Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-12-01 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL December 1, 2014 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. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful. TIME ESTIMATES Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called. HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1. CONFERENCE WITH ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL Potential Litigation Relating to the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Construction Significant Exposure to Litigation: 1 Potential Case Potential Initiation of Litigation: 1 Potential Case Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9 Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:10 PM 2. Proclamation for Marion Mandell, Vice-President of Oaxaca, Mexico Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 1 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. City Manager Comments 7:10-7:20 PM Oral Communications 7:20-7:35 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:35-7:40 PM October 6, 2014 October 20, 2014 October 27, 2014 November 3, 2014 Consent Calendar 7:40-7:45 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 9299 4. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 5. Affirm Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 1066 Metro Circle 6. Palo Alto Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future (Staff Requests Item be Continued to February 2, 2015) 7. 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 the Amount of $144,944 and (2) a Complementary Wireless Network Plan in the Amount of $131,650; and Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $276,594 from Fiber Optics Fund 2 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. 8. Adoption of a Resolution Suspending City Policy Against Requiring Prevailing Wage, Unless and Until SB 7 is Enjoined or Invalidated 9. Approval of a Contract with Susan Narduli in the Amount of $174,477 for the Development, Design, Fabrication and Installation of an Interactive New Media Artwork to be Installed in the Lobby of City Hall 10. SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing the Prohibition on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206, codified as Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010) (First Reading: November 17, 2014 PASSED: 7-1 Klein no, Holman absent) 11. Approval of a Junior Museum and Zoo Environmental Review Services Funding Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc.; Approval of a Contract with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. In an Amount not to Exceed $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Junior Museum & Zoo Environmental Assessment; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project (CIP PE-12003) Partially Offset with a Contribution in the Amount of $57,283 from the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:45-8:30 PM 12. Approval of the Proposed Grocery Store Tenant (College Terrace Market) Within PC 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based on the Finding that the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would Likely be Comparable in Quality of Products and Services as JJ&F as it Existed and Operated on December 7, 2009 at 2180 El Camino Real (Continued from November 17, 2014) 8:30-9:15 PM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts 9:15-10:00 PM 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods 3 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:00-10:15 PM Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session 10:15-11:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 16. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Walter Rossmann, Khashayar “Cash” Alaee ) Unrepresented Employee Group: Management, Professional and Confidential Employees Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 17. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Representatives: Sherry Lund, CAO Committee (Chair Person, Council Members) Unrepresented Employees: James Keene, City Manager, Molly Stump, City Attorney Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6 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 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting December 2, 2014 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for First Quarter Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Status Report Developer Impact Fees - Early Memo Independent Police Auditor's First Report- 2014 Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 SET 3 5 December 1, 2014 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. November 24, 2014 - Set 1 Novem,ber 24, 2014 - Set 2 December 01, 2014 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 1, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Proclamation for Marion Mandell, Vice-President of Oaxaca, Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Proclamation for Marion Mandell (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Marion Mandell Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto WHEREAS, since 1964, the City of Palo Alto and Oaxaca, Mexico have enjoyed a Sister Cities relationship, this year being the 50-year milestone and Marion Mandell, Neighbors Abroad Vice-President of Oaxaca led the celebrations with a 30-person delegation in June 2014; and WHEREAS, Marion Mandell has been the key champion of this Sister-City relationship, building lasting friendships with Oaxaca for many years, providing diplomatic and cultural enrichments for Neighbors Abroad and the City of Palo; and WHEREAS, Marion Mandell has been the primary organizer of the student exchange program that, for almost 50 years, has developed cultural understanding and built family connections between Palo Alto and Oaxaca each summer for high school students and is now an inter-generational program where multiple generations have participated in this program; and WHEREAS, Marion Mandell has led numerous adult tours to Oaxaca, allowing Palo Altans to experience and appreciate the rich, artistic life of Oaxaca City and its region and has made improvements to the observatory, a science center for the Oaxacan students; and WHEREAS, Marion Mandell has worked tirelessly to benefit Albergue Infantil Josefino, a children’s home which cares for 55 orphaned, abandoned and abused children; the Niño-a-Niño (child-to-child) program educates children how to teach each other basic health care, nutrition and environmental awareness, which has reduced childhood deaths from double digits to 1 – 2 percent; and WHEREAS, Marion Mandell, together with Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs, has organized the donation of eight good-condition emergency vehicles from Palo Alto to Oaxaca where such vehicles are named after Palo Alto fire personnel, including former Fire Captain Joe Carlton, Jorge Salazar, volunteer driver Bob Wenzlau, former Fire Chief Nick Marinaro and an ambulance named after Marion Mandell. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Nancy Shepherd, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim our gratitude to Marion Mandell who has so magnificently served as an ambassador to our Sister-city of Oaxaca, Mexico and thank her for the time and effort she has expended to bring our two cities together in mutual appreciation. Presented: December 1, 2014 ______________________________ Nancy Shepherd Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 1, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 9299 It is recommended that Council adopt the attached resolution. The Political Reform Act requires the City to review its Conflict of Interest Code at least every two years. Chapter 2.09 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act require the City to adopt a list of designated positions and disclosure responsibilities for each position subject to the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated Employees. Disclosure statements from designated positions are due each April. The attached Resolution amends the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to update the list of designated positions to reflect administrative changes, including title changes and positions added or deleted from the Table of Organization. Changes to the Disclosure Categories are recommended to improve clarity on the elements of reporting. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: RESO 9299 COI 2012 REDLINED (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk Page 2 Resolution No. 9299 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Conflict of Interest Code for Designated City Officers and Employees as Required by the Political Reform Act and Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission and Repealing Resolution No. 91229299 RECITALS A. The Political Reform Act requires certain City officials, specified in section 87200 of the California Government Code, to file economic disclosure forms (“Form 700”) and abstain from making or participating in making governmental decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest; and B. The Political Reform Act also requires the City to adopt a local conflict of interest code that enumerates specific City positions other than those specified in Government Code section 87200 which involve making or participating in making decisions which have a reasonably foreseeable material effect on an economic interest, and to designate for each position the specific types of investments, business positions, interests in real property and sources of income which are reportable based on the scope of the decision-making authority of the position; and C. Consistent with Chapter 2.09 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the biennial schedule established by the Fair Political Practices Commission for amending local conflict of interest codes, the City reviews and amends its local conflict of interest code by resolution every two years. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 9122 9299 is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Palo Alto is hereby amended to read as follows: CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO The Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000, et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. section 18730), which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code. After public notice and hearing the regulation may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", Right: 0.13",Tab stops: Not at 1" amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and Appendix A attached to this resolution and a part of it, designating officials and employees and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Palo Alto. Designated employees shall file statements of economic interests with the City Clerk who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Gov. Code, § 81008.) Statements for all designated employees will be retained by the City Clerk. SECTION 3. The Conflict of Interest Code for the City of Palo Alto will be effective thirty (30) days from the date the City Council approves this resolution. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that there is no possibility that this resolution will have a significant effect on the environment and upon that basis determines that this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: DECEMBER 31, 20122014 AYES: BURT, ESPINOSA, HOLMAN, KLEIN, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD, YEH NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager APPENDIX A DESIGNATED POSITIONS Titles Assigned Disclosure Category ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Finance Division Assistant Director, Administrative Services ................................................................................... 1 Deputy Director, Administrative Services ...................................................................................... 1 Senior Financial Management Analyst ........................................................................................... 4 Manager, Accounting ..................................................................................................................... 1 Senior Accountant .......................................................................................................................... 4 Accountant ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Manager, Purchasing & Contract Admin ....................................................................................... 1 Warehouse Supervisor ................................................................................................................... 5 Contracts Administrator ................................................................................................................. 3 Senior Business Analyst .................................................................................................................. 4 Manager, Energy Risk ..................................................................................................................... 4 Real Estate Division Manager, Real Property ................................................................................................................. 4 Senior Financial Management Analyst .......................................................................................... 4 Budget & Management Analysis Division Director, Office of Management and Budget ................................................................................. 1 Principle Principal Financial Management Analyst ......................................................................... 4 Senior Financial Management Analyst .......................................................................................... 4 APPOINTED OFFICIALS Standby Emergency Council………………………………………………………………………………….……………….1 Architectural Review Board ........................................................................................................... 1 Historic Resources Board ................................................................................................................ 1 Human Relations Commission ....................................................................................................... 1 Library Advisory Commission .......................................................................................................... 1 Public Art Commission .................................................................................................................... 1 Utilities Advisory Commission ........................................................................................................ 1 Parks and Recreation Commission ................................................................................................. 1 CITY ATTORNEY Senior Assistant City Attorney ....................................................................................................... 1 Assistant City Attorney ................................................................................................................... 1 Senior Deputy City Attorney ........................................................................................................... 1 Deputy City Attorney ...................................................................................................................... 1 Claims Investigator .......................................................................................................................... 3 Secretary to City Attorney .............................................................................................................. 4 Legal Services Administrator .......................................................................................................... 4 CITY AUDITOR City Auditor ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Senior Performance Auditor .......................................................................................................... 1 Performance Auditor ..................................................................................................................... 1 CITY CLERK City Clerk ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Hearing Examiner Officer ............................................................................................................... 1 Assistant City Clerk ......................................................................................................................... 3 Deputy City Clerk ............................................................................................................................ 3 CITY MANAGER Assistant City Manager /Chief Operating Officer ........................................................................... 1 Deputy City Manager………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...1 Assistant to City Manager ............................................................................................................... 1 Manager, Economic Development and Redevelopment ................................................................ 1 Executive Assistant to the City Manager ........................................................................................ 3 Communications Manager ............................................................................................................. 4 Administrator, CMO ........................................................................................................................ 1 Chief Sustainability ManagerOfficer ............................................................................................... 1 Senior Management Analyst........................................................................................................... 3 Chief Communications Manager .................................................................................................... 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES Director, Community Services ........................................................................................................ 1 Assistant Director, Community Services ......................................................................................... 1 Executive AssistantAdministrative Assistant .................................................................................. 3 Senior Management Analyst .......................................................................................................... 5 Management Analyst……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 Arts & Sciences Division Manager, Arts and Science ............................................................................................................. 6 Recreation Division Recreation Division Manager .......................................................................................................... 6 Community Services Senior Program Manager ............................................................................. 5 Supervisor, Recreation Programs .................................................................................................. 5 Coordinator, Recreation Programs ................................................................................................. 5 Community Services Superintendent ............................................................................................ 5 Community Service Manager ......................................................................................................... 5 Open Space, Parks and Golf Division Open Space, Parks and Golf Division Manager ............................................................................... 6 Superintendent, Open Space, Parks and Golf ................................................................................ 5 Community Service Manager.......................................................................................................... 5 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Director, Development Services ……………………………………………………….…………………………………1 Development Services Manager……………………………………………………………………………………………1 Chief Building Official…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1 Assistant Building Official………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Plan Check Engineer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Plans Examiner………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Planning Manager…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Building Inspector Specialist………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Building Inspector………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Senior Management Analyst…………………………………………………………………………………………………4 Project Coordinator………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief.... ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Chief. ...................................................................................... 1 Deputy Fire Chief ........................................................................................................................... 1 Fire Marshal .................................................................................................................................... 1 Battalion Chief................................................................................................................................. 6 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Director .................................................................................. 6 Emergency Medical Services Data Specialist .................................................................................. 7 Geographic Information System Specialist ..................................................................................... 9 Emergency Services (OES) Director ................................................................................................ 1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) Coordinator ........................................................................... 1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) Program Assistant ................................................................. 4 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PEOPLE STRATEGIES & OPERATIONS (PSO) Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline Director, Human Resources/Chief People OfficerPeople Strategies & Operations ....................... 1 Assistant Director, Human ResourcesPSO ...................................................................................... 1 Manager, Employee Relations ....................................................................................................... 3 Manager, Employee Benefits…………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Senior Human Relations Administrator ......................................................................................... 3 Senior Management Analyst .......................................................................................................... 3 Formatted: Tab stops: 6.5", Right,Leader: …+ Not at -0.75" + -0.5" + 0" + 0.31" + 0.63" + 4.5" + 5" + 5.5" + 6" INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT Director, Information Technology/Chief Information Officer ........................................................ 1 Information Technology Security Manager .................................................................................... 2 Information Technology Governance & Planning Manger ............................................................. 2 Manager, Information Technology Services ................................................................................... 2 Senior Technologist ......................................................................................................................... 9 Executive Assistant ......................................................................................................................... 9 Technologist .................................................................................................................................... 9 Principal Management Analyst ..................................................................................................... 93 Senior Management Analyst…………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 LIBRARY DEPARTMENT Director, Libraries ........................................................................................................................... 1 Assistant Director, Public Services DivisionLibraries .................................................................... 43 Division Head, Collection and Technical Services Division ............................................................. 5 Library Services Manager ................................................................................................................ 4 OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Emergency Services (OES) Director ................................................................................................ 1 Office of Emergency Services (OES) Coordinator ........................................................................... 1 PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT (9/19/12) Planning and Transportation Division Director, Planning and Community Environment ........................................................................... 1 Assistant Director, Planning and Community Environment ........................................................... 1 Development Services Director ...................................................................................................... 1 Development Center Manager ....................................................................................................... 1 Chief Planning Official ..................................................................................................................... 1 Administrator, Planning & Community EnvironmentSenior Management Analyst ....................... 1 Chief Transportation Official. .......................................................................................................... 1 Planning Manager, Planning ........................................................................................................... 4 Senior Planner ................................................................................................................................. 4 Planner ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Associate Planner ........................................................................................................................... 4 Coordinator, Transportation Systems Mgmnt ................................................................................ 4 Code Enforcement Officer………………………………………………………………………………………………………...4 Plans Examiner ................................................................................................................................ 4 Formatted: No underline Formatted: No underline Development Project Coordinator III .............................................................................................. 4 Parking Manager…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4 Inspection Services Division Chief Building Official ...................................................................................................................... 1 Assistant Building Official................................................................................................................ 4 Supervisor, Building Inspection ...................................................................................................... 4 Building Inspector Specialist……………………………………………………………………………………………………...4 Building Inspector…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…4 POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Division Police Chief…………………………… ....................................................................................................... 1 Assistant Police Chief…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 Police Captain ................................................................................................................................. 1 Police Lieutenant ............................................................................................................................ 1 Senior Management Analyst .......................................................................................................... 3 Supervisor, Police Services .............................................................................................................. 3 Animal Services Division Superintendent, Animal Services .................................................................................................... 7 Supervisor, Animal Services ............................................................................................................ 7 Veterinarian .................................................................................................................................... 7 Communications Division Deputy Director Technical Services Division .................................................................................. 9 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Administration Division Director, Public Works/City Engineer ............................................................................................ 1 Senior Management Analyst .......................................................................................................... 3 Airport Manager ............................................................................................................................. 1 Assistant Director, Special Projects ............................................................................................... 1 Airport Division Airport Manager…………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………1 Management Analyst………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………..3 Engineering Services Division Assistant Director, Engineering Services ........................................................................................ 1 Management Analyst ...................................................................................................................... 3 Senior Engineer ............................................................................................................................... 4 Supervisor, Inspection & Surveying ................................................................................................ 4 Senior Project Manager .................................................................................................................. 4 Project Manager ............................................................................................................................. 4 Project Engineer .............................................................................................................................. 4 Public Services Division Assistant Director, Public Services .................................................................................................. 1 Management Analyst ...................................................................................................................... 3 Manager, Maintenance Operations................................................................................................ 5 Fleet Manager ................................................................................................................................. 5 Urban Forester ................................................................................................................................ 5 Assistant Fleet Manager ................................................................................................................. 5 Facilities Management Division Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Projects .................................................................................. 5 Project Manager. ............................................................................................................................ 5 Supervisor, Facilities Management ................................................................................................. 7 Operations Division Manager, Maintenance Operations................................................................................................ 5 Managing Arborist .......................................................................................................................... 5 Environmental Services Division Assistant Director, Environmental Services .................................................................................... 1 Management Analyst ...................................................................................................................... 3 Manager, Water Quality Control .................................................................................................... 4 Manager, Solid Waste ..................................................................................................................... 6 Manager, Watershed Protection .................................................................................................... 4 Manager, Laboratory Services ........................................................................................................ 5 Manager, Environmental Control Programs ................................................................................... 4 Assistant Manager, Water Quality Control Operations .................................................................. 3 Assistant Manager, Water Quality Control Maintenance .............................................................. 3 Superintendent, Public Works Operations ..................................................................................... 5 Project Manager. ............................................................................................................................ 6 Refuse Administrator ...................................................................................................................... 3 Senior Engineer ............................................................................................................................... 4 Coordinator, Public Works Projects ................................................................................................ 5 Water Quality Control Division Senior Engineer .............................................................................................................................. 4 Management Analyst ...................................................................................................................... 5 UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Director, Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 1 Senior Management Analyst .......................................................................................................... 3 Senior Business Analyst .................................................................................................................. 4 Contracts Administrator ................................................................................................................. 3 Utilities Compliance Manager......................................................................................................... 5 Utilities Supervisor………………………………………………………………………………..5 Utilities Communications Manager ................................................................................................ 5 Customer Support Services Division Assistant Director, Customer Support Services .............................................................................. 1 Manager, Customer Service and Meter Reading ............................................................................ 4 Senior Resource Planner/Credit and CollectionManager-Credit and Collections .......................... 4 Manager, Utility Marketing Services .............................................................................................. 4 Resource Management Division Assistant Director, Resource Management .................................................................................... 1 Senior Resource Planner / Senior Resource Planner ...................................................................... 3 Senior Resource Originator ............................................................................................................. 3 Resource Planner ............................................................................................................................ 3 Engineering Division Assistant Director, Utilities Engineering ........................................................................................ 1 Engineering Manager, Water-Gas-Wastewater ............................................................................. 4 Engineering Manager, Electric ........................................................................................................ 4 Manager, Utilities Telecommunications. ........................................................................................ 1 Project Engineer .............................................................................................................................. 4 Senior Project Engineer .................................................................................................................. 4 Senior Electrical Engineer .............................................................................................................. 4 Electric Project Engineer ................................................................................................................. 4 Operations Division Assistant Director, Utilities Operations. ......................................................................................... 1 Manager, Electric Operations ......................................................................................................... 4 Manager, W-G-W Operations ......................................................................................................... 4 Utilities Supervisor ......................................................................................................................... 4 OTHER REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Newly created positions between conflict code amendments…………………1-9, As Applicable and City Clerk to work with Department to fill out FPPC form 804 at the time a new position is created Consultants (Defined in FPPC Regulation 18701(a)(2)) ...................................... 1-9, As Applicable1 1 Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.09.060, the City Manager may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a designated position, is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements. Any such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon the description, a statement of the extent of disclosure Formatted: Strikethrough and City Clerk to work with Department to complete FPPC form 805 at the time a consultant is hired Members of Task Forces, Special Committees and Similar Advisory Bodies Created by the City Council…………………………………………………………………………...1, if applicable2 requirements, if any. The City Manager may also determine whether a particular contract consultant constitutes a "consultant" as the term is defined in the Political Reform Act and regulations promulgated there under or whether the contract consultant is a registered professional engineer or licensed land surveyor exempted from the conflict of interest provisions under Government Code Section 87100.1. The City Manager's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as the Conflict of Interest Code. 2 The City Attorney and City Clerk shall coordinate to determine whether a newly created body provides that committees, boards, or commissions possesses decision making authority pursuant to Fair Political Practices Regulation 18701 and make a recommendation to the Council on whether the body should be subject to the disclosure requirements. Factors to be considered include but are not limited to whether the body will perform a role that compels or prevents a governmental decision, or make substantive recommendations that may be regularly approved without significant modification by another public official or governmental agency over an extended period of time. APPENDIX A DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES 1. FULL DISCLOSURE What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities, sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments, and interests in real property. What Form 700 schedules? All Schedules (A through E) 2. ALL INCOME What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments. What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E 3. CITY-RELATED INCOME What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments if the source is of a type which provides, manufactures, or supplies services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the City. What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E 4. CITY-RELATED INCOME, REAL PROPERTY What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments if the source is of a type which provides, manufactures, or supplies services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the City and all interests in real property. What Form 700 schedules? All Schedules (A through E) 5. DEPARTMENT-RELATED INCOME What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments if the source is of a type if the source is of a type which provides, manufactures or supplies equipment, supplies, material, services or machinery of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the department in which that person is employed. What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E 6. DEPARTMENT-RELATED INCOME, REAL PROPERTY What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments if the source is of a type if the source is of a type which provides, manufactures or supplies equipment, supplies, material, services or machinery of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the department in which that person is employed and all interests in real property. What Form 700 schedules? All Schedules (A through E) 7. DIVISION- RELATED INCOME What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments, which provide manufacture or supply supplies, equipment, machinery, services or material of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the division in which that person is employed. What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E 8. DIVISION-RELATED INCOME, REAL PROPERTY What to report? All investments and business positions in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments, which provide manufacture or supply supplies, equipment, machinery, services or material of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the division in which that person is employed and all interests in real property. What Form 700 schedules? All Schedules (A through E) 9. CITY-RELATED COMPUTER HARDWARE & SOFTWARE What to report? All investments in business entities and sources of income including gifts, loans and travel payments, which provide supply, manufacture or service computer hardware or software of the type utilized by the City. What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR December 1, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. At its meeting on October 21, 2014, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (October 21, 2014) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR October 21, 2014 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the first quarter for FY 2015. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014 (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government." Attachment A 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 First Quarter Update (July – September 2014) Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. As mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, the mission of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is to promote honest, efficient, effective, and fully accountable city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which resources are employed, the adequacy of the system of internal controls, and compliance with policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations helps the City reduce risks and protect its good reputation. Highlights of Activities During the Quarter  The Office of the City Auditor hosted a training event for Bay Area auditors on using ACL data analysis software.  The Office of the City Auditor co-hosted a training event for Bay Area auditors on conducting peer reviews for determining compliance with Government Auditing Standards.  City Auditor Harriet Richardson gave a presentation on internal controls at the Western Intergovernmental Audit Forum in September.  The City Auditor updated and presented to the Policy and Services Committee a draft ordinance related to the office and duties of the City Auditor; the final ordinance is on the Consent Calendar for the October 20 City Council meeting.  Senior Performance Auditor Yuki Matsuura assisted the Neighbors Abroad in planning the Tsuchiura Sister City event and guided delegates on a tour of Palo Alto, including the new Mitchell Park Library and the Water Quality Control Plant. Audits Below is a summary of our audit work for the first quarter of FY 2015 (as of September 30, 2014): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Franchise Fee Audit To determine if 1) the franchisees accurately calculated and remitted franchise fees in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, 2) the City appropriately used and accounted for the fees, and 3) the City appropriately established and defined roles and responsibilities to administer and enforce state franchises. 02/14 12/14 In Process Planning complete; field work is complete and report is drafted for the second and third objectives; consultant is in process of conducting field work on the first objective. Considering issuing two reports – one on the use of the fees and roles and responsibilities, and one on if fees were accurately calculated and remitted. Audit of Utility Meters: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement To determine if proper procedures were followed with the procurement, inventory, and retirement of utility meters. 03/14 12/14 In Process Planning and field work are complete; report is being drafted. Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Parking Funds Audit To determine if the City’s parking funds are properly collected, accounted for, and used in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and governing documents. The audit will focus on the University and California Avenues and Residential Parking Permit Funds, and the Parking In- Lieu Fund. 05/14 12/14 In Process Planning complete; field work is about 75 percent complete. National Citizen Survey To obtain resident opinions about the community and services provided by the City of Palo Alto and benchmark our results against other jurisdictions that participate in the survey. 07/14 12/14 In Process Survey has been conducted and we have received and are currently analyzing the draft results. 1,111 Palo Alto residents responded to the survey. Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of other assignments as of the first quarter of FY 2015 (as of September 30, 2014): Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews The OCA conducts sales and use tax monitoring in-house and also contracts with an outside vendor. Ongoing The OCA continues to submit inquiries to the State Board of Equalization. As of the end of the first quarter, the City received $31,699 in total sales and use tax recoveries, which includes $10,336 from OCA inquiries and $21,363 from vendor inquiries. Due to processing lags at the State Board of Equalization, there are 40 potential misallocations waiting to be researched and processed: 16 from OCA and 24 from the vendor. Quarterly Reporting Each quarter, the OCA provides Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp. City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor is an advisor to the following: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Attachment A 4 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. During the first quarter of FY 2015, we received two complaints, which have both been closed. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in each fiscal year. Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of September 30, 2014 The hotline review committee, composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager or their designees, meets as needed to review all activity related to the hotline. 7 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Status of Complaints Received in Fiscal Year Closed Complaints Open Complaints Attachment A POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE WORKING MINUTES Page 1 of 2 Special Meeting October 21, 2014 Chairperson Price called the meeting to order at 5:03 P.M. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Klein, Price (Chair), Scharff, Schmid Absent: 5. Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. Council Member Klein inquired about the amount of time needed to discuss Agenda Item Number 5. Chair Price felt the item should be heard. Council Member Scharff indicated some time would be required to discuss the future status of policy. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, reported the Franchise Fee Audit contained three objectives; two being performed by the City Auditor's Office and one by a consultant. Staff had almost completed their work on the two objectives. Information regarding the consultant's objective would be presented at a later time. The Utility Meter Audit was close to completion. Field work for the audit of Parking Funds was approximately 75 percent complete. With respect to the National Citizens Survey, the correct number of respondents was 796. The response rate was 27 percent, 2 percent lower than the previous year; however, 3,000 surveys rather than 1,200 were mailed to residents. Marketing efforts did not increase the rate of participation. The Sales and Use Tax Audit recovered $31,699. The City received two hotline complaints during the quarter, and Staff closed both as unsubstantiated. In the future, Departments would report directly to the Policy and Services Committee regarding the status of responses to audit recommendations. Within the quarterly report, she would provide a summary of overall activity during the quarter. Council Member Schmid suggested Audits of Franchise Fees and Utility Meters would not provide the greatest payback. Attachment B WORKING MINUTES Page 2 of 2 Policy and Services Committee Special Meeting WORKING Minutes 10/21/14 Ms. Richardson indicated the Utility Meter Audit resulted from issues identified during the Inventory Management Audit. Council Member Schmid noted the numbers were higher for the National Citizens Survey. He requested a categorization of hotline complaints. Ms. Richardson advised that most complaints pertained to employees' use of time. In most instances, there was no evidence to support complaints. Council Member Schmid was interested in whether complaints concerned personnel or sexual orientation. Ms. Richardson remarked that most complaints were related to personnel. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Klein to recommend the City Council accept the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of September 30, 2014. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 P.M. Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 5209) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of Individual Review Approval of New 2-story home at1066 Metro Circle Title: Affirm Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Individual Review Approval of a New Two-Story Home located at 1066 Metro Circle From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council adopt the following motion: 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 1066 Metro Circle, located on a cul-de-sac within the City’s flood zone, thereby upholding (affirming) the Director’s approval by adopting the findings and recommendation of the Director. 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 home with an attached two-car garage. Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code 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 home would replace a one-story Eichler home on a large and irregularly shaped lot located within the flood zone, at the end of a cul-de-sac at 1066 Metro Circle and abutting Greer Park. Federal flood zone regulations affect the development of new homes. The City’s Substantial Improvement policy (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=219&TargetID=175) requires the home’s finished floor to be raised above the base flood elevation, so adding a second floor to any Eichler in the flood plain can be problematic. The first floor of the new home is required to be located five feet above existing grade, due to the flood zone base elevation. The resulting home reaches a height of 28 feet above existing grade (to the top of roof ridge), whereas the zoning code allows flood zone homes to reach a height of 32.5 feet above grade. The Individual Review Guidelines do not address the flood zone’s effects, nor further restrict new structures within the flood zone. The proposed project was revised several City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 September 29, 2014 Director’s approval letter (Attachment A) confirms that the revised project meets the IR guidelines and complies with R-1 Zone development standards. IR review does not prevent second stories. Instead it is aimed at ensuring the second story does not impact the privacy and livability of adjacent homes. The September 29, 2014 approval letter describes the plan revisions made following the Director’s Hearing. The appeal letter (Attachment B) sets forth the appellant’s position that the design will not meet IR Guidelines 1 and 2, as summarized in the Discussion section of this report. Responses to the issues raised in the appeal are provided in the Discussion section, below. 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 need to 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). Two Story Homes in a Tract with a Single Story Covenant The site is Lot 22 of Tract 796 (Greer Park), comprised of the (originally) Eichler neighborhoods of Metro Circle, Van Auken Circle and Moffett Circle (Attachment C). Of the three circles in this tract, only Van Auken Circle was rezoned to a Single Story Overlay. There is a deed restriction limiting residential development on the subject property to a single story home and it appears to have been in place for other properties within the tract. However, most CC&R’s do not allow for City enforcement, and so the existence of such a restriction is not relevant to a zoning review. Most of the homes on the Metro Circle cul-de-sac are one-story Eichlers, though there is one two-story home (a remodeled Eichler) near the subject property. The adjacent home west (or left) of the subject property (1072 Metro Circle) is currently a single story Eichler home, but was approved for a 678 square foot second floor addition in January 2014. The adjacent home to the east (the appellant’s home) is also a one story Eichler home. Project Description and Director’s Approval Process The proposed home would have 4,517.43 square feet of floor area on a 12,563 square foot lot (more than double the minimum lot size). The site abuts four neighboring homes along the side property lines. 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 of Palo Alto Page 3 City’s IR Guidelines. The appellant was mailed all decision and hearing notices regarding the project, and was emailed each time revised plans were submitted to request timely comments. The initial, tentative Director’s decision was the subject of the Director’s hearing. Following the hearing, the applicant modified the project plans to help mitigate the effects of the placement of the first floor five feet above grade. These plans were approved by the Hearing Officer (the Planning Manager, who acted as the hearing officer on behalf of the Director) following the Director’s hearing within the code-prescribed timeline for action. Initial Submittal The applicant submitted the IR application for a two-story home with attached, two-car garage on April 21, 2014. The original design featured a taller home at nearly 30 feet (29’8”) with a shingled exterior and composition shingle roof at a 5:12 pitch. The second floor mass abutted the easterly (right side) daylight plane limit on the side adjacent to the appellant’s home. 