehicles in Palo Alto, and is working on additional
programs. EV charging stations have been installed in three City-owned garages as well as
other City buildings. Utilities implemented the CustomerConnect program, an advanced
meter pilot program that was open to EV owners to test time-of-use electric rates to
encourage owners to charge their EVs in the less costly “off-peak” hours. Utilities also
applied to the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) to receive credits through
CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. The LCFS program is expected to provide
credits to Palo Alto worth $50,000 in 2015 to $100,000 in 2020. Staff is developing a
recommendation on how to spend the LCFS credits, which must be spent in a way to benefit
EV owners. Ideas include reducing the cost of electrical service upgrade fees (if the upgrade
is triggered by the need to install an EV charger at a home), subsidized permit fees for EV
charges, streamlining the EV permitting process from paper to web-based, etc.
Development Services has coordinated an EV Task Force which has worked to advance EV
readiness in the City, develop ordinances, streamline the EV permitting process, and will be
modifying code requirements to reduce barriers to entry. In addition, Council adopted an
“EV readiness” requirement in July 2014 for all new residential and non-residential
construction that requires the installation of EV chargers and/or infrastructure to
accommodate future chargers, as seen in Municipal Code Section 16.14.380.
Staff is also developing protocols for systematically shifting the City fleet to EVs where
appropriate, and is exploring third-party providers of EV charging infrastructure, as a
potential way to expand that infrastructure at minimal cost to the City.
4) Fuel Switching for New Residential Homes: As part of the S/CAP, staff will work with
consultants to identify a roadmap with steps that would need to be taken to accommodate
fuel switching for new residential development. Once it has been determined when, and to
what extent, if any, the City wants to undertake fuel switching, then staff would be required
to take the necessary steps to ensure that the proposed direction complies with the
requirements of Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. Such steps may
include, among other steps, (a) development of cost effectiveness studies and analysis, (b)
filing with the California Energy Commission, (c) adoption of findings (if possible) that
2 Staff Report 2360: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/41528
3
demonstrate that fuel switching will not contradict the Energy Code prior to adoption of
local amendments, and (d) ultimately adoption of local amendments and modifications to
the Building Code that could legally accommodate the pace and direction the City would
prefer to pursue.
5) Electrification of the wCity’s Fleet: Staff is developing a system to assess the suitability
of EVs, for each vehicle or vehicle type in the City fleet, and is exploring other fuel switching
strategies and options as part of the S/CAP, ranging from incentives and/or mandates for
specified technologies and building types to internal carbon trading for City operations and
other financial innovations to minimize climate impacts of heating spaces and water in Palo
Alto.
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5443)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/2/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan
Title: Council Update Regarding City's Technology and the Connected City
Initiative, Including the Status of the City's Participation in the Google Fiber
City Checklist Process; and Approval of and Authorization for the City
Manager to Execute Two Professional Services Contracts with Columbia
Telecommunications dba CTC Technology & Energy for Consulting Services for
(1) a Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $144,944
and (2) a Complementary Wireless Network Plan in an Amount Not-to-
Exceed $131,650; and Adoption of a related Budget Amendment Ordinance in
the Fiber Optics Fund in the Amount of $276,594
From: City Manager
Lead Department: IT Department
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
(1) Receive a brief overview of the current US broadband landscape and an update on staff
efforts related to the “Technology and the Connected City” Council priority, including an
update on the Google Fiber City Checklist Status and Process in Palo Alto; and
(2) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute two Professional Services contracts
in amounts not-to-exceed $144,944 and $131,650 to Columbia Telecommunications,
dba CTC Technology & Energy, for a Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan and a
complementary Wireless Network Plan respectively; and
(3) Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance to allocate funding in the amount of $276,594
from the Fiber Optics Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to fund the development of the
plans.
Executive Summary
This staff report will provide an update regarding Google’s interest in building a Fiber Network
in the City of Palo Alto, other factors affecting the current broadband landscape in the United
City of Palo Alto Page 2
States and staff efforts related to the Council’s “Technology and the Connected City” initiative.
Under the Council’s Technology and the Connected City initiative launched in February 2013,
the City seeks the services of Columbia Telecommunications, dba CTC Technology & Energy
(“CTC”) to develop a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) Master Plan to build out the existing dark fiber
optic backbone system (“fiber system”), and develop a complementary Wireless Network Plan
with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi, and a long-term consideration of other wireless technologies.
Background
Technology and the Connected City
At the February 2, 2013 City Council retreat, the Council chose “Technology and the Connected
City” as one of its three top priorities for 2013.
On March 22, 2013, the Council’s Technology and the Connected City Committee (“Council
Committee”) was created. Council Member Kniss was appointed as the Committee Chair, in
addition to then-Mayor Scharff, then-Vice Mayor Shepherd and then-Council Member Klein.
Utilities Advisory Commission (“UAC”) then-Chair James Cook and then-UAC Commissioner
Asher Waldfogel were appointed as UAC liaisons to the Council Committee.
The Council Committee held its first meeting on May 14, 2013. Staff provided the Council
Committee with an overview of the history of the City’s dark fiber optic backbone system
(“fiber system”) and prior initiatives to expand the system for citywide use. The Council
Committee discussed the development of a work plan to evaluate the feasibility of building out
a citywide Fiber-to-the-Premise (“FTTP”) Network in Palo Alto and the formation of a Citizen
Advisory Committee (“Advisory Committee”) to assist in the evaluation and planning for fiber
and wireless infrastructure.
On June 24, 2013, the Council approved the Council Committee’s recommendation to develop a
work plan to evaluate the feasibility of building a citywide FTTP Network and requested the City
Manager to appoint an Advisory Committee to assist in the evaluation (Reference CMR ID
#3914).
Fiber to the Premises Master Plan & Wireless Network Plan
On October 28, 2013, the Council approved the Council Committee recommendation
(Reference CMR ID #4203) to:
1. Develop a FTTP Master Plan and conduct a request for proposals to build out the
existing dark fiber optic backbone system in Palo Alto; and
2. Develop a complementary Wireless Network Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi, and a
long-term consideration of other wireless technologies.
At the annual City Council retreat on February 1, 2014, the Council voted 7-2 not to reappoint
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the Technology and the Connected City Council Committee. In the future, the full Council will
review and approve the work related to the Technology and the Connected City initiative and
rely on staff and the Advisory Committee to develop findings and recommendations based on
the outcomes of the FTTP Master Plan and a complementary Wireless Network Plan.
The City’s Chief Information Officer is responsible for directing staff activities for the
Technology and the Connected City initiative, which includes the FTTP Master Plan, Wireless
Network Plan and activities related to the Advisory Committee.
Advisory Committee Formation and Work
The City Manager appointed an Advisory Committee to assist staff with the evaluation of these
issues and proposals. Invitations to apply to serve on the Advisory Committee were solicited
from Palo Alto citizens through the City’s website. In anticipation of broad interest in this
Advisory Committee, the following criteria were established to ensure that the selection of
candidates would be representative of a diversity of community members that includes
neighborhood, technical, and business perspectives:
• Knowledge of the telecommunications industry and applicable technologies;
• Familiarity with municipal broadband initiatives in Palo Alto and other communities;
• General understanding of the various business models for deploying fiber and wireless
networks;
• An interest in the public policy issues affecting government owned and operated
broadband networks; and
• Ability to represent Palo Alto neighborhoods and/or business perspectives.
Thirty four (34) applications were received by the November 27, 2013 deadline. On February
18, 2014, the City Manager appointed nine (9) of the applicants to serve on the Advisory
Committee.
The Advisory Committee is structured in a way for individual citizens to share opinions and
perspectives, study issues, and develop recommendations in a focused, small group structure in
an advisory capacity. The types of activities for the Advisory Committee include, but are not
limited to the following:
• Participation in various meetings, public workshops and other related assignments for
an 18 to 24 month period, with meetings occurring every two months during this
period;
• Evaluation of processes for the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Work Plan;
• Liaison between the City and the community, including community groups, on issues
related to the fiber system;
• Working with the City on development of a “communication plan” to advise the
community about work in progress and other issues;
• Review and comment on the recommendations from the Fiber-to-the-Home Council
City of Palo Alto Page 4
about becoming a fiber-friendly community.
The Advisory Committee met on February 25, 2014, April 10, 2014, May 29, 2014, October 9,
2014 and December 18, 2014, and plans to meet every two months in 2015.
To date, the primary responsibility of the Advisory Committee has been to provide feedback
regarding the scope of work for the RFPs to retain consultants for the FTTP Master Plan and the
Wireless Network Plan. Staff has also reviewed with the Advisory Committee members the
history of the City’s fiber system and previous expansion efforts for citywide deployment; issues
and whitepapers related to developing government-owned broadband networks; various
examples of business models used for the deployment of fiber networks by government
agencies; regulatory and policy issues affecting community networks, and the current status of
the competitive marketplace for ultra-high speed broadband services and associated cable TV,
telephony and other services delivered over telecommunication networks.
Google Fiber
As the City was continuing its work on an FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Plan, on February 19,
2014, Google announced it was considering the City of Palo Alto and thirty three (33) other
communities in nine (9) metropolitan areas nationwide as potential candidates to study for
Fiber Network deployment. Other cities in the area identified by Google include Mountain
View, Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale.
Google provided the City with a Google Fiber City Checklist (“Checklist”) attached as Exhibit C,
which set forth a series of extensive information requests and conditions which were required
to be submitted by May 1, 2014. As part of the Checklist process, Google asked the responding
cities to:
• Provide: (a) detailed information about existing infrastructure (e.g. utility poles,
available conduit and dark fiber) to be provided in Google’s preferred, customized
format; (b) descriptions of state laws, local ordinances, and/or commercial agreements
that govern access to existing City infrastructure; and (c) existing city permits, forms and
local or state requirements that are relevant to or may impact a network build;
• Explain how City processes differ from Google’s preferred permitting and construction
approaches, and also identify how the City might streamline its process or otherwise
accommodate Google Fiber’s network build with accelerated timelines; and
• Consider locating Google’s fiber network huts on City-owned property, and agree to
Google’s preferred form Network Hut License Agreement between the City and Google
Fiber Company by the May 1, 2014 deadline. The Network Hut License Agreement is
structured such that specific City-owned locations for Network Hut(s) will be
determined later, along with applicable site specific terms and conditions.
A cross-departmental team worked to collect and review information and data responsive to
Google’s Checklist requests. With the exception of Google’s Network Hut License Agreement,
all information requested in the Checklist was submitted to Google by the May 1, 2014
City of Palo Alto Page 5
deadline.
On August 11, 2014, the Council approved a master Network Hut License Agreement with
Google Fiber (Reference CMR ID # 4726), which would allow for the placement of one or two
Google “Fiber Huts” on individual city-owned sites, subject to the City Council’s approval of
such individual sites and applicable site-specific terms. Completion of the Checklist and the Hut
Agreement does not presuppose that Google has chosen Palo Alto for fiber deployment.
Google will evaluate the information provided in the Checklist by each city to determine the
cost and timeline for building a new fiber optic network. Based on this information, Google will
make a determination whether to offer this service to the City and the other thirty three (33)
cities.
Other information the City provided to Google in response to the Checklist can be found on the
City’s website identified below, along with more details concerning the next steps in the Google
Fiber consideration process:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2558&TargetID=268
Discussion
Google Fiber City Checklist Update
The Checklist is a first step in Google’s “two-part planning process.” Google will use the
Checklist information and data to determine if a community is “fiber ready.” At the same time,
Google has indicated that it is undertaking its own study to evaluate costs, timelines and other
factors associated with building a fiber optic network in the thirty four (34) communities.
Google will endeavor to notify communities whether they have been selected for a potential
fiber build out in early 2015. The City’s submission of a response to the Checklist does not
represent a commitment, promise or guarantee with respect to the design or construction of a
fiber optic network by Google or any other provider. Staff continues to engage with Google
Fiber personnel regarding the information provided in the Checklist response.
Fiber to the Premises Master Plan & Wireless Network Plan
Under the direction of the Chief information Officer (CIO), staff developed RFPs to retain
consulting services for the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan. Development of the
RFPs was assisted by the members of the Advisory Committee. On July 3, 2014, the RFPs were
issued. The RFP submittal deadline was July 29, 2014.
During the week of September 8, 2014, four vendor interviews were conducted. Based on the
scoring of the consultant proposals and in-person interviews, the interview panel selected CTC
Technology & Energy to recommend to the Council to provide professional consulting services
for the FTTP Master Plan and the Wireless Network Plan.
About CTC
CTC is an independent communications and IT engineering consulting firm with more than
City of Palo Alto Page 6
twenty five (25) years of experience. CTC’s customer base includes federal, state and local
government agencies.
Among the above-noted vendor responses to the RFPs, CTC’s written proposals and interview
responses for the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan aligned most closely with the
City objectives and the tasks identified in the scope of work in the RFPs. Overall, CTC’s written
proposals for the FTTP Master Plan and the Wireless Network Plan, and the presentation
provided before the interview panel, compared most favorably and added more value than the
proposals submitted by the other respondents. These factors were reflected in the scoring by
the interview panel participants. CTC will provide two project managers for the FTTP and
Wireless Plans and the work will proceed in parallel. The rating criteria developed for the
written proposals and interviews included:
1. Quality and completeness of the proposal and addresses the scope of work;
2. Quality, performance, and effectiveness of the services to be provided;
3. Proposed cost to the City and ability to meet a specific timeline;
4. Proposer’s experience, including the experience of staff performing work of a similar
nature, including fiber and wireless network design and engineering;
5. Proposer’s ability to develop a Request for Proposal and present findings and
recommendations to the Council;
6. Proposer’s compliance with applicable requirements.
Since 2000, CTC has provided the City with professional telecommunication consulting services.
These services included: (1) working with the City on cable TV franchise issues; (2) planning for
the Institutional Network (I-Net) required under the cable TV franchise; (3) identifying fiber
system expansion opportunities with a private fiber-optic company seeking to build in Palo Alto
(RCN Telecom), and (4) advising the City on preliminary design concepts for the Palo Alto
Unified School District fiber project. CTC’s most recent contract with the City was in 2010-2011,
which involved the preparation of a “conceptual plan” for phased, low-risk approaches to
expanding the existing fiber system for fiber-to-the-premise and wireless deployments. This
work was part of the “Citywide Ultra-High Speed Broadband System Project.” The objective for
the conceptual plan was to provide strategic guidance on how the City could expand the fiber
system for enhanced municipal and commercial services.
On a national level, CTC has been a leader in working with cities and other government
agencies on “gigabit-facilitation strategies.” In 2014, CTC authored “Gigabit Communities” a
whitepaper which provides in-depth technical strategies for facilitating public or private
broadband construction in communities. Additionally, in the last few years CTC is also working
with public power providers in the area of Smart Grid planning.
Description of Bid Process and Project
CTC’s proposal cost for the FTTP Master Plan is a total amount not-to-exceed $144,944. CTC’s
proposal cost for the Wireless Network Plan is a total amount not-to-exceed $131,650.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Summary of City Bid Process (FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan)
Proposed Duration of Projects: FTTP Master Plan: 120 days. Wireless
Network Plan: 120 days. Projects will
proceed simultaneously.
Number of Solicitations Emailed: Twenty (20). RFPs were also posted on the
Fiber to the Home Council’s website
Total Days to respond: Nineteen (19) Business Days
Number of Responses Received: Nine (9)
Number of Vendors Interviewed: Four (4)
Vendor Selected: CTC Technology & Energy
The primary objectives of the FTTP Master Plan are to:
1. Provide the City with essential information and data to set its goals and objectives to
facilitate the deployment of a FTTP Network in Palo Alto;
2. Develop an inventory and assessment of City assets and infrastructure required to
support the deployment of a FTTP Network;
3. Evaluate the impacts a FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-way, City-owned utility
poles, conduits, streetlight poles, fiber system and real property;
4. Define and evaluate FTTP Network requirements;
5. Define services and technologies offered on the FTTP Network;
6. Prepare an engineering study and FTTP Network design, deployment cost model and
potential business models to build and operate a citywide network;
7. Provide the Council with findings and recommendations regarding the feasibility of
building a FTTP Network and the best business model to pursue this goal;
8. Assist City staff in writing a RFP to build a citywide FTTP Network based on City Council
review and approval of the findings and recommendations in the Master Plan, and
further direction from the Council to proceed with issuing an RFP.
The primary objectives of the Wireless Network Plan are to evaluate:
1. Wi-Fi broadband connectivity for the general public and businesses to ensure economic
development, increased access to broadband and digital inclusion for all members of
the community;
2. Improved wireless broadband connectivity to support public safety and the delivery of
municipal services by field-based staff using a wide variety of mobile government
applications over tablets, laptops and smartphones;
3. Wireless government to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of public administration;
4. Potential wireless communication platforms for future implementation of smart grid
applications.
Assistance with RFP Development Precludes Development in Subsequent Project Phases
Where parties collaborate in the development of an RFP, general conflict of interest
prohibitions, including section 1090 of the California Government Code, often preclude such
City of Palo Alto Page 8
collaborating parties from subsequently bidding on the resultant RFP they have helped to
develop. The contracts for development of a Fiber to the Premises Master Plan and Wireless
Network Plan recommended for Council approval only contemplate CTC’s assistance with
development of an RFP for a possible second build-out phase (if Council decides such an RFP is
warranted). The recommended contracts do not in any way contemplate CTC’s involvement in
any manner, including as a bidder, in such a second phase given conflict of interest prohibitions.
In addition, CTC is not affiliated with equipment manufacturers or cable operators and has no
relationships with firms or individuals who may submit proposals in response to future RFPs
that may be developed through this engagement. CTC’s responses to the FTTP and Wireless
RFPs states that “we can provide independent guidance; we have, as a policy, no financial stake
in the strategies you choose and will not bid on any resulting construction work.”
Resource Impact
At this time, it is unknown what the resource impacts will be if Google offers to build a Fiber
Network in the City.
Staff recommends use of the Fiber Optic Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) to fund the FTTP
Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan efforts. A Budget Amendment Ordinance in the
amount of $276,594 is requested from the Fiber Optic Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve to cover
two professional service contracts, which will reduce the Fiber Optic RSR from $18.4 million to
$18.2 million. The original cost estimate to develop both plans was $250,000 to $450,000.
Approximately 1.75 FTEs are assigned from the IT and Utilities Departments to work with the
vendor to complete the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan. Future fiscal impacts will
be addressed with the Council once the findings and recommendations from the FTTP Master
Plan and the Wireless Network Plan are evaluated, and the Council provides further direction
on the City’s level of involvement in the implementation of the plans.
Policy Implications
The recommendation to execute two Professional Services Contracts with CTC for consulting
services is consistent with the Telecommunications Policy adopted by the Council in 1997, to
facilitate advanced telecommunications services in Palo Alto in an environmentally sound
manner (Reference CMR: 369:97-Proposed Telecommunications Policy Statements).
Relationship between the Technology and the Connected City Initiative and Google Fiber
The development of the FTTP Master Plan and the Wireless Network Plan is not directly related
to the City’s response to the Google Fiber City Checklist and the Council’s approval on August
11, 2014 (Reference CMR ID #4726), of a master Network Hut License Agreement with Google
Fiber, the latter of which may allow for the placement of one or two Google “Fiber Huts” on
individual city-owned sites, subject to the City Council’s approval of such individual sites and
applicable site-specific terms. As the FTTP Master Plan and the Wireless Network Plan are
developed, staff will continue to work in parallel with Google Fiber to explore their interest in
City of Palo Alto Page 9
deploying an ultra-high speed fiber optic network in Palo Alto. If Google decides to move
forward with a plan to bring FTTP to the City of Palo Alto, staff will consider any implications to
the Council-directed Fiber and Wireless work and will bring recommendations to the City
Council.
Environmental Review
Staff provision of a status update regarding the City’s Technology and the Connected City
initiative, including the status of the City’s response to and position in the Google Fiber City
Checklist process, is not a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”)
The development of the FTTP Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan are exempt from the
CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15262 because they are
feasibility and planning studies.