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 status notice (a Notice of Incomplete) as to why the plans did not meet the IR guidelines. Staff received comments on the proposal from the appellant, noting his objections to the height, given that Eichler homes in the area were mostly about 12 feet tall at maximum, and impacts on privacy and sunlight blockage with impact on fruit trees. The appellant noted the plans showed his home at 20 feet from the common property line, when it was only set back eight feet. The appellant asked for the home plan to be flipped so the garage and driveway would be adjacent to his home and the second floor would be next to the home on the left (west) side (1072 Metro Circle). Staff mentioned this request to flip the plan and the other concerns to the applicant, but noted the applicant had responded that they did not want to flip the plan. The appellant noted the reason to flip the plan was to reduce the impact on rooftop photo-voltaic system and fruit trees. Staff responded that the existing street tree location made it difficult to place the driveway on the opposite side of the lot, and the applicant wanted a southern exposure for the kitchen and family area. First Round Revision The applicant revised the plans and submitted them on July 17, 2014. The revised plans provided the following changes:  a redesigned upper floor plan to make the upper level less wide as viewed from the street,  a decreased roof pitch to 3.5:12,  the relocation of the master bedroom to the back, away from the appellant’s property line, and lowering of the top plate from 9’6” to 8’1”,  reduction in the number of upper floor windows facing the appellant’s side, and  obscuring of the lower portion of the windows to five feet above the second floor level. City of Palo Alto Page 4 The home’s highest ridge is now at 27’10”, 1’10” lower than the original plan set. The first floor footprint has only a small piece set six feet from the property line abutting the appellant’s property, with the second floor wall set back five feet from the first floor wall. The site plan was corrected to reflect more accurately the distance of the appellant’s home from the common property line. The plans indicated the proposed second floor wall would be set back between 24 feet and 33 feet, horizontally, from the appellant’s west facing wall. This was considered to be a significant distance from the appellants’ home. Staff checked the daylight plane along the irregular side property line at key points to determine there was no proposed protrusion into the daylight plane. On July 30, 2014, staff notified the appellant that revised plans had been received and described the bulleted plan changes noted above. The appellant promptly responded with questions about street tree locations, plate height, and daylight plane protrusion. Staff responded on the same day, explaining that:  the first floor plate height had not changed, but the master bedroom plate height had been lowered,  the graphic confusion of the daylight plane was caused by the lot line fanning out towards the rear of the property, and  a tentative approval letter had been mailed, suggesting that the appellant should request Director’s Hearing if desired. On July 31, 2014, the plans were tentatively and conditionally approved by the Chief Planning Official, acting as the Director’s designee; the conditions included adding trees along the side property lines for screening purposes and provision of obscure glass on all upper level windows on the sides. The letter also alerted recipients about the 14-day hearing request period. Prior to the effective date of the approval (14 days after the mailing of the tentative approval), the appellant requested a Director’s Hearing. Following issuance of the tentative approval letter, staff received comments from another resident during the 14-day comment period. The owner of 1074 Amarillo Avenue emailed to note that her property’s rear yard abutted the rear yard of the subject property and contained a swimming pool (not shown in the plan set), such that she had concerns her privacy would be jeopardized; she also noted a 1956 covenant agreement stated that “no building shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than one detached single- family dwelling, not to exceed one-story in height and a private garage for not more than two cars.” Staff had asked the rear neighbor to provide a copy of the agreement and asked her to clarify whether the agreement covered the subject property. Staff also noted that another neighbor had already requested a Director’s Hearing, which was scheduled for September 4, 2014, but suggested this neighbor also request a hearing in case the other request were to be withdrawn, and noted that the Chief Planning Official was meeting with the applicant on August 20th to discuss what revisions could be made to the project to better meet the IR guidelines, given the neighbors’ concerns. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Director’s Hearing The Director’s Hearing on September 4, 2014 was properly noticed, and the applicant and appellant attended the hearing, along with neighbors residing at 1056 Metro Circle, a two-story home located adjacent to the appellant’s home farther to the east (not abutting the project site). Written comments on the design from the appellant and the other neighbor in attendance were presented at the Director’s Hearing and are attached to this report (Attachment D). The appellant noted his goal was to reduce the plate height and overall size of the new home to a more efficient home, one story if possible, and to ensure the new trees would not shade his solar panels. The 1056 Metro Circle neighbor commented that the project’s mass and scale was his primary concern. The owner and applicant:  noted that a one-story project was attempted but it was not successful,  explained the two story home was difficult given the flood zone issues, and  brought schematic drawings of potential changes, including a reduction of second floor area that had been shared with staff prior to the hearing. Final Revisions After the Director’s Hearing, the applicant requested a delay in the decision to allow him to submit revised plans. The revised plans, submitted on September 18th, included the following changes:  Shifted the house over one foot to the left (away from the appellant’s home), by reducing the garage width,  Reduced the second floor by 95 square feet and shrinking the width, redistributing the area to the first floor,  Simplified the second floor roof and reduced the roof slope to 3:12 pitch,  Lowered the first floor plate height by two inches (to 9’1”), and  Lowered the family room roof in the rear by four inches. The Director’s decision letter of September 29, 2014 (Attachment A) describes the changes made to gain the approval. Appeal On October 9, 2014, the appellant submitted this appeal (Attachment B), which indicates that he believes the project does not meet IR Guidelines #1 and #2, as further described in the Discussion section of this report. The appeal is comprised of handwritten “Reasons for Appeal” and also includes typed notes from the Director’s Hearing, which suggest that Guidelines 3 and 4 were also of concern, and state two concerns regarding trees. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 6 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. Tract 796 The Metro Circle area lies within Tract 796, shown as the West Bayshore neighborhood on the Neighborhoods Map in the Comprehensive Plan. In 2002, City Council had rezoned one of the three circles within this tract, the 58-home Van Auken Circle, to a Single Story Combining District (CMRs 148:02 and 353:02). The report noted the Van Auken Circle lot sizes were moderate (between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet), which may have been important to the rezoning decision. The rezoning report to the City Council indicated there was a deed restriction restricting development within the Van Auken Circle to single story homes. Private CC&R’s Before the Director’s Hearing, a neighboring property owner of a lot on Amarillo, to the rear of the subject property, explained that her home in the same tract and governed by private conditions, covenants and restrictions asser (commonly referred to as “CC&R’s”) that reportedly limited homes to one story. This neighbor did not respond to staff’s requests for a copy of this CC&R. It is fairly common for housing subdivisions built in the 1950’s era to have private CC&Rs. From a land use standpoint, these CC&R’s are private covenants that may be enforced by private residents of the subdivision, but not by the City. Over time the courts have found some of these private conditions unenforceable (for instance, older covenants contained racial restrictions found to be unconstitutional). As noted earlier in this report, the City is not a party to these types of CC&R’s it has no ability to enforce them and in most cases has no knowledge of the CC&R’s when processing applications. As the private CC&R’s are separate from the City’s zoning authority, staff does not believe the existence or non-existence of these CC&R’s should impact the IR decision. If the appellant (or other residents) seek to enforce the CC&R’s through a civil enforcement action, the property owner would build at his or her own risk. As the City has no basis for enforcing the private covenants, the discovery of the CC&R’s does not impact staff’s recommendation in this report. IR Guidelines and Appellant’s Position 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). City of Palo Alto Page 7 Guideline 1: Basic Site Planning The appellant notes that:  there are no front porches on Metro Circle, and  there are no large columns at the street and at the front of houses on Metro Circle,  the proposed home is similar to 1c of the guidelines (nonconforming).  the existing garages and carports on the street are near the front of the house. It is true the neighborhood pattern is primarily one-story Eichler homes with shallow pitched roofs, front-placed garages and no porches or columns, though there is one two story home nearby two properties to the right (or east) of the subject property, featuring low-key horizontal siding. The adjacent home to the left (west) will soon be a two story home, as a second floor addition to the one story Eichler was approved via the IR process in January 2014. The 1c guideline shows as inappropriate a compact footprint and “object” building where the neighborhood pattern is more sprawling ranch homes. Guideline 2: Neighborhood Compatibility The appellant states in that:  Mass of the project is more than twice any home on Metro Circle. Also appears to be larger than any existing home in Palo Alto mid-town area.  Existing roof forms are simple shed or low gable. Proposed has more complex forms with hips.  Proposed design maximizes height. First story plate height is 9’1”, which when added to flood plan requirement, makes the proposed plate higher than the peak of roof at 1062 Metro Circle.  Proposed second story is almost as wide as the main part of the house, which adds to the out-of-character mass.  All existing home additions and rebuilds on Metro Circle have preserved the “modern” Eichler character. The typed list (page two of the appeal) provides additional statements along these lines, and suggests “Omit the second story and use low plate heights with sloped ceilings to give better sense of interior space if desired.” Staff notes:  The IR program does not preclude two-story homes.  The applicant lowered the roof pitch and incorporated horizontal elements during the IR process to address the modern character of the neighborhood. Guideline 3: Resolution of architectural form The Appellant’s Director’s Hearing Notes (page three of the appeal submittal) state that the project has a complex roof form, unlike the simple Eichler roof forms, and concerns about the front porch, columns and street side bollards. City of Palo Alto Page 8  The IR guidelines do not prescribe style choices, nor require a style of a new home to match the styles of adjacent homes. During the review process, the applicant improved upon the roof pitch (reduced from 5:12 to 3:12) which helped the home’s horizontality in reference to Eichler horizontality, and greatly simplified the upper roof after the Director’s Hearing. Guideline 4: Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries The Appellant’s Director’s Hearing Notes state, “no comment than previous incompatibility with existing.” The Appellant had mentioned this concern about visual character during the hearing, and did not have any further comment. If it were not for the flood plain issue requiring the finished floor to be five feet from grade, the home would be more compatible. Trees The Director’s Hearing notes (page two of appeal submittal) contains two comments with respect to trees. A grove of deciduous trees (species unknown) is shown along the common property line, on the Appellant’s property. Three additional evergreen trees are shown on the approved plans, on the subject property, between the new home and the common property line. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The appeal is based on concerns regarding incompatibility of a new two story home with a primarily one story Eichler neighborhood. Eichler neighborhoods in Palo Alto are typically one story neighborhoods and there are several Eichler neighborhoods having Single Story Combining District (one is the nearby Van Auken Circle); this is the only effective way to prevent the introduction of two story homes in a neighborhood. Staff is currently preparing a report regarding the Individual Review Program and Zoning Code sections related to flood zone neighborhoods to bring forward for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council. 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 A: 1066 Metro September 29, 2014 Director's Approval (PDF)  Attachment B: 1066 Metro Circle Appeal (PDF)  Attachment C: Neighborhood Tract Map (Tract 796)(PDF)  Attachment D: Director's Hearing Hammond Comments (PDF)  Attachment D2: Other neighbor DH comment letter (PDF) Attachment A Attachment B Attachment D City of Palo Alto (ID # 5258) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto Shuttle Program Expansion-request for continuation to 2/2 Title: Palo Alto Shuttle and Rideshare Program for the Future (Staff Requests Item be Continued to February 2, 2015) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council continue the discussion regarding development of the next generation of shuttle and/or rideshare program to February 2nd, 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 February 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. City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 and information to respond to the Council’s request for additional metrics and a user friendly ap. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5134) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fiber-to-the-Premise Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan Title: 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 the Amount of $144,944 and (2) a Complementary Wireless Network Plan in the Amount of $131,650; and Adoption of Budget Amendment Ordinance for FY 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $276,594 from Fiber Optics Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation (1) Council 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 (2) 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 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, 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 On October 28, 2013, the Council voted 7-0 to approve a recommendation by the Technology and Connected City Committee to issue Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to build out the existing dark fiber optic backbone system (fiber system) and develop a Wireless Network Plan with a near-term focus on Wi-Fi, and a long-term consideration of other wireless technologies (Reference: CMR ID # 4203) City of Palo Alto Page 2 <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37492> As a first step in developing a FTTP Master Plan, staff recommended conducting an RFP to retain a consulting firm with expertise in developing plans and RFPs for government agencies contemplating building broadband networks. Once the findings and recommendations of the Master Plan are developed and submitted to the Council, Council could decide whether to issue an RFP for a private telecommunications service provider to build and operate a FTTP network in Palo Alto, or for the Council to consider the feasibility of the City building and operating a network on its own. In addition to developing a FTTP Master Plan, staff recommended conducting an RFP to retain professional services from a wireless communications consulting firm with experience working with local governments to develop the options and plans to build a wireless network. Upon completion of the Wireless Network Plan, the findings and recommendations would be submitted to the Council to assist the Council members with formulating a final vision and direction for the deployment of a wireless network. Staff recommends use of the Fiber Optic Fund Rate Stabilization Reserve (RSR) to fund the FTTP Master Plan and Wireless Network Plan efforts. As part of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting on October 1, 2014, it was reported that the Fiber Optics Fund RSR was projected to be $18.4 million as of the end of Fiscal Year 2014. The original cost estimates for these plans were as follows: FTTP Master Plan: $150,000 - $350,000 (depending on required environmental review) Wireless Plan: $100,000 (up to) Total $250,000 - $450,000 Discussion 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 Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) appointed by the City Manager in February 2014, to support the Council’s Technology and the Connected City initiative. 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 to recommend to the Council to provide professional consulting services for the FTTP Master Plan and the Wireless Network Plan. CTC is an independent communications and IT engineering consulting firm with more than 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 City of Palo Alto Page 3 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 proposal and match- with 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 white paper 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. 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. 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. City of Palo Alto Page 4 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 Resource Impact 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. 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 These recommendations are 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 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 The development of the FTTP Master Plan and a Wireless Network Plan are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15262 because they are feasibility and planning studies. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 5  Attachment A: BAO XXXX - Fiber-to-the Premise and Wireless Network Master Plans (DOC)  Exhibit A-Contract C15152569-FTTP Master Plan (PDF)  Exhibit B-Contract C15152568-Wireless Master Plan (PDF) 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). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager City Attorney Director of Utilities Director of Information Technology Director of Administrative Services 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): • abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz • 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) ............. ..................... InInforma ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... City of nformation Teation 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 AuthorRaj Pat2 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 InformatSteering alo Alto Emplo , Residents a Informatio City of Pa Raj Patel Raj Patel Jonathan Joe Black r Versitel 0.01tel 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 ChangFirst dFirst d Update Additio Revise Revise Reiche ReviseJonath Revise Grant Revisefrom In Comm Role InformaManag Techno CIO; InTechno Assista Utilities SeniorAttorne Office Sponso Lo ce es Cit Sh olicy ite and Share Shiva SwamKolling ge Referencedraft developedraft 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 Securityger; Informatio ology Departm nformation ology Departm ant Director, s Department r Assistant Citey; City Attorn or ocation ty of Palo Alto harePoint InInforma ePoint minathan, Tom e ed for review for review as identified ontent y review from m Auzenne to commentsal to comments to recommenecurity Steeri Com y on ment Appr ment Appr t Appr ty ney’s Appr Appr o Website an City of nformation Teation 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 approfinan businlocal indus1798 somebusin Califoto en Protebusin provi“Pers “Infoin thi A) I The C persoof me persothe C and spolic Infor The g all ussecu and scomp B) S The requinform confo C) C The Ctheir Privacy Policy Objective City of Palo A Alto. In promisions of the C opriate measncial) informat ness as a locaauthorities a stry best prac8.24, 1798.79 e of these proness in a man ornia laws. Thnsure the ong ected Critical ness with the ide services. sonally Identif rmation”) are s Policy by re INTENT City, acting in ons who do beans, includin ons accessingCity’s staff and security of theies, rules, reg mation is coll goals and obj sers having arity of databa security of thepliance with le SCOPE Policy will gu ired to protecmation data a orm their perf CONSEQUENCE City’s employwork implicat y e  Alto (the “City” moting the quaCalifornia Pub ures to safegtion of person al governmennd reflected i ctices, includin.8(b), 1798.80 ovisions do nonner which pr he objective ooing protectio InfrastructureCity and rece The terms “Pfiable Informa defined in theeference. n its governme business with ng, without lim g the City’s wd/or authorize e Information gulations and ected, stored jectives of the ccess to the Case informatio e Information egal and regu ide the City’s ct the confidenare intended t formances to ES yees shall comtes access to ”) strives to p ality of life of tblic Records A uard the secuns, collected in nt agency. Thn federal and ng, without lim0(e), 1798.81 ot apply to locomotes the p of this Policy ion of the Pers e Informationaeiving service Personal Inforation” and “Pe e California C ental and pro or receive semitation, from website, and ped third-party collected by procedures, and utilized i e Policy are: ( City’s applicaon assets own provided to tulatory require staff and, ind ntiality and prto be covered the Policy sh mply with the the Informati romote and s these personsAct, California urity and privan the ordinary ese measured California law mitation, the p.5, 1798.82(e cal governmerivacy of pers is to describesonal Informa and Personales from the Ci rmation,” “Proersonally Iden Civil Code sec prietary capa ervices from thpersons appl persons who acontractors. T the City. The and industry in compliance (a) a safe, pro tions and datned by, or ent he City’s staffements. directly, third p ivacy of the Ind by the Policy ould they enj Policy in the ion referred to sustain a supe s, it is the pola Governmen acy of the pery course and es are generaws, the City’s provisions of Ce), 1798.83(e nt agencies lisonal informa e the City’s daation, Persona ly Identifying ity or a third p otected Criticantifying Inform ctions, referre acities, collect he City. The Ilying to receiv access other The City is co City acknowbest practice e with applica oductive, and tabases; (b) thtrusted to, the ff and third pa party contract nformation ofy and which w oy conditiona execution of o in this Polic InInforma erior quality o icy of the Citynt Code §§ 62 rsonal (includscope of con lly observed bs rules and re California Cive)(7), and 179 ike the City, tation, as reflec ata security goally Identifiabl Information oparty under co al Infrastructumation” (collec ed to above, a ts the Informa Information isve services p information pommitted to p ledges federaes are dedicat able laws. inoffensive w he appropriate City; (c) the arty contractor tors, which ar f the persons will be advised al access to th their official dcy. A failure to City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua of life for perso y, consistent w250 – 6270, to ding, without lnducting the C by federal, stagulations, an vil Code §§ 1798.92(c). Thou the City will cocted in federa oals and objele Information of persons doontract to the ure Informatioctively, the and are incorp ation pertainin s collected by rovided by th portals maintaprotecting the al and Califorted to ensurin work environm te maintenanccontrolled ac rs; and (d) fai re by contract whose persod by City staf hat informatio duties to the eo 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 Policexce “ISMas m accoform storawill c the reand h by th E) M This 2. RE A) R The Ccoord The Cpartyperfo The and tin derespoinciddepa Non-inclu B) R The drawfor a initiaplann addre Privacy Policy loyment and/o EXCEPTIONS e event that a cy, the employption request ”). The emplmay be reques ordance with gby the City A age, access, rconsult with th equest, the ehis or her sup he CIO, acting MUNICIPAL OR Policy will su SPONSIB RESPONSIBILIT CIO, acting bdinate the imp City’s employy contractors ormance of th ISM will be rethe effectivenetailed, auditaonsible for theents that arisartment-specif -Disclosure Ading, without RESPONSIBILIT Information Swn from the vall information tives and actining processe essed at the a y or legal conse a City employ yee may requt will be review oyee, with thested by the IS guidelines appAttorney. The P retention, usahe CIO to app xception requpervisor. The g by the ISM. RDINANCE persede any BILITIES O TY OF CIO AND y the ISM, wiplementation yees, in particunder contraceir job respon esponsible forness of the Poble technical e City’s IT enve in regard tofic policies an greements (Nlimitation, loc TY OF INFORMA Security Steerarious City desecurity effor ivities. The ISes to ensure t appropriate C equences. ee cannot ful est an excepwed and adm e approval of M. The ISM w proved by thePolicy’s guide age, and proteprove or deny uest dispositioapproval of a City policy, ru OF CITY S D ISM ll establish anof information cular, softwarect to the City tnsibilities. r: (a) developolicy; (c) the drequirementsvironments; (o potential viond procedures NDAs) signedcal or ‘cloud-b ATION SECURI ring Committepartments, wrts, including SSC will providthat informatio City departme ly comply with tion by submministered by t his or her suwill conduct a e City’s Chief elines will incl ection of the Ithe exception on will be comny request m ule, regulation STAFF n information n security me e application to provide ser ing and updadevelopment os, which will bd) assisting thlations of the s which fall un by third partybased’ softwa TY STEERING ee (the “ISSCwill provide thekey informatio de input to thon security ris nt level. h one or more itting Securitythe City’s Info pervisor, will a risk assessm Information Olude at a mini nformation idn request. Af mmunicated, imay be subjec n or procedur security maneasures by the users and darvices, shall b ating the Policof privacy stabe designed ahe City’s staff Policy; (e) render the purv y contractorsare services to COMMITTEE ”), which is coe primary direon security an e informationsks are adequ InInforma e element(s) y Exception Rormation Secu provide any ament of the re Officer (“CIO”imum: purpos dentified in thefter due cons in writing, to tct to counterm re regarding i nagement frame City’s gove atabase usersby guided by cy, (b) enforciandards that wand maintaineff in evaluatingeviewing and view of this Po , which will pro the City. omprised of tection, prioritiznd privacy ris n security anduately consid City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua described in Request.The urity Manager additional infoquested exce ) and approvese, source, co e request. Theideration is gi the City emplomeasures esta nformation pr mework to initrnment. s, and, indirecthis Policy in ng compliancwill manifest ted by the persg security andapproving olicy; and (f) r rovide service he City’s empzation and apsks, programs privacy stratered, 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 auproce D) R The C City’scomp intern E) R The (NDA the Sexec controbjec by thoccu The Cappro 3. PR A) O The Infor by, ocontractivother The tother desiginformcompmainconfithird B) P Exce doingpersoas a Privacy Policy RESPONSIBILIT uthorized useesses and tec RESPONSIBILIT City’s IT Man s networks, wpliance with th nal reporting RESPONSIBILIT ISM will ensuA), whenever Software as a cuted prior to t ractors. The Cctives, policie he ISM at planrred. CIO, acting bopriate, comm IVACY PO OVERVIEW Policy appliesmation of per or entrusted toractors under ities include, r networks, sy term “informar related orga gned, implemmation assetspromise, and ntain informatidentiality, inteparties. PERSONAL INF ept as permitte g business wion has conselocal governm y TY OF USERS ers of the Infochnologies wi TY OF INFORMA agers, who a will be responshe City’s infor of events that TY OF AUTHOR ure that the Ciaccess to the Service (Saathe sharing of City’s approacs, processes nned intervals y the ISM, wimencing from OLICY s to activities rsons doing b o, the City andcontract to thwithout limitaystems, or de ation assets” aanizations whi ented, and ms. The City’s sinappropriateion managemegrity, and av FORMATION AN ed or provide ith the City, oented to the Cment agency rmation will bithin the scop ATION TECHNO re responsibl sible for confirmation secur t may have co RIZATION COOR ity’s employeee Information aS) Security af the Informat ch to managin, and procedu s, or wheneve ll review and the date of it that involve tusiness with t d will be madhe City to proation, accessinevices. also includes ile those asse maintained to estaff will act toe disclosure oment systems,vailability of its ND CHOICE d by applicab r receiving seCity’s sharing owith third par be responsiblee of responsi OLOGY (IT) MA e for internal, guring, maintrity and privac ompromised RDINATION es secure thewill be grante and Privacy Ttion of person ng informationures for inform er significant c recommend ts adoption. he use of thethe City or re e available tovide Softwareng the Interne the personal ets are under ensure that oo protect its inor alteration. T networks ans information ble laws, the C ervices from thof such informrties under co e for complyinibility of each ANAGERS , external, dir taining and secy policies. T network, syst e execution ofed to third par Terms and Cons covered by n security andmation securit changes to se changes to th e City’s informceiving servic o the City’s eme as a Serviceet, using e-ma information othe City’s con nly authorizenformation asThe City will pnd processes assets to the City will not sh he City, in viomation duringontract to the C InInforma ng with informuser. rect and indire ecuring the Chey are also tem or data s f Non-Disclosrty contractor onditions. An y this Policy w d its implemety) will be rev ecurity implem he Policy ann mation assets,ces from the C mployees ande consulting sail, accessing of the City’s entrol. Securit d persons wilssets from theplan, design, in order to ase City’s emplo hare the Infor olation of this the conduct City to provid City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua mation privacy ect connection City’s IT networesponsible fo ecurity. sure Agreemers, in conjunct NDA must bewith third party entation (i.e. viewed indepe mentation hav nually, or as namely, the City, which ar d third party services. Theg the City’s int employees anty measures w ll enjoy acceseft, damage, limplement anssure the appoyees and aut rmation of any Policy, unlesof the City’s be 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 Ccolle businmay and wforma The Csite m City wthe In the bInter the ucomp their on hi sites D) U In theDepa custoUtiliti applyother with Busin havemont residand/o the s Busin coveInfor E) P The couldunles F) A The C acceaffec Privacy Policy METHODS OF C City may gathction of such ness as a locabe gathered with other tecation in order City’s staff wimay use “coo will note that nternet Protoc browser softwnet address o user’s computpromise the u computers byis or her com . UTILITIES SERV e provision ofartment (“CPA omers. To theies Rules and y; provided, hrwise directed other City dep nesses and re e secure accethly utility usa dents with nonor billing data standard mon nesses and re red by the samation under PUBLIC DISCLO Information th d be incorporass such inform ACCESS TO PE City will take ss to that percted persons w y COLLECTION O her the Informinformation is al governmenat service win chnologies, whr to secure the ll inform the pkies” to custo a cookie contcol address o ware and operof the website ter by using thuser’s privacy y using any oputer, it will n VICE f utility serviceAU”) will colle e extent the md 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 pr applicable fe OSURE hat is collecte ated in a publmation is exem ERSONAL INFO reasonable s rson’s Informawho can revie OF PERSONAL mation from a s both necess nt agency in itndows and co herever the Ce City’s servic persons whosomize the brow tains unique iof the compute ating systemse from which t he City’s webor security. U of the widely aot prevent or es to personsect the Informa management or other ordi such Rules ad by the Coun cept as may b standard utili CPAU websig data. In add experimentathem through such non-sta rotections anederal and Ca ed by the City lic record thatmpt from disc ORMATION teps to verify ation. Each Cew and updat INFORMATION variety of sousary and appr ts governmenontact centers City may interaces. se Informationwsing experie information ther used to ac s used, the dathe user linke site do not cUsers can refu available methprohibit the u s located withiation in order of that informnances, rules and Regulationcil. This inclu be required b ity meters and te to their Infodition to their r l electric, wat non-City elec andard or exp d personal inalifornia laws. in the ordina t may be subjclosure to the a person’s id City departmente that informa urces and resropriate in ord ntal and proprs as well as a act with perso n are coveredence with the hat a web siteccess the City ate and time ed to the City’s contain the Infuse the cooki hods. If the ususer from gain in Palo Alto, tr to initiate an mation is not ss, regulations ns must confudes the shar by law. d/or having n ormation, inclregular month ter or natural ctronic portal perimental me nformation exc ry course and ject to inspecpublic by Ca dentity before nt that collectation at reaso InInforma sources, provder for the Cit rietary capaciat web sites, b ons who need d by this Police City of Palo A e can use to try’s web sites, a user accesss web sites. C formation, andies or delete t ser chooses nning access t the City of Pad manage uti specifically ad or procedure form to this Poring of CPAU- on-metered m luding, withouhly utilities bil gas meters ms at different etering will ha change rules d scope of co ction and copyalifornia law. e the City will g ts Informationonable times. City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua ided that the ty to conduct ties. That infby mobile app d to share suc cy that the CitAlto web site rack, among othe identificat sed the site, aCookies creat d thus do notthe cookie file not to accept to or using the alo Alto Utilitieility services t ddressed in thes, this Policy olicy, unless -collected Info monthly servic ut limitation, thling, business may have theiintervals 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 Exceperso partiereaso perso The C Inforinsta such If the occubreac date(and t H) D The C periodestr I) S The C servi In ord thosethe S proviservi confi Theswhic serviinclu moniterm comp Priorservi evenrequ prom J) F CPAmana Privacy Policy SECURITY, CO ept as otherwions covered b es without theonable contro ons covered b City may auth mation of pernces, the City Information o e City become rred, with resch in accorda (s) of the knowthe proposed DATA RETENTI City will store od is establishruction. SOFTWARE AS City may eng ces, common der to assure e who receiveSaaS services ider, shall desces and/or fu dentiality and se requiremenh the services ces provider’ding disaster itoring service“IT infrastruc puters, and da r to entering inces provider nt that the Saairements duri mptly inform th FAIR AND ACC U will requireage utility ser y NFIDENTIALITY ise provided bby this Policy e express writols 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 Inance with app wn or suspecaction 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 fros provider and sign, install, purnishes good d privacy of th nts include infs are provided s operations recovery and es to ensure acture” refers to atabase man nto an agreemto complete a aS services png the course he ISM. URATE CREDIT utility customrvices to them Y AND NON-DIS by applicable as confidenti tten consent oesigned to pro . y’s employee business withthe City’s em rance of City- breach, or ha nformation of licable laws. cted breach, ttaken or the r ATION RETENTI all Information or seven (7) ye SAAS) OVERSI ty contractors Software-as- and security o om the City, ad its subcontr provide, and mds to the City, he Information formation secd to the City, and maintenad business co a secure and o the integrate agement dev ment to providand submit an provider reasoe of providing T TRANSACTIO mers to providm. SCLOSURE law or this Poial and will no of the personotect the conf and or third p h the City or rployee and/o -related busin as reasonable a person, theThe notice of he nature of tresponsive ac ION n for a period ears, and the GHT s and vendors a-Service (Sa of the Informa as a conditionractors, if any maintain a secto the extent n. curity directiveincluding con ance processontinuity plann reliable envired framework vices, upon wh de services ton Information onably determ services, the ON ACT OF 200 de their Inform olicy, the Cityot disclose it, n affected. Thefidentiality and party contrac receive servicor the third pa ness and in ac e grounds to e City will notiff breach will in the Informatioction taken by d of time as m ereafter such i s to provide s aaS). ation of those n of selling goy, including an cure IT envirot any scope of es pertaining nnection to th es needed toning; and (c) t ronment and k, including, w hich digital ne o the City, theSecurity and mines that it cae City will requ 03 mation in orde InInforma y will treat theor permit it to e City will devd security of t ctors to acces ces from the Crty contractor ccordance wit believe that a fy the affectenclude the da on that is the y the City. may be require information w software appli who do busin oods and/or sny IT infrastru onment, whilef work or serv to: (a) the IT e City's IT sy o support the the IT infrastr service availawithout limitat etworks opera e City’s staff w Privacy Que annot fulfill thuire the SaaS er for the City City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua e Information oo be disclosed velop and mathe Informatio s and/or use City. In thosers to agree to th the Policy. a security bre d person of sate(s) or estim subject of the ed by law, or i will be schedu cation and da ness with the ervices to thecture service e it performs svices implicat infrastructurestems; (b) the IT environmeructure perfor ability to the Ction, data cen ate. will require theestionnaire. In e informationS 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 ipreve CPAwhen chan Ther § 179 4. CO Info Chie Utili City Privacy Policy eral regulation 159), includinitor” which pro implement proent, respond U proceduresnever 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 Flaovides service ocedures for and mitigate s for potentialant changes t U identity theft nia laws which urity Manager n Officer: Rei ent: Auzenne Office: Kolling, ting the Fair a ag Rules, reqes in advance an identity thpotential 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 CPAe of payment eft program fontity theft of its will be reviewplementation or as approp ble to identity Raj.Patel@C athan <Jonath m.Auzenne@C nt.Kolling@Ci Credit Trans AU, as a “covand which ca for new and es customers’ wed independn have occurre priate, so as to y theft; they ar CityofPaloAlto han.Reichent CityofPaloAlto tyofPaloAlto.o InInforma sactions Act o ered financiaan affect cons existing accouInformation. dently by the ed. The ISM w o conform to re set forth in .org> tal@CityofPal o.org org> City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua of 2003 (Publi l institution orsumer credit, unts to detect, ISM annuallywill 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): • abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz • 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) ............. ..................... InInforma ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... City of nformation Teation 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 AuthorRaj Pat2 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 InformatSteering alo Alto Emplo , Residents a Informatio City of Pa Raj Patel Raj Patel Jonathan Joe Black r Versitel 0.01tel 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 ChangFirst dFirst d Update Additio Revise Revise Reiche ReviseJonath Revise Grant Revisefrom In Comm Role InformaManag Techno CIO; InTechno Assista Utilities SeniorAttorne Office Sponso Lo ce es Cit Sh olicy ite and Share Shiva SwamKolling ge Referencedraft developedraft 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 Securityger; Informatio ology Departm nformation ology Departm ant Director, s Department r Assistant Citey; City Attorn or ocation ty of Palo Alto harePoint InInforma ePoint minathan, Tom e ed for review for review as identified ontent y review from m Auzenne to commentsal to comments to recommenecurity Steeri Com y on ment Appr ment Appr t Appr ty ney’s Appr Appr o Website an City of nformation Teation 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 approfinan businlocal indus1798 somebusin Califoto en Protebusin provi“Pers “Infoin thi A) I The C persoof me persothe C and spolic Infor The g all ussecu and scomp B) S The requinform confo C) C The Ctheir Privacy Policy Objective City of Palo A Alto. In promisions of the C opriate measncial) informat ness as a locaauthorities a stry best prac8.24, 1798.79 e of these proness in a man ornia laws. Thnsure the ong ected Critical ness with the ide services. sonally Identif rmation”) are s Policy by re INTENT City, acting in ons who do beans, includin ons accessingCity’s staff and security of theies, rules, reg mation is coll goals and obj sers having arity of databa security of thepliance with le SCOPE Policy will gu ired to protecmation data a orm their perf CONSEQUENCE City’s employwork implicat y e  Alto (the “City” moting the quaCalifornia Pub ures to safegtion of person al governmennd reflected i ctices, includin.8(b), 1798.80 ovisions do nonner which pr he objective ooing protectio InfrastructureCity and rece The terms “Pfiable Informa defined in theeference. n its governme business with ng, without lim g the City’s wd/or authorize e Information gulations and ected, stored jectives of the ccess to the Case informatio e Information egal and regu ide the City’s ct the confidenare intended t formances to ES yees shall comtes access to ”) strives to p ality of life of tblic Records A uard the secuns, collected in nt agency. Thn federal and ng, without lim0(e), 1798.81 ot apply to locomotes the p of this Policy ion of the Pers e Informationaeiving service Personal Inforation” and “Pe e California C ental and pro or receive semitation, from website, and ped third-party collected by procedures, and utilized i e Policy are: ( City’s applicaon assets own provided to tulatory require staff and, ind ntiality and prto be covered the Policy sh mply with the the Informati romote and s these personsAct, California urity and privan the ordinary ese measured California law mitation, the p.5, 1798.82(e cal governmerivacy of pers is to describesonal Informa and Personales from the Ci rmation,” “Proersonally Iden Civil Code sec prietary capa ervices from thpersons appl persons who acontractors. T the City. The and industry in compliance (a) a safe, pro tions and datned by, or ent he City’s staffements. directly, third p ivacy of the Ind by the Policy ould they enj Policy in the ion referred to sustain a supe s, it is the pola Governmen acy of the pery course and es are generaws, the City’s provisions of Ce), 1798.83(e nt agencies lisonal informa e the City’s daation, Persona ly Identifying ity or a third p otected Criticantifying Inform ctions, referre acities, collect he City. The Ilying to receiv access other The City is co City acknowbest practice e with applica oductive, and tabases; (b) thtrusted to, the ff and third pa party contract nformation ofy and which w oy conditiona execution of o in this Polic InInforma erior quality o icy of the Citynt Code §§ 62 rsonal (includscope of con lly observed bs rules and re California Cive)(7), and 179 ike the City, tation, as reflec ata security goally Identifiabl Information oparty under co al Infrastructumation” (collec ed to above, a ts the Informa Information isve services p information pommitted to p ledges federaes are dedicat able laws. inoffensive w he appropriate City; (c) the arty contractor tors, which ar f the persons will be advised al access to th their official dcy. A failure to City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua of life for perso y, consistent w250 – 6270, to ding, without lnducting the C by federal, stagulations, an vil Code §§ 1798.92(c). Thou the City will cocted in federa oals and objele Information of persons doontract to the ure Informatioctively, the and are incorp ation pertainin s collected by rovided by th portals maintaprotecting the al and Califorted to ensurin work environm te maintenanccontrolled ac rs; and (d) fai re by contract whose persod by City staf hat informatio duties to the eo 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 Policexce “ISMas m accoform storawill c the reand h by th E) M This 2. RE A) R The Ccoord The Cpartyperfo The and tin derespoinciddepa Non-inclu B) R The drawfor a initiaplann addre Privacy Policy loyment and/o EXCEPTIONS e event that a cy, the employption request ”). The emplmay be reques ordance with gby the City A age, access, rconsult with th equest, the ehis or her sup he CIO, acting MUNICIPAL OR Policy will su SPONSIB RESPONSIBILIT CIO, acting bdinate the imp City’s employy contractors ormance of th ISM will be rethe effectivenetailed, auditaonsible for theents that arisartment-specif -Disclosure Ading, without RESPONSIBILIT Information Swn from the vall information tives and actining processe essed at the a y or legal conse a City employ yee may requt will be review oyee, with thested by the IS guidelines appAttorney. The P retention, usahe CIO to app xception requpervisor. The g by the ISM. RDINANCE persede any BILITIES O TY OF CIO AND y the ISM, wiplementation yees, in particunder contraceir job respon esponsible forness of the Poble technical e City’s IT enve in regard tofic policies an greements (Nlimitation, loc TY OF INFORMA Security Steerarious City desecurity effor ivities. The ISes to ensure t appropriate C equences. ee cannot ful est an excepwed and adm e approval of M. The ISM w proved by thePolicy’s guide age, and proteprove or deny uest dispositioapproval of a City policy, ru OF CITY S D ISM ll establish anof information cular, softwarect to the City tnsibilities. r: (a) developolicy; (c) the drequirementsvironments; (o potential viond procedures NDAs) signedcal or ‘cloud-b ATION SECURI ring Committepartments, wrts, including SSC will providthat informatio City departme ly comply with tion by submministered by t his or her suwill conduct a e City’s Chief elines will incl ection of the Ithe exception on will be comny request m ule, regulation STAFF n information n security me e application to provide ser ing and updadevelopment os, which will bd) assisting thlations of the s which fall un by third partybased’ softwa TY STEERING ee (the “ISSCwill provide thekey informatio de input to thon security ris nt level. h one or more itting Securitythe City’s Info pervisor, will a risk assessm Information Olude at a mini nformation idn request. Af mmunicated, imay be subjec n or procedur security maneasures by the users and darvices, shall b ating the Policof privacy stabe designed ahe City’s staff Policy; (e) render the purv y contractorsare services to COMMITTEE ”), which is coe primary direon security an e informationsks are adequ InInforma e element(s) y Exception Rormation Secu provide any ament of the re Officer (“CIO”imum: purpos dentified in thefter due cons in writing, to tct to counterm re regarding i nagement frame City’s gove atabase usersby guided by cy, (b) enforciandards that wand maintaineff in evaluatingeviewing and view of this Po , which will pro the City. omprised of tection, prioritiznd privacy ris n security anduately consid City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua described in Request.The urity Manager additional infoquested exce ) and approvese, source, co e request. Theideration is gi the City emplomeasures esta nformation pr mework to initrnment. s, and, indirecthis Policy in ng compliancwill manifest ted by the persg security andapproving olicy; and (f) r rovide service he City’s empzation and apsks, programs privacy stratered, 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 auproce D) R The C City’scomp intern E) R The (NDA the Sexec controbjec by thoccu The Cappro 3. PR A) O The Infor by, ocontractivother The tother desiginformcompmainconfithird B) P Exce doingpersoas a Privacy Policy RESPONSIBILIT uthorized useesses and tec RESPONSIBILIT City’s IT Man s networks, wpliance with th nal reporting RESPONSIBILIT ISM will ensuA), whenever Software as a cuted prior to t ractors. The Cctives, policie he ISM at planrred. CIO, acting bopriate, comm IVACY PO OVERVIEW Policy appliesmation of per or entrusted toractors under ities include, r networks, sy term “informar related orga gned, implemmation assetspromise, and ntain informatidentiality, inteparties. PERSONAL INF ept as permitte g business wion has conselocal governm y TY OF USERS ers of the Infochnologies wi TY OF INFORMA agers, who a will be responshe City’s infor of events that TY OF AUTHOR ure that the Ciaccess to the Service (Saathe sharing of City’s approacs, processes nned intervals y the ISM, wimencing from OLICY s to activities rsons doing b o, the City andcontract to thwithout limitaystems, or de ation assets” aanizations whi ented, and ms. The City’s sinappropriateion managemegrity, and av FORMATION AN ed or provide ith the City, oented to the Cment agency rmation will bithin the scop ATION TECHNO re responsibl sible for confirmation secur t may have co RIZATION COOR ity’s employeee Information aS) Security af the Informat ch to managin, and procedu s, or wheneve ll review and the date of it that involve tusiness with t d will be madhe City to proation, accessinevices. also includes ile those asse maintained to estaff will act toe disclosure oment systems,vailability of its ND CHOICE d by applicab r receiving seCity’s sharing owith third par be responsiblee of responsi OLOGY (IT) MA e for internal, guring, maintrity and privac ompromised RDINATION es secure thewill be grante and Privacy Ttion of person ng informationures for inform er significant c recommend ts adoption. he use of thethe City or re e available tovide Softwareng the Interne the personal ets are under ensure that oo protect its inor alteration. T networks ans information ble laws, the C ervices from thof such informrties under co e for complyinibility of each ANAGERS , external, dir taining and secy policies. T network, syst e execution ofed to third par Terms and Cons covered by n security andmation securit changes to se changes to th e City’s informceiving servic o the City’s eme as a Serviceet, using e-ma information othe City’s con nly authorizenformation asThe City will pnd processes assets to the City will not sh he City, in viomation duringontract to the C InInforma ng with informuser. rect and indire ecuring the Chey are also tem or data s f Non-Disclosrty contractor onditions. An y this Policy w d its implemety) will be rev ecurity implem he Policy ann mation assets,ces from the C mployees ande consulting sail, accessing of the City’s entrol. Securit d persons wilssets from theplan, design, in order to ase City’s emplo hare the Infor olation of this the conduct City to provid City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua mation privacy ect connection City’s IT networesponsible fo ecurity. sure Agreemers, in conjunct NDA must bewith third party entation (i.e. viewed indepe mentation hav nually, or as namely, the City, which ar d third party services. Theg the City’s int employees anty measures w ll enjoy acceseft, damage, limplement anssure the appoyees and aut rmation of any Policy, unlesof the City’s be 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 Ccolle businmay and wforma The Csite m City wthe In the bInter the ucomp their on hi sites D) U In theDepa custoUtiliti applyother with Busin havemont residand/o the s Busin coveInfor E) P The couldunles F) A The C acceaffec Privacy Policy METHODS OF C City may gathction of such ness as a locabe gathered with other tecation in order City’s staff wimay use “coo will note that nternet Protoc browser softwnet address o user’s computpromise the u computers byis or her com . UTILITIES SERV e provision ofartment (“CPA omers. To theies Rules and y; provided, hrwise directed other City dep nesses and re e secure accethly utility usa dents with nonor billing data standard mon nesses and re red by the samation under PUBLIC DISCLO Information th d be incorporass such inform ACCESS TO PE City will take ss to that percted persons w y COLLECTION O her the Informinformation is al governmenat service win chnologies, whr to secure the ll inform the pkies” to custo a cookie contcol address o ware and operof the website ter by using thuser’s privacy y using any oputer, it will n VICE f utility serviceAU”) will colle e extent the md 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 pr applicable fe OSURE hat is collecte ated in a publmation is exem ERSONAL INFO reasonable s rson’s Informawho can revie OF PERSONAL mation from a s both necess nt agency in itndows and co herever the Ce City’s servic persons whosomize the brow tains unique iof the compute ating systemse from which t he City’s webor security. U of the widely aot prevent or es to personsect the Informa management or other ordi such Rules ad by the Coun cept as may b standard utili CPAU websig data. In add experimentathem through such non-sta rotections anederal and Ca ed by the City lic record thatmpt from disc ORMATION teps to verify ation. Each Cew and updat INFORMATION variety of sousary and appr ts governmenontact centers City may interaces. se Informationwsing experie information ther used to ac s used, the dathe user linke site do not cUsers can refu available methprohibit the u s located withiation in order of that informnances, rules and Regulationcil. This inclu be required b ity meters and te to their Infodition to their r l electric, wat non-City elec andard or exp d personal inalifornia laws. in the ordina t may be subjclosure to the a person’s id City departmente that informa urces and resropriate in ord ntal and proprs as well as a act with perso n are coveredence with the hat a web siteccess the City ate and time ed to the City’s contain the Infuse the cooki hods. If the ususer from gain in Palo Alto, tr to initiate an mation is not ss, regulations ns must confudes the shar by law. d/or having n ormation, inclregular month ter or natural ctronic portal perimental me nformation exc ry course and ject to inspecpublic by Ca dentity before nt that collectation at reaso InInforma sources, provder for the Cit rietary capaciat web sites, b ons who need d by this Police City of Palo A e can use to try’s web sites, a user accesss web sites. C formation, andies or delete t ser chooses nning access t the City of Pad manage uti specifically ad or procedure form to this Poring of CPAU- on-metered m luding, withouhly utilities bil gas meters ms at different etering will ha change rules d scope of co ction and copyalifornia law. e the City will g ts Informationonable times. City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua ided that the ty to conduct ties. That infby mobile app d to share suc cy that the CitAlto web site rack, among othe identificat sed the site, aCookies creat d thus do notthe cookie file not to accept to or using the alo Alto Utilitieility services t ddressed in thes, this Policy olicy, unless -collected Info monthly servic ut limitation, thling, business may have theiintervals 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 Exceperso partiereaso perso The C Inforinsta such If the occubreac date(and t H) D The C periodestr I) S The C servi In ord thosethe S proviservi confi Theswhic serviinclu moniterm comp Priorservi evenrequ prom J) F CPAmana Privacy Policy SECURITY, CO ept as otherwions covered b es without theonable contro ons covered b City may auth mation of pernces, the City Information o e City become rred, with resch in accorda (s) of the knowthe proposed DATA RETENTI City will store od is establishruction. SOFTWARE AS City may eng ces, common der to assure e who receiveSaaS services ider, shall desces and/or fu dentiality and se requiremenh the services ces provider’ding disaster itoring service“IT infrastruc puters, and da r to entering inces provider nt that the Saairements duri mptly inform th FAIR AND ACC U will requireage utility ser y NFIDENTIALITY ise provided bby this Policy e express writols 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 Inance with app wn or suspecaction 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 fros provider and sign, install, purnishes good d privacy of th nts include infs are provided s operations recovery and es to ensure acture” refers to atabase man nto an agreemto complete a aS services png the course he ISM. URATE CREDIT utility customrvices to them Y AND NON-DIS by applicable as confidenti tten consent oesigned to pro . y’s employee business withthe City’s em rance of City- breach, or ha nformation of licable laws. cted breach, ttaken or the r ATION RETENTI all Information or seven (7) ye SAAS) OVERSI ty contractors Software-as- and security o om the City, ad its subcontr provide, and mds to the City, he Information formation secd to the City, and maintenad business co a secure and o the integrate agement dev ment to providand submit an provider reasoe of providing T TRANSACTIO mers to providm. SCLOSURE law or this Poial and will no of the personotect the conf and or third p h the City or rployee and/o -related busin as reasonable a person, theThe notice of he nature of tresponsive ac ION n for a period ears, and the GHT s and vendors a-Service (Sa of the Informa as a conditionractors, if any maintain a secto the extent n. curity directiveincluding con ance processontinuity plann reliable envired framework vices, upon wh de services ton Information onably determ services, the ON ACT OF 200 de their Inform olicy, the Cityot disclose it, n affected. Thefidentiality and party contrac receive servicor the third pa ness and in ac e grounds to e City will notiff breach will in the Informatioction taken by d of time as m ereafter such i s to provide s aaS). ation of those n of selling goy, including an cure IT envirot any scope of es pertaining nnection to th es needed toning; and (c) t ronment and k, including, w hich digital ne o the City, theSecurity and mines that it cae City will requ 03 mation in orde InInforma y will treat theor permit it to e City will devd security of t ctors to acces ces from the Crty contractor ccordance wit believe that a fy the affectenclude the da on that is the y the City. may be require information w software appli who do busin oods and/or sny IT infrastru onment, whilef work or serv to: (a) the IT e City's IT sy o support the the IT infrastr service availawithout limitat etworks opera e City’s staff w Privacy Que annot fulfill thuire the SaaS er for the City City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua e Information oo be disclosed velop and mathe Informatio s and/or use City. In thosers to agree to th the Policy. a security bre d person of sate(s) or estim subject of the ed by law, or i will be schedu cation and da ness with the ervices to thecture service e it performs svices implicat infrastructurestems; (b) the IT environmeructure perfor ability to the Ction, data cen ate. will require theestionnaire. In e informationS 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 ipreve CPAwhen chan Ther § 179 4. CO Info Chie Utili City Privacy Policy eral regulation 159), includinitor” which pro implement proent, respond U proceduresnever 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 Flaovides service ocedures for and mitigate s for potentialant changes t U identity theft nia laws which urity Manager n Officer: Rei ent: Auzenne Office: Kolling, ting the Fair a ag Rules, reqes in advance an identity thpotential 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 CPAe of payment eft program fontity theft of its will be reviewplementation or as approp ble to identity Raj.Patel@C athan <Jonath m.Auzenne@C nt.Kolling@Ci Credit Trans AU, as a “covand which ca for new and es customers’ wed independn have occurre priate, so as to y theft; they ar CityofPaloAlto han.Reichent CityofPaloAlto tyofPaloAlto.o InInforma sactions Act o ered financiaan affect cons existing accouInformation. dently by the ed. The ISM w o conform to re set forth in .org> tal@CityofPal o.org org> City of nformation Teation Security Pa 31 Janua of 2003 (Publi l institution orsumer credit, unts to detect, ISM annuallywill 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 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY December 1, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Suspending City Policy Against Requiring Prevailing Wage, Unless and Until SB 7 is Enjoined or Invalidated RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) suspending the City’s policy of non- payment of prevailing wages on locally-funded public works projects, effective January 1, 2015, unless and until SB 7 is enjoined or invalidated. BACKGROUND In 1981, the Palo Alto City Council determined that it is in the City’s best interest to obtain the lowest responsible bid for locally funded public projects, and adopted a resolution providing that payment of prevailing wage should be required only where required by state or federal grants or for contracts of statewide concern. (Reso. No. 5981 (1981)). This resolution has been in effect continuously since 1981 (Attachment B). In 2013, the California Legislature adopted and the Governor signed Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), adding Section 1782 to the California Labor Code to prohibit a charter city from receiving state funding for any construction project if that city has awarded within the prior two years a public works contract without requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage rates. SB 7 goes into effect January 1, 2015. It excludes certain small contracts (constructions contracts of $25,000 or less and “alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance” contracts of $15,000 or less). The California League of Cities and many individual cities, including Palo Alto, opposed SB 7 on the grounds that it interferes with the constitutional provision granting charter cities authority over their municipal affairs. (Cal. Const., Article XI, Sec. 5(a).) In State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547, the California Supreme Court determined that the subject of prevailing wage rates for locally funded public works projects is a municipal affair, and that Charter cities are not subject to the state law requirement to pay prevailing wages. In City of El Centro et al v. Lanier (Cal. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Case No. D- 066755), a group of charter cities filed suit to invalidate SB 7 on the grounds that it violates the constitutional prohibition on state interference in the municipal affairs of charter cities. The Superior Court denied the cities’ motions to invalidate SB 7 and Page 2 granted summary judgment to the state. The cities appealed. The case is pending before the Court of Appeal at this time. The Court of Appeal denied the cities’ request to stay enforcement of SB 7 while the appeal is pending. Accordingly, SB 7 will go into effect January 1, 2015. DISCUSSION The City of Palo Alto desires to maintain its policy of non-payment of prevailing wages on locally funded projects, but is constrained by the prospect of losing state funds on all construction projects, a significant financial impact that could make it infeasible for the City to undertake certain critical infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects on which residents depend. The Department of Public Works estimates state and federal grants in recent years to be in the range of $4-6 million. City staff believes that requiring payment of prevailing wage adds to the cost of public works, potentially in the range of 10%. These increased costs offset to some degree the funds gained through federal or state grants. Costs and savings depend on several factors that vary each year, including the amounts of state and federal grants received, the total costs of locally-funded contracts and the cost increases attributable to payment of prevailing wages. On balance, however, staff has concluded that it is in the City’s financial interest to comply with SB 7 in order to preserve the City’s ability to receive state and federal grant funding. To our knowledge, the other California charter cities with local policies against payment of prevailing wage are suspending those policies effective January 1, 2015, in compliance with SB 7. The proposed resolution will mean that prevailing wage will be required on all City projects, except small projects exempted from SB 7 (constructions contracts of $25,000 or less and “alteration, demolition, repair or maintenance” contracts of $15,000 or less), beginning with projects advertised for bid on or after January 1, 2015. The proposed resolution includes an expiration feature so that if a court invalidates SB 7 or issues a stay of enforcement, the City’s policy will revert automatically to non-payment of prevailing wage on locally-funded projects. RESOURCE IMPACT Adoption of this resolution will preserve access to state and federal grant funding, offset in part by increased costs on locally-funded projects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed resolution is not a project that requires environmental review. Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: Attchment A: Resolution Re: Prevailing Wage SB 7 (PDF) Attachment B: Resolution 5981 Prevailing Wage (PDF) Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 4 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ________ Resolution of The Council Of The City Of Palo Alto Suspending City Policy against Requiring Prevailing Wage, Unless and Until SB 7 is Enjoined or Invalidated R E C I T A L S A. Palo Alto is a Charter City protected from State legislative interference in its municipal affairs by the California Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 5(a). B. In State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547, the California Supreme Court determined that the subject of prevailing wage rates for locally funded public works projects is a municipal affair, and that Charter cities are not subject to the state law requirement to pay prevailing wages. C. The Palo Alto City Council has determined that it is in the City’s best interest to obtain the lowest responsible bid for locally funded public projects. In December 1981, the Council adopted Resolution No. 5981, providing that payment of prevailing wage not be required on locally funded projects. D. In 2013,the California Legislature adopted and the Governor signed Senate Bill 7 (SB 7), adding Section 1782 to the California Labor Code to prohibit a charter city from receiving state funding for any construction project if that city has awarded within the prior two years a public works contract without requiring the contractor to pay prevailing wage rates. SB 7 goes into effect January 1, 2015. E. In City of El Centro et al v. Lanier (Cal. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Case No. D-066755), a group of charter cities filed suit to invalidate SB 7 on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional prohibition on interference in the municipal affairs of charter cities. F. The Lanier case is pending before the Court of Appeal, and no injunction has been issued staying the effect of SB 7. G. The City of Palo Alto desires to maintain its policy of non-payment of prevailing wages on locally funded projects, but is constrained by the prospect of losing state funds on all construction projects, a significant financial impact that could make it infeasible for the City to undertake certain critical infrastructure maintenance and improvement projects on which local residents depend. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Effective January 1, 2015, this Resolution No. _____ shall supersede Resolution/Ordinance No. 5981. 1 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Resolution No. 5981 shall be suspended and be of no force and effect, to the extent that it applies to public works contracts as defined in Labor Code section 1782(d)(1). Beginning January 1, 2015, all public works projects as defined in Labor Code section 1782(d)(1) shall be advertised for bid and awarded in conformance with the Public Contracting Code requirements regarding payment of prevailing wages. SECTION 3. This Resolution No. ____ shall expire and be of no further force or effect immediately on the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction enjoining the state from enforcing SB 7, or the entry of any other court order that invalidates or suspends the operation of SB 7. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5028) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Contract with Susan Narduli Title: Approval of a Contract with Susan Narduli in the Amount of $174,477 for the Development, Design, Fabrication and Installation of an Interactive New Media Artwork to be Installed in the Lobby of City Hall From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve a contract with Susan Narduli in the amount of $174,477 for the design, development, fabrication and installation of an interactive new media artwork in the lobby of City Hall. An additional contingency of $25,000 will be available within the construction budget. (This project was referenced in the City Manager’s report on November 17, 2014 on the City Hall project received by Council.) Background The remodeled City Hall lobby will be a welcoming, open, exciting and engaging space for the Palo Alto community. With the improvements being made to the City Hall lobby, it is the opportune time to coordinate with the construction to support and integrate an engaging new media artwork that enhances the lobby. This transitional space which moves from public plaza will not only enlist the public’s involvement, but physically reflects the innovative and creative culture of Palo Alto. Palo Alto enjoys a high level of civic participation in local government. Arts and culture engage the community in a way that represents its collective voice, as well as bringing attention to those segments of the population that may not be as well represented. By creating and installing an interactive public artwork into the lobby of our City Hall, we are asking the community to treat the space as an extension of community, right at ground level within City Hall. This piece will serve to invite citizens of Palo Alto to interact with a significant work of art that can also inform community and government thru a diverse, collective voice reflecting the open, engaged and creative government we value. New media artwork promotes interactive feedback, participation, and community creation around the media content. A truly interactive new media artwork can take many forms – from City of Palo Alto Page 2 streaming information about trending Twitter feeds in the area, allowing residents to contribute information digitally to the artwork, or reflecting back visual information gathered from the Community. A strong interactive artwork will help:  Express our creative identity as a community  Offer another way for the City to engage the public in dialogue  Give the public a sense of ownership of the public space  Shape a collective history and identify absent narratives  Reinforce connection and empathy between citizens The renovation of the lobby space is an ideal opportunity to ensure that we offer a welcoming, engaging and stimulating environment for the public. Many impactful new media artworks on this scale cost between $450,000 and $850,000. A modest budget for this type of art work would be $250,000. DISCUSSION Staff began discussions with the project team, the City Manager’s Office and Information Technology during the spring of 2013 to explore the possibility of incorporating a new media artwork into the plans for the new lobby. The Public Art Program staff and the Public Art Commission had been discussing the possibility of commissioning a new media artwork within the City for several years, but the opportunities for protected and relevant indoor spaces, have been very limited. The vision for the renovated lobby space with IT features aligned nicely with the interactivity that new media artwork will offer. Staff coordinated with the design team, City Manager’s Office and IT to leverage line items planned for the lobby space, such as computer monitors and running data and electrical supplies to the wall site to help offset the overall cost of the new media artwork. Staff put out a non-binding request for qualifications to artists interested in consideration for the commission of a new media piece in City Hall – underlining the fact that the funds had not yet been secured. 107 artists applied, staff brought the number down by half, and then a pre-panel brought the number down to 29 artists. A selection panel made up of the Project Architect Tom Bowe, Director of the City’s IT Department Jonathan Reichenthal, Public Art Commission Vice-Chair Ben Miyaji, new media Artist Camille Utterback, and San Jose Senior Public Art Project Manager Mary Rubin selected 21 of those artists to review in depth. The panel met in March and selected five artists to create site specific conceptual proposals for the City Hall site. The panel re-convened in April to review the five proposals. Of the five proposals, there were three that emerged as the favorites, scoring very closely. Staff gathered input from the panelists and asked those three artists (or teams) to please submit an addendum to their proposal addressing some of the concerns and feedback from the panel. Those three applicants were: Susan Narduli, artist team Chris Doyle and Marina Zurkow, and artist team Wesley Heiss and Marek Walczak. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Staff determined that based on the input from key stakeholders, the panel, and staff, Susan Narduli’s proposal for Conversation will activate the renovated City Hall lobby space, invite visitors to interact with the artwork, and offer a new and exciting art experience for visitors each time they visit City Hall lobby. The piece is anticipated to be a destination artwork for visitors and residents alike. This art piece will also provide for the ability for the City to display a variety of visual needs as required including: broadcasting meetings, wayfinding, television channel and online broadcasting, agenda displays, information about City government, neighborhoods, and the community. The Narduli proposal was approved by the Public Art Commission July 17, 2014. Resource Impact There are adequate funds available to support the cost of the contract. $50,000 will be allocated from the Art in Public Spaces project (AC-86017) with the support of the Public Art Commission (PAC). Additionally, $175,000 is available in the City Hall First Floor Renovations project (PE-12017).The lobby is currently under construction. Finding efficiencies in the construction budget have allowed for a less expensive art budget than originally anticipated. Any unused funds from the original $225,000 identified for the art will remain with the construction budget to help offset the costs associated with the new media wall. Susan Narduli is already consulting closely with the project team to ensure that the artwork will be nicely integrated with the other construction and installation efforts at the site. Policy Implications The expansion of art exhibitions into the public realm is consistent with Community Services section policy C-23, “Explore a way to expand the space available in the community for art exhibitions, classes and other cultural activities.” Attachments:  Attachment A: Narduli Proposal (PDF)  Attachment B: Narduli Contract (PDF) CONVERSATION City of Palo Alto City Hall New Media Art art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO CONVERSATION City of Palo Alto City Hall New Media Art art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO We present this submittal as an Addendum to our proposal of April 14, 2014. We have taken the committee’s comments to heart. At the core of our submission is a prioritization of creating an artwork that above all else is welcoming, dynamic, engaging and accessible. As with our first proposal, we see this project as a collaboration with the city and community of Palo Alto. While Conversation would be a complete artwork when installed, it true meaning relies on public par- ticipation and cooperation, fundamental principles of a working democracy. The concept weaves together various forms of image and text. It would be impossible to present every configuration that Conversation would take over time, but in this Addendum we have shown a sampling of the opportunities and possibilities we imagine. Susan Narduli CONCEPT INSPIRATION art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO COMMUNITYFREE SPEECH COLLECTIVE VOICE DEMOCRACY CIVIC PARTICIPATION ACCOUNTABILITY The artwork is inspired by the significance of individual participation in a democracy. It is a window into the City of Palo Alto and an invitation to explore and create. PROPOSED ARTWORK LOCATION CO N F E R E N C E FL E X I B L E M E E T I N G SP A C E AV O P E N O F F I C E (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . ME N S WO M E N S 10 6 (N ) O F F I C E 10 7 (N ) H A L L S E R V I C E 11 0 (N ) O F F I C E 10 8 10 9 UT I L I T I E S / C U S T O M E R SE R V I C E S 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 HA L L W A Y 12 1 12 3 4 5 6 10 7 . 1 10 7 . 2 10 8 . 1 10 9 . 1 11 7 . 1 11 7 . 2 11 8 . 1 11 9 . 1 12 0 . 1 12 1 . 1 12 3 . 1 12 2 . 1 (E ) (E ) D E ±3 ' - 1 1 " WA L L S C H E D U L E NO . SI Z E / T Y P E IN S U L A T I O N IN T E R I O R NO T E S 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SID E S DB L . 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 78" F U R R I N G CH A N N E L 2 0 GA . @ 1 6 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M (E ) C O N C R E T E WA L L 58" G Y P . B D . G L U E IN T O ( E ) C O N C . W A L L RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S 2 12" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O.C . ± 3 6 " H T . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E . SO L I D S U R F A C E C A P RE F E R T O D E T A I L S ' N ' O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 6" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O.C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SID E S 78" F U R R I N G C H A N N E L 2 0 G A . @ 1 6 " O.C . A T 3 6 " H T . A . F . F . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E ST U D S I Z E AP P L I C A T I O N SI Z E / G A U G E F O R 1 6 " O . C . S P A C I N G MA X . H T . IN T E R I O R S T U D S W I T H MIN . 12" G Y P B D B O T H SID E S , F U L L H E I G H T O F ST U D . 3 58" 2 0 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 3 6 2 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 15 ' - 0 " 4" 1 8 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 4 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 4 3 18 ' - 0 " 6" 2 0 G A . - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 6 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 20 ' - 0 " 12345678FL O O R P L A N N O T E S 2. 1 FIR E E X T I N G U I S H E R S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M U L R A T I N G O F 2A : 1 0 B C V E R I F Y L O C A T I O N W I T H F I R E M A R S H A L L P R I O R T O IN S T A L L A T I O N 2.2 PR O V I D E B A C K I N G P L A T E , V E R I F Y H E I G H T S - S E E D E T A I L L / A 6 . 1 2.3 NE W F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N S , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L E/6 . 1 2.4 NE W D I S H W A S H E R , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . G . C . T O P R O V I D E AD E Q U A T E W O R K F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N 2.5 NE W W A L K - O F F M A T ( M A T S I N C . G R A T E G R I D ) I N T O A N E X I S T I N G RE C E S S E D C O N C R E T E F L O O R 2.6 NE W I N F I L L ( E ) R E C E S S E D S L A B W I T H N E W 1 2 " W I D E T E R R A Z O T O MA T C H ( E ) , S E E F I N I S H F L O O R P L A N 2.7 TE R R A Z Z O : F I N E G R I N D , C L E A N A N D S E A L E X I S T I N G T E R R A Z Z O TO A " A S N E W " F I N I S H - R E F E R T O S P E C I F I C A T I O N S - P R O T E C T DU R I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2.8 NE W W I N D O W S H A D E S 2.9 IN F I L L W A L L G A P 2.1 0 NE W S T E E L C O L U M N A T E A C H E N D O F F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N , S E E DE T A I L O / A 6 . 1 2.1 1 PA T C H A N D R E P A I R W A L L W H E R E P U B L I C T E L E P H O N E R E M O V E D -- GE N E R A L N O T E : FO R I N T E R I O R F I N I S H E S R E F E R T O S H E E T A 1 0 . 1 1 LE G E N D N E W F R A M E W A L L E X I S T I N G W A L L T O R E M A I N NO T E : 5/ 8 " T Y P E ' X ' G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T A L L S H A F T W A L L S . 5/ 8 " W A T E R R E S I S T A N T G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D B E H I N D TIL E D W A L L S . SE E W A L L F R A M I N G D E T A I L S O N S H E E T A 6 . 1 . 1 57 5 7 P a c i f i c A v e n u e Su i t e 2 2 6 St o c k t o n C A 9 5 2 0 7 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 9 1 1 0 T 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 5 7 1 1 F ww w . w m b a r c h i t e c t s . c o m La r r y W e n e l l Tim M a t t h e i s To m B o w e Do u g D a v i s Me l a n i e V i e u x Pr i n c i p a l A r c h i t e c t s DA T E R E V / S E T 1 02 . 2 8 . 1 4 Pla n C h e c k # 1 WM B P R O J E C T : PU B L I S H H I S T O R Y Ci t y H a l l R e m o d e l 25 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o , C A . 9 4 3 0 1 11 - 1 3 9 Pe r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 12 . 1 9 . 1 3                                             RE M O D E L F L O O R P L A N - F I R S T F L O O R SC A L E : 1/8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE M O D E L F L O O R PL A N - F I R S T F L O O R A2 . 1 CITY HALL LOBBY COMMUNITY MEETINGFINANCE KING PLAZA Lobby Floor Plan art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO CO N F E R E N C E FL E X I B L E M E E T I N G SP A C E AV O P E N O F F I C E (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . ME N S WO M E N S 10 6 (N ) O F F I C E 10 7 (N ) H A L L S E R V I C E 11 0 (N ) O F F I C E 10 8 10 9 UT I L I T I E S / C U S T O M E R SE R V I C E S 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 HA L L W A Y 12 1 12 3 4 5 6 10 7 . 1 10 7 . 2 10 8 . 1 10 9 . 1 11 7 . 1 11 7 . 2 11 8 . 1 11 9 . 1 12 0 . 1 12 1 . 1 12 3 . 1 12 2 . 1 (E ) (E ) D E ±3 ' - 1 1 " WA L L S C H E D U L E NO . SI Z E / T Y P E IN S U L A T I O N IN T E R I O R NO T E S 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SI D E S DB L . 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 78" F U R R I N G CH A N N E L 2 0 GA . @ 1 6 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M (E ) C O N C R E T E WA L L 58" G Y P . B D . G L U E IN T O ( E ) C O N C . W A L L RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S 2 12" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . ± 3 6 " H T . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E . SO L I D S U R F A C E C A P RE F E R T O D E T A I L S ' N ' O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 6" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SI D E S 78" F U R R I N G C H A N N E L 2 0 G A . @ 1 6 " O. C . A T 3 6 " H T . A . F . F . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E ST U D S I Z E AP P L I C A T I O N SIZ E / G A U G E F O R 1 6 " O . C . S P A C I N G MA X . H T . IN T E R I O R S T U D S W I T H MIN . 12" G Y P B D B O T H SID E S , F U L L H E I G H T O F ST U D . 3 58" 2 0 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 3 6 2 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 15 ' - 0 " 4" 1 8 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 4 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 4 3 18 ' - 0 " 6" 2 0 G A . - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 6 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 20 ' - 0 " 12345678FL O O R P L A N N O T E S 2.1 FIR E E X T I N G U I S H E R S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M U L R A T I N G O F 2A : 1 0 B C V E R I F Y L O C A T I O N W I T H F I R E M A R S H A L L P R I O R T O IN S T A L L A T I O N 2. 2 PR O V I D E B A C K I N G P L A T E , V E R I F Y H E I G H T S - S E E D E T A I L L / A 6 . 1 2. 3 NE W F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N S , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L E/6 . 1 2. 4 NE W D I S H W A S H E R , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . G . C . T O P R O V I D E AD E Q U A T E W O R K F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N 2. 5 NE W W A L K - O F F M A T ( M A T S I N C . G R A T E G R I D ) I N T O A N E X I S T I N G RE C E S S E D C O N C R E T E F L O O R 2. 6 NE W I N F I L L ( E ) R E C E S S E D S L A B W I T H N E W 1 2 " W I D E T E R R A Z O T O MA T C H ( E ) , S E E F I N I S H F L O O R P L A N 2. 7 TE R R A Z Z O : F I N E G R I N D , C L E A N A N D S E A L E X I S T I N G T E R R A Z Z O TO A " A S N E W " F I N I S H - R E F E R T O S P E C I F I C A T I O N S - P R O T E C T DU R I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2. 8 NE W W I N D O W S H A D E S 2. 9 IN F I L L W A L L G A P 2.1 0 NE W S T E E L C O L U M N A T E A C H E N D O F F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N , S E E DE T A I L O / A 6 . 1 2. 1 1 PA T C H A N D R E P A I R W A L L W H E R E P U B L I C T E L E P H O N E R E M O V E D -- GE N E R A L N O T E : FO R I N T E R I O R F I N I S H E S R E F E R T O S H E E T A 1 0 . 1 1 LE G E N D N E W F R A M E W A L L E X I S T I N G W A L L T O R E M A I N NO T E : 5/ 8 " T Y P E ' X ' G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T A L L S H A F T W A L L S . 5/ 8 " W A T E R R E S I S T A N T G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D B E H I N D TIL E D W A L L S . SE E W A L L F R A M I N G D E T A I L S O N S H E E T A 6 . 1 . 1 57 5 7 P a c i f i c A v e n u e Su i t e 2 2 6 Sto c k t o n C A 9 5 2 0 7 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 9 1 1 0 T 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 5 7 1 1 F ww w . w m b a r c h i t e c t s . c o m La r r y W e n e l l Tim M a t t h e i s To m B o w e Do u g D a v i s Me l a n i e V i e u x Pr i n c i p a l A r c h i t e c t s DA T E R E V / S E T 1 02 . 2 8 . 1 4 Pla n C h e c k # 1 WM B P R O J E C T : PU B L I S H H I S T O R Y Ci t y H a l l R e m o d e l 25 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o , C A . 9 4 3 0 1 11 - 1 3 9 Pe r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 12 . 1 9 . 1 3                                              RE M O D E L F L O O R P L A N - F I R S T F L O O R SC A L E : 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE M O D E L F L O O R PL A N - F I R S T F L O O R A2 . 1 CITY HALL LOBBY COMMUNITY MEETINGFINANCE KING PLAZA LEGEND MEDIA WALL TOUCHSCREEN KEY PAD CAMERAS Conversation is framed within the formal composition of the existing lobby artwork, Forgotten Language. Seyed Alavi sought to call our at- tention to the fading value of words that manifest our highest aspira- tions of civic and community life, placing his artwork high “to look up to”. art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere... Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I learn to make my mind as large as the universe is large, so that there is room for paradoxes. A nation is never finished... It has to be recreated in each generation by believing, caring men and women. Anne Frank Martin Luther King, Jr. Maxine Hong Kingston John W. Gardner Conversation presents another perspective - it is sited so that one can freely enter. Here, words become the means by which to engage in civic and community life. It is a collaboration with the city and people of Palo Alto. INTERFACE art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO INTERFACE INPUT COMMUNITY real-time conversation INPUT STREAMING CONTENT connection to local and global events and thought INPUT PALO ALTO city-programmed content Conversation is a testament to the PRINCIPLES and IDEALS of Palo Alto’s OPEN GOVERNMENT AGENDA JOIN THE CONVERSATION INTERFACE: COMMUNITY The artwork is an invitation for community engagement. Because it is as much a collaborative tool as a display, it encourages participation. It is always in flux, as new events and comments appear, and posts fade throughout the day. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY REAL - TIME COMMUNITY INPUT Cameras and touchscreen keypads placed at each side allow vistors to join an ongoing community conversation, an extension of the city’s Open City Hall and Open Data Agenda. art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO LEGEND MEDIA WALL TOUCHSCREEN KEY PAD CAMERAS CO N F E R E N C E FL E X I B L E M E E T I N G SP A C E AV O P E N O F F I C E (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . ME N S WO M E N S 10 6 (N ) O F F I C E 10 7 (N ) H A L L S E R V I C E 11 0 (N ) O F F I C E 10 8 10 9 UT I L I T I E S / C U S T O M E R SE R V I C E S 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 HA L L W A Y 12 1 12 3 4 5 6 10 7 . 1 10 7 . 2 10 8 . 1 10 9 . 1 11 7 . 1 11 7 . 2 11 8 . 1 11 9 . 1 12 0 . 1 12 1 . 1 12 3 . 1 12 2 . 1 (E ) (E ) D E ±3 ' - 1 1 " WA L L S C H E D U L E NO . SI Z E / T Y P E IN S U L A T I O N IN T E R I O R NO T E S 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SI D E S DB L . 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 78" F U R R I N G CH A N N E L 2 0 GA . @ 1 6 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M (E ) C O N C R E T E WA L L 58" G Y P . B D . G L U E IN T O ( E ) C O N C . W A L L RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S 2 12" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . ± 3 6 " H T . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E . SO L I D S U R F A C E C A P RE F E R T O D E T A I L S ' N ' O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 6" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SI D E S 78" F U R R I N G C H A N N E L 2 0 G A . @ 1 6 " O. C . A T 3 6 " H T . A . F . F . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E ST U D S I Z E AP P L I C A T I O N SIZ E / G A U G E F O R 1 6 " O . C . S P A C I N G MA X . H T . IN T E R I O R S T U D S W I T H MI N . 12" G Y P B D B O T H SI D E S , F U L L H E I G H T O F ST U D . 3 58" 2 0 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 3 6 2 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 15 ' - 0 " 4" 1 8 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 4 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 4 3 18 ' - 0 " 6" 2 0 G A . - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 6 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 20 ' - 0 " 12345678FL O O R P L A N N O T E S 2. 1 FIR E E X T I N G U I S H E R S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M U L R A T I N G O F 2A : 1 0 B C V E R I F Y L O C A T I O N W I T H F I R E M A R S H A L L P R I O R T O IN S T A L L A T I O N 2.2 PR O V I D E B A C K I N G P L A T E , V E R I F Y H E I G H T S - S E E D E T A I L L / A 6 . 1 2.3 NE W F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N S , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L E/6 . 1 2.4 NE W D I S H W A S H E R , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . G . C . T O P R O V I D E AD E Q U A T E W O R K F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N 2.5 NE W W A L K - O F F M A T ( M A T S I N C . G R A T E G R I D ) I N T O A N E X I S T I N G RE C E S S E D C O N C R E T E F L O O R 2.6 NE W I N F I L L ( E ) R E C E S S E D S L A B W I T H N E W 1 2 " W I D E T E R R A Z O T O MA T C H ( E ) , S E E F I N I S H F L O O R P L A N 2.7 TE R R A Z Z O : F I N E G R I N D , C L E A N A N D S E A L E X I S T I N G T E R R A Z Z O TO A " A S N E W " F I N I S H - R E F E R T O S P E C I F I C A T I O N S - P R O T E C T DU R I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2.8 NE W W I N D O W S H A D E S 2.9 IN F I L L W A L L G A P 2. 1 0 NE W S T E E L C O L U M N A T E A C H E N D O F F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N , S E E DE T A I L O / A 6 . 1 2.1 1 PA T C H A N D R E P A I R W A L L W H E R E P U B L I C T E L E P H O N E R E M O V E D -- GE N E R A L N O T E : FO R I N T E R I O R F I N I S H E S R E F E R T O S H E E T A 1 0 . 1 1 LE G E N D N E W F R A M E W A L L E X I S T I N G W A L L T O R E M A I N NO T E : 5/8 " T Y P E ' X ' G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T A L L S H A F T W A L L S . 5/8 " W A T E R R E S I S T A N T G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D B E H I N D TIL E D W A L L S . SE E W A L L F R A M I N G D E T A I L S O N S H E E T A 6 . 1 . 1 57 5 7 P a c i f i c A v e n u e Su i t e 2 2 6 St o c k t o n C A 9 5 2 0 7 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 9 1 1 0 T 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 5 7 1 1 F ww w . w m b a r c h i t e c t s . c o m La r r y W e n e l l Ti m M a t t h e i s To m B o w e Do u g D a v i s Me l a n i e V i e u x Pr i n c i p a l A r c h i t e c t s DA T E R E V / S E T 1 02 . 2 8 . 1 4 Pla n C h e c k # 1 WM B P R O J E C T : PU B L I S H H I S T O R Y Ci t y H a l l R e m o d e l 25 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o , C A . 9 4 3 0 1 11 - 1 3 9 Pe r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 12 . 1 9 . 1 3                                               RE M O D E L F L O O R P L A N - F I R S T F L O O R SC A L E : 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE M O D E L F L O O R PL A N - F I R S T F L O O R A2 . 1 CITY HALL LOBBY COMMUNITY MEETINGFINANCE KING PLAZA CO N F E R E N C E FL E X I B L E M E E T I N G SP A C E AV O P E N O F F I C E (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . (E ) E L E V . ME N S WO M E N S 10 6 (N ) O F F I C E 10 7 (N ) H A L L S E R V I C E 11 0 (N ) O F F I C E 10 8 10 9 UT I L I T I E S / C U S T O M E R SE R V I C E S 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 HA L L W A Y 12 1 12 3 4 5 6 10 7 . 1 10 7 . 2 10 8 . 1 10 9 . 1 11 7 . 1 11 7 . 2 11 8 . 1 11 9 . 1 12 0 . 1 12 1 . 1 12 3 . 1 12 2 . 1 (E ) (E ) D E ±3 ' - 1 1 " WA L L S C H E D U L E NO . SI Z E / T Y P E IN S U L A T I O N IN T E R I O R NO T E S 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SID E S DB L . 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 3 58" 2 0 G A . MT L . S T U D S @ 16 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M 78" F U R R I N G CH A N N E L 2 0 GA . @ 1 6 " O . C . ME T A L P A N E L SY S T E M O V / 12" P L Y . WD . E X P O S E D S I D E RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S F O R Mo z M E T A L P A N E L S Y S T E M (E ) C O N C R E T E WA L L 58" G Y P . B D . G L U E IN T O ( E ) C O N C . W A L L RE F E R T O D E T A I L S O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 A N D S P E C S 2 12" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . ± 3 6 " H T . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E . SO L I D S U R F A C E C A P RE F E R T O D E T A I L S ' N ' O N SH E E T A 6 . 1 6" 2 0 G A . M T L . ST U D S @ 1 6 " O. C . SO U N D B A T T 58" G Y P . B D . B O T H SID E S 78" F U R R I N G C H A N N E L 2 0 G A . @ 1 6 " O. C . A T 3 6 " H T . A . F . F . 58" G Y P . B D . EX P O S E D S I D E ST U D S I Z E AP P L I C A T I O N SIZ E / G A U G E F O R 1 6 " O . C . S P A C I N G MA X . H T . IN T E R I O R S T U D S W I T H MIN . 12" G Y P B D B O T H SI D E S , F U L L H E I G H T O F ST U D . 3 58" 2 0 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 3 6 2 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 15 ' - 0 " 4" 1 8 G A - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 4 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 4 3 18 ' - 0 " 6" 2 0 G A . - S S M A D E S I G N A T I O N : 6 0 0 S 1 2 5 - 3 0 20 ' - 0 " 12345678FL O O R P L A N N O T E S 2.1 FI R E E X T I N G U I S H E R S H A L L H A V E A M I N I M U M U L R A T I N G O F 2A : 1 0 B C V E R I F Y L O C A T I O N W I T H F I R E M A R S H A L L P R I O R T O IN S T A L L A T I O N 2.2 PR O V I D E B A C K I N G P L A T E , V E R I F Y H E I G H T S - S E E D E T A I L L / A 6 . 1 2.3 NE W F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N S , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S A N D D E T A I L E/6 . 1 2.4 NE W D I S H W A S H E R , S E E S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . G . C . T O P R O V I D E AD E Q U A T E W O R K F O R I N S T A L L A T I O N 2.5 NE W W A L K - O F F M A T ( M A T S I N C . G R A T E G R I D ) I N T O A N E X I S T I N G RE C E S S E D C O N C R E T E F L O O R 2.6 NE W I N F I L L ( E ) R E C E S S E D S L A B W I T H N E W 1 2 " W I D E T E R R A Z O T O MA T C H ( E ) , S E E F I N I S H F L O O R P L A N 2.7 TE R R A Z Z O : F I N E G R I N D , C L E A N A N D S E A L E X I S T I N G T E R R A Z Z O TO A " A S N E W " F I N I S H - R E F E R T O S P E C I F I C A T I O N S - P R O T E C T DU R I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N . 2.8 NE W W I N D O W S H A D E S 2.9 IN F I L L W A L L G A P 2. 1 0 NE W S T E E L C O L U M N A T E A C H E N D O F F O L D I N G P A R T I T I O N , S E E DE T A I L O / A 6 . 1 2.1 1 PA T C H A N D R E P A I R W A L L W H E R E P U B L I C T E L E P H O N E R E M O V E D -- GE N E R A L N O T E : FO R I N T E R I O R F I N I S H E S R E F E R T O S H E E T A 1 0 . 1 1 LE G E N D N E W F R A M E W A L L E X I S T I N G W A L L T O R E M A I N NO T E : 5/ 8 " T Y P E ' X ' G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T A L L S H A F T W A L L S . 5/ 8 " W A T E R R E S I S T A N T G Y P S U M B O A R D R E Q U I R E D A T P L U M B I N G F I X T U R E S A N D B E H I N D TIL E D W A L L S . SE E W A L L F R A M I N G D E T A I L S O N S H E E T A 6 . 1 . 1 57 5 7 P a c i f i c A v e n u e Su i t e 2 2 6 St o c k t o n C A 9 5 2 0 7 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 9 1 1 0 T 20 9 . 9 4 4 . 5 7 1 1 F ww w . w m b a r c h i t e c t s . c o m La r r y W e n e l l Tim M a t t h e i s To m B o w e Do u g D a v i s Me l a n i e V i e u x Pr i n c i p a l A r c h i t e c t s DA T E R E V / S E T 1 02 . 2 8 . 1 4 Pla n C h e c k # 1 WM B P R O J E C T : PU B L I S H H I S T O R Y Ci t y H a l l R e m o d e l 25 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o , C A . 9 4 3 0 1 11 - 1 3 9 Pe r m i t A p p l i c a t i o n 12 . 1 9 . 1 3                                              RE M O D E L F L O O R P L A N - F I R S T F L O O R SC A L E : 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " RE M O D E L F L O O R PL A N - F I R S T F L O O R A2 . 1 CITY HALL LOBBY COMMUNITY MEETINGFINANCE KING PLAZA INTERFACE: COMMUNITY Upon entering City Hall Lobby, the artwork welcomes you with a mural of slowly changing imagery. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY INTERFACE: COMMUNITY This is the face of Palo Alto. People and places slowly appear and disappear throughout the day. The artwork is always new, a reflection of the everchanging community. At each side of the media wall is a touchscreen prompt inviting you to participate. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY When you touch the these icons appear: “Join The Conversation” prompts on each end activate a keypad INTERFACE: COMMUNITY takes you to the menu to take your portrait to add to the wall. An adjustable camera at each end allows everyone to participate. Once you accept you can personalize with color. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY The captured portraits record daily life and special moments. Each virtual snapshot is held for a time, then slowly fades, as others take their place. Over time, as more portraits are added, the artwork presents a continuum of the Palo Alto community, bringing together past and present. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY INTERFACE: COMMUNITY Images of Palo Alto, its places, institutions, natural environment, present an ongoing narrative. These images fade in and out like the portraits. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY Some images will be part of the art content. But the community will have the opportunity to upload their own images of Palo Alto to be incorporated into the artwork. takes you to the menu to view and comment. You navigate with color-coded thought bubbles. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY Palo Alto SpecificWorld and Local News Government User-generated content takes you to the Palo Alto news feeds. where you can view and / or comment. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY New entries appear to the right of the keyboard as you type. REALTIME NEWS FEEDS COMMUNITY COMMENTS Comments are filtered through a custom app and integrated into the media wall. Once you post, your comment joins the others. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY INTERFACE: COMMUNITY INTERFACE: STREAMING CONTENT The artwork takes in RSS feeds and social media updates related to governance and civic engagement, creating a digital mapping that ties us to current thought, community and the broader context of global issues throughout the day. Palo Alto SpecificWorld News Government User-generated content The content is organized by source, each source its own color. Once you select a source, you access that category of data and news. Each post is held for a time then slowly recedes, their layered memory makes visible the underlying structure of our civic and social exchanges. Community comments add another layer to the ongoing conversation. WORLD NEWS FEEDS COMMUNITY COMMENTS HOUR 1HOUR 12 HOUR 6 INTERFACE: STREAMING CONTENT The artwork is always in flux, as news and posts appear and change throughout the day. After a period of inactivity, the artwork shifts back to the welcome screen. INTERFACE: CITY Palo Alto-specific content and broadcasts are integral to the Media Wall. The development of communication and content management protocols would be part of our initial collaboration with the city. INTERFACE: COMMUNITY MEETINGSINTERFACE: CITY MEETINGSINTERFACE: CITY BROADCASTSINTERFACE: CITY THE ARTWORK Public access to artwork via mobile apps & links Connection to Data Streams VIRTUAL INTERACTION CONNECTIVITY PUBLIC INTERACTION The artwork is dynamic and will change and grow over time. INTERACTIVITY INTERPLAY art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO Media Wall interface keypad & camera Connection to City content and website CONNECTIVITY INTERPLAY A QR code appears periodically and the passerby can scan it to link to webcasts, blogs and up to date news. art & public spaces NARDULI STUDIO An adjustable camera at each end invites everyone to participate. INTERPLAY Touchscreen prompts are located within ADA reach height range. An application for mobile devices allows participation from phones, tablets and computers. From this app one can explore the entire artwork. In total, it is both the breath and the mind of a community, and an affirmation of its values and ideals. It is also a door into a working democracy. City Content Public Content Internet Media Wall Multi touch Input Multi touch Input Multi touch Input Multi touch Input Streaming Content Camera Camera Media Wall Computer Realtime Text Compositing City Content Software SYSTEM DIAGRAM This artwork is inspired by the significance of individual participation in a democracy. It is a window into the City of Palo Alto and an invitation to explore and create. It is framed within the formal composition of the existing lobby artwork, Forgotten Language. Seyed Alavi sought to call our attention to the fading value of words that manifest our highest aspirations of civic and community life, placing his artwork high “to look up to”. Conversation presents another perspective - it is sited so that one can freely enter. Here, words become the means by which to engage in civic and community life. It is a collaboration with the city and people of Palo Alto and a testament to the principles and ideals of Palo Alto’s Open Government agenda. Because it is as much a collaborative tool as a display, it encourages participation. Cameras and touchscreen keypads placed at each side allow visitors to join an on- going community conversation, an extension of the city’s Open City Hall and Open Data Agenda. Upon entering City Hall Lobby, the artwork welcomes you with a mural of slowly changing imagery. This is the face of Palo Alto. People and places slowly appear and disappear throughout the day. The artwork is always new, a reflection of an ever-changing community. At each side of the media wall is a touchscreen prompt, an invitation to participate. There are three ways to do this: Captured portraits record daily life and special moments. Each virtual snapshot is held for a time, then slowly fades, as others take their place. Over time, as more portraits are added, the artwork becomes a continuum, an ongoing record of the Palo Alto community, bringing together past and present. Images of Palo Alto, its places, institutions, natural environment, present an ongoing narrative. These images fade in and out like the portraits. Some will be part of the art content. But the community will have the opportunity to upload their own images of Palo Alto to be incorporated into the artwork. Thought bubbles take you to the menu to view and comment. New entries appear to the right of the keyboard as you type. Comments are filtered through a cus tom app and integrated into the media wall. Once you post, your comment joins the others. The artwork takes in RSS feeds and social media updates related to governance and civic engagement, creating a digital mapping that ties us to current thought, com- munity and the broader context of global issues. Each post is held for a time then slowly recedes, their layered memory makes visible the underlying structure of our civic and social exchanges. The artwork is always in flux, as news and posts appear and change throughout the day. Community comments add another layer to the ongoing conversation. After a period of inactivity, the artwork shifts back to the welcome screen. Palo Alto-specific content and broadcasts are integral to the Media Wall. The development of communication and content management protocols would be part of our initial collaboration with the city. The artwork will change and grow over time. A QR code appears periodically and the passerby can scan it to link to webcasts, blogs and up to date news. An application for mobile devices allows participation from phones, tablets and computers. From this app one can explore the entire artwork. In total, it is both the breath and the mind of a community, and an affirmation of its values and ideals. It is also a door into a working democracy. CONVERSATION City of Palo Alto City Hall New Media Art CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15152604 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SUSAN NARDULI FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONCEPT AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION OF ART WORK FOR CITY HALL This Fabrication and Installation of Work of Art Agreement is entered into on this 30th Day of October, 2014, (this “Agreement”) by the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SUSAN NARDULI, a sole proprietor, authorized to do business in California, located at 1307 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA 90024 ("ARTIST"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to place and provide a work of art (“Art Work”) at the City Hall Lobby, located at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA (“Site”) and desires to engage ARTIST to provide research, concept and design development, fabrication and installation in connection with the Art Work (the “Services”). B. ARTIST has represented that she has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. ARTIST was selected by a panel of art professionals and stakeholders from a pool of applicants, as the most qualified to design and fabricate the Art Work. D. The source of funds for the Art Work derives from funds made available from the City of Palo Alto’s percent for art allocation, Public Art Program CIP funds, and funds allocated from the construction budget. E. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage ARTIST to provide the Services, as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. F. The Art Work’s reasonable lifespan is expected to be 10 years or more. CITY may remove or cause its removal 10 years after its completion, in accordance with CITY’s De-Accessioning Policy. Should damages to the Art Work occur, CITY will attempt to contact ARTIST to make arrangements for needed repairs for the Art Work. G. CITY, through City’s Public Art Program, will accession the Art Work into CITY’s Collection of Public Art and own all rights, title and interest in the Art Work. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. ARTIST shall perform the Services, described in Exhibit “A”, in accordance with the terms and conditions of 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 December 31, 2015 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 23 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. ARTIST 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 ARTIST in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the ARTIST. 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 ARTIST. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to ARTIST for performance of the Services, described in Exhibit “C”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Seven Dollars ($174,477). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “C”, entitled “COMPENSATION 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”. ARTIST 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 Art Work, but which is not included within the Scope of Services, described in Exhibit “A”. ARTIST acknowledges that CITY desires that the Art Work, including its conceptual design and content to be unique. ARTIST agrees to not duplicate the Art Work without the express written consent of CITY. SECTION 5. INVOICES. In order to request payment, ARTIST shall submit invoices to the CITY describing the services performed and the applicable charges (including an identification of personnel who performed the services and reimbursable expenses), based upon the ARTIST’s payment schedule (set forth in Exhibit “C”). If applicable, the invoice shall also describe the percentage of completion of each task. The information in ARTIST’s payment requests shall be subject to verification by CITY. ARTIST shall send all invoices to the City’s Art Work 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 ARTIST or under ARTIST’s supervision. ARTIST 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. ARTIST represents that it, its employees and subcontractors, 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 ARTIST under this Agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. ARTIST 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 Art Work or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. ARTIST 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. ARTIST shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY first gives notice to ARTIST. If ARTIST has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Art Work, ARTIST shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Art Work. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. SECTION 9. COST ESTIMATES. If this Agreement pertains to the design of a public works project, ARTIST 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, ARTIST shall make recommendations to the CITY for aligning the Art Work design with the budget, incorporate CITY approved recommendations, and revise the design to meet the Art Work budget, at no additional cost to CITY. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement ARTIST, and any person employed by or contracted with ARTIST 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 ARTIST are material considerations for this Agreement. ARTIST shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of ARTIST’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. SUBCONTRACTINGARTIST 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. ARTIST shall be responsible for directing the work of any sub-contracting artists and for any compensation due to sub-contracting artists. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning compensation. ARTIST shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a sub-contracting artist. ARTIST shall change or add sub-contracting artists only with the prior approval of the city manager or his designee. SECTION 13. ART WORK MANAGEMENT. ARTIST will assign herself, Susan Narduli, as the one to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and ARTIST will represent herself during the day-to-day work on the Art Work. 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 Art Work manager. ARTIST, 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 Art Work or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Elise DeMarzo, Manager, Public Art Program, Division of Arts & Sciences, Community Services Department, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-617-3517. The project manager will be ARTIST’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate Art Work manager from time to time. SECTION 14. PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ART WORK; VARA WAIVER. 14.1. CITY commissions ARTIST to design and create the Art Work to be displayed at a location in Palo Alto, as determined by CITY, acting in its sole discretion. Subject to the rights granted by ARTIST to CITY, as described below, and in consideration of the substantial compensation that CITY will pay to ARTIST for the Art Work, CITY acquires all right, title an interest in the Art Work, and ARTIST retains all copyrights in the Art Work that ARTIST will deliver to CITY under this Agreement. 14.2. ARTIST grants to CITY a non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license to do the following with respect to the Art Work, in whatever media, including, without limitation, digital an electronic media, that now or hereafter are known: (A) use and display the Art Work; (B) make and distribute, and authorize the making and distribution of, two-dimensional images and reproductions of the Art Work; (C) use any images and reproductions for City-related purposes, including, without limitation, advertising-, branding-, education-, information-, promotion- and publicity-related materials; and (D) sublicense the rights granted herein to third parties to fulfill the public art purposes of the City’s commissioning of the Art Work. 14.3. With respect to the Art Work, ARTIST waives any and all claims, arising at any time against CITY, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives, that may be grounded in any federal law, including, without limitation, the Visual Artists Rights Act (17 U.S.C. §106A) California law, including, without limitation, the California Art Preservation Act (Cal. Civil Code §987 et seq.), or local law that may relate to the moral rights of ARTIST or protection of the integrity of the Art Work. SECTION 15. ARTIST’S WARRANTY ARTIST represents and warrants that: 15.1. Prior to transfer of title of the Art Work to CITY, ARTIST is the sole and absolute owner of the Art Work and the Art Work Design, and the copyrights pertaining to the Art Work, and all the rights associated or relating to it. 15.2. ARTIST has not previously sold, assigned, licensed, granted, encumbered, or utilized the Art Work Design or any element thereof, in any manner which may affect or impair the rights granted pursuant to this Agreement including without limitation, interfering with CITY’s ability to show the Art Work, reproduce the Art Work, as defined in Section 22, or maintain/conserve the work into the future. 15.3. All Art Work created or performed by ARTIST under this Agreement, whether created by ARTIST alone or in collaboration with others, shall be wholly original with ARTIST and shall not infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party. 15.4. ARTIST has acquired all rights to any third party software or other component of the Art Work necessary for the operation of the Art Work. 15.5. ARTIST has the full power to enter into and perform this Agreement and to make the grant of rights contained in this Agreement. 15.6. ARTIST warrants that the Art Work is the result of the artistic efforts of ARTIST and that it will be delivered free and clear of any liens, claims and encumbrances of any type. 15.7. These representations and warranties shall survive the termination or other extinction of this Agreement. SECTION 16. FUTURE MODIFICATION OR RELOCATION 16.1. CITY has the right to remove the Art Work from the Site at any time. In addition, in the event that any element of the Art Work constitutes a public safety hazard, CITY has the right to remove the element posing the public safety hazard. 16.2. Except to the extent permitted by Section 16.1, CITY agrees not to intentionally modify the Art Work without first obtaining ARTIST’s written consent. 