Attachments:
Exhibit A-Contract C15152569-FTTP Master Plan (PDF)
Exhibit B-Contract C15152568-Wireless Master Plan (PDF)
Exhibit C-Google Fiber Checklist v2 (PDF)
Council Meeting February 2 2015 (PPTX)
Attachment A: BAO XXXX - Fiber-to-the Premise and Wireless Network Master Plans
(DOCX)
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15152569
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION DBA CTC
TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of December, 2014, (“Agreement”)
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, (dba CTC
Technology & Energy), a Maryland corporation, located at 10613 Concord St. Kensington, MD
20885 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to develop a Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan (“Master Plan”) and write a
Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to build a citywide network (“Project”) and desires to engage a
consultant to inventory and assess City assets and infrastructure required to support deployment
of a fiber network 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.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through May 30, 2015
unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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 One Hundred
Thirty Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Dollars ($136,544.00). In the event Reimbursable
Expenses are authorized, the total compensation for Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed
Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($8,400.00).The applicable rates and schedule of payment
are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and
made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services
performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any
work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but
which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-
1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the
Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience
to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally
required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this
Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval
of the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Joanne Hovis as
the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services and Andrew Afflerbach as the project engineer to represent
CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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 Todd Henderson, Information Technology Department, Project
Services Division, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2342. The
project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress
and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time
to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other
intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if
any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect,
indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability
of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss,
including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court
costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence,
recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or
contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an
Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed
to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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 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
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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.
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.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this
Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the
State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant”
as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure
documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age,
religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department,
incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply
with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste
Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply
with the following zero waste requirements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise
approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a
professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation
from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
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 breach in the security of the system or in the
security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for
direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent.
25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement.
25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they
have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized
representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Deputy. City Attorney
COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION dba CTC
TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT “E”: SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE
EXHIBIT “F”: VENDOR INFORMATION SECURITY ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT “G”: INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Background
The City of Palo Alto (“City” or “Palo Alto”) needs assistance from Columbia Communications
Corporation dba CTC Technology and Energy (“Consultant”), a Maryland corporation, to
develop a Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan (“Master Plan”) and assist the City in writing a
Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to build a citywide network. Development of this plan is a key part
of the City’s “Technology and the Connected City” initiative started by the Mayor and the City
Council in March of 2013. The principal objective of the Master Plan is for the City to collect
information and data that will guide the evaluation of the best approach for Palo Alto becoming a
“Gigabit Community” by building out its 41-mile dark fiber optic backbone system (“fiber
system”) to provide citywide access to a Fiber-to-the-Premise Network (“FTTP Network”).
The primary objectives of the Master Plan are to:
1. Provide the City with essential information and data to set its goals and objectives to
facilitate the deployment of a FTTP Network in Palo Alto;
2. Develop an inventory and assessment of City assets and infrastructure required to support the
deployment of a FTTP Network;
3. Evaluate the impacts a FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-way, City-owned utility
poles, conduits, streetlight poles, Fiber System and real property;
4. Define and evaluate FTTP Network requirements;
5. Define services and technologies offered on the FTTP Network;
6. Prepare an engineering study and FTTP Network design, deployment cost model and
potential business models to build and operate a citywide network;
7. Provide the City Council with findings and recommendations regarding the feasibility of
building a FTTP Network and the best business model to pursue this goal;
8. Assist City staff in writing the RFP based on City Council review and approval of the
findings and recommendations in the Master Plan, and further direction from the Council to
proceed with issuing an RFP to build a citywide FTTP Network.
Statement of Work
Services from the Consultant include the completion of six (6) tasks, for an amount not to exceed
$144,944 ($136,544 not to exceed price amount, plus $8,400 in travel expenses). See Exhibit
“C” (Compensation).
The Consultant will complete the following tasks:
1. Inventory and assess City assets and infrastructure required to support deployment of FTTP
Network;
2. Evaluate the impacts the construction of a FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-way,
utility poles, streetlight poles, conduits, fiber system, real property and other assets and
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
infrastructure, and the various agreements that govern the use of this infrastructure and real
property. Evaluate the various construction methods to build a FTTP Network;
3. Define and evaluate FTTP Network requirements for the RFP;
4. Define and evaluate potential FTTP business models, vendors, services and technologies;
5. Based on completing tasks 1-4, prepare an engineering study and FTTP network design, cost
model and evaluate potential business models to implement a citywide FTTP Network in
Palo Alto;
6. Present the findings and recommendations for the Master Plan to the City Council, Utilities
Advisory Commission, Citizen Advisory Committee and executive City staff. Contingent on
City Council direction to proceed, assist City staff with writing an RFP to build a FTTP
Network.
Deliverables
Task 1
Inventory and assess City assets and infrastructure required to support deployment of a
FTTP Network:
Prepare a written report with an assessment of City assets and infrastructure required to support
an FTTP Network. The objective of Task 1 is to review city assets, infrastructure, data and
information required to facilitate the preparation of an engineering study, network design,
deployment cost model, and potential business models for a FTTP Network. The information
and data available from the City to conduct this assessment is defined in the “City Data Required by Consultant to Perform Analysis to Complete Master Plan” section of this Scope of Services
on page 16 of this Agreement.
Task 2
Evaluate the impacts the construction of a FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-way,
City-owned and controlled utility poles, conduits, streetlight poles, Fiber System, real
property and other assets and infrastructure. Evaluate construction methods that support
network deployment:
Prepare a written report with an assessment of City assets and infrastructure required to support
an FTTP Network deployment, in addition to providing an evaluation of construction methods
that support network deployment. The report should evaluate the impacts the construction of a
FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-way, City-owned and controlled utility poles,
conduits, streetlight poles, fiber system, real property and other assets and infrastructure. The
report should address the following issues:
1. Assess the use of City-controlled space on utility poles, streetlight poles, conduit and
other City-owned properties to build a FTTP network and/or a Wireless Network and
evaluate any impacts on the current agreements that govern the use of these facilities and
properties. These agreements include:
a. The City’s Master License Agreement for City-controlled Space on Utility Poles
and Streetlight Poles and in Conduit (“MLA”), various MLA exhibits and
associated fees for pole attachments and conduit use. The MLA was developed
for the installation of distributed antenna systems (“DAS”) for the purpose of
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
providing wireless communications facilities in Palo Alto. The MLA also
governs future attachments by third parties on utility poles and streetlight poles
and in conduits controlled by the City;
b. The Joint Pole Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and AT&T and any
potential impacts on that agreement by a new facilities-based “attacher” in Palo
Alto;
c. The Joint Pole Agreement between the City, AT&T and PG&E and any impacts
on that agreement by a new facilities-based “attacher” in Palo Alto;
d. The Conduit License Agreement between the City and Comcast;
e. The Master License Agreement for Installation of Underground Facilities in the
City of Palo Alto by and Among the City of Palo Alto, Pacific Bell Telephone
Company (DBA AT&T California), and Comcast Corporation IX, Inc.
2. Assess the impact on the City’s existing fiber system and the commercial dark fiber
customer base if an FTTP Network builder/operator licenses dark fiber from the City;
3. Assess the number of utility poles requiring make-ready work to accommodate another
facilities-based network attaching fiber and associated electronics and equipment in the
communication space or the unrestricted power space;
4. Identify and evaluate innovative construction methods that could be used to expedite and
possibly lower the cost of FTTP construction.
Task 3
Define and evaluate FTTP Network requirements:
Prepare a written report that will define FTTP Network requirements. The following items
should be evaluated and addressed in the report:
1. A network that uses fiber-to-the-premise architecture: The City considers 1 Gbps
symmetrical service as a baseline for a next-generation FTTP Network; however this
evaluation of FTTP architecture should consider a range of symmetrical and
asymmetrical high data rate transmission speeds in the downstream and upstream
direction. The Master Plan should evaluate the feasibility and cost of offering retail
broadband services with a sustained minimum 1 Gbps dedicated symmetrical
transmission speed over each connection provided to each premise, or a scalable network
that could provide a range of data transmission speeds to each premise.
2. A network able to support high quality voice, data and video services, in addition to other
advanced services and applications delivered over ultra-high speed broadband networks.
Examples of other services and applications include: telemedicine, home security, home
monitoring, cloud services, etc.
3. A network with IPv6 capability, and backward compatibility with IPv4;
4. A network that could be deployed and made operational on a phased, demand driven
basis;
5. A network that promotes the long-term economic and community interests and end user
requirements. End user requirements to evaluate are as follows: Retail and Local Services
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
a. Residential and business class Internet access services
b. Telephone and customized Internet service plans for enterprises and institutions
c. Hosted VoIP solutions for small business and residential customers
d. Multi-channel video service
e. On-demand video service
f. Locally-produced content
g. Video conferencing
h. Gateways for access to cloud based community applications and “Over-the-Top”
services
Public Safety Services
a. Dedicated and secure public safety network
b. Public infrastructure monitoring (e.g., traffic lights, security cameras and cameras
on other public structures)
c. Evaluate network resilience and survivability such as solar power and other
emergency back-up power and network architecture to ensure operability for at
least seven (7) days with no grid power giving prioritization to public safety,
critical infrastructure and lifeline services. This evaluation should include an
interview of the Police Department Director of Technical Services and the
Director of Emergency Services to develop requirements for network
performance (QoS) and compliance with U.S. Department of Justice metrics and
other public safety and critical infrastructure metrics.
Community Services
a. Development and implementation of a “Smart Grid” program for stakeholders and
customers (e.g. digital technology that allows for two-way communication
between the utility and its customers and the sensing along transmission lines)
b. Community-generated public service video channels
c. Community health care services network
d. Health information exchange with secure media access
e. Patient center managed telemedicine services
f. Support for a local application developer community
g. Access to cloud-based development environment
h. Access to content distribution network (CDN) development and distribution
channels
Task 4
Define and evaluate potential FTTP business models, vendors, services and technologies:
Prepare a written report to address the following:
1. Evaluate potential business models for building and operating public broadband
networks. This evaluation should provide an analysis of the pros and cons of each model
and examples of how these networks have been implemented by other local governments.
Examples of business models include:
a. “Retail” - City builds and operates an FTTP Network and directly offers video,
broadband, phone and other services to residences and businesses;
b. “Wholesale” or “open access” - separates the ownership of the infrastructure from
the delivery of retail services from several ISPs;
c. “Infrastructure participation” - City makes available for lease selected assets such
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
as space on City owned and controlled utility poles and communications conduit,
dark fiber and City-owned properties;
d. Evaluate the potential for the City to attract a turnkey vendor to design, build and
operate a FTTP Network in Palo Alto.
2. Identify categories of potential vendors to deploy a fully operational high-speed
communications network using Internet Protocol (“IP”) technology which allows users
access to the Internet and access to other services as required;
3. Evaluate the pros and cons of Active Ethernet, PON, GPON or WDM/PON technologies
to best provide symmetrical gigabit-speed service to households, businesses and
institutions throughout Palo Alto. The evaluation should include an assessment of all
active and passive infrastructure, including cabling, active field equipment,
uninterruptible power supplies, network cross connections, software, ancillary equipment
and ongoing maintenance requirements;
4. Provide a technology assessment with a description of the network technologies
underlying proposed network solutions. The description should include the following
information:
a. Technologies proposed and the limitations of each technology. If a variety of
technologies are evaluated, a discussion of the issues likely to influence the
choice of technologies;
b. Provide details regarding the proposed network design including, but not limited
to: network design criteria, network elements, architecture, protocols, system
reliability, availability, operations, security and maintenance requirements;
c. Provide network performance descriptions, including the range of offerings that
could be provisioned over the network, the capacity, and applicable features for
each proposed solution;
5. Describe the types of services rendered by potential vendors, including system design,
engineering, operation, monitoring, maintenance and enhancement, as well as negotiation
and execution of access agreements with retail service providers.
Task 5
Based on completing tasks 1-4, and in consultation with the City’s Project Manager and assigned
City staff, prepare an engineering study and FTTP network design, cost model and provide an
evaluation of potential business models to implement a citywide FTTP Network in Palo Alto.
Task 6
Prepare a final comprehensive report for the Master Plan and present the findings and
recommendations from the Plan to the City Council, Utilities Advisory Commission, and Citizen
Advisory Committee and Executive City staff. Contingent on City Council direction to proceed,
assist staff in writing an RFP to build a citywide FTTP network.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
City Data Required by Consultant to Perform Analysis to Complete Master Plan
Under the auspices of a Non-disclosure Agreement,1 the City will provide the Consultant with
the following information and data to compete the six tasks:
1. Information System (“GIS”) data sets and mapping information for:
a. Addresses
b. Streets
c. Right of Way and Easements
d. City Boundaries
e. Parcels or Lot Lines
f. Utility Poles
g. Streetlight Poles
h. Overhead Strand (Guys and Anchors City-owned, Operated or Controlled)
i. Existing Underground Utility Routes
j. Manholes
k. Pavement Condition Index Score by Street
l. Zoning
m. Building Footprint
2. Other available information:
a. Spare conduit available for lease
b. Dark fiber available for lease
c. Infrastructure Maintenance Plans for roads and power
d. Potential Network Hub Site locations by address
e. Permitting Processes
f. City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations serve as a general reference to Utilities
customers and contractors regarding common Utilities activities, such as access to private
property and service contracts:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/about/rules.asp
g. Previous cost estimates for proposed FTTP projects, including engineering plans and
reference architecture for proposed networks, cost and revenue information, and broad
historical information from previous FTTP business cases.
h. Past RFPs developed for the design, construction and operation of a citywide ultra-high
speed broadband system.
i. Previous responses to RFPs.
j. Previous market research and surveys conducted for FTTP and/or the Citywide Ultra-
High Speed Broadband System Project.
k. Local demographic information.
1 On April 29, 2014, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9408 prohibiting disclosure of
confidential and proprietary City and utilities-related infrastructure information; such information will only be
available under the auspices of a nondisclosure agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones2 Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. Task 1 30 days
2. Task 2 15 days
3. Task 3 15 days
4. Task 4 15 days
5. Task 5 15 days
6. Task 6 30 days
2 References to tasks correspond to the Tasks set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate
schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set
forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$144,944, of which Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $8,400. CONSULTANT
agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this
amount. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. Any work
performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed
$144,944, of which Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $8,400. Additional Services
are not authorized under this Agreement.
BUDGET SCHEDULE3 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $20,000
(Inventory and assess City assets and infrastructure required to support deployment of
FTTP Network)
Task 2 $20,000
(Evaluate the impacts the construction of a FTTP Network will have on City rights-of-
way, utility poles, streetlight poles, conduits, fiber system, real property and other
assets and infrastructure, and the various agreements that govern the use of this
infrastructure and real property. Evaluate the various construction methods to build a
FTTP Network)
Task 3 $20,000
(Define and evaluate FTTP Network requirements for the RFP)
Task 4 $20,000
(Define and evaluate potential FTTP business models, vendors, services and
technologies)
Task 5 $20,000
(Based on completing tasks 1-4, prepare an engineering study and FTTP network
3 References to tasks correspond to the Tasks set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
design, cost model and evaluate potential business models to implement a citywide
FTTP Network in Palo Alto)
Task 6 $36,544
(Present the findings and recommendations for the Master Plan to the City Council,
Utilities Advisory Commission, Citizen Advisory Committee and executive City staff.
Contingent on City Council direction to proceed, assist City staff with writing an RFP
to build a FTTP Network)
Sub-total Basic Services $136,544
Reimbursable Expenses $8,400
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $144,944
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0
Maximum Total Compensation $144,944
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: Travel expenses in an
amount not to exceed $8,400.
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of
travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set
forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SCHEDULE OF RATES
Consultant may reallocate funds among task and staff categories with advance notice and approval from City provided the total project cost is not exceeded.
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY
COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY
SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL
PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
EXHIBIT “E”
SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE SECURITY AND PRIVACY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Exhibit shall be made a part of the City of Palo Alto’s Professional Services Agreement or any other contract entered
into by and between the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) and ____________________________________ (the “Consultant”)
for the provision of Software as a Service to the City (the “Agreement”).
In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City’s customers and
people who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility customers, library
patrons and other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such information with the
City, as a condition of receiving services from the City or selling goods and services to the City,
including, without limitation, the Software as a Service services provider (the “Consultant”) and its
subcontractors, if any, including, without limitation, any Information Technology (“IT”) infrastructure
services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, described
below, while it renders and performs the Services and furnishes goods, if any, described in the
Statement of Work, Exhibit B, to the extent any scope of work implicates the confidentiality and
privacy of the personal information of the City’s customers. The Consultant shall fulfill the data and
information security requirements (the “Requirements”) set forth in Part A below.
A “secure IT environment” includes: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the Services are provided to
the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the Consultant’s operations and
maintenance processes needed to support the environment, including disaster recovery and business
continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to ensure a secure
and reliable environment and service availability to the City. “IT infrastructure” refers to the
integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and database
management devices, upon which digital networks operate.
In the event that, after the Effective Date, the Consultant reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill
the Requirements, the Consultant shall promptly inform the City of its determination and submit, in
writing, one or more alternate countermeasure options to the Requirements (the “Alternate
Requirements” as set forth in Part B), which may be accepted or rejected in the reasonable
satisfaction of the Information Security Manager (the “ISM”).
Part A. Requirements:
The Consultant shall at all times during the term of any contract between the City and the Consultant:
(a) Appoint or designate an employee, preferably an executive officer, as the security liaison to
the City with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
Page 1 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
(b) Provide a full and complete response to the City’s Supplier Security and Privacy Assessment
Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) to the ISM, and also report any major non-conformance
to the Requirements, as and when requested. The response shall include a detailed
implementation plan of required countermeasures, which the City requires the Consultant to
adopt as countermeasures in the performance of the Services. In addition, as of the annual
anniversary date of this Agreement the Consultant shall report to the City, in writing, any
major changes to the IT infrastructure.
(c) Have adopted and implemented information security and privacy policies that are
documented, are accessible to the City and conform to ISO 27001/2 – Information Security
Management Systems (ISMS) Standards. See the following:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42103
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50297
(d) Conduct routine data and information security compliance training of its personnel that is
appropriate to their role.
(e) Develop and maintain detailed documentation of the IT infrastructure, including software
versions and patch levels.
(f) Develop an independently verifiable process, consistent with industry standards, for
performing professional and criminal background checks of its employees that (1) would
permit verification of employees’ personal identity and employment status, and (2) would
enable the immediate denial of access to the City's confidential data and information by any
of its employees who no longer would require access to that information or who are
terminated.
(g) Provide a list of IT infrastructure components in order to verify whether the Consultant has
met or has failed to meet any objective terms and conditions.
(h) Implement access accountability (identification and authentication) architecture and support
role-base access control (“RBAC”) and segregation of duties (“SoD”) mechanisms for all
personnel, systems and software used to provide the Services. “RBAC” refers to a computer
systems security approach to restricting access only to authorized users. “SoD” is an approach
that would require more than one individual to complete a security task in order to promote
the detection and prevention of fraud and errors.
(i) Assist the City in undertaking annually an assessment to assure that: (1) all elements of the
Services’ environment design and deployment are known to the City, and (2) it has
implemented measures in accordance with industry best practices applicable to secure coding
and secure IT architecture.
(j) Provide and maintain secure intersystem communication paths that would ensure the
confidentiality, integrity and availability of the City's information.
(k) Deploy and maintain IT system upgrades, patches and configurations conforming to current
patch and/or release levels by not later than one (1) week after its date of release. Emergency
security patches must be installed within 24 hours after its date of release.
(l) Provide for the timely detection of, response to, and the reporting of security incidents,
including on-going incident monitoring with logging.
(m) Notify the City within one (1) hour of detecting a security incident that results in the
unauthorized access to or the misuse of the City's confidential data and information.
(n) Inform the City that any third party service provider(s) meet(s) all of the Requirements.