16.3. CITY shall have the right to donate or sell the Art Work at any time. Before exercising this right, CITY, by written notice to ARTIST at ARTIST’s last known address, agrees to give ARTIST the opportunity to purchase the Art Work for the greater of the price paid by CITY or the amount of any offer which CITY has received for the purchase of the Art Work, plus all costs associated with the removal of the Art Work from the Site, clean-up of the Site and delivery to ARTIST. ARTIST shall have thirty (30) days from the date of CITY’s notice to exercise the option to purchase the Art Work. 16.4. Without limiting CITY’s rights under Section 16, it is CITY’s practice to notify and consult with ARTIST before intentionally moving, relocating or removing the Art Work. If, after the initial discussion, ARTIST and CITY do not reach a mutually agreeable decision regarding relocation or modification of an Art Work, or do not agree upon compensation to ARTIST for providing ARTIST’s input on proposed relocation or modification, CITY may take such actions as CITY deems necessary in the management of its Art Work, and no further agreement or compensation is due to ARTIST. 16.5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, whether or not CITY notified or consulted with ARTIST, if CITY removes, relocates, or modifies the Art Work without ARTIST’s prior written consent, CITY shall not be liable to ARTIST for damages. Under such circumstances, if ARTIST objects to the modification or new location, then (i) CITY may restore the Art Work or replace the Art Work to its original location, or (ii) if the CITY does not restore the Art Work or to relocate the Art Work to the original location, ARTIST may request that ARTIST’s association with Art Work be severed. In either event, CITY shall have no further obligation or liability to ARTIST. 16.6. If CITY moves the Art Work from its originally installed location without ARTIST’s oversight, ARTIST shall not be held responsible for the structural integrity or safety of the Art Work to the extent that CITY’s action impairs the structural integrity or safety of the Art Work, nor shall ARTIST be held responsible for compliance with laws relating to the Art Work to the extent that CITY’s action rendered the Art Work non-compliant with applicable law. 16.7. ARTIST’s rights under this Agreement cease with ARTIST’s death and do not extend to ARTIST’s heirs, successors or assigns. SECTION17. MAINTENANCE 17.1. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION As a condition of and prior to final acceptance of the Work, ARTIST shall supply CITY with written maintenance instructions. During ARTIST’s lifetime, ARTIST shall supply, at no charge, advice as to problems arising in relation to maintenance of the Work. CITY shall have the right to determine, after consultation with ARTIST and a professional conservator, when and if repairs and restorations to the Art Work will be made. It is the policy of CITY to consult with ARTIST regarding repairs and restoration which are undertaken during ARTIST’s lifetime when that is practicable. CITY shall make every reasonable effort to consult with ARTIST and a professional conservator in all matters concerning repairs and restoration of the work. In the event that CITY makes repairs or restoration not approved by ARTIST, ARTIST shall have the right, at ARTIST’s sole option, to have ARTIST’s association with Art Work severed. 17.2. STANDARDS OF REPAIRS AND RESTORATION As stipulated in the Scope of Services, Exhibit “A”, ARTIST shall provide a one-year warranty regarding the Art Work and perform maintenance at no cost to CITY. During the life of the Art Work, ARTIST shall provide maintenance for an additional service fee, with the prior approval of CITY’s project manager. All repairs and restorations, whether performed by ARTIST, CITY, or by third parties responsible to ARTIST or CITY, shall be made in accordance with professionally recognized principles of conservation of Art Works and in accordance with the maintenance instructions provided to CITY by ARTIST. SECTION 18. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work products, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. SECTION 19. AUDITS. ARTIST will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, ARTIST’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. ARTIST further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 20. INDEMNITY. 20.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, ARTIST shall protect, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by ARTIST, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 20.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 20 shall be construed to require ARTIST to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 20.3. The acceptance of ARTIST’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 20 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 21. 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 22. INSURANCE. 22.1. ARTIST, 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". ARTIST 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. 22.2. 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 ARTIST 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. 22.3. 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 ARTIST, ARTIST shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the ARTIST’s receipt of such notice. ARTIST 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. 22.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit ARTIST's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, ARTIST 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 23. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 23.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to ARTIST. Upon receipt of such notice, ARTIST will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 23.2. ARTIST 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. 23.3. Upon such suspension or termination, ARTIST 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 ARTIST or its contractors, if any, or given to ARTIST or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 23.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, ARTIST 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 ARTIST, CITY will be obligated to compensate ARTIST only for that portion of ARTIST’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. 23.5. 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 24. 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 Public Art Program Manager Public Art Program City of Palo Alto 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 To ARTIST: Attention of the Art Work director at the address of ARTIST recited above SECTION 25. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 25.1. In accepting this Agreement, ARTIST 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. 25.2. ARTIST further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ sub-contracting artists, contractors or persons having such an interest. ARTIST 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. 25.3. If the project manager determines that ARTIST is an “ARTIST” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, ARTIST 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 26. NONDISCRIMINATION. 26.1 As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, ARTIST 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. ARTIST 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 27. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. ARTIST 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. ARTIST 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, ARTIST shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by ARTIST 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 Art Work 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 ARTIST 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 ARTIST, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. ARTIST shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 28. NON-APPROPRIATION 28.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 29. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 29.1. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California. 29.2. 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. 29.3. 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. 29.4. 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. 29.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and ARTISTs of the parties. 29.6. 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. 29.7. 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. 29.8 If, pursuant to this contract with ARTIST, City shares with ARTIST personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), ARTIST 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. ARTIST shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 29.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. 29.10 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. 29.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement THIS SPACE LEFT BLANK IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. ~/ EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT "C": EXHIBIT "D": SCOPE OF SERVICES SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE COMPENSA nON INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 11 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES BACKGROUND The purpose of this Agreement is to outline the scope of work for the design and fabrication of a dynamic new media Art Work (as described in Art Work Description) to be placed in the in the renovated lobby of City Hall, located at 250 Hamilton Road, Palo Alto, CA. Artist will create Art Work intended to draw the public into this civic center space and engage them in a meaningful interactive way. Art Work will be highly interactive; it will be durable in an indoor public setting and require minimal maintenance. The Art Work will also allow CITY’s staff to clearly and without strained effort display a variety of forms of static and dynamic information communication (i.e. broadcasting meetings, agenda displays, wayfinding and online broadcasting). ART WORK DESCRIPTION The new media Art Work will be installed in the renovated front lobby of City Hall as shown in the attached documents. The Art Work is a live media wall, comprised of ten LED display panels and a method by which visitors can input text and pictures at the Site. The media wall interface will be designed for display, streaming and broadcast of information and images related to Palo Alto. The lifespan of the Art Work is expected to be 10 years. Artist Scope of Work I. Concept Development Phase 1. Begin meetings with CITY staff to refine the concept proposal and identify onsite needs to support the Art Work installation and continued use. 2. Plan and conduct at least two community meetings to gather public input to facilitate concept development. 3. Identify Equipment specifications; Develop and test software, interface design and content. II. Installation Phase 1. Purchase and deliver equipment 2. Installation and testing on site 3. Provide on-site training, detailed user guidelines handout and maintenance instructions for staff. Responsibilities of City of Palo Alto 1. Facilitate meeting arrangements with stakeholder groups, relevant staff and the Public Art Commission. 2. Produce and install an identification plaque for the Art Work. 3. Purchase and install the ten monitors. 4. Supply adequate AC power and data runs for the Art Work to the site. 5. Any structural elements required to support artwork. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 Materials Hardware (To be provided by CITY): 10 NEC 55" LED-Backlit Ultra-Narrow Bezel Large- Screens, DTP DVI 330 RX Extron Digital Video Signal Receiver w/Scaled Out, Extron DTP DVI 330 TX Digital Video Signal Transmitter, DM-RMC-SCALER-C DigitalMedia 8G+" Receiver & Room Controller, CORIOmaster C3-540-1001, CORIOmaster CM-DVIU-2IN Input Module, CORIOmaster CM-DVIU-SC-2OUT Output Module with Scaling, CORIOmaster Redundant Hot-swappable Power Supply, Peerless Display Wall Mount Hardware (To be provided by ARTIST): Video Processor / Graphics Card / Capture and Streaming Controller , 3.6Ghz Intel Core i7 CPU (3.8Ghz Turbo), 32GB of DDR3 PC12800 (1600Mhz) Memory, 2.5GB of Matrox M-Series Video Wall Graphics, 240GB SSD (Solid State) Operating Drive, 1,000GB SATAIII 7200RPM Storage Drive, Windows 7 Professional 64-Bit with Disc, 10+ USB 2.0 Ports & 2 x USB 3.0 Ports, 2 x eSATA Ports & 1 Optical S/PDIF Port, Ethernet LAN Network & Wireless LAN Card, Plug and Play up to 10 Displays at once, Supports up to 10 DVI or VGA Displays, 1920 x 1200 Max. DVI Resolution Per Screen, SUPER PC PCI Express Backplane 9 Slot Extender, 16 DVI & 2 RGB/VGA Capture/Streaming Inputs, Capture and Streaming Software Controller, 8.1 Channel 24bit Audio (2 Front Audio Inputs) Premium 1200 Watt Modular Power Supply, Multi-Media Keyboard & Optical Mouse 2 Year Warranty (On Parts and Labor), Production Software, media server software, Remote Access software, Misc Hardware, Hardware Rack, Battery Back-up, Touch Pad device and cameras, touch pad mount. Hardware specified above is preliminary. Artist reserves right to change system specifications to meet project requirements. Maintenance Requirements: Art Work: ARTIST will provide warranty and maintain the links and feeds, for one year. After one year ARTIST will provide maintenance for an additional service. Based on ARTIST’s experience with live feeds and links, maintenance, if required, would be minimal. Professional Services Rev. Nov. 1, 2011 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE ARTIST 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 Art Work managers for ARTIST and CITY so long as the Art Work is completed within the term of this Agreement. ARTIST shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Projected Timeline – Task October 30, 2014 – Contract Signed November 10, 2014– Contract approved by Council November- December, 2014 – Conduct community/Public Art Commission meetings January – May 2015 – Develop and test software, content and interface design April - May 2015 – Purchase and test equipment June 2015 – Installation and testing EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The compensation to be paid to ARTIST under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $174,477. ARTIST agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $25,000. 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 CITY. Compensation Schedule: 15% upon approval of contract by Council 50% upon final approval of concept and plans by the Public Art Commission 20% after fabrication and testing at artist’s studio is complete 15% after completion of delivery, installation, and staff training 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 ARTIST for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which ARTIST shall be reimbursed are: N/A 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 CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES ARTIST shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. ARTIST, at 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 ARTIST’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by CITY’s project manager and ARTIST prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK December 1, 2014 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing the Prohibition on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206, codified as Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010) (First Reading: November 17, 2014 PASSED: 7-1 Klein no, Holman absent) This is the second reading of this Ordinance, which was first heard and approved by Council, without changes, on November 7, 2014. ATTACHMENTS:  A: Vehicle Habitation Ordinance (PDF)  Attachment B: Doc Letters 12-1-14 Vehicle Habitation (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk Page 2 NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. _______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing the Prohibition on Human Habitation of Vehicles (Ordinance No. 5206, codified as Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 9.06.010) 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) On August 5, 2013, the City Council passed on first reading an ordinance amending the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 9, to add Section 9.06.010, prohibiting the human habitation of vehicles. (b) In conjunction with adopting the ordinance, the Council, by motion, directed City staff to stay enforcement of the ordinance for six months to allow for public education and outreach regarding the ordinance. The ordinance passed on second reading on August 19, 2013, and became effective September 19, 2013. At that time, City staff prepared for a period of education and outreach. Enforcement of the ordinance was stayed through February 10, 2014. (c) In June 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Los Angeles vehicle habitation ordinance was unconstitutionally vague in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Cheyenne Desertrain, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 11- 56957 (9th Cir. June 19, 2014). (d) Since initial passage of the ordinance, the City has engaged in social services outreach using $250,000 appropriated by the City Council in the fall of 2013, together with funding provided by the County of Santa Clara for housing subsidies. SECTION 2. Section 9.06.010 of Chapter 9.06 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal code is hereby repealed in its entirety. // // // // // // 1 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. 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 Administrative Services 2 · Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Usha Krishnamurthy <ushalila@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:40 PM Council, City Please repeal 5206 (VHO) OIIY 0F PALO A\JQ., CA CITY CLERK'S OFFIOE Let's be humane and kind and help people to get back on their feet instead of pushing them out of their temporary home-their vehicle. thanks Usha Krishnamurthy Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council members: Bob March <bob.march@gmail.com> Monday, November 17, 2014 6:37PM Council, City Retain Ordinance 5206 CITY Of PALO ALTQ. CA ClTY CLERK'S OfFICE I'~ NOV 19 AM ·7: ~ ~ I notice that a few of my neighbors seem to be agitating to have Ordinance 5206 repealed, so that car-dwelling on our residential streets should be freely allowed. I'm opposed to their efforts. I think that Ordinance 5206 should not only be retained, but should be enforced. People who are living in their vehicles shouldn't be parking them on Palo Alto residential streets overnight. The opportunities for trouble are clear, and sooner or later trouble will come. If we as a city are determined to welcome them, then let it be done in an organized way, with safeguards both for the car-dwellers and the general population. Establish a parking area--perhaps a floor of an existing city parking garage --where they can park safely for the night, and where police can easily keep an eye on them. Clear them out in the morning. Many of my naive neighbors think that car-dwellers are all just ordinary people temporarily down on their luck. And some are, of course --but not all, and it's that latter category I'm wary of. I know a couple of car-dwellers; both are mentally troubled. One was given parking privileges by my church. All was well for a week or two, but then she started collecting garbage bags full of stuff she scavenges. Now the pile of bags is half the size of her van, and growing. Unless the City really wants to see that phenomenon moving onto our streets, 5206 should be retained. Sincerely, Bob March 153 Lundy Lane Palo Alto 94306 Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Sue Montana <montanasue1@yahoo.com> Friday, November 21, 2014 4:16 PM Council, City Decision by Council on VHO Thanks to all who voted for rescinding this draconian bill. We can do better as an educated, well-heeled city. Now is the time to build options for our homeless, in the city, the county, and the state. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, resident and member of Women's Inti League for Peace and Freedom GJ:r Y OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY tLERK'S OFFtCE 14 NOV 2!t AH 7: 35 Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: City Manager Subject: Repeal of Car Camping Ban Elected City Council: Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:23 PM Council, City Repeal of Car Camping Ban CITY ('Jf PALO AlJO.CA C!Jv f1H fRK'$ OEff!Qf I ~ NOV I g PH 5: 2 5 I would like to express my disappointment in your repeal of the so-called "car-camping ban". Certainly all of the reasons that brought the community to demand that the Council act to stop this misuse of our streets by people whom we can probably characterize as "persons of no fixed abode" were quite clear at the time the Council acted to restrict this undesirable activity. While the claim that the legal landscape has changed-It's not clear just how much it has changed. Nor is It clear why the so-called League of California Cities can not provide a better characterization of the problem and a set of viable arguments that would stand some chance of withstanding a legal challenge. Sadly, we don't seem to have a City Council that really is advocating for the residents, as much as a group that wants to bend and sway to the changes In wind. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto (ID # 5130) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of a Funding Agreement, Contract and BAO for the JMZ and Rinconanda Master Plan Title: Approval of a Junior Museum and Zoo Environmental Review Services Funding Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc.; Approval of a Contract with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. In an Amount not to Exceed $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Junior Museum & Zoo Environmental Assessment; and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide an Additional Appropriation in the Amount of $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project (CIP PE-12003) Partially Offset with a Contribution in the Amount of $57,283 from the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation 1. Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the Junior Museum and Zoo Environmental Review Services Funding Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. (Attachment A); and 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract No. C15157280 Contract with David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $114,565 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design (PE-12003), including $104,415 for basic services and $10,415 for additional services (Attachment B), and 3. Adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 to provide an additional appropriation in the amount of $114,565 for Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design (CIP PE-12003) partially offset with a contribution City of Palo Alto Page 2 in the amount of $57,283 from the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. (Attachment C). Executive Summary The Letter of Intent (LOI) between the City and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (Friends), approved by Council on November 10, 2014, facilitates the discussion of the key negotiating terms and conditions relating to the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ) Project, which may lead to reconstruction of the JMZ. The LOI (Attachment D) requests that the City and the Friends endeavor to negotiate an agreement for the construction of a new JMZ and the operation of the JMZ by the Friends for forty years after completion of the building. As the terms of the agreements are negotiated for the building and operation of the JMZ over the next twelve months, the Friends will finalize project design, with input from the community. The LOI specifies the Friends will undertake a community outreach and fundraising program to garner the community's input and support for the project. The Friends hired an architect to develop a conceptual plan to reconstruct the existing JMZ facility. A JMZ project footprint within Rinconada Park for portions of the Zoo was included in many stakeholder and community meetings for the Rinconada Park Master Plan. The JMZ project concept will be developed further in the coming months. Friends and City representatives will seek community as well as Commission and Council input prior to finalizing the design and project scope. An environmental assessment along with the necessary technical reports will be prepared for both the JMZ project improvements and the proposed Rinconada Park Master Plan improvements, which have gone through a Community outreach process during the last two years. The environmental assessment on the proposed JMZ Project together with the proposed Rinconada Park Master Plan improvements may result in the preparation of an environmental impact report. The Friends and the City have agreed to split the costs of the environmental assessment through a funding agreement. A Budget Amendment Ordinance is being requested to increase budget for this project, recognize the contribution from the Friends, and allow for completion of this assessment, which was not originally included in the Rinconada Park Master Plan Capital Improvement Program project scope. City of Palo Alto Page 3 The attached Funding Agreement references the non-binding nature of the Letter of Intent (LOI). In the same vein, although the intention of the LOI and this subsequent Funding Agreement are to move towards improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo, planning for Rinconada Park improvements do not guarantee that those will take place. That is dependent upon subsequent decisions. Background Rinconada Park Master Plan Established in 1922, Rinconada Park has provided open park space to the Community as well as the region since inception and serves as the main link between several public facilities surrounding the park that include: The Lucie Stern Community Center and Theatre, Children’s Theatre, Children’s Library, Junior Museum and Zoo, Rinconada Pool, Girl Scout House, tennis courts, Fire Station No. 3, Rinconada Library, Palo Alto Art Center, Walter Hays Elementary School and the Magical Forest. A Capital Improvement Program project (CIP) PE-12003 was approved for FY 2012 to develop a Master Plan for Rinconada Park that will guide future renovations and improvements through a review of site conditions as well as community uses. The master plan report, currently being drafted after a two-year outreach process, will be used to guide the future development and maintenance of the park, dividing the work into scheduled phases over the next thirty years. The scope of work performed by the Master Plan examined external impacts that affect the park such as parking, park user groups, diverse park activities and traffic impacts. In addition, a comprehensive, community outreach process was conducted to engage the many stakeholders who utilize the park to obtain feedback on park usability and establish priorities for maintaining existing infrastructure or adding new facilities. The Rinconada Park Master Plan process to date has included:  Contract approved: 2/13/12  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: 4/24/12  Community Meeting: 5/10/12  Community Meeting: 6/5/12  Stakeholder Meeting: 7/25/12 City of Palo Alto Page 4  Community Meeting: 8/2/12  Community Survey conducted: 7/2012-8/2012  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: 10/2/12  Arts Commission Meeting: 10/4/12  Planning and Transportation Meeting (PTC): 10/11/12  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting: 3/26/13  Community Meeting: 9/12/13  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting (PRC): 11/19/13 Junior Museum and Zoo The Junior Museum is located adjacent to Rinconada Park, and was founded in 1934 by Josephine O’Hara. The first phase of the current facility was constructed in 1941. The zoo, which is situated within Rinconada Park on dedicated park land, was added to the Museum in 1969. As the JMZ approaches its 80th year, the museum and zoo are constrained by a facility that no longer reflects the needs of its visitors, collections and operations. Due to inadequate storage and support spaces, accreditation options for both the museum and zoo are unobtainable. While the educators continue to deliver outstanding educational programs, they are severely limited by lack of office, preparation and storage spaces. In addition, there are many accessibility and safety concerns in the existing facility and the surrounding site. The Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo engaged the architectural firm of Cody Anderson & Wasney Architects, Inc. (CAW) to work with a broad array of stakeholders to complete a facilities master plan in 2011 and 2012, evaluating program and operational needs, inadequacies of the existing facility, and options for renovation or new construction. During the master plan process, the following criteria were developed: Visitor Experience o Tailor spaces for experiences to specific audience segments, including early childhood audiences and children with special needs. o Develop safe and effective ways to connect children with live animals. o Develop classrooms that improve student engagement and learning impact. City of Palo Alto Page 5 o Improve access, safety, toilets and way finding. o Create opportunities for outdoor “play in nature” experiences. o Improve access from the JMZ to Rinconada Park amenities: playground; Children’s Library; Children’s Theatre; Stern Community Center; Art Center; Walter Hays Elementary. Collections o Provide facilities for animal health and quarantine to meet the standards of the American Zoological Association (AZA). o Improve the care and storage areas for the non-living collections-- held in public trust by the Museum—to meet the standards of the American Museum Association (AMA) standards. Operations o Improve storage, access, and work areas to ensure staff safety, efficiency and effectiveness of operations. o Implement green building practices. Due to the limitations of the existing facilities and infrastructure, the facility master plan culminated in a recommendation to demolish the existing museum and zoo buildings and replace them with a new facility sized to adequately support the educational mission, outreach, and public programs for the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. The JMZ was identified as an expanded building footprint as part of the Rinconada Park Master Plan. In 2014, the Friends completed a conceptual project to rebuild the JMZ facility. The City and the Friends are interested in undertaking and completing this project through a community outreach process and in accordance with two agreements subject to mutually acceptable terms and conditions, where the City would maintain ownership of the facility and the Friends would operate the facility. Council approved the LOI on November 10, 2014 (CMR #5170) to facilitate discussion of the key contract terms and conditions relating to the financing and operation of the proposed Project. The LOI initiates a process for the City and the Friends with the goal to negotiate and finalize such agreements within the next twelve months. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Discussion In response to the recommendations made by the Rinconada Park Master Plan, an environmental assessment has been requested by the Planning and Community Environment Department (PCE) to review the potential impacts of all proposed improvements. Along with the review of the proposed pool building expansion, pool expansion, street improvements, amphitheater and parking lot reconfiguration, the potential JMZ reconstruction project represents the largest redevelopment portion of the long range plan and will be one of the major elements studied in the environmental assessment. As a distinct element of the Rinconada Park Master Plan, the JMZ proposed reconstruction and expansion footprint was highlighted in the draft plan for community review and feedback. Community input was positive concerning the proposed expanded footprint of the JMZ. Outreach participants recommended that a joint-use restroom be added to the scope of the JMZ facility located at the west end of the park in proximity to the playground area. JMZ Preliminary Reconstruction Concept The current proposed design for the JMZ project includes constructing a new museum and education building, an outdoor zoo with netted enclosure, a small zoo support building, and perimeter site improvements on the site of the current facilities. This proposed project layout has been developed in coordination with the Rinconada Park Master Plan for the surrounding park, parking lot and adjacent public facilities. The proposed improvements noted below will be further refined based on public, boards and commissions, and Council input. Entrance Plaza: (approximately 8,500 sf) An improved drop-off zone and paved entrance plaza leading up to the main entrance is proposed. An existing large pecan tree will be protected and featured with a stump garden play area located under its canopy. Pathways connecting staff parking areas (with/in the larger parking lot) to the education wing entrances. Museum and Education Building: (18,250 sf) The first floor proposed improvements include an entrance lobby, exhibit galleries, visitor amenities (restrooms, stroller parking, etc.), support spaces (wood shop and general storage), educational classroom, and collections storage. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The existing Dawn Redwood tree will be protected and enclosed within an educational courtyard providing an additional outdoor classroom space. The small second floor area will provide overlooks into the exhibit galleries below and office areas for the JMZ staff. Additional outdoor educational and gathering spaces will be provided on second floor roof decks. Loose-in-the-Zoo: (18,600 sf) The zoo includes enclosed exhibits for larger animals - bobcats, raccoons, turtles, meerkats - as well as a large netted enclosure over the zoo, allowing birds to fly about. A wall enclosure at the base of the loose-in-the zoo space will meet zoo enclosure requirements as well as serve as an educational exhibit for visitors entering the park on the outside of the zoo. Zoo Support: (Building: 4,300 sf, Exterior Yard: 3,500 sf) A low one story building housing is proposed for zoo support spaces - program animal area, feeding rooms, animal care rooms, etc. Behind the zoo and zoo support building will be a fenced lay-down area for equipment, exterior animal cages, and zoo maintenance materials. Please refer to the attached project footprint and site plan for reference (Attachment E). Community Outreach for JMZ and the Rinconada Park Master Plan CAW Architects is currently refining the JMZ conceptual plan and is working to develop a construction phasing and temporary relocation plan for the zoo operations. A Community outreach step will occur prior to initiation of the planning and environmental review phase. The City will work with the Friends and CAW Architects to gather community feedback on the reconstruction of the JMZ in coordination with the proposed Rinconada Park Master Plan. Community meetings – Planned between January and March of 2015 ARB, PRC, PTC and Council meetings – Planned between February and August of 2015 Request for Proposal for Environmental Services A request for proposals for the environmental services was emailed to PCE’s on- call list of environment consultants on July 18, 2014. Two consultants submitted City of Palo Alto Page 8 proposals for the environmental work. The proposal submitted by David J. Powers and Associates was selected by staff based on the strength of the scope of work, the opportunity for staff to review the outcome of the initial study before proceeding with a full environmental impact report as well as their lower pricing in comparison to the second proposal. David Powers Schedule of Tasks and Related Costs Consultant Tasks Cost Time-line (weeks) Task 1 Community Outreach and Technical Studies $63,950 7 weeks (1-7) Task 2A Initial Study and MND $21,400 19 weeks (8-26) Task 2B Full EIR (If Findings Require $18,800 17 weeks (27-43) Total: $104,150 43 weeks Timeline As proposed by David J. Powers, the Initial Study will be produced in a 26 week period with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) taking an additional 17 weeks to complete if deemed necessary. Resource Impact To fund the environmental review of the JMZ Project and the Rinconada Park Master Plan, approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) (Attachment C) to add $114,565 to the Rinconada Park Master Plan Captial Improvement Program project (PE-12003) is recommended. The BAO will fund the cost of the environmental study, plus a 10% contingency amount for additional services that may be needed during the course of the environmental review. Per the funding agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo (Attachment A), one-half of the funding for the environmental assessment, a maximum of $57,283, will be paid by the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, Inc. to the City. Policy Implications The proposed Rinconada Park Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies: C-23, C-24, C-25, C-26,C-29, C-32, L-10, L-11, L-15, L-18, L-61, L-74. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Environmental Review The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff will work with the consultant to prepare an environmental document. The environmental document for the project will address traffic concerns, site access, parking, air quality, and noise impacts. Attachments:  A - 00710467 AGMT Funding Agreement Friends of Junior Museum and Zoo LLC-GBB (3) (PDF)  B - PROF SERVICES (DESIGN AND NON DESIGN) - David J Powers (PDF)  C - BAO XXXX - Rinconada CIP (PDF)  D - Letter of Intent (PDF)  E-Proposed JMZ Plan (JPG)  F-Rinconada Long Range Plan (JPG) FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO, INC. FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES This Funding Agreement (the "AgreementJlL dated, for convenience, December 1, 2014 (the "Effective DateJl ), is entered into by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (the "CITyJI) and the FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO JUNIOR MUSEUM AND ZOO, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (the "FRIENDSJI) (individually, a "PartyJl and, collectively, the "PartiesJlL in reference to the following facts and circumstances: RECITALS: A. Since December 2007, the Parties have collaborated to promote their common interests in the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo facility (the "JMZ FacilityJl) under a Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement. B. On November 10, 2014, the Parties approved a non-binding letter of intent, relating to the manner in which the Parties will collaborate regarding the future improvement and expansion as well as the operation and management of the JMZ Facility. C. The Parties wish to address the funding of the environmental assessment work (the "Assessment WorkJl) relating to future improvement and expansion ofthe JMZ Facility; each Party will contributed one-half of the costs of work (the "CostsJl), or approximately $57,283 (the "Party's ShareJl). IN CONSIDERATION OF Recitals A through C, inclusive, which are made a substantive part of this Agreement, and the following covenants, terms and conditions, the Parties agree: AGREEMENT: SECTION 1. TERM 1.1 The term of this Agreement is one (1) year, commencing upon the Effective Date. Either Party may terminate this Agreement by giving the other Party not less than thirty (30) days' prior written notice. SECTION 2. PURPOSES 2.1 The Parties agree that the purpose of this Agreement is to address the aggregate funding of Costs for the future Assessment Work for the JMZ Facility. The Costs will include, without limitation, the following work and activities of David J. Powers: 1 141120 mf 00710467 A (a) Initial Study; (b) Project Scoping Meeting Facilitation; and (c) Preparation of the Environmental Impact report and necessary mitigations, if any. 2.2 Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the CITY's right to temporarily revoke the authority of the FRIENDS or its contractors, agents and representatives to gain access to the site of the JMZ Facility for the assessment purposes hereof in the event of an uncured default and breach of this Agreement by the FRIENDS or irrespective of any breach by the FRIENDS, in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 3. FUNDING OF COSTS 3.1 As a condition precedent to the CITY's obligation to contribute its Party's Share regarding the JMZ Facility environmental assessment within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, the FRIENDS will pay directly to the CITY the 50% share of task 1 of the Scope of Work. Preceding the work of each subsequent task, the FRIENDS will pay the CITY the 50% share for that portion of work. The FRIENDS shall receive from the CITY a receipt for the FRIENDS' payment of services outlined in the Scope of Work (Attachment A). 3.2 The CITY shall provide to the FRIENDS evidence of the payment of its Party's Share to David J. Powers. The Department of Community Services' Director, or his or her designee, will be the CITY's representative for all purposes hereof. If this Agreement is terminated for any reason, before the expenditure of all the funds in the CITY's fund or account can occur, the CITY will be entitled to all rights, titles and interests in the funds; provided, however, the CITY will thereafter expend the funds only for the purpose of completing the environmental assessment, as outlined in Attachment A (Scope of Work), or part thereof, that is not completed at the effective date of termination. SECTION 4. ASSIGNMENT 4.1 The FRIENDS will not assign, transfer, or convey this Agreement without the express written approval of the CITY, acting by the City Manager, and any such assignment, transfer or conveyance without the approval of the City Manager will be void; in such event, at the CITY's option, the CITY may serve notice of termination ofthis Agreement to the FRIENDS. SECTION 5. DEFAULT; REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT 5.1 Except as otherwise provided under this Agreement, should the FRIENDS default in the performance of any covenant, term or condition contained in this Agreement and such default is not corrected within thirty (30) days of receipt of a notice of default from the CITY, the CITY may elect to enforce any of the following rights and remedies: (a) terminate this Agreement and all rights of the FRIENDS and its consultants and contractors, if any; (b) cure any default of the FRIENDS by performance of any act, including payment of money, and the cost and expense 2 141120 mf 00710467A thereof. plus all reasonable administrative costs, will become immediately due and payable by the FRIENDS to the CITY; (c) initiate an action or suit in law or equity to enjoin any acts which may be unlawful or in violation of the rights of the CITY hereunder; or (d) pursue any other right or remedy as may be provided in this Agreement. 5.2 In the event of a default which cannot reasonably be cured within thirty (30) days, the FRIENDS shall have a reasonable period of time to cure the default. The remedies given to the CITY hereunder, or by any law now or hereafter enacted, are cumulative and the exercise of one right or remedy shall not impair the right of the CITY to exercise any or all other remedies. In case any suit, action or proceeding to enforce any right or exercise any remedy shall be brought or taken and then discontinued or abandoned, then, and in every such case, the Parties will be restored to their former positions, rights and remedies as if no such suit, action or proceedings had been brought or taken. 6. NOTICES 6.1 All notices, requests and approvals by a Party will be given, in writing, and delivered by personal service, the United States Postal Service, express delivery service, or facsimile transmission, as follows: TO CITY: COPY: TO FRIENDS: 141120 mf 00710467 A City of Palo Alto 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 463-4951 Fax: (650) 321-5612 E-Mail: Greg.Betts@CityofPaloAlto.org ATTN: Community Services Dept. Director City of Palo Alto P. O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 E-mail: Brad. Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org ATTN: Public Works Dept. Assistant Director Friends ofthe Palo Alto Junior Museum And Zoo, Inc. 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 326-6338 E-mail: TBA ATTN: President 3 7. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 7.1 This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Parties will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in the exercise of their rights and the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. 7.2 All provisions of this Agreement, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions. 7.3 This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties in regard to the subject matter and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and contracts, written or oral. This Agreement may be amended by an instrument, in writing, signed by the Parties. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but. all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 7.4 This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This provision will take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term or condition of this Agreement. 7.5 The Parties agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguity is to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendment or Exhibit hereto. II II II II II II 4 141120 mf 00710467 A • Noise: Illingworth & Rodkin; • Cultural Resources: Holman & Associates; and • Traffic: Hexagon Transportation Conultants. • Urban Forest Management Plan: Hortscience, Inc. MEETING TO DETERMINE IF IS/MND OR EIR IS ApPROPRIATE Upon completion of the technical reports, DJP&A will meet with City staff to discuss the conclusions of the reports and the City's desired process for completing CEQA review. Should the technical reports identify no significant unavoidable impacts, the City may choose to complete a Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, should the reports identify one or more significant unavoidable impacts, or should the City determine the level of controversy associated with the project is great enough to warrant it, DJP&A will prepare an EIR, as described below. TASK2A: PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY DJP&A will prepare an Initial Study (IS) that addresses all environmental issues required by the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's requirements. The IS will include a project "description, a description of the existing environmental conditions, a discussion of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (based on CEQA thresholds of significance and the CEQA Checklist), and identification of proposed and possible mitigation measures. The analysis in the IS will utilize work completed by DJP&A when preparing an Administrative Draft Initial Study for the City's Department of Public Works in 2013 for the draft Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. Utilizing this previous work will allow us to expedite the project schedule and reduce costs. Project Description The IS will describe the proposed project based upon information provided to DJP&A by the City of Palo Alto. This scope of work assumes that the City will provide DJP&A with all relevant information for the project concurrent with notice to proceed. The IS will contain maps, photographs, tables, and other graphics to illustrate and summarize information presented in the IS. A draft Project Description will be provided to the City early in the process of preparing the Administrative Draft IS to ensure all project elements are described accurately. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The IS will include an environmental checklist consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, which will be used to identify potentially significant impacts from the project. For each subject area in the environmental checklist, the IS will include an overview ofthe environmental setting within which the project is located. For significant impacts, mitigation measures will be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Primary issues that will require technical and/or substantial analysis are outlined in detail below. It should be noted that the technical studies described below were not previously prepared for the 2013 Administrative Draft Initial Study described above, as that document analyzed the project at a program level. 7 141120 mf 00710467 A Air Quality The project site is located adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residences and a school. According to BAAQMD screening thresholds, due to the close proximity of these receptors to the site, construction activities associated with the project have the potential to expose persons to excessive levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The IS will evaluate the local community risk and air emissions from construction and operation of the project in conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines, the CEQA guidelines, and City of Palo Alto thresholds. The evaluation will be based upon in an Air Quality Analysis to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Mitigation measures to reduce significant air quality impacts, including "Best Management Practices" to control dust and particulate matter emissions, will be identified as appropriate. Biological Resources Rinconada Park contains roughly 300 trees, including a cluster of redwoods known as the Magic Forest and a 200-year-old coast live oak, which is identified as a Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. The City began preparation of a Forest Management Plan for Rinconada Park in 2013, but the draft was left unfinished. As part of the proposed project, Hortscience, Inc. will complete the Forest Management Plan for the Park. The Plan will utilize data collected as part of the previous effort, including a tree inventory provided to DJP&A by the City. Trees located on the Junior Museum and Zoo property will be surveyed and added to the tree inventory. It is assumed in this scope of work that the corresponding map that accompanies the tree inventory will be provided to DJP&A in a format that can be utilized by Hortscience, Inc. to complete the Plan. In addition to the inventory of existing trees, the completed Plan will include recommendations for tree maintenance and best management practices for construction or other work that would occur in the vicinity of trees. The Initial Study will also analyze potential impacts to other biological resources and mitigation measures will be identified as appropriate. Cultural Resources The Palo Alto area is known to have been inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. There may still be undiscovered archaeological resources in many parts of the City. The potential to encounter buried cultural resources will be addressed in the IS based upon available information, including information in the City's Comprehensive Plan, as well as an archaeological literature search to be completed by Holman & Associates. Mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts if buried cultural resources are encountered during project construction will be identified as appropriate, in coordination with City Staff. The Junior Museum and Zoo was constructed in the early 1940's. A Historical Evaluation was completed for the Junior Museum and Zoo in 2004 by Page & Turnbull, Inc. The IS will summarize the findings of the Historical Evaluation and will incorporate its conclusions into the CEQA analysis. 8 141120 mf 00710467 A Noise The IS will evaluate potential noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project based on a Noise Report to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Ifnoise levels are projected to exceed applicable noise standards of the City of Palo Alto, mitigation measures will be identified to control noise, as appropriate. Transportation and Traffic The IS will address transportation issues based upon a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In addition to analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the TIA will include trip and parking generation rates for both the existing and proposed uses, along with a parking analysis. The IS will provide a summary of the findings of the TIA in a clear, concise manner so that the project's traffic impacts are clearly explained for consideration by the community and City decision makers. Mitigation measures for any identified significant traffic impacts will be described, as appropriate. Other Environmental Issues In addition to the primary issues described above, DJP&A will address other environmental issues in the IS including aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems, as required by CEQA. Other Required Sections The IS will include all sections required by the CEQA Guidelines, including Mandatory Findings of Significance, References, Lead Agency and Consultants, and copies of technical reports. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Mandatory Findings section will include a discussion of cumulative impacts from the project in combination with other past, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the area. Submittal of the Draft IS, Screen check, and IS for Public Review Upon completion of the Administrative Draft IS, DJP&A will submit up to five hard copies and one electronic version to City staff for review and comment. The Administrative Draft IS will be revised based upon the comments and revisions received from City staff and an electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft IS will be submitted to City staff for review and final approval. Upon approval by City staff, the final formatted document will constitute the IS for public review. Upon completion of the IS, DJP&A will submit 30 hard copies and one electronic copy of the IS for circulation. 9 141120 mf 00710467 A TASK 2B: PREPARATION OF THE EIR (OPTIONAL) Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting If the City determines that an EIR is required for approval ofthe project, DJP&A will prepare an NOP in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines and City requirements. The NOP will include a brief project description, project and vicinity maps, and an overview of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project. The NOP will be sent to City staff for review and approval. Once approved, an electronic copy of the revised NOP will be submitted to the City for distribution. The NOP will be circulated with the IS described above. During circulation of the NOP, DJP&A will attend a public EIR Scoping Meeting in Palo Alto and will be prepared to make a presentation on the environmental review process. The EIR scoping meeting will be held in compliance with CEQA, as amended. The purpose of the meeting will be to provide the community (organizations and individuals) and public agencies an opportunity to present their views of the relevant environmental issues and information to be addressed in the EIR. DJP&A will note verbal and written comments presented. Comments related to environmental issues provided in the EIR Scoping Meeting will be addressed in the EIR. Preparation of the EIR DJP&A will prepare a Draft EIR which will include a preface/introduction, an executive summary, a description of the project and environmental setting, an in-depth discussion of potentially significant environmental impacts or controversial topics, identification of proposed and recommended mitigation measures, a discussion of cumulative impacts, project alternatives, and all other required discussions as discussed below. The IS, described above, will be included as Appendix A of the EIR and will serve as the basis for all less than significant impact discussions. EIR Executive Summary A summary of the EIR will be prepared which will include a brief description of the proposed project. The summary will be prepared in tabular form and will identify the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures. The summary will also list the alternatives discussed and will address any known areas of public controversy. Project Description The EIR will have a detailed description of the proposed project, as described above in Section C for the IS. The project description will include maps, photographs, tables, and other graphics to illustrate and summarize information presented in the EIR. This section will also include a list of the project objectives, necessary discretionary actions, and decision-making agencies. 10 141120 mf 00710467 A Consistency with Plans and Policies This section will discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with applicable land use controls, including local, regional, and statewide plans and policies. Particular attention will be given to inconsistencies, if any are identified, and the likelihood that such inconsistencies might result in significant adverse environmental effects. Existing Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures The EIR will describe the existing environmental setting, based on conditions that exist at the time the NOP is released, and evaluate the project's effect on the natural and man-made environment. The subjects to be addressed in detail within the EIR will be determined pending completion of the circulation of the NOP and attached IS. The IS will be included as Appendix A of the EIR and will serve as the basis for all less than significant impact discussions. The EIR will clearly identify all potential environmental impacts resulting from the project, and will identify mitigation measures proposed to avoid or reduce significant impacts, and evaluate briefly the expected effectiveness/feasibility of these measures. Cumulative Impacts The EIR will discuss the cumulative impacts of the project and other pending and future projects in the area, in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The EIR will analyze and describe the significant cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute, based on a list of pending projects to be provided by the City of Palo Alto. Alternatives The EIR will evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, based on the results of the environmental analysis. The alternatives discussion will focus on those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes and objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). DJP&A will coordinate with City staff to identify the alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR; however, it is currently anticipated that the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR will include the following: 1. No Project Alternative; 2. Reduced Scale or Reduced Intensity Alternative; 3. Location Alternative(s); and 4. Environmentally Superior Alternative (to be chosen from one of the above). This section will evaluate the impacts of each alternative, as required by CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6) and based on the "rule of reason." The alternatives discussion will describe the environmental impacts and benefits ofthe alternatives, compared with the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR will identify an environmentally superior alternative from the alternatives described, based on the number and degree of associated environmental impacts. 11 141120 mf 00710467 A Other Required Sections The above discussions identify and highlight the major sections in the EIR. In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will also include the following sections: 1) Significant Unavoidable Impacts; 2) Growth Inducing Impacts; 3) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; 4) EIR References and Organizations & Persons Consulted; and 5) Lead Agency and Consultants. Submittal of the Administrative Draft EIR, Screencheck, and Draft EIR for Public Review Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, DJP&A will submit up to five hard copies and one electronic copy of the Draft EIR to City staff for review and comment. Based on the comments received from the City, the document will be revised and an electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR will be submitted to City staff for review and final approval. Upon approval by City staff, the final formatted document will constitute the Draft EIR for public review and. up to 30 hard copies, 15 CDs and Executive Summaries, and one web-ready PDF copy of the Draft EIR will be provided to the City of Palo Alto for circulation to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, and the public. Responses to Comments and Preparation of the Final EIR After the mandatory 45-day review period, DJP&A will respond to comments received on the EIR and prepare a Final EIR. Our cost assumes that no more than 20 pages (or the equivalent of approximately 20 hours of Project Manager time) of substantive comments will be received on the Draft EIR. If additional comments are received, DJP&A can respond to them on a time and materials basis after receiving written authorization from you. The Final EIR will include any text revisions that may be required. Once the Final EIR is reviewed and approved by the City, we will provide the City with up to 35 hard copies and one electronic copy for circulation. The document will then circulate for 10 days back to the agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR, prior to the City taking any action on the EIR or the project. SUBTASKS FOR BOTH TASKS 2A AND 2B PROJECT MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS In addition to the Kick-off Meeting and Public Scoping Meeting (described above), this scope of work includes attendance at one community meeting, up to three additional coordination meetings, and two hearings during the preparation of the EIR. These meetings will be attended by the Principal Project Manager and/or Project Manager. Ifrequested, additional meetings will be attended on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached charge rate schedule. PREPARATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING OR REpORTING PROGRAM In accordance with State law and the CEQA Guidelines, we will prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, who will be responsible for implementing them, and who will provide oversight. The draft MMRP will be completed and submitted to City staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project. 12 141120 mf 00710467A PREPARATION OF N OTICES/FINDINGS In addition to preparation of the NOP, DJP&A will assist the City with the preparation of other draft notices including the Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion (for shipments to the State Clearinghouse), and Notice of Determination. Although we are not attorneys and cannot prepare findings, we will assist your attorney and/or City staff in compiling information from the EIR for findings required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, if requested to do so. Because of our desire to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, we cannot assist in preparing a Statement of Overriding Considerations, should one be required. We can, however, advise the City on documentation to support such a statement. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DJP&A will provide general project management, contract administration, and coordination with the City throughout the ISIEIR process for the project. The DJP&A Project Manager will prepare a work plan at the start of the project. The work plan includes the schedule for preparing each section of the document and due dates for work products from the project team. The work plan is used on a regular basis to track progress and maintain schedule and is updated accordingly. The Project Manager also maintains a budget for the project, which is updated monthly to ensure that the project is remaining within the proposed budget. The Project Manager will maintain frequent communication with the City, review project information and technical reports promptly, and address issues/questions as they arise. Email communications and short conference calls will be used 10 foster communication and update City Staff on the progress of the environmental analysis and any outstanding issues to be resolved. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REOUIRED Our scope and schedule are based on the assumption that we will receive the project details concurrent with the Notice to Proceed. Delays in receiving any of the information listed below will result in day for day delays to the overall project schedule. Plans, Maps, and Project Information • Site plan which shows all proposed improvements, including building footprints, setbacks, parking spaces, vehicle circulation, amenity space, and landscaping; • Conceptual elevations that show building height and building appearance; • Identification of trees to be removed; • Square footage of pervious and impervious surfaces pre-and post-construction; 141120 mf00710467A 13 • Stormwater Quality Control Plan (including construction and dewatering) that meets Low Impact Development (LID) requirements; • Energy and water conservation and other green building measures (such a LEED certification) included in the project; and • Construction details (e.g., estimated start date, duration, phasing, depth of excavation, cut and fill amounts, equipment to be used, etc.). Technical Reports • Geotechnical Report 141120 mf00710467A 14 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 20141 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15157280 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 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 DAVID J POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC, a California corporation , located at 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95126 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to draft an Initial Environmental Study and CEQA document if necessary (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide the needed services 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. Optional On-Call Provision (This provision only applies if checked and only applies to on- call agreements.) Services will be authorized by the City, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by the City’s Project Manager. Each Task Order shall be in substantially the same form as Exhibit A-1. Each Task Order shall designate a City Project Manager and shall contain a specific scope of work, a specific schedule of performance and a specific compensation amount. The total price of all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through a 50 week period unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of CONSULTANT. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Four Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($104,150.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty-Five Dollars ($114,565.00). 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSULTANT shall correct, at no cost to CITY, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities in the work product submitted to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has prepared plans and specifications or other design documents to construct the Project, CONSULTANT shall be obligated to correct any and all errors, omissions or ambiguities discovered prior to and during the course of construction of the Project. This obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for the validity or accuracy of the data collected by others or interpretations made by others. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for any additional expenses or charges that may be necessary to complete this work, except where the work arises from the negligence of the CONSULT ANT. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delays or damages caused by delays in receiving necessary and accurate project information, delays in administrative review(s) by the CITY. continuances of public hearing, or other delays outside the control of the CONSULT ANT or resulting from sources other than the negligence by the CONSULT ANT. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 4 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager or designee. X Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc – Air Quality & Noise Consultant Hexagon Transportation Consultant – Traffic Consultant Holman & Associates – Archaeological Consultant Hortscience – Urban Forestry Consultant 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 Jodi Starbird as the Lead Consultant to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Michael Lisenbee as the project managerto represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. The City’s project manager is Peter Jensen, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:650-617-3183. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 5 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 6 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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 written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 7 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 8 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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 personalcomputer 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 andpackaging. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 9 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 10 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement / IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney DAVID J. POWERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “A-1” ON CALL TASK ORDER (Optional) EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Judy W. Shanley President Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 11 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Scope of Work to Prepare an Initial Study and EIR Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and Junior Museum and Zoo This scope of work is to prepare an Initial Study and EIR for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan project, which includes improvements to the Junior Museum and Zoo. The Initial Study and EIR will comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and will meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto. The Initial Study and EIR would provide environmental review for the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan and improvements to the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Work elements will include preparing an Initial Study, Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, draft Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program, and Final EIR. These elements are described below. TASK 1: PRELIMINARY STEPS KICK-OFF MEETING Upon initiation of the project, DJP&A will participate in a kick-off meeting with City Staff. This meeting will be used to confirm the project schedule, work elements, and project assumptions. DJP&A will ensure that data needed from the City and the necessary timing of that data are clearly defined. DJP&A will coordinate with our subconsultants before and after the kick-off meeting to exchange necessary information. (Completed October 1, 2014) COMMUNITY MEETING DJP&A will assist City Staff with two community meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to present the proposed project to community members (with an emphasis on the newly added Junior Museum and Zoo component), and to elicit feedback from the community that will help inform the scopes of work for the various technical reports to be completed, as well as identify any potential areas of controversy. COMPLETION OF TECHNICAL REPORTS DJP&A will authorize the subconsultants to complete the technical reports required for the CEQA analysis. The results of the technical reports will assist the City in its determination of whether an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate level of CEQA review for the project. The technical reports to be completed, which are described in further detail in Task E, include the following: Air Quality: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.; Noise: Illingworth & Rodkin; Cultural Resources: Holman & Associates; and Traffic: Hexagon Transportation Conultants. Urban Forest Management Plan: Hortscience, Inc. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 2 MEETING TO DETERMINE IF IS/MND OR EIR IS APPROPRIATE Upon completion of the technical reports, DJP&A will meet with City staff to discuss the conclusions of the reports and the City’s desired process for completing CEQA review. Should the technical reports identify no significant unavoidable impacts, the City may choose to complete a Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, should the reports identify one or more significant unavoidable impacts, or should the City determine the level of controversy associated with the project is great enough to warrant it, DJP&A will prepare an EIR, as described below. TASK 2A: PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY DJP&A will prepare an Initial Study (IS) that addresses all environmental issues required by the State CEQA Guidelines and the City’s requirements. The IS will include a project description, a description of the existing environmental conditions, a discussion of environmental impacts associated with the proposed project (based on CEQA thresholds of significance and the CEQA Checklist), and identification of proposed and possible mitigation measures. The analysis in the IS will utilize work completed by DJP&A when preparing an Administrative Draft Initial Study for the City’s Department of Public Works in 2013 for the draft Rinconada Park Long Range Plan. Utilizing this previous work will allow us to expedite the project schedule and reduce costs. Project Description The IS will describe the proposed project based upon information provided to DJP&A by the City of Palo Alto. This scope of work assumes that the City will provide DJP&A with all relevant information for the project concurrent with notice to proceed. The IS will contain maps, photographs, tables, and other graphics to illustrate and summarize information presented in the IS. A draft Project Description will be provided to the City early in the process of preparing the Administrative Draft IS to ensure all project elements are described accurately. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures The IS will include an environmental checklist consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, which will be used to identify potentially significant impacts from the project. For each subject area in the environmental checklist, the IS will include an overview of the environmental setting within which the project is located. For significant impacts, mitigation measures will be identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Primary issues that will require technical and/or substantial analysis are outlined in detail below. It should be noted that the technical studies described below were not previously prepared for the 2013 Administrative Draft Initial Study described above, as that document analyzed the project at a program level. Air Quality The project site is located adjacent to sensitive receptors such as residences and a school. According to BAAQMD screening thresholds, due to the close proximity of these receptors to the site, construction activities associated with the project have the potential to expose persons to excessive levels of toxic air contaminants (TACs). The IS will evaluate the local community risk and air DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 3 emissions from construction and operation of the project in conformance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) guidelines, the CEQA guidelines, and City of Palo Alto thresholds. The evaluation will be based upon in an Air Quality Analysis to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Mitigation measures to reduce significant air quality impacts, including “Best Management Practices” to control dust and particulate matter emissions, will be identified as appropriate. Biological Resources Rinconada Park contains roughly 300 trees, including a cluster of redwoods known as the Magic Forest and a 200-year-old coast live oak, which is identified as a Heritage Tree by the City of Palo Alto. The City began preparation of a Forest Management Plan for Rinconada Park in 2013, but the draft was left unfinished. As part of the proposed project, Hortscience, Inc. will complete the Forest Management Plan for the Park. The Plan will utilize data collected as part of the previous effort, including a tree inventory provided to DJP&A by the City. Trees located on the Junior Museum and Zoo property will be surveyed and added to the tree inventory. It is assumed in this scope of work that the corresponding map that accompanies the tree inventory will be provided to DJP&A in a format that can be utilized by Hortscience, Inc. to complete the Plan. In addition to the inventory of existing trees, the completed Plan will include recommendations for tree maintenance and best management practices for construction or other work that would occur in the vicinity of trees. The Initial Study will also analyze potential impacts to other biological resources and mitigation measures will be identified as appropriate. Cultural Resources The Palo Alto area is known to have been inhabited by indigenous people for many centuries prior to the arrival of the first Europeans. There may still be undiscovered archaeological resources in many parts of the City. The potential to encounter buried cultural resources will be addressed in the IS based upon available information, including information in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as an archaeological literature search to be completed by Holman & Associates. Mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts if buried cultural resources are encountered during project construction will be identified as appropriate, in coordination with City Staff. The Junior Museum and Zoo was constructed in the early 1940’s. A Historical Evaluation was completed for the Junior Museum and Zoo in 2004 by Page & Turnbull, Inc. The IS will summarize the findings of the Historical Evaluation and will incorporate its conclusions into the CEQA analysis. Noise The IS will evaluate potential noise impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project based on a Noise Report to be prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. If noise levels are projected to exceed applicable noise standards of the City of Palo Alto, mitigation measures will be identified to control noise, as appropriate. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 4 Transportation and Traffic The IS will address transportation issues based upon a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In addition to analyzing the traffic impacts of the project, the TIA will include trip and parking generation rates for both the existing and proposed uses, along with a parking analysis. The IS will provide a summary of the findings of the TIA in a clear, concise manner so that the project's traffic impacts are clearly explained for consideration by the community and City decision makers. Mitigation measures for any identified significant traffic impacts will be described, as appropriate. Other Environmental Issues In addition to the primary issues described above, DJP&A will address other environmental issues in the IS including aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems, as required by CEQA. Other Required Sections The IS will include all sections required by the CEQA Guidelines, including Mandatory Findings of Significance, References, Lead Agency and Consultants, and copies of technical reports. In conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the Mandatory Findings section will include a discussion of cumulative impacts from the project in combination with other past, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the area. Submittal of the Draft IS, Screencheck, and IS for Public Review Upon completion of the Administrative Draft IS, DJP&A will submit up to five hard copies and one electronic version to City staff for review and comment. The Administrative Draft IS will be revised based upon the comments and revisions received from City staff and an electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft IS will be submitted to City staff for review and final approval. Upon approval by City staff, the final formatted document will constitute the IS for public review. Upon completion of the IS, DJP&A will submit 30 hard copies and one electronic copy of the IS for circulation. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 5 TASK 2B: PREPARATION OF THE EIR (OPTIONAL) Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting If the City determines that an EIR is required for approval of the project, DJP&A will prepare an NOP in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines and City requirements. The NOP will include a brief project description, project and vicinity maps, and an overview of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed project. The NOP will be sent to City staff for review and approval. Once approved, an electronic copy of the revised NOP will be submitted to the City for distribution. The NOP will be circulated with the IS described above. During circulation of the NOP, DJP&A will attend a public EIR Scoping Meeting in Palo Alto and will be prepared to make a presentation on the environmental review process. The EIR scoping meeting will be held in compliance with CEQA, as amended. The purpose of the meeting will be to provide the community (organizations and individuals) and public agencies an opportunity to present their views of the relevant environmental issues and information to be addressed in the EIR. DJP&A will note verbal and written comments presented. Comments related to environmental issues provided in the EIR Scoping Meeting will be addressed in the EIR. Preparation of the EIR DJP&A will prepare a Draft EIR which will include a preface/introduction, an executive summary, a description of the project and environmental setting, an in-depth discussion of potentially significant environmental impacts or controversial topics, identification of proposed and recommended mitigation measures, a discussion of cumulative impacts, project alternatives, and all other required discussions as discussed below. The IS, described above, will be included as Appendix A of the EIR and will serve as the basis for all less than significant impact discussions. EIR Executive Summary A summary of the EIR will be prepared which will include a brief description of the proposed project. The summary will be prepared in tabular form and will identify the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures. The summary will also list the alternatives discussed and will address any known areas of public controversy. Project Description The EIR will have a detailed description of the proposed project, as described above in Section C for the IS. The project description will include maps, photographs, tables, and other graphics to illustrate and summarize information presented in the EIR. This section will also include a list of the project objectives, necessary discretionary actions, and decision-making agencies. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 6 Consistency with Plans and Policies This section will discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with applicable land use controls, including local, regional, and statewide plans and policies. Particular attention will be given to inconsistencies, if any are identified, and the likelihood that such inconsistencies might result in significant adverse environmental effects. Existing Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures The EIR will describe the existing environmental setting, based on conditions that exist at the time the NOP is released, and evaluate the project’s effect on the natural and man-made environment. The subjects to be addressed in detail within the EIR will be determined pending completion of the circulation of the NOP and attached IS. The IS will be included as Appendix A of the EIR and will serve as the basis for all less than significant impact discussions. The EIR will clearly identify all potential environmental impacts resulting from the project, and will identify mitigation measures proposed to avoid or reduce significant impacts, and evaluate briefly the expected effectiveness/feasibility of these measures. Cumulative Impacts The EIR will discuss the cumulative impacts of the project and other pending and future projects in the area, in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The EIR will analyze and describe the significant cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute, based on a list of pending projects to be provided by the City of Palo Alto. Alternatives The EIR will evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project, based on the results of the environmental analysis. The alternatives discussion will focus on those alternatives that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes and objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). DJP&A will coordinate with City staff to identify the alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR; however, it is currently anticipated that the alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR will include the following: 1. No Project Alternative; 2. Reduced Scale or Reduced Intensity Alternative; 3. Location Alternative(s); and 4. Environmentally Superior Alternative (to be chosen from one of the above). This section will evaluate the impacts of each alternative, as required by CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6) and based on the “rule of reason.” The alternatives discussion will describe the environmental impacts and benefits of the alternatives, compared with the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR will identify an environmentally superior alternative from the alternatives described, based on the number and degree of associated environmental impacts. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 7 Other Required Sections The above discussions identify and highlight the major sections in the EIR. In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will also include the following sections: 1) Significant Unavoidable Impacts; 2) Growth Inducing Impacts; 3) Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; 4) EIR References and Organizations & Persons Consulted; and 5) Lead Agency and Consultants. Submittal of the Administrative Draft EIR, Screencheck, and Draft EIR for Public Review Upon completion of the Administrative Draft EIR, DJP&A will submit up to five hard copies and one electronic copy of the Draft EIR to City staff for review and comment. Based on the comments received from the City, the document will be revised and an electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR will be submitted to City staff for review and final approval. Upon approval by City staff, the final formatted document will constitute the Draft EIR for public review and up to 30 hard copies, 15 CDs and Executive Summaries, and one web-ready PDF copy of the Draft EIR will be provided to the City of Palo Alto for circulation to the State Clearinghouse, public agencies, and the public. Responses to Comments and Preparation of the Final EIR After the mandatory 45-day review period, DJP&A will respond to comments received on the EIR and prepare a Final EIR. Our cost assumes that no more than 20 pages (or the equivalent of approximately 20 hours of Project Manager time) of substantive comments will be received on the Draft EIR. If additional comments are received, DJP&A can respond to them on a time and materials basis after receiving written authorization from you. The Final EIR will include any text revisions that may be required. Once the Final EIR is reviewed and approved by the City, we will provide the City with up to 35 hard copies and one electronic copy for circulation. The document will then circulate for 10 days back to the agencies and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR, prior to the City taking any action on the EIR or the project. SUBTASKS FOR BOTH TASKS 2A AND 2B PROJECT MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS In addition to the Kick-off Meeting and Public Scoping Meeting (described above), this scope of work includes attendance at one community meeting, up to three additional coordination meetings, and two hearings during the preparation of the EIR. These meetings will be attended by the Principal Project Manager and/or Project Manager. If requested, additional meetings will be attended on a time and materials basis in accordance with the attached charge rate schedule. PREPARATION OF MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with State law and the CEQA Guidelines, we will prepare a draft Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies when mitigation measures will be implemented, who will be responsible for implementing them, and who will provide oversight. The draft MMRP will be completed and submitted to City staff prior to the Planning Commission hearing on the project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Environmental Planners & Consultants 1871 The Alameda Suite 200 San José, CA 95126 Tel (408) 248-3500 Fax (408 248-9641 www.davidjpowers.com 8 PREPARATION OF NOTICES/FINDINGS In addition to preparation of the NOP, DJP&A will assist the City with the preparation of other draft notices including the Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion (for shipments to the State Clearinghouse), and Notice of Determination. Although we are not attorneys and cannot prepare findings, we will assist your attorney and/or City staff in compiling information from the EIR for findings required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, if requested to do so. Because of our desire to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest, we cannot assist in preparing a Statement of Overriding Considerations, should one be required. We can, however, advise the City on documentation to support such a statement. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DJP&A will provide general project management, contract administration, and coordination with the City throughout the IS/EIR process for the project. The DJP&A Project Manager will prepare a work plan at the start of the project. The work plan includes the schedule for preparing each section of the document and due dates for work products from the project team. The work plan is used on a regular basis to track progress and maintain schedule and is updated accordingly. The Project Manager also maintains a budget for the project, which is updated monthly to ensure that the project is remaining within the proposed budget. The Project Manager will maintain frequent communication with the City, review project information and technical reports promptly, and address issues/questions as they arise. Email communications and short conference calls will be used to foster communication and update City Staff on the progress of the environmental analysis and any outstanding issues to be resolved. TECHNICAL INFORMATION REQUIRED Our scope and schedule are based on the assumption that we will receive the project details concurrent with the Notice to Proceed. Delays in receiving any of the information listed below will result in day for day delays to the overall project schedule. Plans, Maps, and Project Information Site plan which shows all proposed improvements, including building footprints, setbacks, parking spaces, vehicle circulation, amenity space, and landscaping; Conceptual elevations that show building height and building appearance; Identification of trees to be removed; Square footage of pervious and impervious surfaces pre- and post-construction; Stormwater Quality Control Plan (including construction and dewatering) that meets Low Impact Development (LID) requirements; Energy and water conservation and other green building measures (such a LEED certification) included in the project; and Construction details (e.g., estimated start date, duration, phasing, depth of excavation, cut and fill amounts, equipment to be used, etc.). Technical Reports Geotechnical Report (Optional – for On Call Agreements only) EXHIBIT “A-1” DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Consultant hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. ISSUE DATE Purchase Requisition No. 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONSULTANT 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 5. BUDGET CODE: _______________ COST CENTER_________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE:  WORK TO BE PERFORMED  SCHEDULE OF WORK  BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE  DELIVERABLES  REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: __________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ Name ________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title_________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _________________________________ Date ___________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 12 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within the number of days/weeks specified below. The time to complete each milestone may be increased or decreased by mutual written agreement of the project managers for CONSULTANT and CITY so long as all work is completed within the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide a detailed schedule of work consistent with the schedule below within 2 weeks of receipt of the notice to proceed. Milestones Completion No. of Days/Weeks From NTP 1.Task 1 Preliminary Studies 7 weeks 2.Task 2A – Prepare Initial Study 33 weeks 3.Task 2B – Prepare EIR (If determined necessary)50 weeks DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 14 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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 $104,150. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. In the event CITY authorizes any Additional Services, the maximum compensation shall not exceed $114,565. 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 $104,150 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $114,565. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $63,950 (Preliminary Studies) Task 2A $19,900 (Initial Study ) Task 2B $16,800 (EIR) Sub-total Basic Services $100,650 Reimbursable Expenses $3,500 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $104,150 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $10,415 Maximum Total Compensation $114,565 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 15 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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: $3,500 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 $3,500 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 Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: Any further work outside the work detailed in the project scope that is required to complete the Initial Study and EIR. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 18 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE1 SENIOR PRINCIPAL $ 255.00 PER HOUR PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER $ 225.00 PER HOUR SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST $ 200.00 PER HOUR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER $ 180.00 PER HOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST $ 165.00 PER HOUR PROJECT MANAGER $ 155.00 PER HOUR ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER $ 140.00 PER HOUR ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER $ 115.00 PER HOUR RESEARCHER $ 100.00 PER HOUR DRAFTSPERSON/GRAPHIC ARTIST $ 90.00 PER HOUR DOCUMENT PROCESSOR/QUALITY CONTROL $ 90.00 PER HOUR ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER $ 90.00 PER HOUR OFFICE SUPPORT $ 75.00 PER HOUR MATERIALS, OUTSIDE SERVICES AND SUBCONSULTANTS INCLUDE A 15% ADMINISTRATION FEE. MILEAGE WILL BE CHARGED PER THE CURRENT IRS STANDARD MILEAGE RATE AT THE TIME COSTS OCCUR. SUBJECT TO REVISION JANUARY 1, 2015 1 David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. provides regular, clear and accurate invoices as the work on this project proceeds, in accordance with normal company billing procedures. The cost estimate prepared for this project does not include special accounting or bookkeeping procedures, nor does it include preparation of extraordinary or unique statements or invoices. If a special invoice or accounting process is requested, the service can be provided on a time and materials basis. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 19 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 20 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157280_ David J Powers and Associates (2).docx 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 0340A312-C9E6-4654-B941-DF2A5E055576 1 5130/mb Revised September 20, 2013 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, INCREASING THE RINCONADA PARK MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN PROJECT (PE-12003) IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,565, OFFSET BY A REDUCTION TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE RESERVE AND A REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE FRIENDS OF THE JUNIOR MUSEM AND ZOO, INC.. 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. In Fiscal Year 2012, the City Council appropriated $150,000 for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project (PE-12003), to develop a Master Plan that would guide development in the Park for the next 25 years; and C. On July 18, 2014, a notice inviting formal bids for the Environmental Review work for the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project was issued. Bids were received from two qualified contractors, and David J. Powers was declared the lowest responsible bidder with a bid of $104,150 plus a 10 percent contingency of $10,415 for unforeseen work which may develop during the project. SECTION 2. The sum of One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Five Dollars ($114,565) is hereby appropriated to the Rinconada Park Master Plan and Design Project (PE-12003) in the Capital Improvement Fund and is offset by a reduction to the Infrastructure Reserve ($57,283) and a reimbursement from the Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo ($57,283). SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // Attachment C 2 5130/mb Revised September 20, 2013 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 Public Works October 10, 2014 Aletha Coleman, President Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum & Zoo 1451 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94310 RE: Rebuilding of the Junior Museum & Zoo at Rinconada Park Dear Ms. Coleman: The City of Palo Alto (the "City") and the Friends of the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo (the "Friends") (previously known as the Junior Museum and Zoo Associates) (each a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties") have enjoyed a long-standing relationship since 1962. In 2013, the Parties entered into a new Mutual Cooperation and Support Agreement for a term of up to six years, as it pertains to the Junior Museum and Zoo. This Support Agreement allows the Friends to use the JMZ to the benefit of the JMZ's patrons and provides for the Friends' support of the operations, education-related programs, and activities. The City and the Friends now wish to collaborate in regard to a construction project (the "Project") that would result in the complete rebuilding of the existing Junior Museum and Zoo facility ("JMZ") as well as the Friends' operation of the JMZ for 40 years after completion of the Project. The Project will be located within the boundaries of Rinconada Park, Palo Alto, as depicted in the Draft Rinconada Park Master Plan . . The City does not have sufficient funds to rebuild the existing JMZ facility and the Parties anticipate that the costs of the operation of the newly designed JMZ facility will exceed the current City's budget appropriations for the JMZ. The City desires to stabilize and reduce on a long-term basis its financial support for the JMZ's operation and the Friends seek financial support from the City in the initial years of the operation of the rebuilt facility. The Parties envision that the JMZ's mission, core programs, and services would be enhanced with a strong public-private partnership between the Parties, comprised of excellent communication and mutual understanding. The Parties are interested in undertaking and completing the Project in accordance with two or more agreements subject to mutually acceptable terms and conditions. The Parties will endeavor to negotiate and finalize the drafting of the following agreements over the next twelve (12) months, as practicable: Aletha Coleman, President Letter of Interest October XX, 2014 Page 2 of3 Project Design and Construction Agreement This design/construction agreement would, for a period of time, grant the Friends a license or permission for access to, and the non-exclusive use and possession of, the Project's construction site (including within Rinconada Park), in order that the Friends may develop this area in order to improve, replace, and rebuild the JMZ to provide enhanced levels of service to the Palo Alto community and JMZ visitors. Operations and Management Services Agreement This operations/management services agreement will address, among other items, the methods for appropriate public input to programs and services, the structure for financial and programmatic oversight of the operations, the adequacy of financial resources to facilitate the successful operation of the new facility, and the transition of the operation of the facility to the Friends and then possibly back to the City after the expiration of the agreement with the Friends. As part of the development of this operations/management services agreement, the Friends will prepare detailed financial pro form as with underlying assumptions and an operational plan which support the successful operation ofthe new JMZ facility. This agreement will address the appropriate operating constraints and public benefits. Both agreements will be subject to the approval of the Palo Alto City Council and the approval as to form by the Palo Alto City Attorney. The Council will be required to adopt a park improvement ordinance in regard to the Project for any portion of the Project that will be constructed within Rinconada Park, as required by the City Charter and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Upon the Friend's acceptance of this letter, the Friends will continue raising funds for the design and construction of the JMZ facility as well as operating reserves for the operation of the facility and prepare construction documents and an operational plan. The Friends will undertake a community outreach and fundraising program to garner the community's input and support for the Project. The Friends will be required to obtain and maintain all required City permits and other authorizations and furnish or caused to be furnish any financial and non-financial security, during the construction, as appropriate, and upon request, to the City, including, but not limited to insurance, indemnity, lien waivers, performance and payment bonds and covenants. All design and construction work will be reviewed by one or more of the City's Departments of Community Services, Planning and Community Environment, Development Services, Utilities, and Public Works, and then reviewed and approved, as appropriate by the City's boards and commissions, including, but not limited to, the Architectural Review Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. The City will provide reasonable staff support and other assistance, upon request, to the Friends in connection with the execution of the Project. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5331) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 Summary Title: College Terrace Market Title: Approval of the Proposed Grocery Store Tenant (College Terrace Market) Within PC 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based on the Finding that the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would Likely be Comparable in Quality of Products and Services as JJ&F as it Existed and Operated on December 7, 2009 at 2180 El Camino Real (Continued from November 17, 2014) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council consider the attached information submitted regarding the proposed grocery store tenant for the development at 2180 El Camino Real and approve the tenant as likely to be comparable in quality of products and service to the former JJ&F market as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. (NOTE: This staff report was prepared prior to the November 17, 2014 meeting and the only modifications are inclusion of the correspondence in Attachment H and the underlined text below.) Executive Summary As a key element of the community benefit package for the Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinance approving a new mixed-use development at 2180 El Camino Real in early 2010, the City Council required that the project include a neighborhood serving grocery store. The ordinance made the grocery tenant subject to City approval, stating specifically: “The grocery tenant, if it is a party other than John Garcia (D! JJ&F), shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto,” and further stating that the City’s approval: City of Palo Alto Page 1 “shall not be withheld unless the ity reasonably finds that such proposed grocery tenant is not likely to be comparable in qualify of products and service as JJ&F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009.” (The PC zoning ordinance is provided as Attachment A.) In August 2014, the project applicant proposed a grocery tenant, J&A Family Market, owned by James Smailey, a member of the development team. The City Council considered this tenant at a public meeting on August 11, 2014, and adopted a motion indicating that the applicant had not submitted sufficient information for the City to reasonably find that the proposed grocery tenant is likely to be comparable in quality of products and services as the former JJ&F Market as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. In early November 2014, the development team submitted additional information, including an un- redacted lease between the property owner and J&A Family Market, a lease guarantee, and information about a newly proposed Grocery Operations Officer, Uriel Chavez, who would operate the market under the name College Terrace Market. (See Attachments B and C.) To supplement these materials, City staff requested further information regarding Mr. Chavez’s recent work experience, an agreement between Mr. Chavez and J&A Family Market, and some form of financial assurance that a grocery would remain in operation at the site even if the current proposed tenant were to be unsuccessful. Additional materials were provided immediately prior to publication of this staff report and are attached as Attachments D, E, F, and G. Materials received between publication of the staff report and the meeting of November 17, 2014 have been included as Attachment H. Background On January 11, 2010 the City Council approved PC Ordinance 5069 for a new mixed use development at 2180 El Camino Real. The approved Planned Community development consisted of 57,900 square feet of floor area to be developed within three new buildings over a two level below grade parking structure. The approval included 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of other ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space. Eight below-market-rate residential apartment units were also approved. The provision of a neighborhood grocery store on the property was one of the primary public benefits of the project. At the time of the original project approval, it was understood that the grocery store that operated on the property at that time, JJ&F, would continue its operation in the new project once it was built. While the developer requested JJ&F to return, John Garcia, the individual that represented JJ&F, has declined to return as the grocery operator at this site. This placed the applicant in the position to find an alternate grocery tenant that is comparable in quality of products and services as JJ&F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. The PC Ordinance contains a series of Council created safeguards to ensure that a viable City of Palo Alto Page 2 grocery store is incorporated into the project and continues operating during the project’s useful life. Pursuant to item #3 of the Special Limitations on Land Uses from the PC ordinance, on January 2, 2014 the applicant provided staff with a lease agreement for a new grocery tenant. The City Attorney signed off on the form of the lease agreement, but staff requested more information on the grocery store tenant. The proposed tenant, J&A Family Market, is owned by James Smailey, a member of the project’s development team. (The tenant is now proposing to do business as College Terrace Market, and has an agreement with an experienced grocery operator.) Mr. Smailey does not have prior experience running a grocery store, and when the City Council reviewed the materials submitted by J&A Family Market in August 2014, the Council found the information insufficient to make the required finding that the tenant would offer a comparable quality of products and service to JJ&F. The Council’s finding followed public comments and discussion about the tenant’s unwillingness to specify the names of personnel with grocery experience or terms of the tenant’s lease. City staff and members of the public also pointed out that Ordinance No. 5069 is silent about what would happen if the grocery store goes out of business or diminishes in quality sometime after the project is constructed. Such an unfortunate event would constitute a violation of the City’s PC ordinance, but the ordinance itself does not specify a particular remedy or fine. In this situation the City would have to fall back on the traditional code enforcement remedies (fines and administrative penalties). Discussion Based on the information submitted by the development team in August and November, staff believes the applicant is proposing a grocery store with products and service comparable to JJ&F, and that the only outstanding issue is whether the grocery will be a financial success and remain in operation, unlike other small grocery stores in the area that have failed. In August, this concern was accentuated by the proposed tenant’s unwillingness to share information about the personnel with grocery experience who would be engaged to help operate the business, and the tenant’s unwillingness to share the lease terms. The development team was also unwilling to provide any financial assurance that a grocery tenant would remain in operation even if Mr. Smailey were unsuccessful at launching or maintaining his business, indicating only that this would violate (undisclosed) terms of the project financing. With the new materials submitted in early November 2014, the development team is now proposing a Grocery Operations Officer from a family that has opened and developed small markets throughout Northern California. The proposed Grocery Operations Officer, Uriel Chavez, has direct experience in the grocery business, although he has not worked in the business since 2009 or 2010. The materials submitted in early November 2014 also include an un-redacted lease indicating City of Palo Alto Page 3 that J&A Family Market will pay monthly rent of $22,500 after the first six months of free or reduced rent, as well as expenses. In addition, the landlord has guaranteed the grocery store rent to the real estate lender for the term of the lease, and has provided the City with a letter proposing a financial penalty of $11,250 per month if the grocery store goes out of business and is not replaced within six months.1 If the City Council approves the tenant, staff could execute an agreement implementing this additional condition-specific penalty as a further incentive to keep the grocery store in operation. The Council may also wish to request/impose regular reporting via this agreement. Timeline The project applicant has completed demolition and site preparation, and expects to pull a permit for excavation and grading the week of November 17, 2014. The applicant is seeking City approval of a building permit to commence construction and under the terms of the adopted PC ordinance and subsequent extensions, must commence construction by the end of December 2014 unless an extension is granted by the City Council following review and recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission. The City’s approval of a grocery tenant is a prerequisite of building permit issuance. Policy Implications The College Terrace Center project was approved by PC Ordinance 5069 in January of 2010. Environmental Review The College Terrace Center project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to its approval. The current decision regarding a specific grocery tenant would not alter the project as originally approved or analyzed, and no further review is needed. Attachments:  Attachment A: PC Ordinance 5069 (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Narrative, November 3, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Applicant's College Terrace Market Exhibits (PDF)  Attachment D: Tenant Support Letter (PDF)  Attachment E: Uriel Chavez Operating Agreement, November 4, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment F: Uriel Chavez Resume (PDF)  Attachment G: Penalty Agreement (PDF)  Attachment H: Correspondence and Documents Received after Packet Distribution of November 12, 2014 (PDF) 1 The City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 1.12 & 1.16) allows the City to establish a penalty schedule, which currently (effective May 12, 2014) specifies a $500 penalty for zoning violations. This has been interpreted as $500/day, an interpretation that can be made explicit via upcoming amendments to the PC ordinance. The applicant increased their penalty offer to $1,000 per day in correspondence dated November 12, 2014 and included in Attachment H. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Ordinance No. 5069 Ordinance of the Council of the. City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Known as· 2180 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Co~mercial · (CN) District to PC Planned Community 5069 for a Mixed Use Project Having 57,900 Square Feet of Fl<?or Area For A Grocery .St~re (intended for JJ &F Market), Other Retail Space, Office Space, and Eight Affordable Residential Units, With Two Levels Of Belo-w:-Grade Parking Facilities and Surface Parking Facilities For The College Terrace Centre, and Approval of Design Enhancement Exceptions to Allow a Sign Spire and Gazebo Roof to Exceed the 35-Foot ·Height Limit, and to Allow Encroachment Into A Minimum Setback on (a) (b) Oxford Avenue. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Carrasco and Associates c/o Linda Poncini ("the Applicant") on behalf of The· Clara Chilcote Trust c/o Patrick Smailey ("property owner") formally applied on October 18, 2007 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the "amendment") from CN 'Neighborhood Commercial' to a Planned Community (PC) district for a site comprised of four parcels located at 2180 El Camino Real (the "Subject Property') to accommodate the uses set forth below. The City Council, after duly noticed public hearings held on July 13, 2009 and July 27, 2009 initiated the amendment process, and forwarded the project to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) for review and recommendation, to be followed by Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and recommendation, and .then final review and final action by the City Council. The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing held on October 14, 2009, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the revised Initial Study draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommended ·that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to Planned Community to permit construction of the proposed project located as shown on 'Exhibit A,' attached to this document and incorporated by reference . .Draft conditions of project approval 'Exhibit B' attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the J>TC for review and comments. 