Page 2 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
(o) Perform security self-audits on a regular basis and not less frequently than on a quarterly
basis, and provide the required summary reports of those self-audits to the ISM on the annual
anniversary date or any other date agreed to by the Parties.
(p) Accommodate, as practicable, and upon reasonable prior notice by the City, the City’s
performance of random site security audits at the Consultant’s site(s), including the site(s) of a
third party service provider(s), as applicable. The scope of these audits will extend to the
Consultant’s and its third party service provider(s)’ awareness of security policies and
practices, systems configurations, access authentication and authorization, and incident
detection and response.
(q) Cooperate with the City to ensure that to the extent required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations, the Confidential Information will be accessible only by the Consultant and any
authorized third party service provider’s personnel.
(r) Perform regular, reliable secured backups of all data needed to maximize availability of the
Services.
(s) Maintain records relating to the Services for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or
earlier termination of this Agreement and in a mutually agreeable storage medium. Within
thirty (30) days after the effective date of expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement,
all of those records relating to the performance of the Services shall be provided to the ISM.
(t) Maintain the Confidential Information in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
data and information privacy laws, rules and regulations.
(u) Encrypt the Confidential Information before delivering the same by electronic mail to the City
and or any authorized recipient.
(v) Unless otherwise addressed in the Agreement, shall not hold the City liable for any direct,
indirect or punitive damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of
use, data or profits, arising out of or in any way connected with the City’s IT environment,
including, without limitation, IT infrastructure communications.
Part B. Alternate Requirements:
Page 3 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA)
Questionnaire
Purpose: This Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA) Questionnaire requests information concerning a Cloud Service Provider (the Vendor), which
intends to provide to the City of Palo Alto (the City) any or all of the following services: Software as a Service (SaaS); Platform as a Service (PaaS); and
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
Note/Instructions:
• SaaS, PaaS and IaaS are each a ‘cloud’ servicing model, in which software and database applications, computer network infrastructure and/or computer
hardware/software platforms is/are hosted by the Vendor and made available to customers interconnected in a network, typically the Internet.
• This Questionnaire is for the sole use of the intended Vendor and may contain confidential information of individuals and businesses collected, stored,
and used the City. Any unauthorized collection, storage, use, review or distribution may be prohibited by California and/or Federal laws. If you are not
the intended recipient of this Questionnaire, please contact the sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of the Questionnaire.
• The Vendor shall provide answers to the questions or information to the requests provided below.
• In the event that the Vendor determines that it cannot meet the City’s security and or privacy requirements, the Vendor may submit a request for an
exception to the City’s requirements and propose alternative countermeasures to address the risks addressed in this Questionnaire. The City’s
Information Security Manager (ISM) may approve or reject the exception request, depending on the risks associated with the exception request.
• Security Exception Request shall be submitted if you cannot comply with this policy/requirements
• Upon receipt of the Vendor’s response, the ISM will conduct a security risk assessment, using the following scoring methodology:
A = Meets completely.
B = Partially meets. The Vendor may be required to provide additional requested information.
C = Doesn’t meet. The Vendor may be required to provide missing/additional detail.
Vendor Information:
Vendor Organization Name CTC Inc. Columbia Telecommunications Corporation d/b/a CTC Technology & Energy
Address 10613 Concord Street, Kensington, MD 20895
Information Security Contact Person Name Matthew DeHaven
City’s PM Todd Henderson
Email mdehaven@ctcnet.us
Phone 301-933-1488
VISA Questionnaire Page 1 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Date this Questionnaire Completed 10/14/2014
1.0 BUSINESS PROCESS AND DATA EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clarification
Required from the Vendor
1.1 Please provide a detailed
description of the Vendor’s
business process that will be
offered to the City, as this relates to
the proposed requirements of the
City’s RFP or other business
requirements
CTC will provide fiber and wireless network design
recommendations, strategic planning
recommendations, business case analysis, and
financial analysis of potential fiber optic and
wireless network depoloyments. The businesss
processes will involve the review and analysis of
City infrastructure data, market research, and
preparation of network design and business
analysis materials.
C Please provide requested detail
1.2 Has the Vendor adopted and
implemented information security
and privacy policies that are
documented and conform to ISO
27001/2 – Information Security
Management Systems (ISMS)
Standards or NIST 800-53 (National
Institute of Standards – NIST
Special Publication (SP) 800-53
Revision 4, Security and Privacy
Controls for Federal Information
Systems and Organizations)
CTC does not anticipate hosting any applications
used by the City or requiring access to City IT
resources. Although formal IT security audits are
generally not requested by our clients for the type
of consulting services we provide, we have in place
best-practice security measures consistent with the
risk management-based approach to threat
mitigation defined by NIST SP 800-53.
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 2 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
1.3 What data exchange will occur
between the City and the Vendor?
What data will be stored at the
Vendor’s or other third party’s data
storage location? (Provide data
attributes with examples of the data
to be stored)
Example: Payment Card Information, Social Security
Number, Driving License number Patrons Name, Address, Telephone
etc.), which are examples of personal information, the privacy of
which are protected by California constitutional and statutory law.
We anticipate the data exchange will primarily be
through e-mail, and as required due to file
attachment size, via commercial “cloud”-based file
sharing services (Google Docs, DropBox, etc.).
We anticipate data exchange requirements will be
limited to publically accessible information and
other generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS
data related to roadway attributes and other City
infrastructure).
A
1.4 In the event that the Vendor is
required to store Private Information
(PI), Personally Identifiable
Information (PII), and Sensitive
Information (SI) about
individuals/organizations with the
service provider’s business
systems, how does the Vendor
maintain the confidentiality of the
information in accordance with
applicable federal, state and local
data and information privacy laws,
rules and regulations? [(The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) strives to
promote and sustain a superior quality of life for persons in Palo
Alto. In promoting the quality of life of these persons, it is the policy of
the City, consistent with the provisions of the California Public
Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250 – 6270, to take
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. In rare cases when this
has been required in the past, CTC has conducted
formal IT security audits compliant with client
standards, and has successfully implemented risk
mitigation plans consistent with these standards.
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 3 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
appropriate measures to safeguard
the security and privacy of the personal (including, without
limitation, financial) information of persons, collected in the ordinary
course and scope of conducting the City’s business as a local
government agency. These measures are generally observed
by federal, state and local authorities and reflected in federal
and California laws, the City’s rules and regulations, and industry best
practices, including, without limitation, the provisions of
California Civil Code §§ 1798.3(a), 1798.24, 1798.79.8(b), 1798.80(e),
1798.81.5, 1798.82(e), 1798.83(e)(7), and 1798.92(c)].
1.5 What mechanism and/or what types
of tool(s) will be used to exchange
data between the City and The
Vendor? Example: (VPN, Data Link,
Frame Relay, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, etc.)
We anticipate primarily transfer of data through
email exchange. CTC does not anticipate
requiring access to or trasnmitting PI, PII, or SI
about individuals/organizations. We anticipate
data exchange requirements will be limited to
publically accessible information and other
generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data
related to roadway attributes and other City
physical infrastructure). Information provided to
the City will include conceptual fiber network
designs and financial analysis that we expect will
be made publically available upon completion.
C Please advise what data will be
processed, provide examples of
data to be processed
1.6 What types of data storage (work in
progress storage and backup
storage) are present or will be
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 4 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
required at the Vendor’s site?
Example: (PCI Credit Card Info, SSN, DLN, Patrons Name,
Address, telephone etc.)
individuals/organizations. We anticipate data
exchange requirements will be limited to publically
accessible information and other generally non-
sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data related to
roadway attributes and other City infrastructure).
1.7 Is e-mail integration required
between the City and the Vendor?
Example: The provision of services
may require the City to provide the Vendor with an e-mail account on
the City’s e–mail server.
CTC does not require integration with the city’s
email.
A
1.8 Has the Vendor ever been
subjected to either an electronic or
physical security breach? Please
describe the event(s) and the steps
taken to mitigate the breach(es).
What damages or exposure
resulted? Are records of breaches
and issues maintained and will
these records be available for
inspection by the City?
No. NA
1.9 Does the Vendor maintain formal
security policies and procedures to
comply with applicable statutory or
industry practice
requirements/standards? Are
records maintained to demonstrate
compliance or certification? Does
the Vendor allow client audit of
these records? Note: Please submit
supporting documentation.
Formal policies are implemented within CTC’s IT
infrastructure related to electronic access controls.
Statutory and/or industry compliance policies are
implemented as-needed on a project basis.
A
2.0 What are the internet and the
browser security configurations for
the cloud application? What security
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 5 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
standards and requirements does
the Vendor maintain to ensure
application security at the user
interface? (A set of detailed
documentation should be provided
to support the compliance).
2.0 APPLICATION/SOLUTION CONFIGURATION
# Question Response from The Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication Required
from The Vendor
2.1 What is the name of the
application(s) that the Vendor will
be hosting in order to provide
services to the City? (List all)
N/A N/A
2.2 What functionality will be provided
to the City’s employees or the City’s
customers or other recipient of City
services through the application?
N/A N/A
2.3 Will the Vendor use a subcontractor
and/or a third party service
provider? (List all). If yes, then what
data privacy and information
security agreements are in place
between the Vendor and any
subcontractor/third party to ensure
appropriate and accountable
treatment of information? Note the
City requires that the Vendor and
each subcontractor and/or third
party formally acknowledge that will
N/A N/A
VISA Questionnaire Page 6 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
comply with the City’s Information
Privacy Policy and SaaS Security
and Privacy Terms and
Conditions
2.4 What is the Vendor's application(s)
hosting hardware and software
platform? Provide a detailed
description, including security
patches or security applications in
use.
Example: Windows or Unix
Operating System (OS) and other
detail.
N/A N/A
2.5 How does the Vendor’s application
and database architecture to
manage or promote segregation of
the City's data (related to its
function as a local government
agency) from the data of individuals
providing services to or receiving
services from the City?
N/A N/A
2.6 Describe the Vendor’s server and
network infrastructure. Please
provide server and network
infrastructure deployment topology,
including data flow architecture,
including but not limited to security
management applications, firewalls,
etc.
N/A N/A
VISA Questionnaire Page 7 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
2.7 Please provide a detail proposed
solution that will be developed as a
part of the Vendor’s implementation
to support this project. (For example
detailed solution architecture,
secured data flow to support
business processes, etc.).
N/A N/A
3.0 DATA PROTECTION
# Question Response from the Vendor Score Additional Information/Clafication
Required the Vendor
3.1 What will be the medium of data
exchange between the City and
Vendor?
Primarily email. A
3.2
. How will the data be kept secure
during the data exchange process?
Example: (VPN, Data Link, Frame
Relay, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS,
etc.)
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
transfering PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. CTC is open to using
any preferred transfer solution or technology as
deemed appropriate by the City.
A
3.3 How will the City’s data be kept
physically and logically secure at
the Vendor’s preferred storage
location? Example: Locked storage,
Digitally, Encrypted etc.
Work materials in progress will be stored on
CTC’s internal servers, secured within its
headquarters location. The site utilizes electronic
keycard access to all doorways, and is protected
by an actively monitored electronic security
surveillance system. CTC has a formal,
documented physical access policy requiring
C Please advise
What data transfer is required?
VISA Questionnaire Page 8 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
logging and escort of all non-staff visitors. Only
CTC staff have electronic credentials to access
internal storage servers. No direct external
(Internet-based) access to our servers is allowed
without VPN access.
We anticipate primarily transfer of data through
email exchange. CTC does not anticipate
requiring access to or trasnmitting PI, PII, or SI
about individuals/organizations. We anticipate
data exchange requirements will be limited to
publically accessible information and other
generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data
related to roadway attributes and other City
physical infrastructure). Information provided to
the City will include conceptual fiber network
designs and financial analysis that we expect will
be made publically available upon completion.
3.4 What application level protections
are in place to prevent the Vendor’s
or a subcontractor/third party’s staff
member from viewing unauthorized
confidential information? For
example, encryption, masking, etc.
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. We anticipate data
exchange requirements will be limited to publically
accessible information and other generally non-
sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data related to
roadway attributes and other City infrastructure).
A
3.5 What controls does the Vendor
exercise over the qualification and
performance of its team? Of their
subcontractor/third party’s team(s)?
(For example, criminal background
Our team members undergo a background check
and a strict qualification interview that follows
closely with the Top Grading interview technique.
Qualifications are determined by role/labor
a
VISA Questionnaire Page 9 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
verification prior to employment,
providing security training after
employment and managing Role
Based Access Control (RBAC)
during employment and network
and application access termination
upon employment termination.
category.
4.0 DATA BACK-UP
# Question Response Score COPA’s Security Assessment
4.1 What are the Vendor’s
method(s) used to keep data
secured during the data
backup process?
Offsite data backups are transferred over an AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnel.
A
4.2
.
Is the Vendor’s encryption
technology used to encrypt
whole or selective data?
All data is encrypted during offsite backup transfer. A
4.3 What types of storage media
will the Vendor use for data
backup purposes? For
example, Tape, Hard Disk
Drive or any other devices.
Hard Disk Drive. A
4.4 Are the Vendor’s backup
storage devices encrypted? If
‘yes,’ please provide
encryption specification, with
type of encryption algorithm
and detail process of
encryption handling. If ‘no,’
provide a detailed description
No, data is not encrypted on storage devices. Offsite
data backups are transferred over an AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnel. No physical transport of storage
media occurs for backups.
B Depending upon the vendor’s
response of the type of data
processed we’ll decide the data
encryption requirements
VISA Questionnaire Page 10 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
(with processes, tools and
technology) to keep data
secured during the back-up
process.
5.0 DATA RETENTION
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
5.1 What is the Vendor’s standard
data retention period of the
backed up data? The data
retention process shall comply
with the City’s data 7 (seven)
years data retention policy.
Note: In the event that the
Vendor cannot comply with
this requirement then the
City’s Project Manager shall
approval from the City’s data
retention schedule/policy
owner.
7 years. A
5.2 Are the data backup storage
media at the Vendor’s location
or other third party location?
All backups are stored at a CTC regional location. A
5.3 If the Vendor’s backup storage
devices are stored with
another company, please
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 11 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
provide:
a. Company Name:
b. Address:
c. Contact person
detail (Phone and
Email):
d. What contractual
commitments are
in place to
guarantee security
compliance from
these vendors
5.5 What is the media transfer
process (I.e. The lock box
process used to send tapes
off-site)?
Data storage devices are not physically transported. Offsite
data backup occurs between CTC locations over AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnels.
A
5.6 Who has access to the data
storage media lockbox(es)?
(Provide Name and Role)
Only CTC IT Administrators (Matthew DeHaven, CIO/CISO
and Eric Wirth, Deputy CIO/CISO)
A
5.7 Who on the Vendor’s staff or
subcontractor/third party’s staff
is/are authorized to access
backup data storage media?
(Provide Name and Role)
Only CTC IT Administrators (Matthew DeHaven, CIO/CISO
and Eric Wirth, Deputy CIO/CISO)
A
5.8 What is the backup data
storage media receipt and
release authorization
process(es)? (Please submit a
soft copy of the process)
N/A NA
6.0 ACCOUNT PROVISIONING AND DE-PROVISIONING (The Vendor must receive formal pre-authorization from the City’s Information Security Manager prior to provisioning and de-provisioning of application access account).
VISA Questionnaire Page 12 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
6.1 What is the account
provisioning/removal process?
Example: how are users
accounts created and
managed?)
N/A NA
6.2
. What is the account
deprovisioning/removal
process? Example: how are
users accounts created and
managed?)
N/A NA
6.3 How will the City’s employees
gain access to required
application(s)?
N/A NA
6.4 Does the application(s) have
the capability to restrict access
only from the City’s WAN
(Wide Area Network)?
N/A NA
7.0 PASSWORD MANAGEMENT
# Question Response from the Vendor Score Additional
VISA Questionnaire Page 13 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
7.1 What will be the policy and/or
procedures for the logging,
authentication, authorization
and password management
scheme? (Please provide a
soft copy of the process)
City employees will not require access to any applications
hosted or developed by CTC.
C Please confirm that the City’s
employees don’t need to
access CTC’s application.
7.2
.
Where will the login and
password credentials be
stored?
N/A NA
7.3 Are the password credentials
stored with encryption? If ‘yes,’
please provide encryption
scheme detail.
N/A NA
7.4 The Vendor’s application must
comply with the following
password requirements. Does
the Vendor’s application meet
these requirements?
1. First time password
must be unique to an
individual and require
the user to change it
upon initial login.
2. If the password is sent
via plain text email to
the City employee to
mitigate security
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 14 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
exposure.
3. The City requires first
time password to have
a time-out capability of
no more than 7 days.
4. The e-mail notification
must not be copied to
anyone except the
user.
5. The permanent/long
term password must
be changed frequently
(at least TWICE a
year)
6. E-mail notification
must be sent to the
user whenever the
password has been
updated.
7. User should not be
able to view data or
conduct business
unless an initial
password has been
updated with a
different password.
8. The Vendor shall
inform the City’s users
that, when a new
password is created,
the user shall not use
the City’s LDAP
(Lightweight Directory
Access Control
VISA Questionnaire Page 15 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Protocal) password.
9. The password must
have 8 or more
alphanumeric (/)
characters and it must
contain at least one
character from each of
the bullets noted
below (i.e. Each line
shall contribute at
least one character):
• abcdefghijklmnopqrstu
vwxyz
• ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZ
• 0123456789
• !@#$%^&*()-
+=`~,></\"'?;:{[}]
--------------------------------------------------- End Of Document--------------------------------------------------
VISA Questionnaire Page 16 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Info
Release and
Release Date
Document Cl
orma
Version:
e:
assification:
atioon P
1st
31
Ne
Priva
Release, Ver
January, 201
eed to Know
acy
rsion 2.2
13
Pollicy
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
CONTEN
DOCUMENT
CHANGE RE
APPROVAL .
DISTRIBUTIO
1. OBJE
A) INTEN
B) SCOP
C) CONS
D) EXCE
E) MUNIC
2. RESP
A) RESP
B) RESP
C) RESP
D) RESP
E) RESP
3. PRIVA
A) OVER
B) PERSO
C) METH
D) UTILIT
E) PUBLI
F) ACCE
G) SECU
H) DATA
I) SOFTW
J) FAIR A
4. CONT
Privacy Policy
TS
CONTROLS...
ECORD ..........
.....................
ON ................
ECTIVE ...........
NT ..................
E ..................
SEQUENCES....
PTIONS..........
CIPAL ORDINAN
PONSIBILITIES
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ACY POLICY ..
RVIEW ............
ONAL INFORMA
ODS OF COLLE
TIES SERVICE .
C DISCLOSUR
SS TO PERSON
RITY, CONFIDE
RETENTION / I
WARE AS A SE
AND ACCURAT
TACTS ...........
y
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
NCE ...............
OF CITY STAF
CIO AND ISM
INFORMATION
USERS .........
F INFORMATION
F AUTHORIZATI
.....................
.....................
ATION AND CH
ECTION OF PER
.....................
E ...................
NAL INFORMAT
ENTIALITY AND
INFORMATION
RVICE (SAAS)
E CREDIT TRA
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
F ...................
M ....................
N SECURITY ST
.....................
N TECHNOLOGY
ON COORDINA
.....................
.....................
OICE ..............
RSONAL INFOR
.....................
.....................
TION ...............
NON-DISCLOS
RETENTION ...
) OVERSIGHT ..
ANSACTION ACT
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
TEERING COMM
......................
Y (IT) MANAGE
ATION .............
......................
......................
......................
RMATION .........
......................
......................
......................
SURE .............
......................
......................
T OF 2003 (FA
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
MITTEE ..........
.....................
ERS ...............
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ACT) .............
.....................
In
Informa
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 1 of 8
ary, 2013
............ 2
............ 2
............ 2
............ 2
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 6
............ 6
............ 6
............ 6
............ 7
............ 7
............ 7
............ 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
DOCUME
CHANGE
APPROVA
DISTRIBU
Privacy Policy
ENT CONT
Documen
Location
Documen
Documen
Contributo
E RECORD
Date
12-Jul-12
26-Sep-12
09-Nov-12
19-Nov-12
22-Nov-12
26-Nov-12
6-Dec-12
14-Jan-13
31-Jan-13
VAL
Date
06-Dec-12
06-Dec-12
06-Dec-12
14-Jan-13
14-Jan-13
UTION
Name
City of Pa
Providers
y
TROLS
nt Title
nt Author
nt Manager
ors
D
Author
Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
Raj Pat
3 Raj Pat
3 Raj Pat
Name
2 Raj Pate
2 Jonatha
2 Tom Auz
3 Grant Ko
3 Informat
Steering
alo Alto Emplo
, Residents a
Informatio
City of Pa
Raj Patel
Raj Patel
Jonathan
Joe Black
r Versi
tel 0.01
tel 1.0
tel 1.5
tel 1.6
tel 1.7
tel 1.8
tel 1.92
tel 2.0
tel 2.2
el
n Reichental
zenne
olling
tion Security
g Committee
oyees, Servic
and Businesse
on Privacy Po
alo Alto Webs
Reichental,
kwell, Grant K
on Chang
First d
First d
Update
Additio
Revise
Revise
Reiche
Revise
Jonath
Revise
Grant
Revise
from In
Comm
Role
Informa
Manag
Techno
CIO; In
Techno
Assista
Utilities
Senior
Attorne
Office
Sponso
Lo
ce
es
Cit
Sh
olicy
ite and Share
Shiva Swam
Kolling
ge Reference
draft develope
draft released
ed first draft f
onal updates
ed table of co
ed followed b
ental and Tom
ed according
han Reichenta
ed according
Kolling
ed according
nformation Se
mittee
ation Security
ger; Informatio
ology Departm
nformation
ology Departm
ant Director,
s Department
r Assistant Cit
ey; City Attorn
or
ocation
ty of Palo Alto
harePoint
In
Informa
ePoint
minathan, Tom
e
ed
for review
for review
as identified
ontent
y review from
m Auzenne
to comments
al
to comments
to recommen
ecurity Steeri
Com
y
on
ment
Appr
ment
Appr
t
Appr
ty
ney’s
Appr
Appr
o Website an
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
m Auzenne,
m Jonathan
s from
s from
ndations
ng
mments
roved
roved
roved
roved
roved
d
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 2 of 8
ary, 2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
1. O
The C
Palo
provi
appro
finan
busin
local
indus
1798
some
busin
Califo
to en
Prote
busin
provi
“Pers
“Info
in thi
A) I
The C
perso
of me
perso
the C
and s
polic
Infor
The g
all us
secu
and s
comp
B) S
The
requ
inform
confo
C) C
The C
their
Privacy Policy
Objective
City of Palo A
Alto. In prom
isions of the C
opriate meas
ncial) informat
ness as a loca
authorities a
stry best prac
8.24, 1798.79
e of these pro
ness in a man
ornia laws. Th
nsure the ong
ected Critical
ness with the
ide services.
sonally Identif
rmation”) are
s Policy by re
INTENT
City, acting in
ons who do b
eans, includin
ons accessing
City’s staff and
security of the
ies, rules, reg
mation is coll
goals and obj
sers having a
rity of databa
security of the
pliance with le
SCOPE
Policy will gu
ired to protec
mation data a
orm their perf
CONSEQUENCE
City’s employ
work implicat
y
e
Alto (the “City”
moting the qua
California Pub
ures to safeg
tion of person
al governmen
nd reflected i
ctices, includin
.8(b), 1798.80
ovisions do no
nner which pr
he objective o
oing protectio
Infrastructure
City and rece
The terms “P
fiable Informa
defined in the
eference.
n its governme
business with
ng, without lim
g the City’s w
d/or authorize
e Information
gulations and
ected, stored
jectives of the
ccess to the C
ase informatio
e Information
egal and regu
ide the City’s
ct the confiden
are intended t
formances to
ES
yees shall com
tes access to
”) strives to p
ality of life of t
blic Records A
uard the secu
ns, collected in
nt agency. Th
n federal and
ng, without lim
0(e), 1798.81
ot apply to loc
omotes the p
of this Policy i
on of the Pers
e Informationa
eiving service
Personal Infor
ation” and “Pe
e California C
ental and pro
or receive se
mitation, from
website, and p
ed third-party
collected by
procedures,
and utilized i
e Policy are: (
City’s applica
on assets own
provided to t
ulatory require
staff and, ind
ntiality and pr
to be covered
the Policy sh
mply with the
the Informati
romote and s
these persons
Act, California
urity and priva
n the ordinary
ese measure
d California law
mitation, the p
.5, 1798.82(e
cal governme
rivacy of pers
is to describe
sonal Informa
and Personal
es from the Ci
rmation,” “Pro
ersonally Iden
Civil Code sec
prietary capa
ervices from th
persons appl
persons who a
contractors. T
the City. The
and industry
in compliance
(a) a safe, pro
tions and dat
ned by, or ent
he City’s staff
ements.
directly, third p
ivacy of the In
d by the Policy
ould they enj
Policy in the
ion referred to
sustain a supe
s, it is the pol
a Governmen
acy of the per
y course and
es are genera
ws, the City’s
provisions of C
e), 1798.83(e
nt agencies li
sonal informa
e the City’s da
ation, Persona
ly Identifying
ity or a third p
otected Critica
ntifying Inform
ctions, referre
acities, collect
he City. The I
lying to receiv
access other
The City is co
City acknow
best practice
e with applica
oductive, and
tabases; (b) th
trusted to, the
ff and third pa
party contract
nformation of
y and which w
oy conditiona
execution of
o in this Polic
In
Informa
erior quality o
icy of the City
nt Code §§ 62
rsonal (includ
scope of con
lly observed b
s rules and re
California Civ
e)(7), and 179
ike the City, t
ation, as reflec
ata security go
ally Identifiabl
Information o
party under co
al Infrastructu
mation” (collec
ed to above, a
ts the Informa
Information is
ve services p
information p
ommitted to p
ledges federa
es are dedicat
able laws.
inoffensive w
he appropriat
e City; (c) the
arty contractor
tors, which ar
f the persons
will be advised
al access to th
their official d
cy. A failure to
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
of life for perso
y, consistent w
250 – 6270, to
ding, without l
nducting the C
by federal, sta
gulations, an
vil Code §§ 17
98.92(c). Thou
the City will co
cted in federa
oals and obje
le Information
of persons do
ontract to the
ure Informatio
ctively, the
and are incorp
ation pertainin
s collected by
rovided by th
portals mainta
protecting the
al and Califor
ted to ensurin
work environm
te maintenanc
controlled ac
rs; and (d) fai
re by contract
whose perso
d by City staf
hat informatio
duties to the e
o comply may
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 3 of 8
ary, 2013
ons in
with the
o take
imitation,
City’s
ate and
d
798.3(a),
ugh
onduct
al and
ectives,
n,
oing
City to
on”,
porated
ng to
a variety
e City,
ained by
privacy
nia laws,
ng the
ment for
ce and
ccess
ithful
t
onal
ff to
on.
extent
y result in
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
empl
D) E
In the
Polic
exce
“ISM
as m
acco
form
stora
will c
the re
and h
by th
E) M
This
2. RE
A) R
The C
coord
The C
party
perfo
The
and t
in de
respo
incid
depa
Non-
inclu
B) R
The
draw
for a
initia
plann
addre
Privacy Policy
loyment and/o
EXCEPTIONS
e event that a
cy, the employ
ption request
”). The empl
may be reques
ordance with g
by the City A
age, access, r
consult with th
equest, the e
his or her sup
he CIO, acting
MUNICIPAL OR
Policy will su
SPONSIB
RESPONSIBILIT
CIO, acting b
dinate the imp
City’s employ
y contractors
ormance of th
ISM will be re
the effectiven
etailed, audita
onsible for the
ents that aris
artment-specif
-Disclosure A
ding, without
RESPONSIBILIT
Information S
wn from the va
ll information
tives and acti
ning processe
essed at the a
y
or legal conse
a City employ
yee may requ
t will be review
oyee, with the
sted by the IS
guidelines app
Attorney. The P
retention, usa
he CIO to app
xception requ
pervisor. The
g by the ISM.
RDINANCE
persede any
BILITIES O
TY OF CIO AND
y the ISM, wi
plementation
yees, in partic
under contrac
eir job respon
esponsible for
ness of the Po
ble technical
e City’s IT env
e in regard to
fic policies an
greements (N
limitation, loc
TY OF INFORMA
Security Steer
arious City de
security effor
ivities. The IS
es to ensure t
appropriate C
equences.
ee cannot ful
est an excep
wed and adm
e approval of
M. The ISM w
proved by the
Policy’s guide
age, and prote
prove or deny
uest dispositio
approval of a
City policy, ru
OF CITY S
D ISM
ll establish an
of information
cular, software
ct to the City t
nsibilities.
r: (a) develop
olicy; (c) the d
requirements
vironments; (
o potential vio
nd procedures
NDAs) signed
cal or ‘cloud-b
ATION SECURI
ring Committe
partments, w
rts, including
SSC will provid
that informatio
City departme
ly comply with
tion by subm
ministered by t
his or her su
will conduct a
e City’s Chief
elines will incl
ection of the I
the exception
on will be com
ny request m
ule, regulation
STAFF
n information
n security me
e application
to provide ser
ing and upda
development o
s, which will b
d) assisting th
lations of the
s which fall un
by third party
based’ softwa
TY STEERING
ee (the “ISSC
will provide the
key informatio
de input to th
on security ris
nt level.
h one or more
itting Security
the City’s Info
pervisor, will
a risk assessm
Information O
lude at a mini
nformation id
n request. Af
mmunicated, i
may be subjec
n or procedur
security man
easures by the
users and da
rvices, shall b
ating the Polic
of privacy sta
be designed a
he City’s staff
Policy; (e) re
nder the purv
y contractors
are services to
COMMITTEE
”), which is co
e primary dire
on security an
e information
sks are adequ
In
Informa
e element(s)
y Exception R
ormation Secu
provide any a
ment of the re
Officer (“CIO”
imum: purpos
dentified in the
fter due cons
in writing, to t
ct to counterm
re regarding i
nagement fram
e City’s gove
atabase users
by guided by
cy, (b) enforci
andards that w
and maintaine
ff in evaluating
eviewing and
view of this Po
, which will pr
o the City.
omprised of t
ection, prioritiz
nd privacy ris
n security and
uately consid
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
described in
Request.The
urity Manager
additional info
quested exce
) and approve
se, source, co
e request. The
ideration is gi
the City emplo
measures esta
nformation pr
mework to init
rnment.
s, and, indirec
this Policy in
ng complianc
will manifest t
ed by the pers
g security and
approving
olicy; and (f) r
rovide service
he City’s emp
zation and ap
sks, programs
privacy strat
ered, assess
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 4 of 8
ary, 2013
this
r (the
ormation
eption in
ed as to
ollection,
e ISM
iven to
oyee
ablished
rivacy.
tiate and
ctly, third
the
ce with
he Policy
sons
d privacy
reviewing
es,
ployees,
pproval
s,
tegic
ed and
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
C) R
All au
proce
D) R
The C
City’s
comp
intern
E) R
The
(NDA
the S
exec
contr
objec
by th
occu
The C
appro
3. PR
A) O
The
Infor
by, o
contr
activ
other
The t
other
desig
inform
comp
main
confi
third
B) P
Exce
doing
perso
as a
Privacy Policy
RESPONSIBILIT
uthorized use
esses and tec
RESPONSIBILIT
City’s IT Man
s networks, w
pliance with th
nal reporting
RESPONSIBILIT
ISM will ensu
A), whenever
Software as a
cuted prior to t
ractors. The C
ctives, policie
he ISM at plan
rred.
CIO, acting b
opriate, comm
IVACY PO
OVERVIEW
Policy applies
mation of per
or entrusted to
ractors under
ities include,
r networks, sy
term “informa
r related orga
gned, implem
mation assets
promise, and
ntain informati
dentiality, inte
parties.
PERSONAL INF
ept as permitte
g business wi
on has conse
local governm
y
TY OF USERS
ers of the Info
chnologies wi
TY OF INFORMA
agers, who a
will be respons
he City’s infor
of events that
TY OF AUTHOR
ure that the Ci
access to the
Service (Saa
the sharing of
City’s approac
s, processes
nned intervals
y the ISM, wi
mencing from
OLICY
s to activities
rsons doing b
o, the City and
contract to th
without limita
ystems, or de
ation assets” a
anizations whi
ented, and m
s. The City’s s
inappropriate
ion managem
egrity, and av
FORMATION AN
ed or provide
ith the City, o
ented to the C
ment agency
rmation will b
ithin the scop
ATION TECHNO
re responsibl
sible for confi
rmation secur
t may have co
RIZATION COOR
ity’s employee
e Information
aS) Security a
f the Informat
ch to managin
, and procedu
s, or wheneve
ll review and
the date of it
that involve t
usiness with t
d will be mad
he City to pro
ation, accessin
evices.
also includes
ile those asse
maintained to e
staff will act to
e disclosure o
ment systems,
vailability of its
ND CHOICE
d by applicab
r receiving se
City’s sharing o
with third par
be responsible
e of responsi
OLOGY (IT) MA
e for internal,
guring, maint
rity and privac
ompromised
RDINATION
es secure the
will be grante
and Privacy T
tion of person
ng information
ures for inform
er significant c
recommend
ts adoption.
he use of the
the City or re
e available to
vide Software
ng the Interne
the personal
ets are under
ensure that o
o protect its in
or alteration. T
networks an
s information
ble laws, the C
ervices from th
of such inform
rties under co
e for complyin
ibility of each
ANAGERS
, external, dir
taining and se
cy policies. T
network, syst
e execution of
ed to third par
Terms and Co
ns covered by
n security and
mation securit
changes to se
changes to th
e City’s inform
ceiving servic
o the City’s em
e as a Service
et, using e-ma
information o
the City’s con
nly authorize
nformation as
The City will p
nd processes
assets to the
City will not sh
he City, in vio
mation during
ontract to the C
In
Informa
ng with inform
user.
rect and indire
ecuring the C
hey are also
tem or data s
f Non-Disclos
rty contractor
onditions. An
y this Policy w
d its impleme
ty) will be rev
ecurity implem
he Policy ann
mation assets,
ces from the C
mployees and
e consulting s
ail, accessing
of the City’s e
ntrol. Securit
d persons wil
ssets from the
plan, design,
in order to as
e City’s emplo
hare the Infor
olation of this
the conduct
City to provid
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
mation privacy
ect connection
City’s IT netwo
responsible fo
ecurity.
sure Agreeme
rs, in conjunct
NDA must be
with third party
entation (i.e.
viewed indepe
mentation hav
nually, or as
namely, the
City, which ar
d third party
services. The
g the City’s int
employees an
ty measures w
ll enjoy acces
eft, damage, l
implement an
ssure the app
oyees and aut
rmation of any
Policy, unles
of the City’s b
e services.
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 5 of 8
ary, 2013
y
ns to the
orks in
or timely
ents
tion with
e
y
endently
ve
re owned
se
tranet or
nd any
will be
ss to the
oss,
nd
ropriate
thorized
y person
ss that
business
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
C) M
The C
colle
busin
may
and w
forma
The C
site m
City w
the In
the b
Inter
the u
comp
their
on hi
sites
D) U
In the
Depa
custo
Utiliti
apply
other
with
Busin
have
mont
resid
and/o
the s
Busin
cove
Infor
E) P
The
could
unles
F) A
The C
acce
affec
Privacy Policy
METHODS OF C
City may gath
ction of such
ness as a loca
be gathered
with other tec
ation in order
City’s staff wi
may use “coo
will note that
nternet Protoc
browser softw
net address o
user’s comput
promise the u
computers by
is or her com
.
UTILITIES SERV
e provision of
artment (“CPA
omers. To the
ies Rules and
y; provided, h
rwise directed
other City dep
nesses and re
e secure acce
thly utility usa
dents with non
or billing data
standard mon
nesses and re
red by the sa
mation under
PUBLIC DISCLO
Information th
d be incorpora
ss such inform
ACCESS TO PE
City will take
ss to that per
cted persons w
y
COLLECTION O
her the Inform
information is
al governmen
at service win
chnologies, wh
r to secure the
ll inform the p
kies” to custo
a cookie cont
col address o
ware and oper
of the website
ter by using th
user’s privacy
y using any o
puter, it will n
VICE
f utility service
AU”) will colle
e extent the m
d Regulations
however, any
d or approved
partments ex
esidents with
ss through a
age and billing
n-standard or
a provided to t
thly billing.
esidents with
ame privacy p
r applicable fe
OSURE
hat is collecte
ated in a publ
mation is exem
ERSONAL INFO
reasonable s
rson’s Informa
who can revie
OF PERSONAL
mation from a
s both necess
nt agency in it
ndows and co
herever the C
e City’s servic
persons whos
omize the brow
tains unique i
of the compute
ating systems
e from which t
he City’s web
or security. U
of the widely a
ot prevent or
es to persons
ect the Informa
management
or other ordi
such Rules a
d by the Coun
cept as may b
standard utili
CPAU websi
g data. In add
experimenta
them through
such non-sta
rotections an
ederal and Ca
ed by the City
lic record that
mpt from disc
ORMATION
teps to verify
ation. Each C
ew and updat
INFORMATION
variety of sou
sary and appr
ts governmen
ontact centers
City may intera
ces.
se Information
wsing experie
information th
er used to ac
s used, the da
the user linke
site do not c
Users can refu
available meth
prohibit the u
s located withi
ation in order
of that inform
nances, rules
and Regulatio
ncil. This inclu
be required b
ity meters and
te to their Info
dition to their r
l electric, wat
non-City elec
andard or exp
d personal in
alifornia laws.
in the ordina
t may be subj
closure to the
a person’s id
City departmen
te that informa
urces and res
ropriate in ord
ntal and propr
s as well as a
act with perso
n are covered
ence with the
hat a web site
ccess the City
ate and time
ed to the City’s
contain the Inf
use the cooki
hods. If the us
user from gain
in Palo Alto, t
r to initiate an
mation is not s
s, regulations
ns must conf
udes the shar
by law.
d/or having n
ormation, incl
regular month
ter or natural
ctronic portal
perimental me
nformation exc
ry course and
ject to inspec
public by Ca
dentity before
nt that collect
ation at reaso
In
Informa
sources, prov
der for the Cit
rietary capaci
at web sites, b
ons who need
d by this Polic
e City of Palo A
e can use to tr
y’s web sites,
a user access
s web sites. C
formation, and
ies or delete t
ser chooses n
ning access t
the City of Pa
d manage uti
specifically ad
or procedure
form to this Po
ring of CPAU-
on-metered m
luding, withou
hly utilities bil
gas meters m
s at different
etering will ha
change rules
d scope of co
ction and copy
alifornia law.
e the City will g
ts Information
onable times.
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
ided that the
ty to conduct
ties. That inf
by mobile app
d to share suc
cy that the Cit
Alto web site
rack, among o
the identificat
sed the site, a
Cookies creat
d thus do not
the cookie file
not to accept
to or using the
alo Alto Utilitie
ility services t
ddressed in th
es, this Policy
olicy, unless
-collected Info
monthly servic
ut limitation, th
ling, business
may have thei
intervals than
ave their Inform
applicable to
onducting its b
ying by the pu
grant anyone
n will afford ac
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 6 of 8
ary, 2013
formation
plications,
ch
ty’s web
. The
others,
tion of
and the
ted on
t
es from
a cookie
e City’s
es
to
he
y will
ormation
ces will
heir
ses and
ir usage
n with
mation
o
business
ublic,
e online
ccess to
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
G) S
Exce
perso
partie
reaso
perso
The C
Infor
insta
such
If the
occu
breac
date(
and t
H) D
The C
perio
destr
I) S
The C
servi
In ord
those
the S
provi
servi
confi
Thes
whic
servi
inclu
moni
term
comp
Prior
servi
even
requ
prom
J) F
CPA
mana
Privacy Policy
SECURITY, CO
ept as otherwi
ons covered b
es without the
onable contro
ons covered b
City may auth
mation of per
nces, the City
Information o
e City become
rred, with res
ch in accorda
(s) of the know
the proposed
DATA RETENTI
City will store
od is establish
ruction.
SOFTWARE AS
City may eng
ces, common
der to assure
e who receive
SaaS services
ider, shall des
ces and/or fu
dentiality and
se requiremen
h the services
ces provider’
ding disaster
itoring service
“IT infrastruc
puters, and da
r to entering in
ces provider
nt that the Saa
irements duri
mptly inform th
FAIR AND ACC
U will require
age utility ser
y
NFIDENTIALITY
ise provided b
by this Policy
e express writ
ols that are de
by this Policy
horize the City
rsons who do
y will require
only in further
es aware of a
spect to the In
ance with app
wn or suspec
action to be
ION / INFORMA
e and secure a
hed by law, fo
A SERVICE (S
age third part
nly known as
the privacy a
ed services fro
s provider and
sign, install, p
urnishes good
d privacy of th
nts include inf
s are provided
s operations
recovery and
es to ensure a
cture” refers to
atabase man
nto an agreem
to complete a
aS services p
ng the course
he ISM.
URATE CREDIT
utility custom
rvices to them
Y AND NON-DIS
by applicable
as confidenti
tten consent o
esigned to pro
.
y’s employee
business with
the City’s em
rance of City-
breach, or ha
nformation of
licable laws.
cted breach, t
taken or the r
ATION RETENTI
all Information
or seven (7) ye
SAAS) OVERSI
ty contractors
Software-as-
and security o
om the City, a
d its subcontr
provide, and m
ds to the City,
he Information
formation sec
d to the City,
and maintena
d business co
a secure and
o the integrate
agement dev
ment to provid
and submit an
provider reaso
e of providing
T TRANSACTIO
mers to provid
m.
SCLOSURE
law or this Po
ial and will no
of the person
otect the conf
and or third p
h the City or r
ployee and/o
-related busin
as reasonable
a person, the
The notice of
he nature of t
responsive ac
ION
n for a period
ears, and the
GHT
s and vendors
a-Service (Sa
of the Informa
as a condition
ractors, if any
maintain a sec
to the extent
n.
curity directive
including con
ance process
ontinuity plann
reliable envir
ed framework
vices, upon wh
de services to
n Information
onably determ
services, the
ON ACT OF 200
de their Inform
olicy, the City
ot disclose it,
n affected. The
fidentiality and
party contrac
receive servic
or the third pa
ness and in ac
e grounds to
e City will notif
f breach will in
the Informatio
ction taken by
d of time as m
ereafter such i
s to provide s
aaS).
ation of those
n of selling go
y, including an
cure IT enviro
t any scope of
es pertaining
nnection to th
es needed to
ning; and (c) t
ronment and
k, including, w
hich digital ne
o the City, the
Security and
mines that it ca
e City will requ
03
mation in orde
In
Informa
y will treat the
or permit it to
e City will dev
d security of t
ctors to acces
ces from the C
rty contractor
ccordance wit
believe that a
fy the affecte
nclude the da
on that is the
y the City.
may be require
information w
software appli
who do busin
oods and/or s
ny IT infrastru
onment, while
f work or serv
to: (a) the IT
e City's IT sy
o support the
the IT infrastr
service availa
without limitat
etworks opera
e City’s staff w
Privacy Que
annot fulfill th
uire the SaaS
er for the City
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
e Information o
o be disclosed
velop and ma
the Informatio
s and/or use
City. In those
rs to agree to
th the Policy.
a security bre
d person of s
ate(s) or estim
subject of the
ed by law, or i
will be schedu
cation and da
ness with the
ervices to the
cture service
e it performs s
vices implicat
infrastructure
stems; (b) the
IT environme
ructure perfor
ability to the C
tion, data cen
ate.
will require the
estionnaire. In
e information
S services pro
to initiate and
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 7 of 8
ary, 2013
of
d, to third
aintain
on of
the
use
ach has
such
mated
e breach,
if no
led for
atabase
City and
e City,
s
such
tes the
e, by
e SaaS
ent,
rmance
City. The
ters,
e SaaS
n the
n security
ovider to
d
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
Information P
Version 2.2
Fede
108-
credi
and i
preve
CPA
when
chan
Ther
§ 179
4. CO
Info
Chie
Utili
City
Privacy Policy
eral regulation
159), includin
itor” which pro
implement pro
ent, respond
U procedures
never significa
nges to CPAU
e are Californ
98.92.
ONTACTS
rmation Secu
ef Information
ties Departm
y Attorney’s O
y
ns, implement
ng the Red Fla
ovides service
ocedures for
and mitigate
s for potential
ant changes t
U identity theft
nia laws which
urity Manager
n Officer: Rei
ent: Auzenne
Office: Kolling,
ting the Fair a
ag Rules, req
es in advance
an identity th
potential iden
identity theft
to security im
t procedures,
h are applicab
r: Patel, Raj <
chental, Jona
e, Tom <Tom
Grant <Gran
and Accurate
quire that CPA
e of payment
eft program fo
ntity theft of its
will be review
plementation
or as approp
ble to identity
Raj.Patel@C
athan <Jonath
m.Auzenne@C
nt.Kolling@Ci
Credit Trans
AU, as a “cov
and which ca
for new and e
s customers’
wed independ
n have occurre
priate, so as to
y theft; they ar
CityofPaloAlto
han.Reichent
CityofPaloAlto
tyofPaloAlto.o
In
Informa
sactions Act o
ered financia
an affect cons
existing accou
Information.
dently by the
ed. The ISM w
o conform to
re set forth in
.org>
tal@CityofPal
o.org
org>
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
of 2003 (Publi
l institution or
sumer credit,
unts to detect,
ISM annually
will recomme
this Policy.
California Ci
loAlto.org>
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 8 of 8
ary, 2013
c Law
r
develop
,
y or
nd
vil Code
DocuSign Envelope ID: EE175902-EFDA-48D2-8CB0-36938E2E3B4A
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15152568
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND
COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
DBA CTC TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 1st day of December, 2014, (“Agreement”)
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), and COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (dba CTC
Technology & Energy), a Maryland corporation, located at 10613 Concord St. Kensington, MD
20885 ("CONSULTANT").
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement.
A. CITY intends to develop a Wireless Network Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi
deployment and a long-term consideration of other wireless technologies (“Project”) and desires
to engage a consultant to inventory and assess City assets and infrastructure required to support
deployment of a wireless network 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.
SECTION 2. TERM.
The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through May 30, 2015
unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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 One Hundred
Twenty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($123,250.00). In the event Reimbursable
Expenses are authorized, the total compensation for Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed
Eight Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($8,400.00). The applicable rates and schedule of
payment are set out in Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is
attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
Additional Services, if any, shall be authorized in accordance with and subject to the provisions
of Exhibit “C”. CONSULTANT shall not receive any compensation for Additional Services
performed without the prior written authorization of CITY. Additional Services shall mean any
work that is determined by CITY to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but
which is not included within the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly
invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an
identification of personnel who performed the services, hours worked, hourly rates, and
reimbursable expenses), based upon the CONSULTANT’s billing rates (set forth in Exhibit “C-
1”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The
information in CONSULTANT’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY.
CONSULTANT shall send all invoices to the City’s project manager at the address specified in
Section 13 below. The City will generally process and pay invoices within thirty (30) days of
receipt.
SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be
performed by CONSULTANT or under CONSULTANT’s supervision. CONSULTANT
represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform the
Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience
to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally
required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or
similar circumstances.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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.
SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING.
CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this
Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee.
CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subconsultants and for any
compensation due to subconsultants. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning
compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a
subconsultant. CONSULTANT shall change or add subconsultants only with the prior approval
of the city manager or his designee.
SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENT. CONSULTANT will assign Andrew
Afflerbach as the Project Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance,
progress, and execution of the Services to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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 Todd Henderson, Information Technology Department, Project
Services Division, 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-329-2342. The
project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress
and execution of the Services. The CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time
to time.
SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including
without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents,
other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the
exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT
agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall
be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other
intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if
any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the
prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no
representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not
contemplated by the scope of work.
SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time
during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records
pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and
retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
SECTION 16. INDEMNITY.
16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify,
defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an
“Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature,
including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs
and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and
disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or
willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under
this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed
to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
S:\ASD\PURCH\SOLICITATIONS\CURRENT BUYER-CM FOLDERS\UTILITIES - CAROLYNN\4. Previous Work\RFPs\152568 Wireless
Network\CONTRACT\back up\0180078 C15152568 -Wireless Master Plan - (JRM Edits 10-28-14).docx
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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 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
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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.
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.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest.
CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this
Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the
State of California.
21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant”
as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission,
CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure
documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not
discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age,
religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all
requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department,
incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply
with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste
Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply
with the following zero waste requirements:
• All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal
computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise
approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a
professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
• Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not
limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
• Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation
from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed.
SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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 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.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
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
____________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney
COLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORTION dba CTC
TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY
____________________________
Attachments:
EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES
EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
EXHIBIT “E”: SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE
EXHIBIT “F”: VENDOR INFORMATION SECURITY ASSESSMENT
EXHIBIT “G”: INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Background
The City of Palo Alto (“City” or “Palo Alto”) needs assistance from Columbia Communications
Corporation dba CTC Technology and Energy (“Consultant”) to develop a Wireless Network
Plan (“Plan”) and assist the City in writing a Request for Proposal (“RFP”) to build a citywide
network. The City wants to develop a Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi deployment and a
long-term consideration of other wireless technologies.
The primary objectives of the Plan are to evaluate the following:
1. Wi-Fi broadband connectivity for the general public and businesses to ensure economic
development, increased access to broadband and digital inclusion for all members of the
community;
2. Improved wireless broadband connectivity to support public safety and the delivery of
municipal services by field-based staff using a wide variety of mobile government
applications over tablets, laptops and smartphones;
3. Wireless government to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of public administration.
Statement of Work
Services from the Consultant include five (5) tasks, for an amount not to exceed $131,650
($123,250 not to exceed price amount, plus $8,400 in travel expenses). See Exhibit “C”
(Compensation).
Deliverables
The following tasks describe the City’s expectations regarding the areas that should be addressed
to assist the City in developing a Wireless Network Plan:
Task 1
Prepare a written report defining the fundamental action steps required to develop a wireless
broadband initiative for the City, including an assessment of how the existing Fiber System and
other supporting municipal infrastructure can be leveraged and maximized to deploy Wi-Fi
and/or a citywide wireless network. This task should provide examples of communities that have
developed effective municipal wireless networks and how these networks are used to enhance
the delivery of municipal services, in addition to providing the general public and businesses
with some level of wireless broadband connectivity, either as an “amenity grade” Wi-Fi service
in certain areas of the community or as a citywide service that may be subscription-based.
Task 2
Conduct a user group “needs assessment” for a wireless network among all City departments and
also assess the need for an amenity-grade or subscription-based Wi-Fi service for the general
public and businesses. The primary purpose of the needs assessment is to define the City’s
strategic priorities and operational needs driving the overall design standards for either a multi-
use network for public safety, municipal service delivery and public access, or a network with a
more limited scope. Examples of City departments with field-based staff who may benefit from
access to a multi-use municipal wireless network include:
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
• Planning and Building (Building Inspectors and Code Enforcement Officers)
• Community Services (Open Spaces and Recreation Staff)
• Public Works (Engineers, Inspectors and construction crews)
• Utilities (Engineers, Estimators, Inspectors and construction crews)
• Public Safety departments (Police, Office of Emergency Services and Fire) to support
connectivity of field staff as well as the 911 Center and Emergency Operation Center, located
in the Police Department.1
The user group needs assessment should also take into account an evaluation of the
communication approaches to implement Smart Grid applications such as Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) and Smart Meters. This assessment should include a review of the findings
and recommendations described in the “Assessment of Smart Grid Applications for the City of
Palo Alto” Final Report prepared by EnerNex Corporation (February 2011) (the”Final EnerNex
Report”) (See, specifically, Section 4.2.3 “Proposed Smart Grid Communications Architecture”
and Sec. 6.0 “Evaluation of Communication Systems Approaches” of the Final EnerNex Report.
City provided the Final EnerNex Report to Consultant as Attachment J to theWireless Network
Plan Request for Proposal - No. 152568, and additional electronic copies of the report can be
made available by City upon request from Consultant.
CPAU is currently conducting a Customer Connect Smart Grid Pilot Project. CPAU has
deployed a 900 MHz mesh network which covers approximately 75 percent of the geographic
area of Palo Alto to serve the 300 residential customers participating in the pilot dispersed
throughout Palo Alto. The cost of setting up this network was under $20,000. This network is
capable of remotely reading and monitoring customer electric, natural gas and water meters.
Monitoring devices are set up along the distribution network in a non-SCADA configuration. It
is presently estimated that with equipment it is worth an additional $30,000-$50,000. The
network could be expanded to cover 100 percent of the city to read all 29,000 customer accounts
and 72,000 customer meters. If the pilot project proves to be successful by the end of 2015, this
radio-based mesh network, along with cellular phone based backhaul, will be a strong candidate
for a communication network for Smart Grid applications. Task 2 should also include an
assessment of alternatives to the commercial cellular networks currently used by the City for
mobile broadband access. The objective is to meet the City’s long term needs for public safety
first responders and other field-based staff dependent on reliable, high data rate mobile
broadband connectivity to effectively deliver municipal services. This assessment should
compare and contrast the current commercial cellular network’s strengths and weaknesses
against those of a citywide multi-use Wi-Fi WAN.
Prepare a written report based on the findings of the user-group needs assessment.
Task 3
1 Police vehicles and fire apparatus, and other field-based City staff, currently use commercial cellular networks for
mobile broadband access. Public safety vehicles are equipped with Mobile Data Computers (MDCs) that provide
Internet access and run a variety of specialized public safety applications, including Computer Aided Dispatch
(CAD), GIS-based mapping application, and CALPHOTO, which provides officers with a photo to identify individuals.
To switch from one network to another, police and fire vehicles are equipped with NetMotion software which
allows the MDCs to roam between cellular and Wi-Fi networks seamlessly depending on signal strength.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Based on the user group needs assessment, recommend wireless technology options and design
considerations for either a multi-use network (municipal, public safety and public access), or a
network with a more limited scope. Design considerations should include an assessment and
recommendations of the following:
1. Review available City-owned assets and infrastructure to support the mounting of
antennas and equipment for a Wi-Fi and/or wireless network. Assets and infrastructure
include the potential use of City-controlled public rights-of-way, availability of spare
dark fiber for wireless access points to support network backhaul, space on utility poles
and streetlight poles, and available space in conduit. The City also has approximately 90
fiber-connected traffic signals, in addition to communication towers and multiple City-
owned properties and buildings;
2. Evaluate and recommend network architecture and technology choices (e.g., Wi-Fi,
2.4/5.8 GHz Wi-Fi system, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz public safety band and 4G cellular) based
on the City’s overall wireless goals and the findings identified in the user group needs
assessment;
3. Evaluate and recommend wireless technology and network architecture that is flexible
and scalable to meet the City’s short term objectives and also able to adapt to emerging
services and applications over time;
4. Evaluate network topology based on the scope of the network and integration with the
fiber system, internal data networks, and the various applications used by field-based
staff;
5. Evaluate and recommend network hardware and software components required to support
end users;
6. Identify potential project vendors based on network technology choices and design
priorities. Examples of these vendors include: network designers, field installation
contractors, application developers, systems integrators and Internet Service Providers
(ISPs);
7. Define network security criteria and features and make a recommendation;
8. Develop network cost estimates based on the results of the user needs assessment,
technology choices and the scope of the project;
9. Evaluate the integration of a wireless network with existing City computer systems,
databases and various enterprise applications;
10. Define operational Information Technology items such as the need for a Subscriber
Management System and ongoing support structures, including customer Service Level
Agreements;
11. Identify the skill sets required by the City’s Information Technology and Utilities
Departments to implement and operate a wireless network;
12. Define and evaluate network resilience and survivability design goals, including solar
power and other emergency back-up power and network architecture operability for at
least seven (7) days with no grid power, with prioritization to public safety, critical
infrastructure and lifeline services. To complete the evaluation, interview the Police
Department Director of Technical Services, the Director of Emergency Services and the
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Utilities Department Director of Engineering to develop requirements for network
performance (QoS) and compliance with United States Department of Justice metrics and
other public safety and critical infrastructure metrics.
Task 4
Prepare a written report analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the various business
models used to deploy municipal wireless networks and make a recommendation based on the
needs of the City and various potential users of the network. This analysis should include a
municipal wireless program review of networks deployed in other cities. Potential business
models would include, but would not be limited to the following:
1. City-owned wholesale model: the wireless network is owned and operated by the City.
2. Privately-owned managed services model: the wireless network is owned and operated by
a service provider, but the City is an “anchor tenant” for the network.
3. Hybrid model (public-private partnership): the City owns the network, but outsources
operation and maintenance to a service provider.
Task 4 should also include an assessment of the legal responsibilities under the various business
models and general policy development such as VLAN strategies or QoS restrictions and
opportunities.
Task 5
Upon completion of the Wireless Network Plan, in consultation with City staff, prepare a written
report presenting the findings and recommendations to the City Council, Utilities Advisory
Commission, Citizen Advisory Committee and executive City staff. Based on the findings and
recommendations established in the final Wireless Network Plan, and contingent upon City
Council direction to proceed, develop a RFP for a vendor to build a Wi-Fi system and/or a
citywide wireless network. The Consultant must consider previous, current, and future planned
wireless-related evaluation efforts by the City in order to avoid repeating or duplicating efforts.
The City’s Project Manager will assist in identifying and understanding these efforts at the outset
of this consulting engagement.
City Data Required by Consultant to Perform Analysis to Complete Wireless Network Plan
Under the auspices of a Non-disclosure Agreement,2 the City will provide the Consultant with
the following information and data to compete the six tasks:
1. Information System (“GIS”) data sets and mapping information for:
a. Addresses
b. Streets
c. Right of Way and Easements
d. City Boundaries
e. Parcels or Lot Lines
f. Utility Poles
g. Streetlight Poles
2 On April 29, 2014, the City of Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9408 prohibiting disclosure of
confidential and proprietary City and utilities-related infrastructure information; such information will only be
available under the auspices of a nondisclosure agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
h. Overhead Strand (Guys and Anchors City-owned, Operated or Controlled)
i. Existing Underground Utility Routes
j. Manholes
k. Pavement Condition Index Score by Street
l. Zoning
m. Building Footprint
2. Other available information:
a. Spare conduit available for lease
b. Dark fiber available for lease
c. Infrastructure Maintenance Plans for roads and power
d. Potential Network Hub Site locations by address
e. Permitting Processes
f. City of Palo Alto Utilities Rules and Regulations serve as a general reference to Utilities
customers and contractors regarding common Utilities activities, such as access to private
property and service contracts:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/about/rules.asp
g. Previous cost estimates for proposed wireless projects, including engineering plans and
reference architecture for proposed networks, cost and revenue information, and broad
historical information from previous wireless business cases and pilot programs.
h. Past RFPs developed for the design, construction and operation of a citywide ultra-high
speed broadband network
i. Previous responses to RFPs related to fiber system expansion Wi-Fi and wireless
deployment
j. Previous market research and surveys conducted for a wireless network
k. Local demographic information
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “B”
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number
of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or
decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY
so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall
provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt
of the notice to proceed.
Milestones3 Completion
No. of Days/Weeks
From NTP
1. Task 1 30 days
2. Task 2 30 days
3. Task 3 15 days
4. Task 4 15 days
5. Task 5 30 days
3 References to tasks correspond to the Tasks set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “C”
COMPENSATION
The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed
in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the
budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate
schedule attached as Exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set
forth below.
The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services
described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed
$131,650, of which Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $8,400CONSULTANT
agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this
amount. Additional Services are not authorized under this Agreement. Any work
performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the
maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY.
CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted
below. The CITY’s Project Manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget
amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total
compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $131,
650 of which Reimbursable Expenses shall not exceed $8,400. Additional Services are
not authorized under this Agreement.
BUDGET SCHEDULE4 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT
Task 1 $20,000
Task 2 $20,000
Task 3 $20,000
Task 4 $20,000
Task 5 $43,250
Sub-total Basic Services $123,250
Reimbursable Expenses $8,400
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $131,650
Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $0
4 References to tasks correspond to the Tasks set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Agreement.
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Maximum Total Compensation $131,650
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing,
photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are
included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses.
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: Travel expenses in an
amount not to exceed $8,400.
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be
reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of
travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees.
B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile
transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost.
All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup
information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0 shall be approved in advance by
the CITY’s project manager.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written
authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s
request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of
services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum
compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set
forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum
compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project
Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for
additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “C-1”
SCHEDULE OF RATES
Consultant may reallocate funds among task and staff categories with advance notice and approval from City provided the total project cost is not exceeded.
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “D”
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY
COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT
INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW:
REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS
EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE
YES YES
WORKER’S COMPENSATION
EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY
STATUTORY
STATUTORY
YES
GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING
PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET
CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL
LIABILITY
BODILY INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE
COMBINED.
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING
ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED
BODILY INJURY
- EACH PERSON
- EACH OCCURRENCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY
DAMAGE, COMBINED
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING,
ERRORS AND OMISSIONS,
MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE),
AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE
ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND
EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY
RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS
SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND
PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS,
AND EMPLOYEES.
I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE:
A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN
COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND
B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY.
C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL.
II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE.
III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL
INSUREDS”
A. PRIMARY COVERAGE
WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS
AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER
INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS.
B. CROSS LIABILITY
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY
SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL
LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION
1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON
OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL
PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-
PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A
TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION.
NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO:
PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
CITY OF PALO ALTO
P.O. BOX 10250
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
EXHIBIT “E”
SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE SECURITY AND PRIVACY
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Exhibit shall be made a part of the City of Palo Alto’s Professional Services Agreement or any other contract entered
into by and between the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) and ____________________________________ (the “Consultant”)
for the provision of Software as a Service to the City (the “Agreement”).
In order to assure the privacy and security of the personal information of the City’s customers and
people who do business with the City, including, without limitation, vendors, utility customers, library
patrons and other individuals and businesses, who are required to share such information with the
City, as a condition of receiving services from the City or selling goods and services to the City,
including, without limitation, the Software as a Service services provider (the “Consultant”) and its
subcontractors, if any, including, without limitation, any Information Technology (“IT”) infrastructure
services provider, shall design, install, provide, and maintain a secure IT environment, described
below, while it renders and performs the Services and furnishes goods, if any, described in the
Statement of Work, Exhibit B, to the extent any scope of work implicates the confidentiality and
privacy of the personal information of the City’s customers. The Consultant shall fulfill the data and
information security requirements (the “Requirements”) set forth in Part A below.
A “secure IT environment” includes: (a) the IT infrastructure, by which the Services are provided to
the City, including connection to the City's IT systems; (b) the Consultant’s operations and
maintenance processes needed to support the environment, including disaster recovery and business
continuity planning; and (c) the IT infrastructure performance monitoring services to ensure a secure
and reliable environment and service availability to the City. “IT infrastructure” refers to the
integrated framework, including, without limitation, data centers, computers, and database
management devices, upon which digital networks operate.
In the event that, after the Effective Date, the Consultant reasonably determines that it cannot fulfill
the Requirements, the Consultant shall promptly inform the City of its determination and submit, in
writing, one or more alternate countermeasure options to the Requirements (the “Alternate
Requirements” as set forth in Part B), which may be accepted or rejected in the reasonable
satisfaction of the Information Security Manager (the “ISM”).
Part A. Requirements:
The Consultant shall at all times during the term of any contract between the City and the Consultant:
(a) Appoint or designate an employee, preferably an executive officer, as the security liaison to
Page 1 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
the City with respect to the Services to be performed under this Agreement.
(b) Provide a full and complete response to the City’s Supplier Security and Privacy Assessment
Questionnaire (the “Questionnaire”) to the ISM, and also report any major non-conformance
to the Requirements, as and when requested. The response shall include a detailed
implementation plan of required countermeasures, which the City requires the Consultant to
adopt as countermeasures in the performance of the Services. In addition, as of the annual
anniversary date of this Agreement the Consultant shall report to the City, in writing, any
major changes to the IT infrastructure.
(c) Have adopted and implemented information security and privacy policies that are
documented, are accessible to the City and conform to ISO 27001/2 – Information Security
Management Systems (ISMS) Standards. See the following:
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42103
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50297
(d) Conduct routine data and information security compliance training of its personnel that is
appropriate to their role.
(e) Develop and maintain detailed documentation of the IT infrastructure, including software
versions and patch levels.
(f) Develop an independently verifiable process, consistent with industry standards, for
performing professional and criminal background checks of its employees that (1) would
permit verification of employees’ personal identity and employment status, and (2) would
enable the immediate denial of access to the City's confidential data and information by any
of its employees who no longer would require access to that information or who are
terminated.
(g) Provide a list of IT infrastructure components in order to verify whether the Consultant has
met or has failed to meet any objective terms and conditions.
(h) Implement access accountability (identification and authentication) architecture and support
role-base access control (“RBAC”) and segregation of duties (“SoD”) mechanisms for all
personnel, systems and software used to provide the Services. “RBAC” refers to a computer
systems security approach to restricting access only to authorized users. “SoD” is an approach
that would require more than one individual to complete a security task in order to promote
the detection and prevention of fraud and errors.
(i) Assist the City in undertaking annually an assessment to assure that: (1) all elements of the
Services’ environment design and deployment are known to the City, and (2) it has
implemented measures in accordance with industry best practices applicable to secure coding
and secure IT architecture.
(j) Provide and maintain secure intersystem communication paths that would ensure the
confidentiality, integrity and availability of the City's information.
(k) Deploy and maintain IT system upgrades, patches and configurations conforming to current
patch and/or release levels by not later than one (1) week after its date of release. Emergency
security patches must be installed within 24 hours after its date of release.
(l) Provide for the timely detection of, response to, and the reporting of security incidents,
including on-going incident monitoring with logging.
(m) Notify the City within one (1) hour of detecting a security incident that results in the
unauthorized access to or the misuse of the City's confidential data and information.
Page 2 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
City of Palo Alto
Information Security
Document Version: V2.5 [11/01/2012] Doc: InfoSec 110
(n) Inform the City that any third party service provider(s) meet(s) all of the Requirements.
(o) Perform security self-audits on a regular basis and not less frequently than on a quarterly
basis, and provide the required summary reports of those self-audits to the ISM on the annual
anniversary date or any other date agreed to by the Parties.
(p) Accommodate, as practicable, and upon reasonable prior notice by the City, the City’s
performance of random site security audits at the Consultant’s site(s), including the site(s) of a
third party service provider(s), as applicable. The scope of these audits will extend to the
Consultant’s and its third party service provider(s)’ awareness of security policies and
practices, systems configurations, access authentication and authorization, and incident
detection and response.
(q) Cooperate with the City to ensure that to the extent required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations, the Confidential Information will be accessible only by the Consultant and any
authorized third party service provider’s personnel.
(r) Perform regular, reliable secured backups of all data needed to maximize availability of the
Services.
(s) Maintain records relating to the Services for a period of three (3) years after the expiration or
earlier termination of this Agreement and in a mutually agreeable storage medium. Within
thirty (30) days after the effective date of expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement,
all of those records relating to the performance of the Services shall be provided to the ISM.
(t) Maintain the Confidential Information in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
data and information privacy laws, rules and regulations.
(u) Encrypt the Confidential Information before delivering the same by electronic mail to the City
and or any authorized recipient.
(v) Unless otherwise addressed in the Agreement, shall not hold the City liable for any direct,
indirect or punitive damages whatsoever including, without limitation, damages for loss of
use, data or profits, arising out of or in any way connected with the City’s IT environment,
including, without limitation, IT infrastructure communications.
Part B. Alternate Requirements:
Page 3 of 3
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA)
Questionnaire
Purpose: This Vendor Information Security Assessment (VISA) Questionnaire requests information concerning a Cloud Service Provider (the Vendor), which
intends to provide to the City of Palo Alto (the City) any or all of the following services: Software as a Service (SaaS); Platform as a Service (PaaS); and
Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
Note/Instructions:
• SaaS, PaaS and IaaS are each a ‘cloud’ servicing model, in which software and database applications, computer network infrastructure and/or computer
hardware/software platforms is/are hosted by the Vendor and made available to customers interconnected in a network, typically the Internet.
• This Questionnaire is for the sole use of the intended Vendor and may contain confidential information of individuals and businesses collected, stored,
and used the City. Any unauthorized collection, storage, use, review or distribution may be prohibited by California and/or Federal laws. If you are not
the intended recipient of this Questionnaire, please contact the sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of the Questionnaire.
• The Vendor shall provide answers to the questions or information to the requests provided below.
• In the event that the Vendor determines that it cannot meet the City’s security and or privacy requirements, the Vendor may submit a request for an
exception to the City’s requirements and propose alternative countermeasures to address the risks addressed in this Questionnaire. The City’s
Information Security Manager (ISM) may approve or reject the exception request, depending on the risks associated with the exception request.
• Security Exception Request shall be submitted if you cannot comply with this policy/requirements
• Upon receipt of the Vendor’s response, the ISM will conduct a security risk assessment, using the following scoring methodology:
A = Meets completely.
B = Partially meets. The Vendor may be required to provide additional requested information.
C = Doesn’t meet. The Vendor may be required to provide missing/additional detail.
Vendor Information:
Vendor Organization Name CTC Inc. Columbia Telecommunications Corporation d/b/a CTC Technology & Energy
Address 10613 Concord Street, Kensington, MD 20895
Information Security Contact Person Name Matthew DeHaven
City’s PM Todd Henderson
Email mdehaven@ctcnet.us
Phone 301-933-1488
VISA Questionnaire Page 1 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Date this Questionnaire Completed 10/14/2014
1.0 BUSINESS PROCESS AND DATA EXCHANGE REQUIREMENTS
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clarification
Required from the Vendor
1.1 Please provide a detailed
description of the Vendor’s
business process that will be
offered to the City, as this relates to
the proposed requirements of the
City’s RFP or other business
requirements
CTC will provide fiber and wireless network design
recommendations, strategic planning
recommendations, business case analysis, and
financial analysis of potential fiber optic and
wireless network depoloyments. The businesss
processes will involve the review and analysis of
City infrastructure data, market research, and
preparation of network design and business
analysis materials.
C Please provide requested detail
1.2 Has the Vendor adopted and
implemented information security
and privacy policies that are
documented and conform to ISO
27001/2 – Information Security
Management Systems (ISMS)
Standards or NIST 800-53 (National
Institute of Standards – NIST
Special Publication (SP) 800-53
Revision 4, Security and Privacy
Controls for Federal Information
Systems and Organizations)
CTC does not anticipate hosting any applications
used by the City or requiring access to City IT
resources. Although formal IT security audits are
generally not requested by our clients for the type
of consulting services we provide, we have in place
best-practice security measures consistent with the
risk management-based approach to threat
mitigation defined by NIST SP 800-53.
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 2 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
1.3 What data exchange will occur
between the City and the Vendor?
What data will be stored at the
Vendor’s or other third party’s data
storage location? (Provide data
attributes with examples of the data
to be stored)
Example: Payment Card Information, Social Security
Number, Driving License number Patrons Name, Address, Telephone
etc.), which are examples of personal information, the privacy of
which are protected by California constitutional and statutory law.
We anticipate the data exchange will primarily be
through e-mail, and as required due to file
attachment size, via commercial “cloud”-based file
sharing services (Google Docs, DropBox, etc.).
We anticipate data exchange requirements will be
limited to publically accessible information and
other generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS
data related to roadway attributes and other City
infrastructure).
A
1.4 In the event that the Vendor is
required to store Private Information
(PI), Personally Identifiable
Information (PII), and Sensitive
Information (SI) about
individuals/organizations with the
service provider’s business
systems, how does the Vendor
maintain the confidentiality of the
information in accordance with
applicable federal, state and local
data and information privacy laws,
rules and regulations? [(The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) strives to
promote and sustain a superior quality of life for persons in Palo
Alto. In promoting the quality of life of these persons, it is the policy of
the City, consistent with the provisions of the California Public
Records Act, California Government Code §§ 6250 – 6270, to take
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. In rare cases when this
has been required in the past, CTC has conducted
formal IT security audits compliant with client
standards, and has successfully implemented risk
mitigation plans consistent with these standards.
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 3 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
appropriate measures to safeguard
the security and privacy of the personal (including, without
limitation, financial) information of persons, collected in the ordinary
course and scope of conducting the City’s business as a local
government agency. These measures are generally observed
by federal, state and local authorities and reflected in federal
and California laws, the City’s rules and regulations, and industry best
practices, including, without limitation, the provisions of
California Civil Code §§ 1798.3(a), 1798.24, 1798.79.8(b), 1798.80(e),
1798.81.5, 1798.82(e), 1798.83(e)(7), and 1798.92(c)].
1.5 What mechanism and/or what types
of tool(s) will be used to exchange
data between the City and The
Vendor? Example: (VPN, Data Link,
Frame Relay, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS, etc.)
We anticipate primarily transfer of data through
email exchange. CTC does not anticipate
requiring access to or trasnmitting PI, PII, or SI
about individuals/organizations. We anticipate
data exchange requirements will be limited to
publically accessible information and other
generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data
related to roadway attributes and other City
physical infrastructure). Information provided to
the City will include conceptual fiber network
designs and financial analysis that we expect will
be made publically available upon completion.
C Please advise what data will be
processed, provide examples of
data to be processed
1.6 What types of data storage (work in
progress storage and backup
storage) are present or will be
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
A
VISA Questionnaire Page 4 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
required at the Vendor’s site?
Example: (PCI Credit Card Info, SSN, DLN, Patrons Name,
Address, telephone etc.)
individuals/organizations. We anticipate data
exchange requirements will be limited to publically
accessible information and other generally non-
sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data related to
roadway attributes and other City infrastructure).
1.7 Is e-mail integration required
between the City and the Vendor?
Example: The provision of services
may require the City to provide the Vendor with an e-mail account on
the City’s e–mail server.
CTC does not require integration with the city’s
email.
A
1.8 Has the Vendor ever been
subjected to either an electronic or
physical security breach? Please
describe the event(s) and the steps
taken to mitigate the breach(es).
What damages or exposure
resulted? Are records of breaches
and issues maintained and will
these records be available for
inspection by the City?
No. NA
1.9 Does the Vendor maintain formal
security policies and procedures to
comply with applicable statutory or
industry practice
requirements/standards? Are
records maintained to demonstrate
compliance or certification? Does
the Vendor allow client audit of
these records? Note: Please submit
supporting documentation.
Formal policies are implemented within CTC’s IT
infrastructure related to electronic access controls.
Statutory and/or industry compliance policies are
implemented as-needed on a project basis.
A
2.0 What are the internet and the
browser security configurations for
the cloud application? What security
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 5 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
standards and requirements does
the Vendor maintain to ensure
application security at the user
interface? (A set of detailed
documentation should be provided
to support the compliance).
2.0 APPLICATION/SOLUTION CONFIGURATION
# Question Response from The Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication Required
from The Vendor
2.1 What is the name of the
application(s) that the Vendor will
be hosting in order to provide
services to the City? (List all)
N/A N/A
2.2 What functionality will be provided
to the City’s employees or the City’s
customers or other recipient of City
services through the application?
N/A N/A
2.3 Will the Vendor use a subcontractor
and/or a third party service
provider? (List all). If yes, then what
data privacy and information
security agreements are in place
between the Vendor and any
subcontractor/third party to ensure
appropriate and accountable
treatment of information? Note the
City requires that the Vendor and
each subcontractor and/or third
party formally acknowledge that will
N/A N/A
VISA Questionnaire Page 6 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
comply with the City’s Information
Privacy Policy and SaaS Security
and Privacy Terms and
Conditions
2.4 What is the Vendor's application(s)
hosting hardware and software
platform? Provide a detailed
description, including security
patches or security applications in
use.
Example: Windows or Unix
Operating System (OS) and other
detail.
N/A N/A
2.5 How does the Vendor’s application
and database architecture to
manage or promote segregation of
the City's data (related to its
function as a local government
agency) from the data of individuals
providing services to or receiving
services from the City?
N/A N/A
2.6 Describe the Vendor’s server and
network infrastructure. Please
provide server and network
infrastructure deployment topology,
including data flow architecture,
including but not limited to security
management applications, firewalls,
etc.
N/A N/A
VISA Questionnaire Page 7 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
2.7 Please provide a detail proposed
solution that will be developed as a
part of the Vendor’s implementation
to support this project. (For example
detailed solution architecture,
secured data flow to support
business processes, etc.).
N/A N/A
3.0 DATA PROTECTION
# Question Response from the Vendor Score Additional Information/Clafication
Required the Vendor
3.1 What will be the medium of data
exchange between the City and
Vendor?
Primarily email. A
3.2
. How will the data be kept secure
during the data exchange process?
Example: (VPN, Data Link, Frame
Relay, HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, FTPS,
etc.)
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
transfering PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. CTC is open to using
any preferred transfer solution or technology as
deemed appropriate by the City.
A
3.3 How will the City’s data be kept
physically and logically secure at
the Vendor’s preferred storage
location? Example: Locked storage,
Digitally, Encrypted etc.
Work materials in progress will be stored on
CTC’s internal servers, secured within its
headquarters location. The site utilizes electronic
keycard access to all doorways, and is protected
by an actively monitored electronic security
surveillance system. CTC has a formal,
documented physical access policy requiring
C Please advise
What data transfer is required?
VISA Questionnaire Page 8 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
logging and escort of all non-staff visitors. Only
CTC staff have electronic credentials to access
internal storage servers. No direct external
(Internet-based) access to our servers is allowed
without VPN access.
We anticipate primarily transfer of data through
email exchange. CTC does not anticipate
requiring access to or trasnmitting PI, PII, or SI
about individuals/organizations. We anticipate
data exchange requirements will be limited to
publically accessible information and other
generally non-sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data
related to roadway attributes and other City
physical infrastructure). Information provided to
the City will include conceptual fiber network
designs and financial analysis that we expect will
be made publically available upon completion.
3.4 What application level protections
are in place to prevent the Vendor’s
or a subcontractor/third party’s staff
member from viewing unauthorized
confidential information? For
example, encryption, masking, etc.
CTC does not anticipate requiring access to or
storing PI, PII, or SI about
individuals/organizations. We anticipate data
exchange requirements will be limited to publically
accessible information and other generally non-
sensitive materias (e.g. GIS data related to
roadway attributes and other City infrastructure).
A
3.5 What controls does the Vendor
exercise over the qualification and
performance of its team? Of their
subcontractor/third party’s team(s)?
(For example, criminal background
Our team members undergo a background check
and a strict qualification interview that follows
closely with the Top Grading interview technique.
Qualifications are determined by role/labor
a
VISA Questionnaire Page 9 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
verification prior to employment,
providing security training after
employment and managing Role
Based Access Control (RBAC)
during employment and network
and application access termination
upon employment termination.
category.
4.0 DATA BACK-UP
# Question Response Score COPA’s Security Assessment
4.1 What are the Vendor’s
method(s) used to keep data
secured during the data
backup process?
Offsite data backups are transferred over an AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnel.
A
4.2
.
Is the Vendor’s encryption
technology used to encrypt
whole or selective data?
All data is encrypted during offsite backup transfer. A
4.3 What types of storage media
will the Vendor use for data
backup purposes? For
example, Tape, Hard Disk
Drive or any other devices.
Hard Disk Drive. A
4.4 Are the Vendor’s backup
storage devices encrypted? If
‘yes,’ please provide
encryption specification, with
type of encryption algorithm
and detail process of
encryption handling. If ‘no,’
provide a detailed description
No, data is not encrypted on storage devices. Offsite
data backups are transferred over an AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnel. No physical transport of storage
media occurs for backups.
B Depending upon the vendor’s
response of the type of data
processed we’ll decide the data
encryption requirements
VISA Questionnaire Page 10 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
(with processes, tools and
technology) to keep data
secured during the back-up
process.
5.0 DATA RETENTION
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
5.1 What is the Vendor’s standard
data retention period of the
backed up data? The data
retention process shall comply
with the City’s data 7 (seven)
years data retention policy.
Note: In the event that the
Vendor cannot comply with
this requirement then the
City’s Project Manager shall
approval from the City’s data
retention schedule/policy
owner.
7 years. A
5.2 Are the data backup storage
media at the Vendor’s location
or other third party location?
All backups are stored at a CTC regional location. A
5.3 If the Vendor’s backup storage
devices are stored with
another company, please
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 11 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
provide:
a. Company Name:
b. Address:
c. Contact person
detail (Phone and
Email):
d. What contractual
commitments are
in place to
guarantee security
compliance from
these vendors
5.5 What is the media transfer
process (I.e. The lock box
process used to send tapes
off-site)?
Data storage devices are not physically transported. Offsite
data backup occurs between CTC locations over AES 256-bit
encrypted VPN tunnels.
A
5.6 Who has access to the data
storage media lockbox(es)?
(Provide Name and Role)
Only CTC IT Administrators (Matthew DeHaven, CIO/CISO
and Eric Wirth, Deputy CIO/CISO)
A
5.7 Who on the Vendor’s staff or
subcontractor/third party’s staff
is/are authorized to access
backup data storage media?
(Provide Name and Role)
Only CTC IT Administrators (Matthew DeHaven, CIO/CISO
and Eric Wirth, Deputy CIO/CISO)
A
5.8 What is the backup data
storage media receipt and
release authorization
process(es)? (Please submit a
soft copy of the process)
N/A NA
6.0 ACCOUNT PROVISIONING AND DE-PROVISIONING (The Vendor must receive formal pre-authorization from the City’s Information Security Manager prior to provisioning and de-provisioning of application access account).
VISA Questionnaire Page 12 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
# Question Response from the Vendor
Score Additional
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
6.1 What is the account
provisioning/removal process?
Example: how are users
accounts created and
managed?)
N/A NA
6.2
. What is the account
deprovisioning/removal
process? Example: how are
users accounts created and
managed?)
N/A NA
6.3 How will the City’s employees
gain access to required
application(s)?
N/A NA
6.4 Does the application(s) have
the capability to restrict access
only from the City’s WAN
(Wide Area Network)?
N/A NA
7.0 PASSWORD MANAGEMENT
# Question Response from the Vendor Score Additional
VISA Questionnaire Page 13 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Information/Clafication
Required from the Vendor
7.1 What will be the policy and/or
procedures for the logging,
authentication, authorization
and password management
scheme? (Please provide a
soft copy of the process)
City employees will not require access to any applications
hosted or developed by CTC.
C Please confirm that the City’s
employees don’t need to
access CTC’s application.
7.2
.
Where will the login and
password credentials be
stored?
N/A NA
7.3 Are the password credentials
stored with encryption? If ‘yes,’
please provide encryption
scheme detail.
N/A NA
7.4 The Vendor’s application must
comply with the following
password requirements. Does
the Vendor’s application meet
these requirements?
1. First time password
must be unique to an
individual and require
the user to change it
upon initial login.
2. If the password is sent
via plain text email to
the City employee to
mitigate security
N/A NA
VISA Questionnaire Page 14 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
exposure.
3. The City requires first
time password to have
a time-out capability of
no more than 7 days.
4. The e-mail notification
must not be copied to
anyone except the
user.
5. The permanent/long
term password must
be changed frequently
(at least TWICE a
year)
6. E-mail notification
must be sent to the
user whenever the
password has been
updated.
7. User should not be
able to view data or
conduct business
unless an initial
password has been
updated with a
different password.
8. The Vendor shall
inform the City’s users
that, when a new
password is created,
the user shall not use
the City’s LDAP
(Lightweight Directory
Access Control
VISA Questionnaire Page 15 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
EXHIBIT “F”
City of Palo Alto
Information Security Document Version: v2.3
Form: InfoSec 100
Protocal) password.
9. The password must
have 8 or more
alphanumeric (/)
characters and it must
contain at least one
character from each of
the bullets noted
below (i.e. Each line
shall contribute at
least one character):
• abcdefghijklmnopqrstu
vwxyz
• ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZ
• 0123456789
• !@#$%^&*()-
+=`~,></\"'?;:{[}]
--------------------------------------------------- End Of Document--------------------------------------------------
VISA Questionnaire Page 16 of 16
Version 2.0 13 November 2014
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Info
Release and
Release Date
Document Cl
orma
Version:
e:
assification:
atioon P
1st
31
Ne
Priva
Release, Ver
January, 201
eed to Know
acy
rsion 2.2
13
Pollicy
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
CONTEN
DOCUMENT
CHANGE RE
APPROVAL .
DISTRIBUTIO
1. OBJE
A) INTEN
B) SCOP
C) CONS
D) EXCE
E) MUNIC
2. RESP
A) RESP
B) RESP
C) RESP
D) RESP
E) RESP
3. PRIVA
A) OVER
B) PERSO
C) METH
D) UTILIT
E) PUBLI
F) ACCE
G) SECU
H) DATA
I) SOFTW
J) FAIR A
4. CONT
Privacy Policy
TS
CONTROLS...
ECORD ..........
.....................
ON ................
ECTIVE ...........
NT ..................
E ..................
SEQUENCES....
PTIONS..........
CIPAL ORDINAN
PONSIBILITIES
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ONSIBILITY OF
ACY POLICY ..
RVIEW ............
ONAL INFORMA
ODS OF COLLE
TIES SERVICE .
C DISCLOSUR
SS TO PERSON
RITY, CONFIDE
RETENTION / I
WARE AS A SE
AND ACCURAT
TACTS ...........
y
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
NCE ...............
OF CITY STAF
CIO AND ISM
INFORMATION
USERS .........
F INFORMATION
F AUTHORIZATI
.....................
.....................
ATION AND CH
ECTION OF PER
.....................
E ...................
NAL INFORMAT
ENTIALITY AND
INFORMATION
RVICE (SAAS)
E CREDIT TRA
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
F ...................
M ....................
N SECURITY ST
.....................
N TECHNOLOGY
ON COORDINA
.....................
.....................
OICE ..............
RSONAL INFOR
.....................
.....................
TION ...............
NON-DISCLOS
RETENTION ...
) OVERSIGHT ..
ANSACTION ACT
.....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
TEERING COMM
......................
Y (IT) MANAGE
ATION .............
......................
......................
......................
RMATION .........
......................
......................
......................
SURE .............
......................
......................
T OF 2003 (FA
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
MITTEE ..........
.....................
ERS ...............
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ACT) .............
.....................
In
Informa
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
......................
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 1 of 8
ary, 2013
............ 2
............ 2
............ 2
............ 2
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 3
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 4
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 5
............ 6
............ 6
............ 6
............ 6
............ 7
............ 7
............ 7
............ 8
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
DOCUME
CHANGE
APPROVA
DISTRIBU
Privacy Policy
ENT CONT
Documen
Location
Documen
Documen
Contributo
E RECORD
Date
12-Jul-12
26-Sep-12
09-Nov-12
19-Nov-12
22-Nov-12
26-Nov-12
6-Dec-12
14-Jan-13
31-Jan-13
VAL
Date
06-Dec-12
06-Dec-12
06-Dec-12
14-Jan-13
14-Jan-13
UTION
Name
City of Pa
Providers
y
TROLS
nt Title
nt Author
nt Manager
ors
D
Author
Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
2 Raj Pat
Raj Pat
3 Raj Pat
3 Raj Pat
Name
2 Raj Pate
2 Jonatha
2 Tom Auz
3 Grant Ko
3 Informat
Steering
alo Alto Emplo
, Residents a
Informatio
City of Pa
Raj Patel
Raj Patel
Jonathan
Joe Black
r Versi
tel 0.01
tel 1.0
tel 1.5
tel 1.6
tel 1.7
tel 1.8
tel 1.92
tel 2.0
tel 2.2
el
n Reichental
zenne
olling
tion Security
g Committee
oyees, Servic
and Businesse
on Privacy Po
alo Alto Webs
Reichental,
kwell, Grant K
on Chang
First d
First d
Update
Additio
Revise
Revise
Reiche
Revise
Jonath
Revise
Grant
Revise
from In
Comm
Role
Informa
Manag
Techno
CIO; In
Techno
Assista
Utilities
Senior
Attorne
Office
Sponso
Lo
ce
es
Cit
Sh
olicy
ite and Share
Shiva Swam
Kolling
ge Reference
draft develope
draft released
ed first draft f
onal updates
ed table of co
ed followed b
ental and Tom
ed according
han Reichenta
ed according
Kolling
ed according
nformation Se
mittee
ation Security
ger; Informatio
ology Departm
nformation
ology Departm
ant Director,
s Department
r Assistant Cit
ey; City Attorn
or
ocation
ty of Palo Alto
harePoint
In
Informa
ePoint
minathan, Tom
e
ed
for review
for review
as identified
ontent
y review from
m Auzenne
to comments
al
to comments
to recommen
ecurity Steeri
Com
y
on
ment
Appr
ment
Appr
t
Appr
ty
ney’s
Appr
Appr
o Website an
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
m Auzenne,
m Jonathan
s from
s from
ndations
ng
mments
roved
roved
roved
roved
roved
d
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 2 of 8
ary, 2013
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
1. O
The C
Palo
provi
appro
finan
busin
local
indus
1798
some
busin
Califo
to en
Prote
busin
provi
“Pers
“Info
in thi
A) I
The C
perso
of me
perso
the C
and s
polic
Infor
The g
all us
secu
and s
comp
B) S
The
requ
inform
confo
C) C
The C
their
Privacy Policy
Objective
City of Palo A
Alto. In prom
isions of the C
opriate meas
ncial) informat
ness as a loca
authorities a
stry best prac
8.24, 1798.79
e of these pro
ness in a man
ornia laws. Th
nsure the ong
ected Critical
ness with the
ide services.
sonally Identif
rmation”) are
s Policy by re
INTENT
City, acting in
ons who do b
eans, includin
ons accessing
City’s staff and
security of the
ies, rules, reg
mation is coll
goals and obj
sers having a
rity of databa
security of the
pliance with le
SCOPE
Policy will gu
ired to protec
mation data a
orm their perf
CONSEQUENCE
City’s employ
work implicat
y
e
Alto (the “City”
moting the qua
California Pub
ures to safeg
tion of person
al governmen
nd reflected i
ctices, includin
.8(b), 1798.80
ovisions do no
nner which pr
he objective o
oing protectio
Infrastructure
City and rece
The terms “P
fiable Informa
defined in the
eference.
n its governme
business with
ng, without lim
g the City’s w
d/or authorize
e Information
gulations and
ected, stored
jectives of the
ccess to the C
ase informatio
e Information
egal and regu
ide the City’s
ct the confiden
are intended t
formances to
ES
yees shall com
tes access to
”) strives to p
ality of life of t
blic Records A
uard the secu
ns, collected in
nt agency. Th
n federal and
ng, without lim
0(e), 1798.81
ot apply to loc
omotes the p
of this Policy i
on of the Pers
e Informationa
eiving service
Personal Infor
ation” and “Pe
e California C
ental and pro
or receive se
mitation, from
website, and p
ed third-party
collected by
procedures,
and utilized i
e Policy are: (
City’s applica
on assets own
provided to t
ulatory require
staff and, ind
ntiality and pr
to be covered
the Policy sh
mply with the
the Informati
romote and s
these persons
Act, California
urity and priva
n the ordinary
ese measure
d California law
mitation, the p
.5, 1798.82(e
cal governme
rivacy of pers
is to describe
sonal Informa
and Personal
es from the Ci
rmation,” “Pro
ersonally Iden
Civil Code sec
prietary capa
ervices from th
persons appl
persons who a
contractors. T
the City. The
and industry
in compliance
(a) a safe, pro
tions and dat
ned by, or ent
he City’s staff
ements.
directly, third p
ivacy of the In
d by the Policy
ould they enj
Policy in the
ion referred to
sustain a supe
s, it is the pol
a Governmen
acy of the per
y course and
es are genera
ws, the City’s
provisions of C
e), 1798.83(e
nt agencies li
sonal informa
e the City’s da
ation, Persona
ly Identifying
ity or a third p
otected Critica
ntifying Inform
ctions, referre
acities, collect
he City. The I
lying to receiv
access other
The City is co
City acknow
best practice
e with applica
oductive, and
tabases; (b) th
trusted to, the
ff and third pa
party contract
nformation of
y and which w
oy conditiona
execution of
o in this Polic
In
Informa
erior quality o
icy of the City
nt Code §§ 62
rsonal (includ
scope of con
lly observed b
s rules and re
California Civ
e)(7), and 179
ike the City, t
ation, as reflec
ata security go
ally Identifiabl
Information o
party under co
al Infrastructu
mation” (collec
ed to above, a
ts the Informa
Information is
ve services p
information p
ommitted to p
ledges federa
es are dedicat
able laws.
inoffensive w
he appropriat
e City; (c) the
arty contractor
tors, which ar
f the persons
will be advised
al access to th
their official d
cy. A failure to
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
of life for perso
y, consistent w
250 – 6270, to
ding, without l
nducting the C
by federal, sta
gulations, an
vil Code §§ 17
98.92(c). Thou
the City will co
cted in federa
oals and obje
le Information
of persons do
ontract to the
ure Informatio
ctively, the
and are incorp
ation pertainin
s collected by
rovided by th
portals mainta
protecting the
al and Califor
ted to ensurin
work environm
te maintenanc
controlled ac
rs; and (d) fai
re by contract
whose perso
d by City staf
hat informatio
duties to the e
o comply may
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 3 of 8
ary, 2013
ons in
with the
o take
imitation,
City’s
ate and
d
798.3(a),
ugh
onduct
al and
ectives,
n,
oing
City to
on”,
porated
ng to
a variety
e City,
ained by
privacy
nia laws,
ng the
ment for
ce and
ccess
ithful
t
onal
ff to
on.
extent
y result in
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
empl
D) E
In the
Polic
exce
“ISM
as m
acco
form
stora
will c
the re
and h
by th
E) M
This
2. RE
A) R
The C
coord
The C
party
perfo
The
and t
in de
respo
incid
depa
Non-
inclu
B) R
The
draw
for a
initia
plann
addre
Privacy Policy
loyment and/o
EXCEPTIONS
e event that a
cy, the employ
ption request
”). The empl
may be reques
ordance with g
by the City A
age, access, r
consult with th
equest, the e
his or her sup
he CIO, acting
MUNICIPAL OR
Policy will su
SPONSIB
RESPONSIBILIT
CIO, acting b
dinate the imp
City’s employ
y contractors
ormance of th
ISM will be re
the effectiven
etailed, audita
onsible for the
ents that aris
artment-specif
-Disclosure A
ding, without
RESPONSIBILIT
Information S
wn from the va
ll information
tives and acti
ning processe
essed at the a
y
or legal conse
a City employ
yee may requ
t will be review
oyee, with the
sted by the IS
guidelines app
Attorney. The P
retention, usa
he CIO to app
xception requ
pervisor. The
g by the ISM.
RDINANCE
persede any
BILITIES O
TY OF CIO AND
y the ISM, wi
plementation
yees, in partic
under contrac
eir job respon
esponsible for
ness of the Po
ble technical
e City’s IT env
e in regard to
fic policies an
greements (N
limitation, loc
TY OF INFORMA
Security Steer
arious City de
security effor
ivities. The IS
es to ensure t
appropriate C
equences.
ee cannot ful
est an excep
wed and adm
e approval of
M. The ISM w
proved by the
Policy’s guide
age, and prote
prove or deny
uest dispositio
approval of a
City policy, ru
OF CITY S
D ISM
ll establish an
of information
cular, software
ct to the City t
nsibilities.
r: (a) develop
olicy; (c) the d
requirements
vironments; (
o potential vio
nd procedures
NDAs) signed
cal or ‘cloud-b
ATION SECURI
ring Committe
partments, w
rts, including
SSC will provid
that informatio
City departme
ly comply with
tion by subm
ministered by t
his or her su
will conduct a
e City’s Chief
elines will incl
ection of the I
the exception
on will be com
ny request m
ule, regulation
STAFF
n information
n security me
e application
to provide ser
ing and upda
development o
s, which will b
d) assisting th
lations of the
s which fall un
by third party
based’ softwa
TY STEERING
ee (the “ISSC
will provide the
key informatio
de input to th
on security ris
nt level.
h one or more
itting Security
the City’s Info
pervisor, will
a risk assessm
Information O
lude at a mini
nformation id
n request. Af
mmunicated, i
may be subjec
n or procedur
security man
easures by the
users and da
rvices, shall b
ating the Polic
of privacy sta
be designed a
he City’s staff
Policy; (e) re
nder the purv
y contractors
are services to
COMMITTEE
”), which is co
e primary dire
on security an
e information
sks are adequ
In
Informa
e element(s)
y Exception R
ormation Secu
provide any a
ment of the re
Officer (“CIO”
imum: purpos
dentified in the
fter due cons
in writing, to t
ct to counterm
re regarding i
nagement fram
e City’s gove
atabase users
by guided by
cy, (b) enforci
andards that w
and maintaine
ff in evaluating
eviewing and
view of this Po
, which will pr
o the City.
omprised of t
ection, prioritiz
nd privacy ris
n security and
uately consid
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
described in
Request.The
urity Manager
additional info
quested exce
) and approve
se, source, co
e request. The
ideration is gi
the City emplo
measures esta
nformation pr
mework to init
rnment.
s, and, indirec
this Policy in
ng complianc
will manifest t
ed by the pers
g security and
approving
olicy; and (f) r
rovide service
he City’s emp
zation and ap
sks, programs
privacy strat
ered, assess
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 4 of 8
ary, 2013
this
r (the
ormation
eption in
ed as to
ollection,
e ISM
iven to
oyee
ablished
rivacy.
tiate and
ctly, third
the
ce with
he Policy
sons
d privacy
reviewing
es,
ployees,
pproval
s,
tegic
ed and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
C) R
All au
proce
D) R
The C
City’s
comp
intern
E) R
The
(NDA
the S
exec
contr
objec
by th
occu
The C
appro
3. PR
A) O
The
Infor
by, o
contr
activ
other
The t
other
desig
inform
comp
main
confi
third
B) P
Exce
doing
perso
as a
Privacy Policy
RESPONSIBILIT
uthorized use
esses and tec
RESPONSIBILIT
City’s IT Man
s networks, w
pliance with th
nal reporting
RESPONSIBILIT
ISM will ensu
A), whenever
Software as a
cuted prior to t
ractors. The C
ctives, policie
he ISM at plan
rred.
CIO, acting b
opriate, comm
IVACY PO
OVERVIEW
Policy applies
mation of per
or entrusted to
ractors under
ities include,
r networks, sy
term “informa
r related orga
gned, implem
mation assets
promise, and
ntain informati
dentiality, inte
parties.
PERSONAL INF
ept as permitte
g business wi
on has conse
local governm
y
TY OF USERS
ers of the Info
chnologies wi
TY OF INFORMA
agers, who a
will be respons
he City’s infor
of events that
TY OF AUTHOR
ure that the Ci
access to the
Service (Saa
the sharing of
City’s approac
s, processes
nned intervals
y the ISM, wi
mencing from
OLICY
s to activities
rsons doing b
o, the City and
contract to th
without limita
ystems, or de
ation assets” a
anizations whi
ented, and m
s. The City’s s
inappropriate
ion managem
egrity, and av
FORMATION AN
ed or provide
ith the City, o
ented to the C
ment agency
rmation will b
ithin the scop
ATION TECHNO
re responsibl
sible for confi
rmation secur
t may have co
RIZATION COOR
ity’s employee
e Information
aS) Security a
f the Informat
ch to managin
, and procedu
s, or wheneve
ll review and
the date of it
that involve t
usiness with t
d will be mad
he City to pro
ation, accessin
evices.
also includes
ile those asse
maintained to e
staff will act to
e disclosure o
ment systems,
vailability of its
ND CHOICE
d by applicab
r receiving se
City’s sharing o
with third par
be responsible
e of responsi
OLOGY (IT) MA
e for internal,
guring, maint
rity and privac
ompromised
RDINATION
es secure the
will be grante
and Privacy T
tion of person
ng information
ures for inform
er significant c
recommend
ts adoption.
he use of the
the City or re
e available to
vide Software
ng the Interne
the personal
ets are under
ensure that o
o protect its in
or alteration. T
networks an
s information
ble laws, the C
ervices from th
of such inform
rties under co
e for complyin
ibility of each
ANAGERS
, external, dir
taining and se
cy policies. T
network, syst
e execution of
ed to third par
Terms and Co
ns covered by
n security and
mation securit
changes to se
changes to th
e City’s inform
ceiving servic
o the City’s em
e as a Service
et, using e-ma
information o
the City’s con
nly authorize
nformation as
The City will p
nd processes
assets to the
City will not sh
he City, in vio
mation during
ontract to the C
In
Informa
ng with inform
user.
rect and indire
ecuring the C
hey are also
tem or data s
f Non-Disclos
rty contractor
onditions. An
y this Policy w
d its impleme
ty) will be rev
ecurity implem
he Policy ann
mation assets,
ces from the C
mployees and
e consulting s
ail, accessing
of the City’s e
ntrol. Securit
d persons wil
ssets from the
plan, design,
in order to as
e City’s emplo
hare the Infor
olation of this
the conduct
City to provid
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
mation privacy
ect connection
City’s IT netwo
responsible fo
ecurity.
sure Agreeme
rs, in conjunct
NDA must be
with third party
entation (i.e.
viewed indepe
mentation hav
nually, or as
namely, the
City, which ar
d third party
services. The
g the City’s int
employees an
ty measures w
ll enjoy acces
eft, damage, l
implement an
ssure the app
oyees and aut
rmation of any
Policy, unles
of the City’s b
e services.
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 5 of 8
ary, 2013
y
ns to the
orks in
or timely
ents
tion with
e
y
endently
ve
re owned
se
tranet or
nd any
will be
ss to the
oss,
nd
ropriate
thorized
y person
ss that
business
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
C) M
The C
colle
busin
may
and w
forma
The C
site m
City w
the In
the b
Inter
the u
comp
their
on hi
sites
D) U
In the
Depa
custo
Utiliti
apply
other
with
Busin
have
mont
resid
and/o
the s
Busin
cove
Infor
E) P
The
could
unles
F) A
The C
acce
affec
Privacy Policy
METHODS OF C
City may gath
ction of such
ness as a loca
be gathered
with other tec
ation in order
City’s staff wi
may use “coo
will note that
nternet Protoc
browser softw
net address o
user’s comput
promise the u
computers by
is or her com
.
UTILITIES SERV
e provision of
artment (“CPA
omers. To the
ies Rules and
y; provided, h
rwise directed
other City dep
nesses and re
e secure acce
thly utility usa
dents with non
or billing data
standard mon
nesses and re
red by the sa
mation under
PUBLIC DISCLO
Information th
d be incorpora
ss such inform
ACCESS TO PE
City will take
ss to that per
cted persons w
y
COLLECTION O
her the Inform
information is
al governmen
at service win
chnologies, wh
r to secure the
ll inform the p
kies” to custo
a cookie cont
col address o
ware and oper
of the website
ter by using th
user’s privacy
y using any o
puter, it will n
VICE
f utility service
AU”) will colle
e extent the m
d Regulations
however, any
d or approved
partments ex
esidents with
ss through a
age and billing
n-standard or
a provided to t
thly billing.
esidents with
ame privacy p
r applicable fe
OSURE
hat is collecte
ated in a publ
mation is exem
ERSONAL INFO
reasonable s
rson’s Informa
who can revie
OF PERSONAL
mation from a
s both necess
nt agency in it
ndows and co
herever the C
e City’s servic
persons whos
omize the brow
tains unique i
of the compute
ating systems
e from which t
he City’s web
or security. U
of the widely a
ot prevent or
es to persons
ect the Informa
management
or other ordi
such Rules a
d by the Coun
cept as may b
standard utili
CPAU websi
g data. In add
experimenta
them through
such non-sta
rotections an
ederal and Ca
ed by the City
lic record that
mpt from disc
ORMATION
teps to verify
ation. Each C
ew and updat
INFORMATION
variety of sou
sary and appr
ts governmen
ontact centers
City may intera
ces.
se Information
wsing experie
information th
er used to ac
s used, the da
the user linke
site do not c
Users can refu
available meth
prohibit the u
s located withi
ation in order
of that inform
nances, rules
and Regulatio
ncil. This inclu
be required b
ity meters and
te to their Info
dition to their r
l electric, wat
non-City elec
andard or exp
d personal in
alifornia laws.
in the ordina
t may be subj
closure to the
a person’s id
City departmen
te that informa
urces and res
ropriate in ord
ntal and propr
s as well as a
act with perso
n are covered
ence with the
hat a web site
ccess the City
ate and time
ed to the City’s
contain the Inf
use the cooki
hods. If the us
user from gain
in Palo Alto, t
r to initiate an
mation is not s
s, regulations
ns must conf
udes the shar
by law.
d/or having n
ormation, incl
regular month
ter or natural
ctronic portal
perimental me
nformation exc
ry course and
ject to inspec
public by Ca
dentity before
nt that collect
ation at reaso
In
Informa
sources, prov
der for the Cit
rietary capaci
at web sites, b
ons who need
d by this Polic
e City of Palo A
e can use to tr
y’s web sites,
a user access
s web sites. C
formation, and
ies or delete t
ser chooses n
ning access t
the City of Pa
d manage uti
specifically ad
or procedure
form to this Po
ring of CPAU-
on-metered m
luding, withou
hly utilities bil
gas meters m
s at different
etering will ha
change rules
d scope of co
ction and copy
alifornia law.
e the City will g
ts Information
onable times.
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
ided that the
ty to conduct
ties. That inf
by mobile app
d to share suc
cy that the Cit
Alto web site
rack, among o
the identificat
sed the site, a
Cookies creat
d thus do not
the cookie file
not to accept
to or using the
alo Alto Utilitie
ility services t
ddressed in th
es, this Policy
olicy, unless
-collected Info
monthly servic
ut limitation, th
ling, business
may have thei
intervals than
ave their Inform
applicable to
onducting its b
ying by the pu
grant anyone
n will afford ac
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 6 of 8
ary, 2013
formation
plications,
ch
ty’s web
. The
others,
tion of
and the
ted on
t
es from
a cookie
e City’s
es
to
he
y will
ormation
ces will
heir
ses and
ir usage
n with
mation
o
business
ublic,
e online
ccess to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
G) S
Exce
perso
partie
reaso
perso
The C
Infor
insta
such
If the
occu
breac
date(
and t
H) D
The C
perio
destr
I) S
The C
servi
In ord
those
the S
provi
servi
confi
Thes
whic
servi
inclu
moni
term
comp
Prior
servi
even
requ
prom
J) F
CPA
mana
Privacy Policy
SECURITY, CO
ept as otherwi
ons covered b
es without the
onable contro
ons covered b
City may auth
mation of per
nces, the City
Information o
e City become
rred, with res
ch in accorda
(s) of the know
the proposed
DATA RETENTI
City will store
od is establish
ruction.
SOFTWARE AS
City may eng
ces, common
der to assure
e who receive
SaaS services
ider, shall des
ces and/or fu
dentiality and
se requiremen
h the services
ces provider’
ding disaster
itoring service
“IT infrastruc
puters, and da
r to entering in
ces provider
nt that the Saa
irements duri
mptly inform th
FAIR AND ACC
U will require
age utility ser
y
NFIDENTIALITY
ise provided b
by this Policy
e express writ
ols that are de
by this Policy
horize the City
rsons who do
y will require
only in further
es aware of a
spect to the In
ance with app
wn or suspec
action to be
ION / INFORMA
e and secure a
hed by law, fo
A SERVICE (S
age third part
nly known as
the privacy a
ed services fro
s provider and
sign, install, p
urnishes good
d privacy of th
nts include inf
s are provided
s operations
recovery and
es to ensure a
cture” refers to
atabase man
nto an agreem
to complete a
aS services p
ng the course
he ISM.
URATE CREDIT
utility custom
rvices to them
Y AND NON-DIS
by applicable
as confidenti
tten consent o
esigned to pro
.
y’s employee
business with
the City’s em
rance of City-
breach, or ha
nformation of
licable laws.
cted breach, t
taken or the r
ATION RETENTI
all Information
or seven (7) ye
SAAS) OVERSI
ty contractors
Software-as-
and security o
om the City, a
d its subcontr
provide, and m
ds to the City,
he Information
formation sec
d to the City,
and maintena
d business co
a secure and
o the integrate
agement dev
ment to provid
and submit an
provider reaso
e of providing
T TRANSACTIO
mers to provid
m.
SCLOSURE
law or this Po
ial and will no
of the person
otect the conf
and or third p
h the City or r
ployee and/o
-related busin
as reasonable
a person, the
The notice of
he nature of t
responsive ac
ION
n for a period
ears, and the
GHT
s and vendors
a-Service (Sa
of the Informa
as a condition
ractors, if any
maintain a sec
to the extent
n.
curity directive
including con
ance process
ontinuity plann
reliable envir
ed framework
vices, upon wh
de services to
n Information
onably determ
services, the
ON ACT OF 200
de their Inform
olicy, the City
ot disclose it,
n affected. The
fidentiality and
party contrac
receive servic
or the third pa
ness and in ac
e grounds to
e City will notif
f breach will in
the Informatio
ction taken by
d of time as m
ereafter such i
s to provide s
aaS).
ation of those
n of selling go
y, including an
cure IT enviro
t any scope of
es pertaining
nnection to th
es needed to
ning; and (c) t
ronment and
k, including, w
hich digital ne
o the City, the
Security and
mines that it ca
e City will requ
03
mation in orde
In
Informa
y will treat the
or permit it to
e City will dev
d security of t
ctors to acces
ces from the C
rty contractor
ccordance wit
believe that a
fy the affecte
nclude the da
on that is the
y the City.
may be require
information w
software appli
who do busin
oods and/or s
ny IT infrastru
onment, while
f work or serv
to: (a) the IT
e City's IT sy
o support the
the IT infrastr
service availa
without limitat
etworks opera
e City’s staff w
Privacy Que
annot fulfill th
uire the SaaS
er for the City
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
e Information o
o be disclosed
velop and ma
the Informatio
s and/or use
City. In those
rs to agree to
th the Policy.
a security bre
d person of s
ate(s) or estim
subject of the
ed by law, or i
will be schedu
cation and da
ness with the
ervices to the
cture service
e it performs s
vices implicat
infrastructure
stems; (b) the
IT environme
ructure perfor
ability to the C
tion, data cen
ate.
will require the
estionnaire. In
e information
S services pro
to initiate and
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 7 of 8
ary, 2013
of
d, to third
aintain
on of
the
use
ach has
such
mated
e breach,
if no
led for
atabase
City and
e City,
s
such
tes the
e, by
e SaaS
ent,
rmance
City. The
ters,
e SaaS
n the
n security
ovider to
d
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
Information P
Version 2.2
Fede
108-
credi
and i
preve
CPA
when
chan
Ther
§ 179
4. CO
Info
Chie
Utili
City
Privacy Policy
eral regulation
159), includin
itor” which pro
implement pro
ent, respond
U procedures
never significa
nges to CPAU
e are Californ
98.92.
ONTACTS
rmation Secu
ef Information
ties Departm
y Attorney’s O
y
ns, implement
ng the Red Fla
ovides service
ocedures for
and mitigate
s for potential
ant changes t
U identity theft
nia laws which
urity Manager
n Officer: Rei
ent: Auzenne
Office: Kolling,
ting the Fair a
ag Rules, req
es in advance
an identity th
potential iden
identity theft
to security im
t procedures,
h are applicab
r: Patel, Raj <
chental, Jona
e, Tom <Tom
Grant <Gran
and Accurate
quire that CPA
e of payment
eft program fo
ntity theft of its
will be review
plementation
or as approp
ble to identity
Raj.Patel@C
athan <Jonath
m.Auzenne@C
nt.Kolling@Ci
Credit Trans
AU, as a “cov
and which ca
for new and e
s customers’
wed independ
n have occurre
priate, so as to
y theft; they ar
CityofPaloAlto
han.Reichent
CityofPaloAlto
tyofPaloAlto.o
In
Informa
sactions Act o
ered financia
an affect cons
existing accou
Information.
dently by the
ed. The ISM w
o conform to
re set forth in
.org>
tal@CityofPal
o.org
org>
City of
nformation Te
ation Security
Pa
31 Janua
of 2003 (Publi
l institution or
sumer credit,
unts to detect,
ISM annually
will recomme
this Policy.
California Ci
loAlto.org>
Palo Alto
chnology
Services
age 8 of 8
ary, 2013
c Law
r
develop
,
y or
nd
vil Code
DocuSign Envelope ID: 28FF1C76-0BF0-4D1A-A838-05D849E0F72C
1
City Council Meeting
Update: Te chnology and the
Connected City
February 2, 2015
2
Agenda
§Current state of broadband in America
§Council directive: Fiber-to-the-Premise
Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan
§Google Fiber City status
3
Community Broadband: Emerging
Trends & Technologies
§Municipal Gigabit Broadband (Gigabit
Communities)
§Primary challenges
§Mobile broadband
§Net Neutrality
§Gigabit Market Research
4
Community Networks
5
U.S. Gigabit Networks
Active and Pending
6
Broadband Awareness Study -
GigaWhat? Key Findings
§87% of respondents had never heard of Gigabit
before survey
§54% don’t know a Gigabit is faster than a Megabit
§$70 price point for Gigabit may face resistance (70%
say is too high)
§An overwhelming majority of consumers would select
Gigabit service from a competing incumbent service
provider over a municipal or electric utility
§64% prefer to pay slightly less per month for their
current speed than pay slightly more for a faster
connection
* Source: GigaWhat? U.S. Broadband Awareness, Needs and Perceptions Study
7
FTTP Network Deployment
§FTTP and Wireless Network Plan
§Citywide FTTP construction effort
§Network construction costs
§Va rious skill-sets and “back office”
resources required to operate network
24x7x365
§Marketing and customer acquisition
plan
8
Council Directive
1.FTTP Master Plan: Infrastructure
assessment, engineering study, network
design, network cost estimate, potential
business models and environmental
review
2.Wireless Network Plan: Near-term focus
on Wi-Fi; long term consideration of
other wireless technologies
9
Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan and
Wireless Network Plan
§July 3, 2014: RFPs issued
§August 4, 2014: Nine responses
§September-October 2014: Vendor selection
§February 2, 2015: Recommendation to Council
for contract approval
§February 2015: Work started
§May 2015: Plans completed
§June-July 2015: Submit findings and
recommendations and next steps to Council
10
Citizen Advisory Committee
§February 2014: Nine citizens appointed
by City Manager
§Committee meets approximately every
two months
§Committee members provided feedback
for Requests for Proposals
11
Google Fiber City
§February-May 2014: Checklist response
§August 11, 2014: Council approved Network Hut
License Agreement
§May-December 2014: Meetings with Google
§Expect decision from Google in early 2015 to build a
fiber-optic network in Palo Alto
12
Q & A
§Thank you!
§Questions?
13
Appendix A: Community Broadband
Resources
1.Founding Partner -Next Century Cities
2.Emerging municipal broadband models
3.Institute for Local Self-Reliance and
Community Broadband Networks
4.Broadband Communities
5.Fiber-to-the-Home Council
14
Appendix B: Community Networks
§89 communities served by publicly owned Fiber-
to-the-Premise networks
§74 communities served by publicly owned cable
networks
§179 communities with fiber optic connections
available in some areas of town, owned by the
community
§35 communities in 10 states with access to a
gigabit from a community owned network
§19 states that have barriers to discourage
community owned networks
15
Te chnology and the Connected City
February 2, 2015
1
Revised January 8, 2015
5443 PH
Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE FIBER OPTICS FUND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATION
OF $276,594 TO AWARD TWO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS TO CTC
TECHNOLOGY & ENERGY FOR A FIBER-TO-THE-PREMISE MASTER PLAN ($144,944)
AND A COMPLEMENTARY WIRELESS NETWORK PLAN ($131,650), AND TO DECREASE
THE FIBER OPTIC FUND RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE BY $276,594 TO FUND THE
CONTRACTS.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of
Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2015; and
B. On October 28, 2013, the City Council approved a recommendation by the
Technology and Connected City Committee to issue Requests for Proposals to build out the
existing dark fiber optic backbone system through a Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) Master
Plan and develop a Wireless Network Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi, and a long-term
consideration of other wireless technologies; and
C. During the week of September 8, 2014, four vendor interviews were conducted,
and based on the scoring of written responses and in-person interviews, the panel selected
CTC Technology & Energy to provide consulting services for the FTTP Master Plan
($144,944) and the Wireless Network Plan ($131,650); and
D. An appropriation of Two-Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-
Four Dollars ($276,594) is needed to fund the contracts; and
E. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2015 budget as hereinafter set
forth.
SECTION 2. The sum of Two-Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-
Four Dollars ($276,594) is hereby appropriated for the Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan
and Wireless Network Plan, and the Fiber Optic Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve is reduced
by $276,594.
SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this
ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
SECTION 4. The actions taken in this ordinance do not constitute a project requiring
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2
Revised January 8, 2015
5443 PH
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
____________________________
Director of Administrative Services
____________________________
Director of Information Technology
____________________________
Director of Utilites
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
February 2, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation and
Winter Closure for 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Direction regarding scheduling the City Council Summer Break and Winter
Closure in Calendar Year 2015.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution to schedule the City
Council’s summer break and the winter closure from December 21, 2015 to
January 1, 2016
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 (b), the City Council
schedules its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third
meeting in February. During said scheduled annual vacation, there shall be
no regular meetings of the City Council nor of the Council standing
committees. The Mayor or a majority of the Council may call a special
meeting during the scheduled vacation if necessary.
Last year Council’s summer break was from June 30-August 1, 2014. Please
note that the Palo Alto Unified School District last day of school is June 4,
2015 and school resumes on August 17, 2015.
Staff polled Council Members for their suggestions of when the Council
should take their summer break and received the following responses:
• Two Council Members thought that the Council’s summer break should
be from mid-July to mid-August. This time period would not interfere
with budget season and would coincide with PAUSD summer vacation.
One Council Member has booked their vacation for the end of August,
as they are going out of the country.
Page 2
The Council also needs to set the winter closure. Staff proposes December
21, 2015 through January 1, 2016 as dates for the winter closure.
Staff respectfully requests Council’s direction regarding the dates to be set
for the Council breaks.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution Scheduling the City Council Vacation and Winter Closure for
Calendar Year 2015 (DOCX)
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
SCHEDULING THE CITY COUNCIL VACATION AND WINTER CLOSURE FOR CALENDAR
YEAR 2015
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code, the City Council must schedule
its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third meeting in February; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set its annual vacation for 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows:
The City Council sets their summer vacation for calendar year 2015, from XXXX, 2015
through XXXX, 2015 and winter closure from December 21, 2015 through January 1,
2016.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City Manager