1 100114 syn 8261209 Attachment A - ·, (d) The ARB, after a duly noticed public hearing fo~ld. on November 5, 2009, reviewed the project design and recommended that the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' (e) The PTC, after a duly noticed public hearing heid on December 2, 2009, confirmed their approval of the project and conditions of approval (Exhibit B). (f) The City Co:uncil, after a duly noticed public hearings held on December 7, 2009, and after due consideration of the proposed proje.ct, the Mitigated Negative · Declaration, the analysis of the project by City staff, and the modification of the proposed conditions recommended by the PTC and the ARB, finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; and (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section ( 4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or withiri the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from "CN Neighborhood Commercial" to "PC Planned Community 5069." SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the "Project") as depicted on Development Plans. dated October 22, 2009, incorporated by reference, comprises a mixed-use development that includes the following components: - (a) The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 57,900 square feet of new commercial and residential space. The conunercial space would include 8,000 square feet for a grocery store, 5,580 square feet of other ground floor retail space, and 38,980 square feet of office space; (b) Eight (8) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 5,340 square feet; (c) Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels; (d) Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces; 2 100114 syn 8261209 (e) 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter; (f) A landscaped plaza at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue; (g) Removal of street trees along Staunton Court, and Oxford and College Avenues. and planting of new street trees within the sidewalk area; (h) Removal and replacement of some or all street trees along El Camino Real in tree wells; (i) Automobile driveways on El Camino Real, Oxford Avenue and Staunton Court providing access to parking lots and an area for loading and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking would be provided from the El Camino Real driveway. SECTION 4. The Development Plan dated October-22, 2009, and any approved supplemental materials, for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall. be subject to the following pennitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to .the development plans and provisions ofpublic benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B". (a) Pennitted and Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited as follows: Pennitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4Cb): (1) Multifamily Residential (2) Professional and General Business Offices (excluding medical offices) (3) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores) (4) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in and Take-out services) (5) Personal Services Conditionally Pennitted Uses: (1) Farmers Markets (2) Businesses that operate or have associated activities at any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (such businesses shall be operated in a manner to protect residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting, or other nuisances from any source during those hours) The following conditionally pennitted uses are only pennitted within the areas designated as office ·space on the development plan: · (1) Banks and Financial Services (2) . Commercial recreation (3) Private clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations 3 100114 syn 8261209 (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist . within the development for the useful life ofthe improvements; · (2) The grocery store shal_l be a neighborhood serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; (3) A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. (4) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. · (5) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the . office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy ofthe housing. (6) The grocery tenant, if it is a party other than John Garcia (DBA JJ&F), shall be subject to the prior approval of the City ofPalo Alto and shall not be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality of products and service as J J &F as it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. (7) The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery store. "Continuous shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary business purposes." (8) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; ,(9) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; (10) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to grqund floor office space; and (11) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. (12) Use of the outdoor market area as shown on the project plans as being 2,447 square feet shall be limited to an open air market for grocery related uses only. (c) Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (Chapter 18.38), and as modified in Section 4(a) and (b) above. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in P AMC 18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program has been incorporated in the Development Plan to allow reductions in parking requirements. The TDM is shown in 'Exhibit C' and is attached to this document 4 100114 syn 8261209 (b) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the proposed buildings are designed to meet the El Cam~no Real Design Guidelines and be sensitive to the lower scale residential neighborhood beyond; (c) The design is appropriate to the function ofthe project in that the project has been designed to be pedestrian friendly, provide additional bike and vehicular parking, attract people.to the project and provides unique amenity spaces; (d) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. In this case, the building is not within an area ofunified design character or historical character; (e) The design promotes hannonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that the project includes the proposal to locat~ the two story residential component across from the existing residential uses on Staunton Court to create a transitional buffer between the existing residential uses and the proposed commercial buildings; (t) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that the proposed buildings and other project improvements would blend well with the existing off site improvements by proposing to break up the proposal in to multiple buildings with varying heights to control the mass and scale; (g) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that the proposed design reduces neighborhood traffic by placing the garage entry on El Camino, improves the economic viability of the grocery market by placing it at the visible comer of El Camino, brings light into the below grade parking structure with a large open bamboo garden, locates the commercial buildings away from existing residential uses, and provides landscaped open spaces; (h) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures in that several open spaces are provided to accommodate the various uses that may occur at the site. These spaces include . the garden square at the comer of Staunton Court and Oxford A venue, the roof top gazebo at the vegetated green roof and the arcade and open area at the comer of Staunton Court and College Avenue; (i) SuffiCient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project in that the proposal includes a large trash storage area, ample areas for bike parking, and an underground vehicle parking ·area; G) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the driveway to the underground garage 6 100114 syn 8261209 and incorporated by reference. The final TDM plan shall provide for implementation and monitoring as provided in the conditions of approval. (e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically pennitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) ~ ( c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically pennitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance, except that conversion of designated office space to retail use shall not reqµire amendment. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess ofthose required by City zoning districts: (1) Provision ofan 8,000 square foot neighborhood-serving grocery market. (2) 4 Below Market Rate housing units. (3) A contribution of $5,000 dollars for tree planting within the El Camino Real median. (g) · Development Schedule: The Project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before December 2012, unless extension(s) are granted. The total tinie for project construction and occupancy of spaces is three (3) years,. or by December 2015. SECTION 5. Council approves the Architectural Review·application, finding that: (a) The design .is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Resolution No. 9012, Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 2180 El Camino Real From Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use. The proposed mixed use development containing office, residential, retail and commercial uses is consistent with the Mixed Use land use designation; · 5 J.00114 syn 8261209 has been designed such that vehicles existing the garage are level with the sidewalk such that the drivers view of pedestrians is not impeded, extra bike and vehicle parking spaces have been provided and there are pedestrian pathways provided to allow access through the project; (k) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. The site is already developed and contains some mature trees that would be removed to accommodate the proposed podium over the below grade parking. The trees to be removed will be replaced with new plantings including approximately 41 new street trees around the perimeter of the project, a bamboo garden that would grow up through the center ofthe parking structure, various potted plantings throughout . the project , and trees and plantings within the propo.sed garden square. (1) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function in that the proposal includes many detail elements to ensure the proposed architectural style is appropriately expressed; (m) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment in that landscape elements have been incorporated wherever they could over the concrete podium. There are planters at · entry locations and the fronts of the ·buildings~ there is a large bamboo garden growing up through the center of the project, a vegetated green roof over the grocery store, and a garden square; (n) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought- resistant and to reduce consumption ofwater in its installation and maintenance in that the proposal includes many plant species that perform well within this ·environment; (o) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (1) Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; · (2) Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (3) Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (4) Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; · (5) Use sustainable building materials;_ 7 100114 syn 8261209 (6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (7) Create healthy indoor environments; and (8) Use creativity and innovationto build more sustainable environments. (p) The design incorporates many of the above mentioned green building measures including photovoltaic panels on the roof and a green roof. (see LEED and Build It Green checklists, Attaclnnent G) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose ofarchitectural review, to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2) Enhance the desirability ofresidence or investment in the city; (3) Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4) Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5) Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. SECTION 6. Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEEs) are approved as follows: (a) Height Exceptions for the proposed rooftop gazebo arid the architectural signage spire above the grocery store, which would exceed the 35 foot limit by five feet and ten feet, respectively, with an additional seven feet ofheight for the metal pole atop the spire, rising to 52 feet. (b) Setback Exception to allow portions of the building along Oxford Avenue to encroach into a ten foot setback; specifically, to allow a 7'9" encroaclnnent for the second floor ofthe grocery store building and parts ofthe first floor" and 3'6" encroachment for the recessed first floor areas as set forth in the project plans. -(c) DEE Findings: (1) ·. Th~re are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district, in that, although the adjacent parcel on Oxford Avenue is not occupied by a residential use, its zoning is residential and forces the imposition of a more restrictive setback requirement upon a portion of the site. The intent of the more restrictive height and setback regulations is to ensure that the new commercial development is sensitive to the nearby residential uses. Being that the adjacent use is not residential the need for the sensitivity is diminished. · 8 100114 syn 8261209 .(2) The granting of these Exceptions will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements ofTitle 18 and the standards for review set forth in this Chapter, in that (a) the height exception for the gazebo would allow the construction of a shade structure that ~ould provide an amenity space on the roof top and this space would provide views over the vegetated roof and would serve to help increase awareness of green roofs; (b) the height exception for the signage spire allows for the provision of a stronger element for the grocery store building to give the building more dominance at the comer, improving the significance of the building in this location; and (c) the setback encroachment improves the design of the streetscape in this location since the project faces the El Camino Real commercial strip and employing a similar urban setback and sidewalk , along Oxford A venue preserves the continuity of the design, such that implementation of a ten foot setback and landscaped yard at this comer would appear odd in relationship to the use ofa hotel across the street. (3) The Exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, in that (a) the height exceptions are for minor architectural elements that improve the architecture, do not contribute to the bulk and mass of the structure, and are not in close proximity to residential uses such that they would have a negative impact upon them; and (b) the setback encroachment occurs opposite a residential zone but no residences would be impacted by encroachment since a hotel is located opposite the grocery store building and the encroaching wall of the grocery ·store building would be across the street from the back side of the_ hotel and even with the encroachment, a generous 14' -5" wide sidewalk would be provided. · SECTION 7. Indemnification. To the extent pennitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold hannless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any pennit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. SECTION 8. Acceptance by the applicant. Ifthe Applicant does not accept the Proposed ordinance in writing prior to second reading of the ordinance and within 30 days of the Council's adoption, the question of the appropriate zoning of the Subject Property shall be referred to the Planning and Transportation Commission for their consideration and recommendation, which may include the CN zone, the CN zone plus various overlays, a newly 10 100114 syn 8261209 cr~fted zone applicable to Neighborhood Centers or such other zone as the Commission deems appropriate. . ' SECTION.9. A mitigated negative declaration (MND) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 30-day period beginning on October 9, 2009. The City Council approved the MND at its meeting of on December 7, 2009. SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: December 07, 2009 PASSED: January 11, 2010 AYES:. BURT, ESPINOSA, HOLMAN, KLEIN, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD, YEH NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: APPROVED AS TO FORM: (~rv (J.Otptt!N~'~fp!.. dDirector o anmng an Community Environment 11 100114 syn 8261209 -- Exhibit A :;;"rt::~ 2180 El Camino Real (Project Site)c::J Stanford Lands c:J Zone Districts abc Zone District labels The City oC Palo Alto o-o,. This map la a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS 2180 El Camino Real Zoning Districts Area Map o· 261'1 Thllld0cl#n"11S.t~1'9p!-..ll0114l'il'ofbe1tt\lslltl:lt-ct1. TheCKyotPaloNlo•&Wl'llt&no~larMyert0n101919Co:I008CllrofPllOAllO Exhibit B 2180 El Camino Real Conditions ofProject Approval Planning and Transportation Division Conditions 1. The project shall be constructed as depicted on plans dated October 22, 2009 and labeled as 'Approved Plans' and the project, including uses, shall be implemented in accordance with Section 4 of the PC Ordinance (PCS O6 9), except as modified by these conditions of approval. .. 2. The applicant shall return to the Architectural Review on consent calendar to address the following: a) Provide clarified floor plans for the BMR units (with room names) b) Clarify the site circulation, making it more clear; c) Consider redesign of the exterior stair to the roof top garden, this shall include the elimination of the diagonal banding; d) Consider simplifying the pathway from the exterior stairs to the gazebo area on the roof; · e) Review the banding ofthe grocery store building, consider one color with the two different finishes; f) Provide details of the transformer fencing; g) Reconsider the tile roofs at the office towers; h) Consider some modification to the grocery walls facing Oxford A venue such as a mural, display windows etc.; i) Provide additional information about the private open spaces and the materiality of it; j) Provide additional infonnation about the bridge, materials, underside, etc.; k) Consider redesign ofthe striped tower; 1) Reconsider the selection ofthe Ash tree species; m) Provide additional information about the proposed bamboo (species and height) related to the canted wall;, n) Provide detail to show how the headlights going into the below grade parking will or will· not impact the BMR units; o) Consider redesign ofthe BMR units such that they are equally as striking as the other buildings in the project; p) Provide more information regarding the plant pallet and conceptual plan for the green roof; q) Provide more infonnation about all screening ~lements and locations; and r) Provide additional information about potted plant~'and the planting at the open area at the center ofthe project as well as the planting for the trellises located at ·the at-grade parking area. 3. The ARB shall address making the vegetated roof maximally observable t9 owners, occupants, tenants and visitors during normal business hours of the office Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real building, provided, however, that enjoyment ofthe vegetative roof shall not interfere with or derogate from the health ofthe growth thereon. 4. The owners/occupants ofthe BMR units shall have access to view and enjoy the ·vegetated rooffrom the gazebo during normal business hours of the office building. 5. The PC shall be inspected at least once every three years for compliance with the PC district regulations and the conditions of the ordinance under which the district was created. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of Palo Alto's noise ordin8:flce, both during construction and following construction, for .the life of the project as per Chapter 9.I0 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and pursuant to PAMC Section 18.23.060, requiring an acoustical analysis at the time of building permit issuance, and demonstration and certification that it complies with the Noise Ordinance prior to final inspection. Any new noise producing equipment shall be placed as far away as is feasible from any existing residential sites and as close to El Camino Real as is possible. · 7. The building permit for the building in which the grocery store is to be located shall be pulled concurrently with the building permit for the other non-residential building in the development. 8. The lease for the grocery store shall have, at minimtun, a 20 year initial term. 9. Development Impact fees, totaling approximately $393,684.70, shall be paid prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. 10. The applicant shall file and receive. approval ofa Preliminary Parcel Map/Parcel Map to combine the four parcels into one. The Parcel Map shall be recorded with the County of Santa Clara prior to. issuance of a demolition permit or building permit. 11. The commercial portions ofthe project shall be required to attain LEED Silver level of certification through the USGBC. The residential portion ofthe project shall be required to meet the Build It Green multifamily green building requirements. 12. The following mitigation measures from the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration are included below as project conditions: a. Mitigation Measure #1: The project shall include automatic night shades or other system such as motion sensors and timers for the office windows at the rear of the building. b. Mitigation Measure #2: Prior to any excavation the applicant shall prepare a site specific Health and Safety Plan that conforms to the requirements of Title 29 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (VFR) Section 1910.120, the California General Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 2 Industry Safety Order (GISO) and Title 8, California Code of Regulation (CCR) Section 5192. c. Mitigation Measure #3: All employees and subcontractors involved in excavation of potentially contaminated material shall be 40 hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained and certified. d. Mitigation Measure #4: Soils shall be field screened, tested, and properly profiled during redevelopment to determine appropriate reuse or off site disposal. e. Mitigation Measure #5: The proposed mechanical equipment shall be evaluated to ensure compliance with City of Palo Alto noise limit regulations. Measures such as-equipment selection, equipment placement (location), and or the addition of barriers or enclosures shall be employed to ensure that any new noise producing equipment is in compliance with the City's noise ordinance. f. Mitigation Measure # 6: Cal Trans must approve the proposed curb cut on the El Camino Real for the driveway to the underground parking garage. .g. Mitigation Measure #7: A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building permit application. The TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: parking cash-out programs, provision of EcoPass (VTA) or Go Pass (Caltrain) for office tenants, shared parking, enhanced shuttle service, car sharing, providing priority parking spaces for car pools/vanpools or green vehicles, vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking faci.lities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the Director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and /or trip reductions, and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) Conditions 13. The design standard ofthe driveway on El Camino Real (SR 82) must comply with the Highway Design Manual. 14. Work that encroaches onto the State right of way (ROW) requires an encroachment permit that is issued by the Cal Trans. To apply, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets ofplans clearly indicating State ROW must be submitted to the address below. Office ofPermits California DOT, District 4 P .0. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 15. Traffic-related mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. Transportation Division Conditions Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 3 16. Do not include or add any monument signs, furniture, or other sight obstructions (except trees) in the sight triangle on the northern frontage on El Camino Real. This condition does not prevent the use ofproduce or flower stalls, or tables and chairs for · grocery store patrons in the space designated as grocery store outdoor space, so long as the location of same is approved by the City's Transportation Department. 17. The TDM shall include at least two car share vehicles. The Final TDM plan monitoring and implementation shall be carried out in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.050 (d) TDM requirements, items (3) and (4) with respect to monitoring, and item (2) with respect to implementation related to performance targets for parking and trip reduction, and single entity to implement the TDM measures. Vehicle Parking 18. ~ Spaces adjacent to walls required to be 9' wide (spaces adjacent to mechanical and utility rooms). Spaces adjacent to poles/columns would be required to be 9.0' wide based on the location ofthe columns right at the entry to the parking spaces. 19. Northern most HC spaces can also be labeled as "van accessible" ifthe combined opening is 26.0' (9' -8' "9'). 20. Include wheel stops where appropriate (all spaces that are at grade with pedestrian paths, lobbies, or bike locker areas) Bicycle Parking 21. Illustrate on plans the location of Long Term (lockers) and Short Term bike racks, including total count similar to vehicular parking. Adequate aisles between lockers and racks must be shown. 22. Include details oftypes of racks to be used (must be approved by City Staff). Plan appears to include inverted-U racks (approved type). 23. All short tenn bicycle parking (racks) need to be located on the street level and be located within 50 feet and distributed near each of the main entrances to the various buildings. (Office racks not in appropriate location) 24. Long term bike lockers are allowed in the garage, but need to be located near employee elevators/stairs (locations appears to be okay, but all lockers should be on the first level of garage). · Building Division Conditions 25. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include the full scope of the construction of the entire building, including all site development, utility installations, Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 4 . architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work associated with the proposed project. 26. The applicant shall be required to schedule and attend a pre-application meeting with Building Division staff to review the permit application process and to verify that .the permit application will include all items required by these conditions. 27. Due to the scale of the overall project, the applicant shall be required to utilize a 3rd party plan check agency to conduct the building code plan review. A list of the agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the Development Center. The City Building plan check fees are reduced by 75% when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized. 28. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area cafoulation that relates the mixed occupancies and type· of construction. 29. The plans submitted with the permit application shall include the complete design for disabled access and exiting for the entire site.· Disable access features and exiting within the unimproved offices spaces may be deferred to future tenant improvement permits. 30. The design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be deferred shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 31. The plans submitted with the building permit application for the shell building shall include the construction of stairs, exit enclosures and exit passageways extending to the exterior ofthe building. · 32. All entrances and vertical clearances within the parking structures shall have a minimum vertical of 8 feet 2 inches where required for access to the accessible parking spaces per CBC Section 1130B. 33. The location of the building electrical service shall _require prior approval by the Inspection Services Division and shall be located at an exterior location or in a room or enclosure accessible directly from the exterior. 34. · A separate building permit shall be required for the construction of each building. 35. Plans submitted for plan review shall clearly indicate the proposed occupancy group(s) and type of construction of the building. 36. Plans for the residential units submitted for plan review shall comply with the latest requirements from the State of Califomia [HCD 1IAC] Chapter 11 B of the 2007 Edition of the CBC. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 5 37. Plans for the residential units shall include an acoustical analysis and the plans shall incorporate the report's recommendations needed to show the common walls and floor ceiling assemblies in compliance with the sound transmission control requirements in CBC Section 1207. 38. Normal and accessible parking stalls for the residential rental units must be separated from the stalls of the commercial building and their location must be identified on plans submitted for plan revfow. 39. Plans submi~ed for plan review shall indicate the required number of parking stalls for the residential units and commercial building. Plans shall also indicate number of accessible stalls is in compliance with HCD 1/AC Chapter I IA for residential units .and with DSA/AC Chapter 11B for the commercial facilities. Parking stalls for each use shall be separated in accordance with recommendations ofthe Planning Division. Fire Dep·artment Conditions 40. The Fire Department requires that the developer have a contingency plan in place to handle any contamination or abandoned underground tanks discovered during excavation. 41. Emergency Contractor must have State HAZ license. 42. Fire Department shall be notified during nonnal business hours at the earliest opportunity in the event of such a discovery. 43. A permit from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health is required for any underground tank removal. 44. 3 nearest Street Hydrants shall be upgraded to Clow Rich Model 76. 45. · Aerial Fire Apparatus access shall be provided for the entire El Camino building Frontage. No overhead cable will be allowed on this side ofthe building. 46. Site address to be prominently posted on the building. (2001CFC901) Maximum vehicle weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 47. Please contact the Palo Alto Fire Department Training Office at 650-321-5617 if it is at all feasible to allow the Fire Department to use the structures to be demolished for training purposes. 48. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 13, 2002 Edition. (PAMClS.04.160) Fire Spri~er system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMClS.04.083) Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 6 49. An exterior bell shall be provided, and an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupant shall be provided in the·interior of the building in an approved location. (2001 CBC904.3.2) Fire Alarm system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) 50. Underground fire supply system installations or modifications require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau as well as the Public Works Department and the Water/Gas/Wastewater Section of the Utilities Department. (PAMClS.04.083) 51. All sprinkler drains, including those for floor control valves and inspectorl,s test valves, as well as the main drain; shall not discharge within the building. Water discharged from these points shall be directed to an approved landscape location or to the . sanitary sewer system. (99NFPAB, Sec. 5-14.2.4.3) NOTE: Please check with Roland Ekstrand in Utilities for maximum flow capacity of sanitary sewer in the area. Main Drain test discharge flow rate shall be impounded and attenuated to below sanitary sewer capacity before discharge. 52. Elevator car shall be sized for Fire Department gurney access requirements based on gurney dimensions of 24 in. x 84 in. plus a minimum of two emergency response personnel. (2007 Cal. Bldg. Code Sec. 3002.4a) 53. The maximum weight bearing capacity for the podium deck shall be posted. 54. A fire hydrant is required at the intersections of Oxford A ve./Staunton Ct. and College A ve./Staunton Ct. 55. Fire Department ground ladder access to the dwelling units bedroom egress windows shall be provided. 56. When the Main Electrical Shutoff is located in the interior of the building, an exterior shunt trip or other approved means of emergency shutoff shall be provided. Please contact the Building Div. for details. 57. An approved access walkway shall be provided to each bedroom egress/rescue window. 58. Provide Fire Department access across the roof of the 3 story building. 11. Ifthe residential units have a different address than El Camino Real, provide a separate fi~e department connection at the housing building. Public Works Engineering 59. This project must meet the State Regional Water Quality Control Board's (SRWQCB) revised provision C.3. The applicant is required to satisfy all current stonn water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compliance. The project must also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 7 guarantee the ongoing maintenance ofthe permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. Offsite property or ROW cannot be used to satisfy the C.3 requirements. Every effort should be made to use natural (non-mechanical) methods of stormwater treatment. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to final ARB to discuss and review the C.3 stormwater treatment plan. 60. The applicant shall meet with PWE prior to final ARB to discuss the shoring system to be used in the construction ofthe project. Shoring systems must be on private property, out of the right-of-way (ROW) and the use oftie-back systems has specific requirements which will be discussed at the meeting. 61. The applicant shall, at minimum, submit an application for a minor subdivision with the Planning division prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. · 62. The street frontages of the development shall be resurfaced (grind and overlay, full width) and the curbs, gutters~ and sidewalks shall be removed and replaced. This work shall be detailed in the offsite improvement plans required for the final map process and it is highly.encouraged that the work takes place near the end ofthe construction process. 63. The applicant shall install LED streetlights along the frontages of the development. Type, style and location, etc. shall be determined at the time ofoffsite improvement construction and in coordination and consultation with Palo Alto Utilities Department. I 64. Any special surface (i.e. sidewalk) treatments proposed within the ROW shall be IJ reviewed by PWE. ~I 'U ijj 65. The project must be constructed without the use ofperimeter or subgrade drainsI outside the walls of the subgrade structure. In other words, the project shall be constructed "like a boat". I 66. Provisions for a grease trap shall be made onsite.llI 67. The applicant is required to meet with Public Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water infiltration. I ~ j· The applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan that conveys site runoff to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. In order to address potential storm, water quality impacts, the plan shall identify the Best II . Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollutionii 11 'I Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include lj permanent BMP's to be incorporated into the· project to protect storm water quality. 11 ! (Resources and handouts are available from Public Works -Engineering. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's companion document to "Start at the Source", entitled Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 8 "Planning Your Land Development Project"). The elements ofthe PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 68. The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shtill show spot elevations or contours ofthe site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal ~torm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. 69. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval ofthe construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering. 70. A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum parking, · truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City ofPalo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 71. Prior to building permit issuance, a digital copy of the parcel map or final map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall confonn to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1929 for vertical survey controls. 72. A detailed site-specific soil report prepared by a licensed soils or gee-technical engineer must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Measures must be undertaken to render the basement waterproof and able to withstand all projected hydrostatic and soil pressures. No pumping of ground water is allowed. In general, Public Works Engineering recommends that structures be constructed in such a way that they do not penetrate existing or projected ground water levels. 73. The applicant is required to paint the "No Dumping/Flows.to Matadero Creek" logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all stonn drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329...2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 9 drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos· in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, ifsuch a plan is part of this project. 74. The project includes the construction of dumpster and recycling areas as part of a food service facility. Regulations require that the dumpster/recycling area be adequately roofed or covered. 75. The project includes the construction ofdumpster and recycling areas. City guidelines require that this area be covered. 76. The project includes a loading dock. Design ofthe loading area shall comply with the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sec. 16.09.032(2). DURING CONSTRUCTION 77. The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. 78. No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval ofPublic Works Engineering. 79. The devel.oper shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in confonnance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for .the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or stonn drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). 80. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 81. · All sidewalks and curb and gutters bordering the project shall be removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. Sec. 12.08.010. 82. All unused driveways shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. Sec. 12.08.090. 83. All street surfaces along the frontages of the development shall be removed and replaced (grind and overlay, full-width). 84. The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign- Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 10 off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and post-developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off. 85. A curb ramp for the disabled will be required at comers of the development. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF PARCEL OR FINAL MAP 86. Subdivision Agreement is required to s~cure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite. No grading or building permits will be issued until Final or Parcel Map is recorded with County Recorder. 87. The applicant shall arrange a meeting with Public Works Engineering, Utilities Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Transportation Departments after approval ofthis map and prior to submitting the improvement plans. These improvement plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal of a parcel or final map. 88. The project subdivision includes significant complexity involving, final map and coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with City, Public Works and Utility, engineering staff. Public Works will conduct daily and longer tenn communicatiot). with appointed project manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval ofdesign and construction matters. 89. All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City's jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the Public Works and Utility Department. Sec. 12.08.060. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF PARCEL/FINAL MAP 90. The subdivider shall post a bond prior to the recording ofthe final parcel or subdivision map to guarantee the completion of the "on" and "off' site condition(s) of approval. The amount of the bond shall be determined by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments. Public Works Recycling 91. Recommend that enclosure doors open full width ofenclosure, service aisle and curbs do not restrict access to enclosure. 92. Enclosure access must not conflict with loading dock. 93. PASCO services enclosure from street and distance from street to enclosures is beyond standard service. Additional charges apply for service beyond 25 feet from street. 94. PASCO will not drive into loading dock to provide service. 95. Tallow bins must be segregated from refuse/recycling area of enclosure to eliminate slip hazardous due to spills. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 11 Electric Utility Engineering Department Conditions 96. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 97. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 98. . The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility-services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the · Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within ·10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR BUILDING PERMIT 99. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set ofplans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 100. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 101. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation # 18. 102. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board.· Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 103. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El CamiJ;lo Real 12 104. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)· required from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 105. The customer shall maintain a minimum of six feet horizontal clearance between the neare~t conductor at rest and any part of the new development. The customer shall meet all California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. 106. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department! 107. All utility meters; lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. · 108. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the customer's main switchgear. The ~abinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 109. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 110. Ifthe customer's ~otal load exceeds 2500kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transfonners. Utilities Rule & Regµlation #3. 111. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement ofoff site electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility .. 112. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. COMMENTS ON SUBMITTALS 113. Drawing Al .1 -First Floor & Site Plan Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 13 • Transformer Pad size (and working spaces), boxes, conduit size and quantity will be determined after Electric Load Sheets are submitted. A 3 'x5' primary box is required in front of each transformer pad. • Three feet clearance is required on each side of the transformer pad. There shall be eight feet ofclearance in the front ofthe transformer. Transformer shall not be in an enclosed environment. 114. Drawing A2.2-Elevations • Elevation drawings shall show that the project meets California General Order No. 95 clearance requirements. Regional Water Quality Control Plant Conditions. 115. Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.032(B)(l 7). 116. Substances containing copper in excess of2.0 mg/L, tributyl tin in excess of 0.1 mg/L, or chromium in excess of2.0 mg/L may not be added to cooling systems in Palo Alto. These concentrations apply to the substances prior to dilution with cooling system water. (Note: The City ofPalo Alto Municipal Code has proposed additions to this requirement which include substances that may not be added to cooling towers containing Zinc in excess of2.0 mg/liter and Molybdenum in excess of2.0 mg/liter.) (PAMC 16.09.115) 117. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume ofblowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of0.25 milligrams per liter. 118. Prior to draining any existing closed loop chilled water, the water in each of the existing loops shaJl be tested for copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Test results shall be submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Treatment of the chilled loop water prior to draining may be required ifthe pollutant concentrations exceed discharge limitations contained in the PAMC. 119. If thermometers will be installed on the chilled water supply and return piping. Non-mercury thermometers should be used for this application.(This is a recommendation and not required). 120. Ifthe project is located in an area of known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering pursuant to (PAMC 16.09.117, 16.09.1 lO(h): 121. Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 6011602. The Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 14 analytical results ofthe VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Ifthe concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 ug/L (S ppb), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge. Ifthe voe concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system must be free of sediment. 122. Connections to the storm drain shall not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled (PAMC 16.09.032). 123. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only ifthe area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail"safe valve, which shall be kept closed during periods of operation. 124. Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system (PAMC 16.09.032(b)(8). 125. New dumpster areas shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run-off from the area (PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities). Undesignated Retail Space 126. Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. Ifsuch undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met pursuant to PAMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Control Devices for Food Service Facilities: • A grease control device (GCD) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 750 gallons. The GCD must be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall be connected to the GCD. The connection of any dishwashers or pasta cookers to a GCD is prohibited. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility ofeach inlet piping, baffle (divider) piping and outlet piping to ensure accessibility for inspection, cleaning and removal ofall contents. The plans shall clearly indicate the number ofmanholes on the GCD and a list of all drainage fixtures connecting to the GCD. Two manholes may be allowed under certain conditions only granted by the Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 15 • To ensure all food service establishment drainage fixtures are connected to the correct lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. Also a list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. • New buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins (used oil containers) serving food service facilities are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD and the sanitary sewer. Iftallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area (PAMC 16.09.032b(l6) -'Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities'). • ·The installation of a garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January l, 2003. The kitchen calU1ot utilize a garbage grinder for food wa~te disposal to the sanitary sewer (PAMC 16.09.103(e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals). • Food service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer (PAMC 16.09.032b(l6) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities.) \ Public Works Operations-Trees 127. Provide optimum public tree replacement for street trees. The plans shall show and provide a streetscape design with materials on the civil, landscape and irrigation drawings with the following information and·direction: • El Camino Real and Oxford Avenue Frontage: Utilize city-approved Silva Cell soil · planter (approx. 30-inch depth) beneath the new sidewalk from comer to corner. Utilities shall be allowed to pass thru the planters. Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath each tree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 to· 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. For El Camino Real, utilize Platanus a. 'Columbia', Columbia Plane, #15 size, spaced 30-feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. For Oxford Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple', Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be agreed upon by the Directors ofPlanning and Community Environment and Public Works)) #15 (ball and burlap) B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. • Staunton Court and College Avenue Frontage: Provide automatic irrigation using a solar smart controller with two bubblers per tree. Utilize Public Works Planting Detail #604. Beneath eachtree planting site, auger two 4-6" diameter drain holes 3ft deep below the bottom of the planter basin soil and backfill with medium sand (0.25 Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 16 to 0.5 mm) or fine gravel. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all street trees as required in landscape design conditions below. On College Avenue, utilize Fraxinus a. 'Autumn Purple', Autumn Purple Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. On Staunton Court frontage, utilize Fraxinus pennsylvanica 'Cimmzam', Red Ash (or other species as may be approved by the Directors of Planning and Community Environment and Public Works), #15 B&B or 15 gallon minimum size, spaced 25-30 feet on center, a minimum of 15-feet from street lights and 10-feet from utilities and driveways. Planning Department Arborist 128. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off- site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i) All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii) Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii) Irrigation schedule and plan. iv) Fence locations. · v) Lighting plan with photometric data. vi) Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii) All new trees planted within the public right-ofwway shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter ofthe root ball. viii) Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by· 1-inch. ix) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads m0tmted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. x) Landscape Plan shall ensure the baekflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 17 preferred, painted dark gr~en, decorative boulder covering ~cceptable; wire cages are discouraged). b) Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City.·The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner's representative for each of the following: i) Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 129. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1 ..5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged.during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 130. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage ofmaterial, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 131. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 132. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 133. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300w 2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 3 0 days of discovery. Exhibit B to PC Ordinance for 2180 El Camino Real 18 Attachment B - MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2014 SUBMITTAL: ACTION REQUESTED: City Council Approval of College Terrace Market formerly J&A Family Market. We hereafter refer only to College Terrace Market. At the City Council hearing of August 11 2014, approval of J&A Family Market was deferred, notwithstanding recommended approval by Staff in its Staff Report and analysis. Deferral was based on Council’s request for both: (i) more complete and comprehensive documents including un-redacted copies of the grocery store lease and it’s guaranty; and (ii) demonstration of the quality and experience of the grocery store operator since James Smailey of College Terrace Market did not have extensive experience with the grocery business. We have provided as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to staff, and for the public record, un-redacted copies of the Grocery Lease and it’s Guaranty. Staff can report on their prior approval of these documents. Also, as requested by City Council, College Terrace Market has put in place the finest possible operating skills and experience for a neighborhood-serving community market by hiring Uriel Chavez to serve as Grocery Operations Officer. Much of this memo discusses the unparalleled accomplishments and experience of Uriel whose resume is attached as Exhibit3. College Terrace Market will also be very well capitalized to assure its long-term success as later discussed. Proposed Grocery Store: College Terrace Market Grocery Operations Officer: Uriel Chavez. Landlord: Chilcote Trust. Project Developer: Brian Spiers Development. Project Architect: Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates. Land Use Consultant: Jim Baer, Palo Alto Land Use Consulting. I. PROPOSED OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONS: CAREER DEPTH OF GROCERY SUCCESS AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT. College Terrace Market will enter into a long term Operating Agreement for the 20-year length of the Grocery Store Lease term. Uriel will be responsible and have authority for managing all grocery operations such as vendor selection, purchasing, displaying, staffing, purchase and leasing of grocery equipment, including refrigeration, marketing, selling grocery inventories and developing recurring neighborhood and community programs for holidays and for periodic special events. Uriel, along with industry experts of his choosing, will be responsible for designing the Market, its refrigeration and display racks and other specialty features for the Market. Uriel will also manage the financial operations of the store, much as he did when Chief Financial Officer of the La Hacienda collection of family markets and his own La Hacienda Market that he owned and operated in Sacramento. These broad responsibilities have been among the skills of Uriel for over 25 years with his family’s markets including Chavez Family Markets, La Hacienda, Mi Ranchero, Arteagas and Mi Pueblo Markets. The extended Chavez Family Markets have included nearly 40 grocery stores with greatest gross annual revenues of over $200 Million. All of the Chavez markets have been in Northern California with most in the Peninsula. Uriel has developed three (3) successful stores from ground up in recent years as he will design and build for College Terrace Market. Additionally, Uriel has implemented POS and other key operational facets of grocery operations. Uriel has served in all positions with his family’s stores – purchasing, display, staffing, marketing, vendor selection and financial accounting. Under the College Terrace Market, Uriel Chavez will be given responsibility as Grocery Operations Officer to advise College Terrace Market about financial and grocery operations, and to staff the College Terrace Market store. Uriel has already identified and contacted many of the grocery managers and employees that will include approximately 20 over two shifts. College Terrace Market will benefit from the deep career of grocery successes under Uriel Chavez. A few of Uriel’s accomplishments and honors described in the following paragraph are more fully described in Uriels’ resume attached as Exhibit 3. Uriel’s experience is unparalleled with managing markets to fine successes that are best suited for their neighborhoods with fresh produce displayed such as at Segonias’, a deli superior to that of JJ&F and styled much like Robert’s variety of selection, an open air feel like Segonia’s, and with many aisle widths and quality product selection most comparable to a luxury store like Draeger’s. Uriel’s combined value oriented features with highest quality goods will be utilized to create an uncommon and appealing full service grocery market. City Consultant, Sutti Associates: After reviewing the information provided to the City’s Consultant it is the opinion of the Consultant “ that the proposed store layout, marketing, strategy, management team and advisors will create a store that will be a benefit to the community of Palo Alto” and “will be comparable, if not superior, in quality of products and services to JJ&F”. We provide as Exhibit 4 this letter from Sutti Associates. The management capabilities of College Terrace Market exceed those of JJ&F Market of any period of its operations. II FINANICIAL RESOURCES OF COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET WERE NEVER AVAILABLE TO JJ&F The Chilcote Trust, as Owner, provided initial guarantees for the $40,000,000 project lender as did James Smailey. James Smailey may also provide required guarantees from product or service providers for the College Terrace Market as well as for equipment leases for refrigeration equipment, cook lines, produce and cold cut display cases and other grocery store specialty equipment that is often leased long term to a credit worthy operator. With an existing project real estate loan from Canyon Funds of not less than ($40,000,000) Forty Million Dollars, the lender requires a personal guarantee for performance of obligations under the loan or loans. College Terrace Market is receiving these direct capital enhancements from the landlord: (a) 3 months free rent @$22,500 = $67,500 (b) 3 months @$11,250 = $33,750 (c) Landlord guarantees to the real estate lender of the entire grocery store rent for the Lease Term. This rent guaranty ensures that there will be no default by the grocery store with respect to any lender and timely delivery of rent when due. JJ&F could never have provided such a guaranty to support any landlord or lender. College Terrace Market is superior with respect to its financial condition for performing obligations under the operating experience of Uriel Chavez (ii) the facility physical store; (iii) with better financial and business plan strategies: and (iv) with capital and capital enhancements along with multiple personal guarantees that JJ&F was never able to provide. The standard of PC 5069 4(b)(6) that the replacement grocer must be comparable to that of John Garcia’s tired JJ&F Market in 2009 has been fully satisfied. JJ&F would have been unable to provide such financial enhancements for either a real estate lender or a major equipment lender or as a lessee. College Terrace Market will be capitalized separately from the real estate. We provide as Exhibit 5 a bank statement dated October 31, 2014 indicating the $700,000 cash equivalent deposit. Additionally, College Terrace Market will provide the lender a Security Deposit for the premises of $45,000 on or before November 13, 2014. James Smailey has the financial capacity to guarantee equipment leases and inventory purchases to ensure success of College Terrace Market. The financial condition of College Terrace Market is far superior with greater financial opportunities than were ever available for JJ&F Market. III. FAVORABLE COMPARISON OFTHE VASTLY SUPERIOR PHYSICAL COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET WITH 2009 JJ&F This portion of the memo focuses entirely on providing City Staff, City Council Members and neighbors compelling information that reasonably demonstrates that the proposed grocery operation to be known as College Terrace Market will meet and exceed the standards established by JJ&F as of December 7, 2009. We are confident that this memo and the actual operation of College Terrace Market will provide products and services that will substantially exceed those of JJ&F as of December 7, 2009 This portion of the memo compares the physical layout with respect to parking, site amenities, and interior floor display and marketing features for 2009 JJ&F and the proposed College Terrace Market. The College Terrace Market sales floor area at 8,000 square feet is substantially greater than that of JJ&F that was only 5,000 square feet. JJ&F had no outdoor market while College Terrace Market will provide 2,447 square feet of outdoor food sales and service. Both JJ&F and College Terrace Market have some areas dedicated to storage and food preparation. College Terrace Market will provide 40 dedicated parking spaces compared with fifteen shared spaces for JJ&F. There will be fifteen bicycle parking spaces on site for College Terrace Market, while JJ&F had no controlled bicycle parking. Interior and site plans and photographic displays are set forth in Exhibits 6, 7, 8 & 9 and provide photographs and floor plans showing the poorer quality of the JJ&F Market in 2009 as now compared with College Terrace Market as an entirely new grocery store. A major improvement for College Terrace Market over JJ&F as influenced by the ARB, College Terrace Market provides full El Camino frontage, with highly visible and i attractive signage, whereas JJ&F was shut down to El Camino with a windowless wall that was uninviting. For College Terrace Market, there will be a dedicated elevator from the garage to the inside of the store, and there will be contemporary, highly functioning entry retail doors on the ground floor. These positive attributes were not provided by JJ&F. w t JJ&F 2009 College Terrace Market h Interior sales floor 5,000 sf 8,000 sf Outdoor sales area None 2,447 sf rDedicated parking none 40 dedicated spaces e s p Full parking 15 shared spaces 40 dedicated and many more shared spaces e c t Public amenities none Modern electronic doors, the park area, outdoor seating and garage access with elevator t o El Camino frontage none Not less than 100 linear feet College Terrace Market provides a superior physical condition with respect to size, sales floor area, updated displays, ADA access, garage access, parking, location, visibility and predominance along El Camino Real that JJ&F failed to provide or accomplish. College Terrace Market’s physical features are greatly superior to those of JJ&F. These features, alone, would allow the improved College Terrace Market to proceed by its having exceeded the conditions of JJ&F since it will have met and exceeded the 2009 standard of PC Zone 5069. The operations of JJ&F and the Garcia family in 2009 and 2010 were stressed with severe financial losses from operating JJ&F market. Exhibit 10 is a Statement of Operations for JJ&F for much of 2009 and through March 31, 2010. The Net income for the 6-month period ending March 31, 2010 reported a loss of ($44,734.64). This high level of loss was not sustainable by the Garcia Family. There were many competitive factors negatively impacting JJ&F as studied by the City in 2009 which grocery study by ADE is attached as Exhibit 11 in addition to multiple grocery and retail studies retained and assembled by the City in recent, earlier years as set forth in Exhibit 12. We provide as Exhibit 13, the College Terrace Market Business Plan that projects a conservative annual revenue in its first stabilized year of operations of $3,640,000 based on demographic analysis and economic analysis prepared by ADE in 2009 as the City’s consultant. Exhibit 14 and Exhibit 15 are the Vision and Values of College Terrace Market and it’s Business Overview. Recall that Uriel Chavez will operate the purchasing, distribution, display and promotion and sales of College Terrace Market. College Terrace Market will serve as a community center and will offer many special events for children and adults on each of the merchandised national holidays such as Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, Valentines Day and 4th of July. Conclusion: College Terrace Market is superior with the operating experience of Uriel Chavez (ii) the facility physical store; (iii) with better financial and business plan strategies: and (iv) with capital and capital enhancements along with multiple personal guarantees that JJ&F was never able to provide. The standard of PC 5069 4(b)(6) that the replacement grocer must be comparable to that of John Garcia’s JJ&F Market in 2009 has been fully satisfied. There can be no reasonable basis for the City Council denying approval of the College Terrace Market to replace John Garcia’s tired JJ&F Market. It is, simply, now, time to approve the College Terrace Market. :-1 ' J ~ 'l J ~l r 1 I I I . I : -j : j J , I 1_1 COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET EXHBITS 1. COMMERICAL LEASE APPROVED BY CITY OF PALO,ALTO 2. GURRANTY OF LEASE 3. URIEL CHAVEZ RESUME 4. J &A BANK STAEMENT 5. SUTTI LETTER IDENTIFYING COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET AS SUPERIOR 6. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET SITE PLAN 7. COLLEGE TERRACE MAREKT PARKING PLAN 8. COLELGE TERRACE MARKET RENDERINGS 9. JJ&F PHOTOGRAPHS 10. JJ&F 2010 FINANCIAL REPORT 11. CITY OF PALO ALTO ADE GROCERY STUDY 12. CITY RECENT GROCERY STUDY 13. J&A BUSINESS PLAN 14. MISSION STATEMENT 15. VISIONS AND VALUES FOR COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET 16. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET BUSINESS OVERVIEW 17. JJ&F LEASE TERMINATION 18. GARCIA TRMINATION LETTER TO NEIGHBORS 19. SUPPORT LETTERS FROM LOCAL BUSINESSES 20. CARA SILVER'S EMAIL APPROVING J&A LEASE 21. RUSS'S EMAIL OUT LINING CONDITIONS Attachment C - I l .. l Exhibit 1 . I - ! . J I : . l I ! , [. , lI _j - J I _ J ., I I I ·· 1 l /: 1 I I I .....J COMMERCIAL LEASE THIS COMMERCIAL L~ASE (this "Lease") is made as of Nov-t·~~r Z-~2013, by and between COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company (collectively, "Landlord"), and J & A FAMILY MARKETS, INC., a California corporation ("Tenant"). Landlord and Tenant are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties," and each individually a "Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, Landlord owns the city block on which the.Premises is to be located (the "City Block"); and WHEREAS, a portion of the City Block was previously leased and operated as a grocery store for more than sixty (60) years; and WHEREAS, Landlord has submitted an application to the City of Palo Alto for a PC Zone for the City Block for the purposes of redeveloping the entire City Block (the "Application"); and ·· WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palo Alto granted the Application and on January 11, 2010 passed Ordinance No. 5069 creating the PC Zone for the City Block (the "Ordinance"); and · WHEREAS, the name of the new development of the City Block is College Terrace Centre (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Application and the Ordinance include a plan to locate a grocery store (the "Grocery Store") with eight thousand (8,000) square feet of floor space on the Northwest comer of 2180 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA, in a building (the "Building") located on a portion of the City Block, along with an outdoor market of approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "Premises"); and WHEREAS, Tenant desires to lease the Premises from Landlord for the purpose of operating the Grocery Store q.pon completion of construction ofthe portion of the Project in which the Premises will be located; and WHEREAS, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Lease, Tenant hereby leases the Premises from Landlord upon the terms and conditions stated herein. AGREEMENT f. AGREEMENT. Landlord hereby leases the Premises to Tenant, and Tenant hereby leases the Premises from Landlord, according to the terms of this Lease. 2. PREMISES. The Premises shall comprise eight thousand (8,000) square feet of interior space ("Interior Space"), approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet of outdoor 310492820.2 .-, I I • I ' . J r-, l I :-J :___, I I . J ! I 1~1 I . j . I 1 I I ' I - J space ("Outdoor Space") immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage ("Storage Space") in the basement garage. 3. TERM. (a) Term. The "Term" of this Lease shall be for a period of 20 years commencing on the first day of the month following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Palo Alto for the building in which the Premises are located (the "Commencement Date") and expiring on the date that is 20 years later (the "Expiration Date"). (b) Tenant shall have the right to extend the Term for 10 years by delivery of written notice ("Extension Notice") to Landlord no less than six (6) months and no more than twelve (12) months before the existing Expiration Date. IfTenant timely delivers the Extension Notice, and provided that no default exists, or shall occur with the giving of notice or the passage of time or both, the Expiration Date shall so be extended and the Expiration Date shall be the Expiration Date as extended by the Extension Notice. (c) Possession. IfLandlord fails to deliver possession of the Premises by the Commencement Date, Landlord shall not be liable for any damages resulting from that failure, nor shall that failure cause a termination of this Lease or Tenant's obligations under this Lease or extend the Term of this Lease except as otherwi_se provided in this Lease or agreed to in writing between Landlord and Tenant. 4. RENT. (a) Base Monthly Rent. Commencing on the first day of the first full calendar month following the Commencement Date (or on the Commencement Date if it is the first day of a calendar month) and continuing throughout the Term on the first day of each succeeding calendar month, Tenant shall pay Landlord base monthly rent in the amount as set forth below in this Subparagraph (the "Base.Monthly Rent"). Base Monthly Rent shall be paid in advance in lawful money of the United States at the address specified for Landlord in Paragraph 27(f), below (or such other place as Landlord designates) without demand, abatement, counterclaim, deduction or offset. Ifthe Commencement Date occurs on a day other than the first day of a calendar month, or if this Lease expires or sooner terminates on a day other than the last day of a calendar month, then the Base Monthly Rent for the fractional month shall be prorated on a daily basis. The Base Monthly Rent shall be increased during the Extension Term as set forth above. (i) The Base Monthly Rental shall be as set forth in Attachment A-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (ii) "Triple net" means that Tenant will be responsible for payment of property taxes, insurance and utilities with respect to the Premises. Utilities (with the possible exception of water, which Landlord may not be able to separately meter) will be separately metered. Tenant will maintain all of its equipment, including but not limited to the heating, ventilating, air conditioning ("HV AC") systems. (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions in Section (i), during the first, second and third months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be waived completely and, during 310492820.2 2 ~, -,-III II I I I I' j J --1 J the fourth, fifth and sixth months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be !·educed by fifty percent (50%). (iv) During the Term, the Base Monthly for each respective element of the Premises (i.e., the Indoor Space, the Outdoor Space and the Storage Space) will increase, every five (5) years, by the amount of increase, if any, in the San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland CPI Index over the previous five (5)-year period. (b) Prepaid Rent. Tenant shall, upon execution of this Lease, pay to Landlord the first month's rent as prepayment of rent for credit against the first payment of Base Monthly Rent due hereunder. (c) Additional Rent. In addition to all Base Monthly Rent, Tenant agrees to pay all Additional Rent as and when provided in this Lease. "Additional Rent" shall mean any and all monetary obligations of Tenant under this Lease other than the obligation to pay Base Monthly Rent. As Additional Rent hereunder, Tenant shall pay to Landlord and/or those third parties designated in this Lease to receive Additional Rent from Tenant, all charges and other amounts due under this Lease including, without limitation, Tenant's obligation ·to pay (1) certain costs and expenses as provided in Paragraphs 6(b), 8(a) and 24(f), below; (2) the cost of all utilities and services as provided in Paragraph 7, below; (3) all late charges and interest due Landlord under this Lease; and (4) any and all other charges due Landlord under this Lease. (d) Late Charges. Tenant hereby acknowledges that late payment to Landlord of any installment of Base Monthly Rent or any item of Additional Rent shall cause Landlord to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease, the exact amount of which will be extremely difficult· to ascertain. Such costs include, but are not limited to, processing and accounting charges, and late charges which may be imposed on Landlord by the terms of any ground lease, underlying lease, mortgage or trust deed affecting the premises. Accordingly, if during the Term hereof any installment of Base Monthly Rent or item of Additional Rent is not received by Landlord within three (3) days of its due date, Tenant shall pay Landlord a late charge equal to five percent (5%) of such overdue amount. The parties agree that such late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs Landlord will incur by reason of a late payment by Tenant. Acceptance of such late charge by Landlord shall in no event constitute a waiver by Landlord of Tenant's default with respect to such overdue amount, nor prevent Landlord from exercising any of its rights or remedies granted under this Lease or otherwise available to Landlord. (e) Interest on Past-Due Obligations. Any monetary payment due Landlord hereunder, other than late charges, not received by Landlord within ten (10) days following the date when due, shall bear interest from the date due at the lesser of (i) the "prime rate" (also know as the "reference rate") being charged by Bank of America at that time plus four percent (4%) per annum or (ii) the maximum, non-usurious rate allowed by law. (f) Guaranty. The obligations of Tenant under this Lease shall be guaranteed by JAMES SMAILEY, an individual ("Guarantor"), pursuant to a Guaranty in the form of Exhibit C (the "Guaranty"). 310492820.2 3 i l ; 5. ACCEPTANCE OF THE PREMISES. 'I J (a) Acceptance: "AS-IS"; Waivers. I (i) Tenant acknowledges that it is familiar with the condition of the ___:J 'I Premises and the Common Area and that it has had the opportunity to inspect the Premises and ,I the Common Area to its complete satisfaction (including, but not limited to, the electrical systems, if any, security, applicable environmental conditions and requirements, applicable seismic and earthquake conditions and requirements, and compliance with applicable zoning and . J other Applicable Laws, defined below in Paragraph 10), and has either done so, or has voluntarily elected not to do so, thereby voluntarily and knowingly assuming the risk of adverse conditions or other defects in or about the Premises, the Common Area, and other portions of the Project. Subject to Landlord's obligations under Subparagraph (d) below, Tenant hereby accepts the Premises and Common Area in their "AS-IS" condition and "AS-IS" state of repair, inclusive ' l',1 of all faults and defects·, whether known or unknown, latent or patent, or foreseeable or ,' I unforeseeable. Tenant hereby fully and forever waives, and Landlord hereby fully and forever J ' . J disclaims, all warranties of whatever type or kind with respect to the Premises and the Common Area, whether express, implied or otherwise including, without limitation, those of fitness for a I l particular purpose, tenantability, habitability or use. (ii) Tenant hereby waives, releases arid relinquishes any and all rights, claims and causes of action which Tenant may now have or may hereafter be entitled to assert against Landlord, whether known or unknown, (a) with respect to the environmental condition of the Premises and the soil, air and groundwater thereof, including, without limitation, any and all rights, claims and causes of action arising under or with respect to the California Health and Ir1 Safety Code, Title 42 of the United State~ Code Section 9601 et, seq., the federal and state I Occupational Health & .Safety Acts, and common law tort theories, and/or (b) arising out of the use, generation, handling, exposure of others to, disposal or release of Hazardous Materials by Tenant or any Tenant Party (defined below) on, in, or about the Premises. With respect to the foregoing releases and waivers, Tenant expressly waives the benefits of Civil Code Section l 1542, which reads as follows: J "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or l suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known I J by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor" and any similar statute or common law that would render a waiver of unknown claims unenforceable. 6. PROPERTY TAXES. (a) Definitions. J (1) As used herein, the term "Real Property Taxes" shall include any form of real estate tax or assessment, general, special, ordinary or extraordinary, and any license fee, commercial rental tax, improvement bond or bonds, levy or tax (other than inheritance, personal income or estate taxes) imposed upon the Project or any part thereof by any authority having the direct or indirect power to tax, including any city, state or foderal -I 310492820.2 4 l I government, or any school, agricultural, sanitary, fire, street, drainage, or other improvement 'I district thereof, levied against any legal or equitable interest of Landlord in the Project or any l f, part thereof, Landlord's right to rent or other income therefrom, and/or Landlord's business of ~-J leasing the Premises. Real Property Taxes shall also include any tax, fee, levy, assessment or charge, or any increase therein, imposed by reason of events occurring, or changes in Applicable Laws taking effect, during the Term of this Lease, including but not limited to a change in the ownership of the Project or any part thereof, the execution of this Lease, or any modification, amendment or transfer thereof, and whether or not contemplated by the parties. l -,,I (b) Payment of Real Prope1ty Taxes. Tenant shall pay the Real Property Taxes applicable to the Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant shall pay, within fifteen (15) days after demand from Landlord, any part of the Real Property Taxes assessed against the Project by reason of Alterations or Trade Fixtures placed in or on the Premises by Tenant or at Tenant's request. (c) Joint Assessment. If the Project is not separately assessed, Real Property Taxes allocated to the Project shall be an equitable proportion of the Real Property Taxes for all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel(s) assessed, such proportion to be I I determined by Landlord from the respective valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other information as may be reasonably available. Landlord's reasonable determination thereof, in good faith shall be conclusive. (d) Tenant's Property Taxes. Tenant shall pay prior to delinquency all taxes, charges and assessments assessed against or levied upon: all furniture and other personal property of Tenant within the Premises, all Alterations, and all Trade Fixtures. When possible, I l Tenant shall cause all such items to be assessed and billed separately from the real property of the Landlord. If any of such items shall be assessed with Landlord's real property, Tenant shall pay Landlord the taxes attributable to Tenant's prope1ty within ten (10) days after receipt of a written statement setting forth the taxes applicable to Tenant's property. 7. UTILITIES. Tenant shall pay, prior to delinquency, all charges for water, gas, electricity, light, heat, telephone, power, waste pickup, sewer services, and other utilities and communications services furnished to or otherwise used by Tenant on or about the Premises, whether or not the services are billed directly to Tenant, including, without limitation, any connection or hook-up fees and any penalties for discontinued or intenupted service. Tenant shall also procure, or cause to be procured, without cost to Landlord, any and all necessary permits, licenses, or other authorizations required for the lawful and proper installation and maintenance upon the Premises of wires, pipes, conduits, tubes, and other equipment and appliances for use in supplying any utilities or communications services to and upon the Premises. Landlord, upon request of Tenant, and at the sole expense and liability of Tenant, shall join with Tenant in any application reasonably required for obtaining or continuing any of the services. 8. INSURANCE. (a) Payment of Premium Increases. As used herein, the term "Landlord's I Insurance Cost" is defined as the actual cost of the insurance required to be carried by Landlord _I I _j 310492820.2 5 j .I pursuant to Subparagraphs (b) and (e), below, calculated on an annual basis. Tenant shall be responsible for all costs associated with such insurance obtained by Landlord hereunder; I , I provided, however, in the event that Tenant's particular use of the Premises, or Alterations or J Trade Fixtures causes such premiums to be increased, Tenant shall pay such increase of the premiums.: -! I, (b) Property Insurance -Building. Landlord shall obtain and keep in force during the Term of this Lease a policy of policies in the name of Landlord, with loss payable to Landlord and to any Lender(s) (defined below) insuring against physical loss or damage to the Building. Such insurance shall be the amount required by any Lender(s); but in no event more than the commercially reasonable and available insurable value thereof if by reason of the unique nature or age of the Building such latter amount is less than full replacement cost. If the coverage is available and commercially appropriate, Landlord's policy or policies of casualty insurance shall insure against all risks of direct physical loss or damage (except the perils of flood and/or earthquake, unless required by Lender(s) or Landlord), including coverage for any additional costs resulting from debris removal and reasonable amounts of coverage for the enforcement of any ordinance or law regulating the reconstruction or replacement of any undamaged sections or the Building required to be demolished or removed by reason of the enforcement of any building zoning or safety or land use laws as the result of a covered loss, but not including plate glass insurance. Said policy or policies of casualty insurance shall also I ~ contain an agreed valuation provision in lieu of any co-insurance clause and inflation guard protection causing an increase in the annual property insurance coverage amount by a factor of not less than the adjusted U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the city nearest to where the Premises are located. All of Tenant's furniture and other personal property, all Alterations, and all Trade Fixtures shall be insured by Tenant pursuant to Subparagraph (c), below. (c) Property Insurance -Tenant. Subject to the requirements of Subparagraph (f), below, Tenant at its sole cost shall either by separate policy or, at Landlord's option, by endorsement to a policy already carried, maintain insurance coverage on all of Tenant's furniture , I and other personal property, Trade Fixtures and Alterations in or on the Premises similar in l coverage to that can-ied by Landlord as the insuring party under Subparagraph (b), above. Such insurance shall be full replacement cost coverage with a deductible not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per occurrence. The proceeds from any ·such insurance shall be used by Tenant solely for the replacement of furniture and other personal property located on the Premises and for the repair and restoration of Trade Fixtures and Alterations. Upon request from Landlord, Tenant shall provide Landlord with written evidence that such insurance is in full force and effect. (d) Liability Insurance -Tenant. Tenant shall obtain and keep in force during J j the Term of this Lease a commercial general liability policy of insurance protecting Tenant, Landlord and any Lender(s) whose names have been provided to Tenant in writing (as additional insureds) from claims or damages for bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage based upon, involving or arising out of (a) any occurrence on the Premises, (b) any act or omission of Tenant, any subtenant of Tenant, or any of their respective invitees, j agents, servants, contractors, or employees anywhere on the Premises, the Common Area, or Project, (c) the business operated by Tenant and by any subtenant of Tenant on the Premises, or 310492820.2 6 l 1 (d) the contractual liability of Tenant to Landlord pursuant to the indemnification provisions of Paragraphs lO(d)(7) and 20(a), below (including deletion of the contractual liability exclusion for personal injury). Such insurance shall be on an occurrence basis providing single limit coverage in an amount not less than Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence with an "Additional Insured-Mangers or Landlords of Premises" endorsement and contain the "Amendment of the Pollution Exclusion" endorsement for damage caused by heat, smoke or fumes from a hostile fire. The policy shall not contain any intra-insured exclusions as between insured persons or organizations, but shall include coverage for liability assumed under this 1 Lease as an "insured contract" for the performance of Tenant's indemnity obligations under this ) Lease. The limits of said insurance required by this Leas<:: or as carried by Tenant shall not, however, limit the liability of Tenant nor relieve Tenant of any obligation under this Lease. All insurance to be carried by Tenant shall be primary to and not contributory with any similar insurance carried by Landlord, whose insurance shall be considered excess insurance only. l The liability policy shall contain an endorsement (ISO Form 20-26) naming Landlord, its members, and shareholders (as applicable) and any Lender(s) as additional insureds, and shall provide that the insurance carrier shall have the duty to defend and/or settle any legal proceeding filed against Landlord seeking damages based upon personal injury, bodily injury or property damage liability even if any of the allegations of such legal proceedings are groundless, false or fraudulent. In addition, Tenant's liability insurance policies shall be endorsed as needed to Il provide cross liability coverage for Tenant, Landlord and any lender of Landlord and shall provide for severability of interest. (e) Liability Insurance -Landlord. Landlord shall also maintain liability insurance similar to the liability insurance described in Subparagraph (d), above, in addition to and not in lieu of, the insurance required to be maintained by Tenant. Tenant shall not be named as an additional insured therein. (f) Worker's Compensation -Tenant. Tenant shall carry and maintain during · the entire Term hereof, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, a policy or policies of worker's compensation insurance as required by Applicable Laws. Such policy or policies shall contain ' j waivers of subrogation in favor of Landlord. (g) Business Income and Extra Expense Coverage. Tenant shall carry and ~j maintain during the entire Term hereof, at Tenant's sole cost and expense, keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of business income/business interruption insurance and extra expense coverage (collectively, "Business Income Insurance") with coverage that will reimburse Tenant for all direct and indirect loss of income and changes and costs incurred arising out of all named perils insured against by Tenant's policies of property insurance, including prevention of, or denial of use of or access to, all or part of the Premises or Building as a result of those named perils. The Business Income Insurance coverage must provide coverage for no less than twelve (12) months of the loss of income, charges and costs contemplated under this Lease. (h) Other Matters. All insurance required of Tenant under this Paragraph 8 and all renewals of it shall be issued by companies authorized to transact business in the State of California, and rated at least A, VIII, or such other rating as may be required by Lender(s), as set forth in the most current issue of Best's Insurance Guide. All insurance policies shall be subject j 310492820.2 7 J -) I to approval by Landlord and any Lender(s) as to form and substance; shall expressly provide that the policies will not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days' prior written notice to Landlord and any Lender(s), in the case of "all-risk" coverage insurance, and to Landlord, in the case of general liability insurance; and shall, to the exterit obtainable, provide that no act or omission of Tenant which would otherwise result in forfeiture or reduction of the insurance will affect or limit the obligation of the insurance company to pay the amount of any loss sustained. (i) Additional Insureds. All policies of liability insurance that Tenant is rt obligated to maintain according to this Lease (other than any policy of workmen's compensationI ' J insurance) shall name Landlord and such other persons as Landlord specifies from time to time as additional insureds (including any Lender(s)). Original or copies of original policies (together with copies of the endorsements naming Landlord, and any others specified by Landlord, as additional insureds) and evidence of the payment of all premiums of such policies shall be delivered to Landlord prior to Tenant's occupancy of the Premises and from time to time at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the term of each policy. All public liability, property damage liability, and casualty policies maintained by Tenant shall be written as primary policies, not contributing with and not in excess of coverage that Landlord may carry. No insurance required to be maintained by Tenant under this Paragraph 8 shaU be subject to any deductible without Landlord's prior written consent. G) Waiver of Subrogation. In addition to the waiver of subrogation contained in Paragraph 8(f), above, Tenant hereby waives its rights and the subrogation rights of its insurer against Landlord and any other tenants of the Project, as well as their respective members, officers, employees, agents, authorized representatives and invitees, with respect to any claims including, but not limited to, claims for injury to any persons, and/or damage to the Premises and/or any furniture, personal property, Trade Fixtures, and/or Alterations in or to the Premises, which are caused by or result from (a) risks or damages required to be insured against by Tenant under a policy of property insurance under this Lease, or (b) risks and damages which are in fact insured against by one or more property insurance policies maintained by Tenant from time to time. It is the intent of Landlord that with respect to any loss from a named peril required to be covered under a policy of property insurance, Tenant will look solely to its insurance companies I for recovery. Tenant shall obtain for Landlord from Tenant's insurers under each policy required of Tenant under this Lease a waiver of all rights of subrogation which such insurers of Tenant ~i might otherwise have against Landlord (and such waiver may be included in a certificate ofI J insurance from the insurer). (k) Adequacy of Insurance. Landlord makes no representation or warranty to Tenant that the amount of insurance to be carried by Tenant under the terms of this Lease is adequate to fully protect Tenant's interests. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord shall not, by the fact of approving, disapproving, waiving, accepting, or obtaiiling any insurance, insure any liability for or with respect to the amount of insurance carried, the form or legal sufficiency of such insurance, the solvency of any insurance companies or the payment or defense of any lawsuit in connection with such insurance coverage, and Tenant hereby expressly assumes full responsibility therefor and all liability, if any, with respect thereto. 310492820.2 8 r'' i I : I . I 9. USE. (a) Permitted Use. The Premises shall be used for a full service grocery store, storage areas and office and administrative purposes and for no other use or purpose. --i " (b) Restrictions on Use. Tenant shall not do or permit any act that could: (1) • J ' i cause any structural damage to the Premises or any other part of the Project; (2) cause any other damage to any part of the Premises, except to the extent reasonably necessary for the installation of trade fixtures, equipment, machinery, or the construction of Alterations approved in writing in advance by Landlord, provided such damage is promptly repaired by Tenant; (3) materially damage the Premises or any other part of the Project; ( 4) impair the efficient operation of the :i Premises' or Building's heating, ventilation, or air conditioning systems, if any; (5) overload or I otherwise place an undue strain on the Premises' or Building's electrical and mechanical c J systems; or (6) damage, overload, or corrode the Premises' or Building's sanitary sewer system. (c) Further Restrictions. (1) Tenant shall not install or attach anything in the Premises in excess of the load limits established by Landlord for the Premises. Tenant shall contain and dispose of all dust, fumes, or waste products generated by Tenant's use of the Premises so as to avoid: (i) fire or health hazards, (ii) damage to the Project, or (iii) any violation of Applicable Laws. (2) Except as may be approved by Landlord in advance in writing, Tenant shall not change the exterior of the Building or install any equipment, machinery, or antennas on -or make any penetrations of, the exterior or roof of the Building. Tenant shall not commit, or suffer to be committed, any waste or nuisance in or about the Premises and shall keep the Premises or Common Area in a neat, clean, attractive and orderly condition, free of any waste or nuisances. Tenant shall not conduct on any part of the Premises or Project, any sale of any kind, including but not limited to any public or private auction, going out-of-business sale, distress sale, or other liquidation sale. 10. USE RESTRICTIONS; COMPLIANCE; ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS. (a) Restrictions on Use. Tenant shall not use or occupy, or permit any part of the Premises to be used or occupied: (1) in violation of any federal, state or local law, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, permit, license, certificate of occupancy, or other governmental requirement now or hereafter in effect (collectively, "Applicable Laws") or any covenants, conditions, or restrictions affecting the Project or any part thereof (collectively, "CC&Rs"); (2) for any disreputable business or purpose; or (3) in any manner or for any business or purpose that creates risks of fire or other hazards, or that would in any way violate, suspend, void, or increase the rate of fire or liability or any other insurance of any kind at any time carried by Landlord upon all or any part of the Premises, the Building, or its contents. J (b) Compliance. Tenant shall comply with all CC&Rs and all Applicable Laws relating to the use, condition, or occupancy of the Premises or the conduct of Tenant's business (including workplace safety and the employment of Tenant's employers), and all rules, I ~ J .! 3 I 0492820.2 9 i I , I i l 1 ' l ]" J J orders, regulations, and requirements of the board of fire underwriters or insurance service office, or any other similar body, having jurisdiction over the Project or any part thereof. (c) Legally Required Alterations. Tenant shall pay the entfre expense of any and all alterations as may be needed to conform the Premises to all ApplicableLaws (including without limitation the Ameri<;:ans with Disabilities Act and Title 24 of the Code of California Regulations) governing the use or occupancy of the Premises including, without limitation, any and all alterations to the Premises that may be required under any Applicable Laws relating to accessibility or usability of, to, or within the Premises by disabled persons. (d) Tenant's Obligations with Respect to Environmental Requirements. (1) Without limiting Tenant's obligations underSubpa.ragraphs (a) and (b), above, Tenant shall comply with and shall cause the Premises to comply with, all Applicable Laws relating to (i) human health or safety, (ii) workplace safety, (iii) industrial hygiene, or (iv) the use, generation, _handling, manufacture, installation, maintenance, disposal, transportation, storage, spill, or release of Hazardous Materials by Tenant or any Tenant Pa1iy, all as amended and modified from time to time (collectively, "Environmental Requirements"). The foregoing obligation shall not negate Landlord's obligation under Paragraph lO(e), below. Tenant shall cause all governmental permits and other approvals relating to the use or operation of the Premises by Tenant required by applicable Environmental Requirements or, any other Applicable Laws to at all times remain in effect, and Tenant shall at all times comply with such permits and other approvals. "Reportable Use" shall mean (i) the installation or use of any above or below ground storage tank, (ii) the release, generation, possession, storage, handling, use, transportation, or disposal of any Hazardous Materials that requires a permit from, or with respect to which a report, notice, registration or business plan is required to be filed with, any governmental authority, or (iii) the presence in, on or about the Premises of any Hazardous Materials with respect to which any Environmental Requirements or other Applicable Laws require that a notice be given to persons entering or occupying the Premises, the Project, or neighboring properties. (2) Tenant shall not, nor allow any Tenant Party to, release, use, generate, manufacture, store, transport, or dispose of any Hazardous Materials on, under, or about the Premises. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tenant may use on the Premises, without Landlord's prior consent, but only upon written notice to Landlord and in compliance with all Environmental Requirements and other Applicable Laws, any ordinary and customary materials reasonably required for use by Tenant in the normal course of the permitted use described in Paragraph 9(a), above, and further, only so long as such use is not a Reportable Use and does not expose the Premises or any other portion of the Project or neighboring properties to any meaningful risk of contamination or damage or expose Landlord to any liability therefor. In addition, Landlord may (but without any obligation to do so) condition its consent to any Reportable Use of any Hazardous Materials by Tenant upon Tenant's giving Landlord such additional assurances as Landlord deems necessary to protect itself, the public, the Premises, the Project, and the environment against damage, contamination or injury and/or liability therefor, including but not limited to the installation (and, at Landlord's option, removal on or before Lease expiration or earlier termination) of reasonably necessary protective modifications to the Premises (such as concrete encasement) and/or the deposit of an additional security deposit. 310492820.2 10 J (3) If Tenant knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that any Hazardous Materials have been introduced upon the Premises or any other portion of the Project b·y Tenant or a Tenant Party (other than as may have been previously consented to by Landlord), Tenant shall immediately give Landlord written notice thereof, together with a copy of any statement, report, notice, registration, application, pe1mit, business plan, license, claim, action, or proceeding, given to, or received from, any governmental authority or pdvate party concerning such Hazardous Materials including, but not limited to, all such documents as may be involved in any Reportable Use involving the Premises. Landlord's receipt of any notice, I documents or other information from Tenant as provided above in this Subparagraph shall not I ' ) create any obligation on the part of Landlord to respond in any way to such notice, documents or information or the conditions described therein. 1 ', ) 'f. (4) Tenant shall immediately notify Landlord and provide copies upon receipt of all written complaints, claims, citations, demands, inquiries, reports, or notices relating to the condition of the Premises or compliance with Environmental Requirements (provided, however, that Landlord's receipt of any of the foregoing shall in no way create or impose any duty or obligation upon Landlord to respond thereto). Tenant shall promptly cure and have dismissed with prejudice any of those actions and proceedings to the satisfaction of Landlord. (5) Landlord, its agents, employees, contractors and designated representatives, and the holders of any mortgages, deeds of trust or ground leases on the Premises ("Leiider(s)") shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter the Premises at any time in the case of an emergency, and otherwise at reasonable times, for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the Premises and for verifying compliance by Tenant with this Lease (including compliance with Environmental Requirements) and Landlord shall be entitled to employ expe1ts and/or consultants in connection therewith to advise Landlord with respect to l I Tenant's activities, including but not limited to Tenant's installation, operation, use, monitoring, maintenance, or removal of any Hazardous Materials on or from the Premises. The costs and expenses of any such inspections shall be paid by the party requesting same, unless a default orl breach oftpis Lease by Tenant or a violation ofEnvironmental Requirements or a contamination, caused or materially contributed to by Tenant or a Tenant Party, is found to exist or to be imminent, or unless the inspection is requested or ordered by a governmental authority as the result of any such existing or imminent violation or contamination, and in each such case, Tenant shall upon· demand reimburse Landlord, or Landlord's Lender(s), as the case may be, for the costs and expenses of such inspections. (6) IfTenant breaches any of its waiTanties, representations, and covenants under this Paragraph 10, Landlord may cause the removal from the Premises (or other cleanup acceptable to Landlord) of any Hazardous Materials which relate to or are the subject of such breach. The costs of Hazardous Materials removal, remediation, and other response (including, without limitation, transportation and storage costs) shall be deemed covered by the indemnity in Subparagraph ( d)(7), below, whether or not a court has ordered the cleanup, and those costs shall become due and payable on demand by Landlord. Tenant shall give Landlord, its agen~s. contractors, and employees access to the Premises to remove or otherwise clean up any Hazardous Materials. Landlord, however, has no obligation whatsoever I 3 I 0492820.2 11_j to remove, clean up, or otherwise respond to any Hazardous Materials, and this Lease shall not be construed as creating any such obligation. (7) Tenant agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to Landlord and at Tenant's sole cost), and hold Landlord and Landlord's members, affiliates, employees, agents, successors and assigns free and harmless from and against all losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, claims, litigation, orders, demands, defenses, ,-, costs, judgments, suits, proceedings, damages (including consequential damages), disbursements, losses, or expenses of any kind (including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and fees and :l expenses incurred in investigating, defending, or prosecuting any litigation, claim, or proceeding) that may at any time be imposed upon, incurred by, or asserted or awarded against Landlord or any of them in connection with or arising from or out of: a. any Hazardous Materials (whether or not the use thereof has been consented to by Landlord) in, under, or affecting all or any part of the Premises or Project, the presence of which is attributable, in whole or in part, to any act or omission of Tenant or any of it.s officers, directors, members, employees, agents, contractors, visitors, customers, shippers, suppliers, invitees, licensees, subtenants, or other persons entering the Premises under the express or implied invitation of Tenant (collectively, "Tenant Parties"); b. any misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or breach of any warranty, covenant, or agreement contained or referred to in this Paragraph 10; c. any violation or claini of violation by Tenant or any ' ( I, Tenant Party of any Environmental Requirement; or d. the imposition of any lien for the recovery of any costs for environmental cleanup or other response costs relating to the release or threatened ' 1 release of Hazardous Materials by Tenant or any Tenant Party. This indemnification is the personal obligation of Tenant and shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. Tenant, its successors, and assigns waive, release, and agree not to make any claim or bring any cost recovery action against Landlord under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended and reauthorized to date (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.), or any state equivalent or any similar law now existing or enacted after this date. To the extent that Landlord is strictly liable under any such law, regulation, ordinance, or requirement, Tenant's obligation to Landlord under this indemnity shall also be without regard to fault on the part of Tenant with respect to the violation or condition that results in liability to Landlord. (8) "Hazardous Materials" means any product, substance, chemical, material or waste whose presence, nature, quantity and/or intensity or existence, use, manufacture, disposal, transportation, spill, release, or effect, either by itself or in combinationJ with other materials, is either (i) potentially injurious or harmful to the public health, safety or welfare, the Premises, any other portion of the Project, or the environment (including, without limitation, any soil, air, or groundwater on, in, under, above or about the Project); (ii) regulatedl or monitored by any governmental authority; or (iii) a basis for potential liability of Landlord to 310492820.2 12 any governmental agency, private party, or other third party under any applicable statute, regulation, code, ordinance or common law theory. Without limiting the scope or generality of the· forgoing, Hazardous Materials shall include, but not be limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, gasoline, crude oil or any products or by products thereof. ,---"• 1 11. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING ! (a) Restrictions on Transfer. The terms and conditions in this Lease were offered solely to Tenant as an inducement to lease the Premises. Landlord would not necessarily lease the Premises to another Tenant on such favorable terms and conditions, it being understood that Landlord is specifically relying on the identity of Tenant in agreeing to the terms and conditions in this Lease. Tenant acknowledges that the lease terms and conditions are for Tenant's benefit only so long as Tenant operates the business allowed by this Lease, and that Tenant is not entering into this Lease for any other purpose, such as the recognition of a :·---, i leasehold value that it could later sell. It is understood and agreed that any value, upon the early ~ J termination of Tenant's occupancy of the Premises, shall revert to Landlord, either by termination of this Lease or as a condition of assignment or subletting, as provided in this , 1 Paragraph 11. But for the previously stated reasons, Landlord would not enter into this Lease. Therefore, without the express prior written consent of Landlord, which may withheld for any reason whatsoever, Tenant shall not voluntarily, involuntarily, or by operation of law: (1) sublet all or any part of the Premises or allow it to be sublet, occupied, or used by any person or entity other than Tenant; (2) assign Tenant's interest in this Lease; (3) mortgage or encumber this Lease, or otherwise use this Lease as a security device in any manner; or ( 4) amend or modify an assignment, sublease, or other transfer that has not been previously approved by Landlord. Any action taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to clauses (1) through (4) in the preceding paragraph shall be collectively referred to herein as an "Assignment'', and any third party succeeding to all or a p011ion of Tenant's interest under this Lease or proposed to succeed to all or a portion of Tenant's interest under this Lease shall be referred to as an "assignee". If Tenant is a partnership, any withdrawal or substitution, whether voluntary, involuntary, or byl operation of law, and whether occurring at one time or over a period of time, of any partner '· J owning twenty-five percent (25%) or more, cumulatively, of any interest in the capital or profits of the partnership or the dissolution of the partnership, shall be deemed an assignment. IfTenant is a corporation, any dissolution, merger, consolidation, or other reorganization of Tenant, any sale or transfer or cumulative sales or transfers of the capital stock of Tenant in excess of twenty- five percent (25%) or any sale or cumulative sales of fifty-one percent (51 % ) or more of the value of Tenant's assets shall be deemed an assignment. However, the previous provisions shall not apply to corporations, the capital stock of which is publicly traded. l (b) Payment of Landlord's Costs. Tenant shall pay to Landlord, as Additional Rent, all reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by Landlord in connection with the evaluation, processing, or documentation of any requested assignment, whether or not I Landlord's consent is granted. Landlord's reasonable costs shall include the cost of any review _J or investigation performed by Landlord or consultant acting on behaJf of Landlord of: (1) any Hazardous Materials used, stored, released, or disposed of by the proposed assignee, or (2) violations of any environmental law by Tenant or the proposed assignee. I ,! 3 J 0492820.2 13 (c) Effectiveness of Assignment. Any Assignment approved by Landlord shall not be effective until Tenant has delivered to Landlord an executed counterpart of the i, document evidencing the Assignment that: (1) is in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to . J Landlord, and (2) contains the same terms and conditions as stated in Tenant's notice given to Landlord pursuant to Subparagraph (e), below. (d) Assignment Voidable. Any attempted Assignment without Landlord's .-..., express prior written consent shall constitute an event of default hereunder and shall be voidable at Landlord's sole option. Landlord's consent to any one assignment shall not constitute a waiver of the provision of this Paragraph 11 as to any subsequent assignment or a consent to any subsequent assignment. No Assignment, even with the consent of Landlord, shall relieve Tenant of the obligatipn to pay the rent and to perform all of the other obligations to be performed by Tenant. The acceptance of rent by Landlord from any person shall not be deE:med to be a waiver by Landlord of any provision of this Lease, nor to be a consent to any Assignment. (e) Notice of Proposed Assignment. At least sixty (60) days before a proposed Assignment is to become effective, Tenant shall give Landlord written notice of the proposed terms of the Assignment and request Landlord's approval, which notice shall include the following: (1) the name and legal composition of the assignee; (2) a current financial statement of the assignee, financial statements of the assignee covering the preceding three (3) years, if they exist, and, if available, an audited financial statement of the assignee for a period ending not more than one (1) year prior to the proposed effective date of the assignment, all of which are to be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; (3) the nature of the assignee's business to be carried on in the Premises;(4) a statement of all i ! consideration to be given on account of the assignment; and (5) any other information that Landlord reasonably requests. (f) Withholding of Consent. Landlord's consent to any requeste~ Assignment may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. (g) Guarantor's Consent. IfTenant's obligations under this Lease have been guaranteed by third parties, any assignment of Tenant's interest under this Lease and Landlord's ·., consent shall not be effective unless those guarantors give written consent to the assignment. j l (h) Order. Ifan event of default occurs and is continuing, Landlord may proceed directly against Tenant, any assignee, any guarantors, or any other party responsible for the performance of this Lease, without first exhausting Landlord's remedies against any other party responsiple to Landlord, or resorting to any security held by Landlord. (i) Attornment. If an event of default occurs and is continuing, Landlord may : j require any subtenant to attorn to Landlord, in which event Landlord shall undertake the obligations of Tenant under any sublease, provided, however, that Landlord shall not be liable for any amounts paid by the subtenant to Tenant or for any defaults by Tenant or prior i obligations of Tenant under the sublease. J U) Binding. Every provision of this Paragraph 11 shall be binding on any assignee as if that assignee were the Tenant under this Lease. 310492820.2 14 l i I I I J (k) No Further Assignment or Subletting. No assignee shall further assign or sublet the Premises without Landlord's prior written consent. 12. SIGNS. Landlord reserves the exclusive right to control the architectural and aesthetic appearance of the exterior side-walls and roof of the Premises .and Building. Tenant will not place or permit to be placed in or upon the exterior side walls, windows or roof of the Building or within the Common Area any signs, advertisements or notices, or alter its architecture or appearance without first obtaining the express prior written consent of Landlord. Landlord shall have the right to post or place such signs, notices or displays as Landlord reasonably deems necessary or appropriate upon the roof, the exterior of the Building, and/or within the Corpmon Area. Landlord shall have the right to remove any of Tenant's signs, advertisements or notices to which Landlord objects, at Tenant's sole expense. Landlord shall be entitled to all revenues from such advertising signs. 13. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. (a). By Tenant. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraphs 13(b), 16, 17 and 24(f) hereof, Tenant shall, at its sole expense, maintain the Premises and make repairs, restorations, and replacements to _the Premises, including, without limitation, the heating, ventilating, air conditioning, mechanical, electrical, sewage, and plumbing systems, interior walls, fl,oors, carpets, window coverings, ceilings, roof, windows, plate glass, and doors, and the fixtures and appmtenances to the Premises, as and when needed to preserve them in good · working order and condition and regardless of whether the repairs, restorations, and replacements are stmctural or non-structural, ordinary or extraordinary, foreseeable or unforeseeable, capital or noncapital, or the fault or not the fault of Tenant or any Tenant Party. Without limitation of the scope or generality of the foregoing, at all times during the Term Tenant shall maintain a contract for the regular maintenance and servicing of the HV AC syestems serving the Premises, and such contract shall be with a duly licensed HVAC service and repair specialist acceptable to Landlord. All repairs, restorations, and replacements shall be in quality and class equal to the original work or installations. IfTenant fails to make repairs, restorations, or replacements within fifteen (15) days after written demand by Landlord, Landlord may make them at the expense of Tenant and the expense shall be collectible as Additional Rent to be paid by Tenant within fifteen (15) days after delivery of a statement for the expense. (b) By Landlord. Subject to the other provisions of this Lease, Landlord shall keep in good order and repair the exterior walls of the Building. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord shall not be obligated to paint the exterior or interior surfaces of exterior walls or doors (including any roll up doors), nor shall Landlord be obligated to maintain, repair or replace any windows, doors (including any roll up doors), or plate glass of the Premises. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Landlord shall not be obligated to perform any maintenance, repairs or replacements in response to or arising out of damage caused by the act or omission of Tenant or any Tenant Party, which repairs or replacements shall be the sole obligation of Tenant. Tenant expressly waives the benefit of any statute now or hereafter in effect which would otherwise afford Tenant the right to make repairs at Landlord's failure to keep the Building, Common Area, or any other portion of the Project in good order, condition and repair. \ 310492820.2 15 ~1 ! 14. ALTERATIONS. (a) Alterations. Tenant shall not make, or suffer to be made, any alterations, additions, renovations or improvements (collectively "Alterations") to the Premises without Landlord's prior written consent; however, Landlord's prior written consent shall not be necessary for CJ.DY Alteration which: (1) costs less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) including labor and materials; (2) does not change the general character of the Premises, or reduce the fair market value of the Premises below its fair market value prior to the alteration, addition, or improvement; (3) is made with due diligence, in a good and workmanlike manner, and in compliance with the laws, ordinances, orders, rules, regulations, certificates of occupancy, or other governmental requirements described in Paragraph 9, and above; (4) is promptly and _fully paid for by Tenant. (b) Architect's Supervision; Compliance with Laws; Ownership; Removal. All Alterations (other than those costing less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)) shall be1 made by Tenai:it under the supervision of an architect and/or engineer hired by Tenant and '-j reasonably satisfactory to Landlord and in accordance with plans and specifications and cost estimates approved by Landlord. In addition, Landlord may designate a supervising architect and/or engineer to assure compliance with the provisions of this paragraph, and if it does, Tenant · shall pay as Additional Rent the supervising architect's and/or engineer's charges. All I 1 Alterations shall be performed solely at Tenant's expense, in compliance with all Applicable Laws, and shall be performed only by properly licensed ·contractors or workers. Subject to Tenant's rights under Paragraph 15, below, all Alterations and Trade Fixtures, whether temporary or permanent in character, made in or on the Premises by Tenant shall immediately become Landlord's property, and upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease shall remain on the Premises without compensation to Tenant; provided, however, that by written notice given ta Tenant at any time prior to the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Landlord may require that any Alterations and/or Trade Fixtures made in or on the Premises be removed by Tenant. In such event, 'Tenant shall remove the designated Alterations and/or Trade fixtures at Tenant's sole cost and shall restore the Premises to the condition in which it was in before the Alterations and Trade fixtures were installed, reasonable wear and tear excepted. (c) Mechanic's Liens. Tenant shall also pay and discharge any and all mechanics' liens placed against the Premises and/or the Project resulting from the actions of Tenant or any of Tenant's employees or agents (including, without limitation, any work performed at the request of Tenant or any of its employees or agents). IfTenant wishes in good faith to contest the validity of any mechanic's lien claim placed against the Premises and/or project for any reason whatsoever, Tenant shall forth-with either pay the disputed amount or shall, at Tenant's sole cost and expense and with the prior written consent of the Landlord, obtain a bond conforming with the requirements of California Civil Code Section 3143 so as to release the lien against the Premises and/or any other portion of the Project. I 15. END OF TERM. Upon the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease, Tenant J shall surrender the Premises clean and free of debris and in good operating order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted. IfTenant is not then in default, Tenant may remove from the Premises any trade fixtures, machinery and equipment owned by Tenant which can be removed without doing material damage to the Premises (herein collectively called "Trade Fixtures") 3104928202 16 and any movable furniture owned by and placed in the Premises by Tenant, whether or not such Trade Fixtures are fastened to the Premises. Tenant shall not remove any Trade Fixtures without Landlord's prior written consent if the Trade Fixtures are used in the operation of the Premises or if the removal of the Trade Fixtures will impair the structure of the Premises. Whether or not Tenant is then in default, Tenant shall remove all Alterations, Trade Fixtures, and furniture that Landlord has requested be removed in accordance with Paragraph 14, above, and shall, under all circumstances, fully repair any damage occasioned by the removal of any Alterations, Trade Fixtures, or furniture. Any Alterations, Trade Fixtures, or furniture not so removed shall be conclusively deemed to have been abandoned by Tenant and may be appropriated, sold, stored, : I I destroyed, or qtherwise disposed of by Landlord without notice to Tenant or any other person and without oqligation to account for them. Tenant shall pay Landlord all expenses incurred in connection with Landlord's disposition of such property, including without limitation the cost of repairing any damage to Premises caused by removal of such property. Tenant's obligation to observe and perform covenants set forth in this Paragraph 15 shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. 16. DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION. (a) Definitions. (1) "Premises Partial Damage" means damage or destruction I to the Premises, other than any furniture, inventory, Alterations, Trade Fixtures or other items I ,I owned, installed, leased or paid for by Tenant (collectively, "Excluded Items"), the repair cost of which damage or destruction is less than fifty percent (50%) of the then Replacement Cost (as I l defined below) of the Premises, excluding all Excluded Items, immediately prior to such damage or destruction. (2) "Premises Total Destruction" means damage or l I destruction to the Premises, other than Excluded Items, the repair cost of which damage or destruction is fifty percent (50%) or more of the then Replacement Cost of the Premises (excluding any Excluded Items) immediately prior to such damage or destruction. In addition, damage or destruction to the Building, other than Excluded Items of any tenants of the Building, the cost of w~ch damage or destruction is fifty percent (50%) or more of the then Replacement Cost (excluding Excluded Items of any tenants of the Building) of the Building shall, at the option of Landlord, be deemed to be Premises Total Destruction. (3) "Insured Loss" shall mean damage or destruction to the Premises, other than Excluded Items, which was caused by an event required to be covered by the casualty insurance described in Paragraph 8(b), above, inespective of any deductible amounts or coverage limits involved. (4) "Replacement Cost" shall mean the cost to repair or rebuild the improvements owned by Landlord at the time of the occurrence to their condition J existing immediately prior thereto, including demolition, debris removal and upgrading required by the operation of applicable building codes, ordinances or laws, and without deduction for depreciation. 310492820.2 17 (5) Premises Partial Damage -Insured Loss. IfPremises Partial Damage that is an fusured Loss occurs, then Landlord shall, at Landlord's expense, repair such damage (but not Excluded Items) as soon as reasonably possible and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect. In the event, however, that there is a shortage of insurance proceeds and ~uch shortage is due to the fact that, by reason of the unique nature of the ~ I improvements in the Premises, full replacement cost insurance coverage was not commercially j reasonable and available, Landlord shall have no obligation to pay for the shortage in insurance proceeds or to fully restore the unique aspects of the Prerr.iises unless Tenant provides Landlord with the funds to cover same or adequate assurance thereof, within ten (10) days following receipt of written notke of such shortage and request therefor. IfLandlord receives said funds or adequate assurance thereof within said ten (10) day period, Landlord shall complete them as ,~l soon as reasonably possible and this Lease shall remain in full force an effect. IfLandlord does I' ) not receive such funds or assurance within said period, Landlord may nevertheless elect by written notice to Tenant within ten (10) days thereafter to make such restoration and repair as is commercially reasonable with Landlord paying any shortage in proceeds, in which case this Lease shall remain in full force and effect. IfLandlord does not receive such funds or assurance within such ten (10) day period, and if Landlord does not so elect to restore and repair, then this Lease shall terminate sixty (60) days following the occurrence of the damage or destruction. Unless otherwise agreed, Tenant shall in no event have any right to reimbursement from Landlord for any funds contributed by Tenant to repair any such damage or destruction. Premises Partial Damage due to flood or eru.thquake shall be subject to Paragraph 16(c) rather than this Paragraph 16(b ), notwithstanding that there may be some insurance coverage, but the net proceeds of any such insurru.1ce shall be made available for the repairs if made by either party. (b) Partial Damage -Uninsured Loss. IfPremises Partial Damage that is not an Insured Loss occurs, unless caused by a negligent or willful act of Tenant (in which event Tenant shall make the repairs at Tenant's expense and this Lease shall continue in full force and effect), Landlord may at Landlord's option, either (i) repair such damage as soon as reasonably possible at Landlord's expense, in which event this Lease shaU continue in full force and effect, or (ii) give written notice to Tenant within thirty (30) days after receipt by Landlord of know ledge of the occurrence of such damage of Landlord's desire to terminate this Lease as of the date sixty (60) days following the date of such notice. In the event Landlord elects to give such notice of Landlord's intention to terminate this Lease, Tenant shall have the right within ten (10) days after receipt of such notice to give written notice to Landlord of Tenant's commitment to pay for the repair of such damage totally at Tenant's expense and without reimbursement from Landlord. Tenant shall provide Landlord with the required funds or satisfactory assurance thereof within thirty (30) days following such commitment from Tenant. In such event this Lease shall continue in full force and effect, and Landlord shall proceed to make such repair as soon. as reasonably possible after the required funds are available. IfTenant does not give such notice and provide the funds or assurance thereof within the time specified above, this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in Landlord's notice of termination. J (c) Total Destruction. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, if Premises Total Destruction occurs (including any destruction required by any authorized pub]ic authority) this Lease shall terminate sixty (60) days following the date of such Premises Total j Destruction, whether or not the damage or destruction is an Insured Loss or was caused by a 310492820.2 18 negligent or willful act of Tenant. In the event, however, that the damage or destruction was caused by Tenant, Landlord shall have the right to recover all of Landlord's damages and losses from Tenant. (d) Damage Near End of Term. Ifat any time during the last six (6) months of the term of this Lease there is damage for which the cost to repair exceeds one month's Base Monthly Rent, whether or not an Insured Loss, Landlord may, at Landlord's option, terminate this Lease effective sixty (60) days following the date of occurrence of such damage by giving ~l written notice to Tenant of Landlord's election to do so within thirty (30) days after the date of l occurrence of such damage. (e) Abatement of Rent: Tenant's Remedies. (1) In the event of Premises Partial Damage for which Tenant ~1 is not legally responsible, the Base Monthly Rent and the Additional Rent payable by Tenant hereunder for the period during which such damage or condition, its repair, or restoration , I continues, shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Tenant's use of the Premises is impaired, but not in excess of the amount of Base Monthly Rent for a 12-month period. Except for abatement of Base Monthly Rent and Additional Rent as aforesaid, all other obligations of Tenant hereunder shall be performed by Tenant, and Tenant shall have no claim against Landlord for any damage suffered by reason of any such damage, destruction, or repair. (2) IfLandlord shall be obligated to repair or restore the Premises under this Paragraph 16 and shall not commence, in a substantial and meaningful way, the repair or restoration of the Premises within ninety (90) days after such obligation shall accrue, Tenant may, at any time prior to the commencement of such repair or restoration, give written notice to Landlord and to any Lender(s) of which Tenant has actual notice of Tenant's election to terminate this Lease on a date not less than sixty (60) days following the giving of such notice. IfTenant gives such notice to Landlord and such Lender(s) and such repair or restoration is not commenced within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, this Lease shall terminate as of the date specified in said notice. IfLandlord or a Lender(s) commences the repair or restoration of the Premises within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such notice, this _ Lease shall continue in full force and effect. "Commence" as used in this paragraph shall mean either the unconditional authorization of the preparation of the required plans, or the beginning of actual work on the Premises, whichever occurs first. (f) Waiver. Except as expressly provided in this Lease, damage to or destruction of the Premises shall not terminate this Lease or result in any abatement of Base Monthly Rent, Additional Rent or any other charge hereunder. Tenant waives any right of offset against Tenant's rental obligations that may be provided by any statute or rule of law in connection with Landlord's duties of repair and restoration under the provisions of this Lease. (g) Landlord Not Responsible. Landlord shall not be responsible for any loss, J damage, or destruction to any Alterations, Trade Fixtures, or to other of Tenant's leasehold improvements or to any furniture, inventory, or other Tenant-owned improvements or prope1ty. 310492820.2 19 9 17. CONDEMNATION. ] (a) Total Taking. If, by exercise of the right of eminent domain or by conveyance made in response to the threat of the exercise of such right (in either case a "Taking"), all of the Premises are Taken, or if so much of the Premises are Taken that the Premises (even if the restorations described in Subparagraph (b), below, were to be made) cannot . J be used by Tenant for the purposes for which they were used immediately before the Taking, this Lease shall end on the earlier of the vesting of title to the Premise.s in the condemning authority or the taking of possession of the Premises by the condemning authority (in either case the "Ending Date"). Ifthis Lease ends according to this Subparagraph (a), prepaid rent shall be appropriately prorated to the Ending Date. The award in a taking subject to this Subparagraph (a) shall be allocated according to Subparagraph (d), below. (b) Partial Taking. If, after a Taking, in Landlord's reasonable discretion, so . I much of the Premises remains that the Premises can be used for substantially the same purposes for which they were used immediately before the taking: (1) this Lease shall end on the Ending Date as to the part of the Premises which is Taken; (2) prepaid rent shall be appropriately allocated to the part of the Premises which is Taken and prorated to the Ending Date; (3) beginning on the day after the Ending Date, rent for so much of the Premises as remains shall be reduced in the proportion of the floor area of the Premises remaining after the Taking to the floor area of the Premises before the Taking; (4) at its sole expense, Tenant shall restore so much of the Premises as remains to a sound architectural unit substantially suitable for the purposes for which it was used immediately before the Taking, using good workmanship and new first class materials, all according to Paragraph 14, above; (5) upon the completion of restoration according to Subparagraph (4), above, Landlord will pay Tenant the lesser of (A) the net award made to Landlord on account of the taking (after deducting from the total award attorneys', appraisers', and other costs incurred in connection with obtaining the award, and amounts paid to the holders of mortgages affecting the Premises), or (B) Tenant's actual out-of-pocket cost of restoring the Premises; and (6) . Landlord shall keep the balance of the net award. (c) Tenant's Award. In connection with any Taking subject to Subparagraph (b), above, Tenant may prosecute its own claim by separate proceedings against the condemning J authority for damages legally due to it (such as the loss of fixtures which Tenant was entitled to remove and moving expenses) only so Jong as Tenant's award does not diminish or otherwise adversely affect Landlord's award in any manner. 310492820.2 20 (d) Allocation of an Award for a Total Taking. If this Lease ends according to Subparagraph (a), above, Landlord shall receive the entirety of any award that may be paid in connection with the Taking, including severance and consequential damages and any award for the value of this Lease, and Tenant shall have no claim or interest in any award, whether or not the award or any part of it is attributable to the value of the unexpired Term of this Lease. Tenant hereby irrevocably assigns and transfers to Landlord any right to compensation or damages to which Tenant may become entitled during the Tenn hereof by reason of any taking. r-1 I (e) · Waiver. Each party hereby waives the provisions of California Code of ' l Civil Procedure Section 1265.130 allowing either party to petition the Superior Comito terminate this Lease in the event of a partial Taking of the Premises. 18. SUBORDINATION. (a) General. This Lease and Tenant's rights under this Lease are subject and subordinate to any ground lease or underlying lease, first mortgage, first deed of trust, or other first lien encumbrance or indenture, together with any renewals, extensions, modifications, consolidations, and replacements of them, which now or at any subsequent time affect the ~I Premises, any interest of Landlord in the Premises, or Landlord's interest in this Lease and the estate created by this Lease (except to the extent that any such instrument expressly provides that this Lease is superior to it). This provision shall be self-operative and no further instrument of I subordination shall be required in order to effect it. Nevertheless, Tenant shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Landlord, at any time and from time to time, upon demand by Landlord, any documents as may be requested by Landlord, any ground Landlord or underlying Landlord, or any mortgagee, or any holder of a deed of trust or other instrument described in this paragraph, to confirm or effect the subordination. If Tenant fails or refuses to execute, acknowledge, and deliver any such document within twenty (20) days after written demand, Landlord, its successors, and assigns shall be entitled to execute, acknowledge, and deUver the document on behalf of Tenant as Tenant's as attorney-in-fact. Tenant constitutes and iITevocably appoints Landlord, its successors, and assigns, as Tenant's attorney-in-fact to execute, acknowledge, and deliver on behalf of Tenant any documents described in this paragraph. I J (b) Attornment. Ifany holder of any mortgage, indenture, deed of trust, or other similar instrument described in Subparagraph (a), above, succeeds to Landlord's interest in the Premises, Tenant shall pay to it all rents subsequently payable under this Lease. Tenant shall, upon request of anyone so succeeding to the interest of Landlord, automatically become the tenant of, and attorn to, the successor in interest without change in this Lease. The successor in interest shall not be bound by (1) any payment of rent for more than one month in advance, (2) any amendment or modification of this Lease made without its written consent, (3) any claim against Landlord arising prior to the date on which the successor succeeded to Landlord's interest, or (4) any claim or offset of rent against the Landlord. Upon request by the successor in interest and without cost to Landlord or the successor in interest, Tenant shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver an instrument or instruments confirming the attornment. The instrument of attornment shall also provide that, so long as Tenant does not default under this Lease, the successor in interest shall not disturb Tenant in its use of the Premises in accordance with this Lease. If Tenant fails or refuses to execute, acknowledge, and deliver the instrument within twenty (20) days after written demand, the successor in interest shall be entitled to 310492820.2 21 I " r-1 ' ' ----; ~j l I I J I I execute, acknowledge, and deliver the document on behalf of Tenant as Tenant's as attorney-in- fact. Tenant constitutes and irrevocably appoints the successor in interest as Tenant's attorney- in-fact to execute, acknowledge, and deliver on behalf of Tenant any document described in this paragraph. 19. LANDLORD'S ACCESS. Landlord, its agents, employees, and contractors may enter the Premises at any time in response to an emergency, and at all reasonable times to (1) inspect the Premises, (2) exhibit the Premises to prospective purchasers, lenders, or tenants, (3) determine whether Tenant is complying with its obligations under this Lease, (4) supply any service which this Lease may require Landlord to provide, (5) post notices of nonresponsibility or similar notices, 01; (6) make repairs or do any other act which this Lease or Applicable Laws may require or permit Landlord to make or do. Tenant waives any claim on account of any injury or inconvenience to Tenant's business, interference with Tenant's business, loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, or any other loss occasioned by any entry of Landlord, its agents, employees, or contractors permitted hereunder. Landlord shall at all times have a key with which to unlock all of the doors in the Premises (excluding Tenant's vaults, safes, and similar areas designed in writing by Tenant in advance). No entry to the Premises by Landlord by any means will be a forcible or unlawful entry into the Premises or a detainer of the Premises or an eviction, actual or constructive, of Tenant from the Premises, or any part of the Premises, nor will any entry entitle Tenant to damages or an abatement of rent or other charges which this Lease requires Tenant to pay. Subject to the foregoing and to the other terms and conditions of this Lease, so long as Tenant pays the rent and fully performs all of its other obligations in this Lease, Tenant's possession of the Premises will not be disturbed by Landlord. 20. lNDEMNIFICATI.ON, W AIYER AND RELEASE. (a) Indemnification. Tenant shall indemnify Landlord, its members, agents, and employees (Landlord and all such other persons are collectively referred to herein as "Landlord Parties") against, and hold Landlord and all other Landlord Parties harmless from and against any and all demands, claims, causes of action, fines, penalties, damages (including consequential damages), losses, liabilities, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and court costs) (collectively, "Claims") incurred in connection with or arising from: (1) the use or occupancy of the Premises by Tenant or any person clruming under or through Tenant; (2) any activity, work, or thing done by Tenant on or about the Premises, the Common Area, or any other part of the Project; (3) any acts, omissions, or negligence of Tenant, any person claiming under Tenant or any Tenant Party; ( 4) any breach, violation, or nonperformance by Tenant or any person claiming under Tenant of any term, covenant, or provision of this Lease or any Applicable Laws; or (5) except for loss of use of all or any portion of the Premises or Tenant's property located within the Premises that is proximately caused by or results proximately from the willful misconduct of Landlord or its agents or employees, any injury or damage to the person, property, or business of Tenant or any Tenant Party. If any action or proceeding is brought against Landlord, its employees, or agents by reason of any claim, Tenant, upon notice from Landlord, shall defend the claim at Tenant's sole expense with counsel reasonably satisfactory to Landlord. Landlord need not have first paid any claim or other item covered by the foregoing indemnity or by any other indemnity contained in 310492820.2 22 this Lease in order to be indemnified. The rights of Landlord and the obligations of Tenant under the foregoing indemnity are in addition to, and not in lieu of, the rights of Landlord and the obligations of Tenant under .the other indemnities made by Tenant in this Lease. ~l (i) Waiver and Release. Tenant waives and releases all claims against I ' I Landlord, its employees, and agents with respect to all matters for which Landlord has disclaimed liability pursuant to the provisions of this Lease. In addition, Tenant agrees that Landlord, its members, agents, and employees shall not be liable for, and Tenant hereby waives ~) and releases any claims, causes of action, or rights arising from or based on, any loss, injury, . I death, damage (including consequential damages) or other liability to persons, property, or Tenant's business occasioned by or arising from theft; fire; earthquake or other act of God; 1 public enemy; injunction; riot; strike; insurrection; war; court order; requisition; order of governmental body or authority; fire; explosion; falling objects; steam, water, rain or snow; leak or flow of water (including water from the elevator system), rain or snow from the Premises or into the Premises or from the roof, street, subsurface, or from any other place, or by dampness, or from the breakage, leakage, obstruction, or other defects of the pipes, sprinklers, wires, appliances, plumbing, air conditioning, or lighting fixtures of the Premises; or from construction, repair, or alteration of the Premises or from any acts or omissions of any visitor of the Premises; the acts or omissions of Landlord or its employees, agents, contractors or other persons acting for or on behalf of Landlord, regardless of whether such acts or omissions be negligent, grossly negligent or otherwise (but not including the willful misconduct of Landlord); or from any cause beyond Landlord's control. With respect to the foregoing releases and waivers, Tenant expressly waives the benefits of Civil Code Section 1542, which reads as follows: "A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor" and any similar statute or common law that would render a waiver of unknown claims unenforceable. (b) Scope. Except as provided in the following sentence, the indemnities and waivers made or given by Tenant under this Lease will apply regardless of the active or passive negligence or sole, joint, concurrent, or comparative negligence of any Landlord Parties and regardless of whether liability without fault or strict liability is imposed or sought to be imposed on any of them. The indemnities and waivers made or given by Tenant under this Lease will not apply to the extent of the percentage of liability that a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction establishes under the comparative negligence principles of the State of California that a Claim against a Landlord Party was proximately caused by the willful misconduct or direct \ and active gross negligence of that Landlord Party; provided, however, that in such event the . I indemnity or waiver will remain valid for all other Landlord Parties. Tenant's duty to defend Landlord Parties is separate and independent of Tenant's duty to indemnify Landlord Parties, and applies regardless of whether issues of negligence, liability, fault, default or other obligation on I the part of Tenant have been determined and whether or not Landlord Parties have paid any sums or incurred any detriment arising out of or relating, directly or indirectly, to any Claims. Tenant's compliance with the insurance requirements and other obligations under this Lease does I not in any way restrict, limit or modify Tenant's indemnification obligations under this Lease. __J 310492820.2 23 (c) Survival. The provisions of this Paragraph 20 shall survive the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. 21. SECURITY DEPOSIT. Upon the execution of this Lease, Tenant shall deposit -----~Dollars($ ) with Landlord as security for Tenant's payment of rent and performance of its other obligations under this Lease. IfTenant defaults in its payment of rent or performance of its other obligations under this Lease, Landlord may use all or part of the security deposit for (a) the payment of rent or any other amount in default, (b) for the ·payment of any other amount which Landlord may spend or become obligated to spend by reason of Tenant's default, (c) for the payment to Landlord of any other loss or damage which Landlord may suffer by reason of Tenant's default or (d) to clean and restore or repair the Premises, the Building or the Common Area following their surrender by Tenant hereunder. If Landlord so uses any portion of the security deposit, Tenant shall restore the security deposit to its original amount within five (5) days after written demand from Landlord. Landlord shall not be required to keep the security deposit separate from its general funds, and Tenant shall not be entitled to interest on the security deposit. The security deposit shall not be a limitation on Landlord's damages or other rights under this Lease, or a payment of liquidated damages, or an advance payment of the rent. IfTenant pays the rent and performs all of its other obligations under this Lease, Landlord will return the unused p01tion of the security deposit to Tenant within sixty (60) days after the end of the Term; however, if Landlord has evidence that the security , I deposit has been assigned to an assignee of this Lease, Landlord will return the security deposit I to the assignee. Landlord may deliver the security deposit to the purchaser of the Premises and be discharged from further liability with respect to it. 22. LIMITATION ON TENANT'S RECOURSE. Tenanes sole recourse against Landlord, and any successor to the interest of Landlord in the Premises, is to the interest of Landlord, and any successor, in the Premises. Tenant shall not have any right to satisfy any judgment which it may have against Landlord, or any successor, from any other assets of Landlord, or any successor. In this paragraph the terms "Landlord" and "successor" include the shareholders, venturers, and partners of Landlord and successor and the officers, directors, and l ~J employees of Landlord and successor. The provisions of this paragraph are not intended to limit Tenant's right to seek injunctive relief or specific performance, or Tenant's right to claim the proceeds of insurance (if any) specifically maintained by Landlord for Tenant's benefit. 23. DEFAULT. J (a) Cure by Landlord. IfTenant fails to pay when due amounts payable under this Lease or to perform any of its other obligations under this Lease within the time permitted for its performance, then Landlord, after ten (10) days' written notice to Tenant (or, in case of any emergency, upon notice or without notice as may be reasonable under the circumstances) J and without waiving any of its rights under this Lease, may (but shall not be required to) pay the amount or perform the obligation. All amounts so paid by Landlord and all costs and expenses incurred by Landlord in connection with the performance of any obligations (together with interest at the rate described in Paragraph 4(d), above, from the date of Landlord's payment of the amount or incurring of each cost or expense until the date of full repayment by Tenant) shall be payable by Tenant to Landlord on demand. In the proof of any damages that Landlord may . claim against Tenant arising out of Tenant's failure to maintain insurance, Landlord shall not be 310492820.2 24 limited to the amount of the unpaid insurance premium but shall also be entitled to recover as damages for the breach the amount of any uninsured loss (to the extent of any deficiency in the ] insurance required by the provisions of this Lease), damages, costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, arising out of damage to, or destruction of, the Premises occurring ' l during any period for which Tenant has failed to provide the insurance. l. ; (b) Events of Default. Any of the following events or conditions shall constitute an event of default hereunder without any notice or demand, except as otherwise I expressly specified: J (1) Tenant fails to make any payment of rent, whether an installment of Base Monthly Rent or an item of Additional Rent, as and when required under the ~] terms of this Lease; r-l (2) Tenant vacates or abandons the Premises; I (3) This Lease or the Premises or any part of the Premises is taken upon execution or by other process of law directed against Tenant, or is taken upon or subjected to any attachments by any creditor of Tenant or claimant against Tenant, and the attachment is not discharged within fifteen (15) days after its levy; (4) Tenant files a petition in bankruptcy or insolvency or for reorganization or arrangement under the bankruptcy laws of the United States or under any insolvency act of any state, or is dissolved, br makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors; (5) Involuntary proceedings under any bankruptcy laws or insolvency act or for the dissolution of Tenant are instituted against Tenant, or a receiver or trustee is appointed for all or substantially all of Tenant's property, and the proceeding is not dismissed or the receivership or trusteeship is not vacated within sixty (60) days after institution or appointment; (6) Tenant's assignment in violation of Paragraph 11, above; (7) Tenant breaches any of the other agreements, terms, covenants, or conditions that this Lease requires Tenant to perform, fulfill, comply with or observe, and the breach continues for a period of ten ( 10) days after written notice by Landlord to Tenant; l (8) Tenant fails to take possession of the Premises on the Commencement Date; or I I (9) Any default occurs under the Guaranty. I Tenant agrees that each and every one of the foregoing events of default are a material _J part of this Lease, and that Landlord would not have entered into this Lease without each and every one of said events of defaults being a material part of this Lease. I j 310492820.2 25 (c) Remedies. If any one or more events of default set fo1th in Subparagraph (b), above, occurs, then Landlord may, at its sole election, exercise any one or more of the following remedies: (1) give Tenant written notice of its intention to terminate this _j I Lease on the date of the notice or on any later date specified in the notice, and, on the date I , I specified in the notice, Tenant's right to possession of the Premises shall cease and this Lease shall be terminated~ except as to Tenant's liability set forth in this Subparagraph (c)(l) and as to any obligations stated in this Lease to survive the termination of this Lease, as if the date fixed in the notice were the end of the Term of this Lease. Ifthis Lease is terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Subparagraph (c)(l), Tenant shall remain liable to Landlord for damages in an amount equal to the rent and other sums that would have been owing by Tenant m;ider this Lease for the balance of the Term if this Lease had not been terminated, less the net proceeds, if any, of any reletting of the Premises by Landlord subsequent to the termination, after deducting all Landlord's expenses in connection with reletting, including without limitation the expenses set forth in Subpatagraph (c)(2), below. Landlord shall be entitled to collect damages from Tenant monthly on the days on which the rent and other amounts would have been payable under this Lease if this Lease had not been terminated, and Landlord shall be entitled to receive damages from Tenant on each day. Alternatively, at the option of Landlord, if this Lease is terminated, Landlord shall be entitled to recover from Tenant: a. the worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; b. the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of rent loss that Tenant proves could reasonably have been avoided; c. the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the Term of this Lease after the time of award exceeds ) the amount of rent loss that Tenant proves could reasonably be avoided; and ..... __ ) :1 d. ,any other amount necessary to compensate Landlord for all the detriment proximately caused by Tenant's failure to perform its obligations under this Lea$e or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result from the failure. l The "worth at the time of award" of the amount referred to in clauses (A) and (B), above, J is computed by allowing interest at the highest rate permitted by law. The "worth at the time of award" of the amount referred to in clause (C), above, is computed by discounting the amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the time of award. J (2) Without demand or notice, re-enter and take possession of the Premises or any part of the Premises; repossess the Premises as of the Landlord's former estate; expel the Tenant from the Premises and those claiming through or under Tenant; and remove the effects of all or any, without being deemed guilty of any manner of trespass and without prejudice to any remedies for arrears of rent or preceding breach of covenants or 3 J 0492820.2 26 l ' J ,-1 J 1 conditions. IfLandlord elects to re-enter as provided in this Subparagraph (c)(2), or if Landlord takes possession of the Premises pursuant to legal proceedings or pursuant to any notice provided by law, Landlord may, from time to time, without terminating this Lease, relet the Premises or any part of the Premises, either alone or in conjunction with other portions of the Project of which the Premises are a part, in Landlord's or Tenant's name but for the account of Tenant, for the term or terins (which may be greater or less than the period which would otherwise have constituted the balance of the Term of this Lease) and on such terms and conditions (which may include concessions of free rent, and the alteration and repair of the Premises) as Landlord, in its uncontrolled discretion, may determine. Landlord may collect and receive the rents for the Premises. Landlord shall not be responsible or liable for any failure to relet the Premises, or any part of the Premises, or for any failure to collect any rent due upon the reletting. No re-entry or taking possession of the Premises by Landlord shall be construed as an election on Landlord's part to terminate this Lease unless a written notice of the intention is given to Tenant. No notice from Landlord under this Lease or under a forcible entry and detainer statute or similar law shall constitute an election by Landlord to terminate this Lease unless the notice specifically says so. Landlord reserves the right following any re-entry or reletting, or both, to exercise its right to terminate this Lease by giving Tenant written notice, and in that event this Lease shall terminate as specified in the notice. IfLandlord elects to taI<:e possession of the Premises according to this Subparagraph (c)(2} without terminating this Lease, Tenant shall pay Landlord the rent and other sums which would be payable under this Lease if the repossession had not occurred, less the net proceeds, if any, of any reletting of the Premises after deducting all of Landlord's expenses incurred in connection with the reletting, including without limitation all repossession costs, brokerage commissions, legal expenses, attorneys' fees, expenses of employees, alteration, remodeling and repair costs, and expenses of preparation for the reletting. If, in connection with any reletting, the new lease term extends beyond the existing Term, or the Premises covered by the reletting include areas that are not part of the Premises, a fair apportionment of the rent received from the reletting and the expenses incurred in connection with the reletting shall be made in determining the net proceeds received from reletting. In addition, in determining the net proceeds from reletting, any rent concessions shall be apportioned over the Term of the new lease. Tenant shall pay the amounts to Landlord menthly on the days on which the rent and all other amounts owing under this Lease would have been payable if possession had not been retaken, and Landlord shall be entitled to receive the rent and other amounts from Tenant on each day. Landlord has the remedy described in California Civil Code Section 1951.4 (lessor may continue lease in effect after Jessee's breach and abandonment and recover rent as it becomes due, if lessee has right to sublet or assign, subject only to reasonable limitations). (3) Have a receiver appointed to take possession of the Premises and to conduct Tenant's business thereon (and neither the filing of a petition for the appointment of a receiver nor the appointment itself shall constitute an election by Landlord to terminate this Lease). (4) Exercise any and all other remedies available to Landlord under this Lease, at Jaw, in equity, by statute, under any other contract or agreement between Landlord and Tenant, or otherwise, in such order and in such manner as Landlord deems appropriate in its sole discretion. 310492820.2 27 r 1 ~I ·~ l :J 24. COMMON AREA. (a) Definition. The term "Common Area" refers only to the area outside the Premises designated as "Common Area" in Exhibit "A" hereto, which Common Area shall be for the non-exclusive use during the Term of Landlord, Tenant and other tenants of the Project, if any, and their respective employees, customers, and invitees, including parking areas, loading and unloading areas, trash areas, roadways, sidewalks, walkways, driveways and landscaped areas, if any. (b) Tenant's Right to Use Common Area. During the Term of this Lease, Tenant and its employees, customers and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right to use, in common with others entitled to such use (including, without limitation, Landlord, other tenants of the Project and their respective employees, suppliers, shippers, contractors, customers and invitees), the Common Area as it may be redesignated by Landlord from time-to-time, subject to any rights, powers and privileges reserved by Landlord under this Lease or under the terms of any rules and regulations or restrictions governing the use of the Project or any part thereof. (c) No Storage In Common Area. Under no circumstances shall the right granted under Subparagraph (b), above, be deemed to include the right to store any refuse, boxes, equipment, or other property of any type or kind, whether temporarily or permanently, in or on the Common Area. Any such storage shall be permitted only by the prior written consent of Landlord or Landlord's designated agent, which consent may be revoked at any time. In the event that any unauthorized storage shall occur, Landlord shall have the right, without notice and without liability to Tenant or any other person, in addition to all other rights and remedies Landlord may have under this Lease, to remove any refuse, boxes, equipment, or other property stored, whether permanently or temporarily, within the Common Area without Landlord's prior written consent, and charge the cost of such removal to Tenant, which cost shall constitute Additional Rent and shall be immediately payable upon demand by Landlord. Tenant shall not have any right to use or occupy, or have any other rights respecting, any buildings or structures (other than the Premises), parking areas, roadways, driveways, walkways, trash areas, landscaped areas, loading and unloading areas, sidewalks, or other improvements or areas located within the Project. (d) Rules and Regulations. Tenant agrees that it shall abide by, and keep and observe all Rules and Regulations ("Rules and Regulations") which Landlord may make from time to time for the management, safety, care, and cleanliness of the grounds, the parking and unloading of vehicles and the preservation of good order, as well as for the convenience of other occupants or tenants of the Project and their invitees. Landlord or such other person(s) as Landlord may appoint shall have the exclusive control and management of the Common Area and shall have the right, from time to time, to establish, modify, amend and enforce the Rules and Regulations. Tenant agrees to cause all Tenant Parties to abide and conform to all such Rules and Regulations. Landlord shall not be responsible to Tenant for the non-compliance with said rules and regulations by other tenants or subtenants of the Project or anyone else occupying or using the Project. (e) Changes. Landlord shall have the right, in Landlord's sole discretion, from time to time: (1) to make changes to the Common Area, including, without limitation, 310492820.2 28 changes in the location, size, shape and number of driveways, entrances, parking spaces, parking areas, loading and unloading areas, ingress, egress, direction of traffic, landscaped areas, walkways and utility raceways; (2) to close temporarily any of the Common Area for maintenance purposes so long as reasonable access to the Premises remains available; (3) to designate land outside the boundaries of the Project to be a part of the Common Area; (4) to add buildings and improvements to the Common Area; (5) to use the Common Area while engaged in making additional improvements, repairs or alterations to the Project, or any portion thereof; (6) to remove unauthorized persons from the Project; (7) to change the name or address of thei Premises or the Project; and (8) to do and perform such other acts and make such other changes ' i in, to or with respect to the Common Area and project as Landlord may, in the exercise ·of sound business judgment, deem to be appropriate. (f) Common Area Maintenance. During the Term, Landlord shall keep the Common Area in good order, condition and repair. The costs incurred by Landlord to do so (including maintenance, repair and replacement costs of any type or kind) are referred to herein ~1 J as "CAM Costs". Landlord shall periodically (but not more often than monthly) invoice to Tenant, and Tenant shall reimburse to Landlord within fifteen (15) days following Tenant's . I receipt ofLandlord's invoice, all such CAM Costs through the date of the invoice. 25. VEHICLEPARKING. (a) Number of Spaces. Tenant shall be entitled to use [one hundred percent (100%)] of the unreserved parking spaces on those portions of the Common Area designated from time to time by Landlord for Tenant's parking (''Unreserved Parking Spaces"). Tenant shall not be entitled to any reserved or exclusive vehicle parking spaces. Said Unreserved Parking Spaces shall be used for parking by vehicles no larger than full-size passenger I automobiles or pick-up trucks, herein called "Permitted Size Vehicles". Vehicles other than I Permitted Size Vehicles shall be parked and loaded or unloaded as directed by Landlord in the ' J rules and regulations issued by Landlord. (b) Restrictions on Parking. Tenant shall not permit or allow any vehicles that belong to or are controlled by Tenant or any Tenant Party to be loaded, unloaded, or parked in areas other than those designated by Landlord for such activities. (c) Removal of Unauthorized Vehicles. IfTenant permits or allows any of the prohibited activities described iii. this Paragraph 25, then Landlord shall have the right, without notice, in addition to such other rights and remedies that it may have, to remove or tow away the vehicle involved and charge the cost to Tenant, which cost shall be immediately payable upon demand by Landlord. , I 26. SECURITY. Tenant acknowledges that Landlord shall have no obligation to I provide any guard service or other security measures to the Premises or any other part of the Project, and Tenant assumes all responsibility for the protection of Tenant and each Tenant J Party, and the property of Tenant and each Tenant Party from acts ofthird parties. Nothing in this Lease shall prevent Landlord, at Landlord's sole option, from providing security protection for the Project. 310492820.2 29 27. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) No Recordation. Neither this Lease nor a Memorandum thereof shall be recorded. (b) Holding Over. IfTenant remains in possession of the Premises after this Lease expires or sooner terminates, Tenant shall occupy the Premises as a tenant from month-to- month, subject to all conditions, provisions, and obligations of this Lease in effect on the last day i of the Term, except that monthly rent shall be increased to an amount which is two hundred . I percent (200%) of the Base Monthly Rent then in effect immediately prior to the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. Nothing herein shall grant, or be deemed ·to grant, Tenant any right whatsoever to retain possession of the Premises or any part thereof beyond the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease. r-l (c) Estoppel Certificates. Within no more than ten (10) days after written l ' request by Landlord, Tenant shall execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Landlord a certificate stating: (1) that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect, or, if this Lease is modified, the way in which it is modified accompanied by a copy of the modification agreement; (2) the date to which rental and other sums payable under this Lease have been paid; (3) that no notice has been received by Tenant of any default which has not been cured, or, if the default has not I I been cured, what Tenant intends to do in order to effect the cure, and when it will do so; (4) that I Tenant has accepted and occupied the Premises; (5) that Tenant has no claim or offset against Landlord, or, if it does, stating the date of the assignment and assignee (if known to Tenant); and (6) other matters as may be reasonably requested by Landlord. Any certificate may be relied ' i I upon by any prospective purchaser of the Premises and any prospective mortgagee or beneficiary under any deed of trust or mortgage encumbering the Premises. If Landlord submits a completed certificate to Tenant, and if Tenant fails to object to its contents within ten ( 10) days after its receipt of the completed certificate, the matters stated in the certificate shall conclusively be deemed to be correct. Furthermore, Tenant irrevocably appoints Landlord as Tenant's attorney- in-fact to execute and deliver on Tenant's behalf any completed certificate to which Tenant does not object within ten (10) days after its receipt. (d) No Waiver. No waiver of any condition or agreement in this Lease by j Landlord shall imply or constitute a further waiver by Landlord of the same or any other condition or agreement. No act or thing done by Landlord or Landlord's agents during the Term of this Lease shall be deemed an acceptance of a surrender of the Premises, and no agreement to accept the SUlTender shall be valid unless in writing signed by Landlord. The delivery of·. J Tenant's keys to any employee or agent of Landlord shall not constitute a termination of this Lease unless Landlord has entered into an express written agreement to that effect. No payment by Tenant, or receipt from Landlord, of a lesser amount than the rent or other charges stipulated in this Lease shall be deemed to be anything other than a payment on account of the earliest stipulated rent. No endorsement or statement on any check or any letter accompanying any check or payment as rent shall be deemed an accord and satisfaction. Landlord may accept any check for payment without prejudice to Landlord's right to recover the balance of the rent or to pursue any other right or remedy available to Landlord. If this Lease is assigned, or if the I Premises or any part of the Premises are sublet or occupied by anyone other than Tenant, j Landlord may collect rent from the assignee, subtenant, or occupant and apply the net amount I _) 303 10492820.2 collected to the rent reserved in this Lease. No collection shall be deemed a waiver of the covenant in this Lease against assignment and subletting, the acceptance of the assignee, subtenant, or occupant as Tenant, or a release of Tenant from the complete performance by Tenant of its covenants and obligations under this Lease. Unless otherwise expressly stated to the contrary in this Lease, Landlord may withhold its consent or approval in Landlord's sole and -1 absolute discretion. l (e) Authority. IfTenant signs this Lease as a corporation, each of the persons ·1 executing this Lease on behalf of Tenant warrants to Landlord that Tenant is a duly authorized j and existing corporation, that Tenant is qualified to do business in the state in which the Premises are located, that Tenant has full right and authority to enter into this Lease, and that each and every person signing on behalf of Tenant is authorized to do so. Upon Landlord's j request, Tenant shall provide evidence satisfactory to Landlord confirming these representations. (f) Notices. Any notice, request, demand, consent, approval, or other 1 communication required or permitted under this Lease shall be written and shall be deemed to have been given (1) when personally delivered, (2) when served pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (3) on the second (2nd) business day after it is deposited in any depository regularly maintained by the United States postal service, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or (4) on the date of scheduled delivery when sent by FedEx or other nationally recognized overnight commercial mail service, addressed as follows: If to Landlord: Ifto Tenant: College Terrace Centre LLC c/o PCS Realty Advisors P.O. Box 620186 Woodside, CA 94062 Attn: Mr. Patrick Smailey Fax: (650) 701-1609 J & A Family Markets, Inc. 274 Redwood Shores Parkway, #201 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Attn: Mr. James Smailey Fax: Either Landlord or Tenant may change its address or addressee for purposes of this paragraph by giving ten (10) days' prior notice according to this paragraph. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any notice from Landlord to Tenant shall be deemed to have been given if delivered to the Premises, addressed to Tenant, whether or not Tenant has vacated or abandoned the Premises. J (g) Attorneys' Fees. In any dispute arising out of this Lease (or the enforcement of interpretation thereof), the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees incurred by the prevailing party at trial and on any appeal. .J 310492820.2 31 I I l l J ! (h) Waiver of Jury Trial. Landlord and Tenant waive trial by jury in any action, proceeding, or counterclaim brought by either of them against the other on all matters arising out of this Lease or the use and occupancy of the Premises (except claims for personal injury or property damage). If Landlord commences any summary proceeding for nonpayment of rent, Tenant shall not interpose (and waives the right to interpose) any counterclaim in any proceeding. (i) Binding Effect. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, Landlord's successors and assigns. This Lease shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, Tenant's successors and assigns so long as the succession or assignment is permitted by Paragraph 11, above. G) Termination; Merger. Unless specifically stated otherwise in writing by Landlord, the voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant, the mutual termination or cancellation hereof, or a termination hereof by Landlord for Breach by Tenant, shall automatically terminate any sublease or lesser estate in the Premises; provided, however, Landlord shall, in the event of any such suITender, termination or cancellation, have the option to continue any one or more of any existing subtenancies. Landlord's failure within ten (10) days following any such event to make a written election to the contrary by written notice to the holder of any such lesser interest, shall constitute Landlord's election to have such event constitute the termination of such interest. (k) Approximations. Unless otherwise provided herein, any statement of square footage set forth in this Lease, or that may have been used in calculating rental and/or CAM Costs, is an approximation which Landlord and Tenant agree is reasonable and the rental is not subject to revision whether or not the actual square footage is more or less. (1) Brokers. Each party warrants to each other that neither has dealt with any real estate agents, brokers or finders in connection with this Lease. Each paity agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the other harmless from all loss, claim, cost, and expense incuITed as a result of the breach of this warranty. (m) Cumulative Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder made by Landlord shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies available at law, in equity, by statute, under any other contract or agreement between Landlord and Tenant, or which are otherwise available to Landlord. (n) Covenants and Conditions. All provisions of this Lease to be observed or performed by Tenant are both covenants and conditions. (o) Landlord's Liability. The term "Landlord" as used herein shall mean the owner or owners at the time in question of the fee title to the Premises. In the event of a transfer of Landlord's title or interest in the Premises (or any parcel of which the Premises are a part) or in this Lease, Landlord shall deliver to the transferee or assignee (in cash or by credit) any unused se.curity deposit held by Landlord at the time of such transfer or assignment. Upon such transfer or assignment and delivery of the security deposit, as aforesaid, the prior Landlord shall be relieved of all liability with respect to the obligations and/or covenants under this Lease 310492820.2 32 thereafter to be performed by Landlord. Subject to the foregoing, the obligations and/or covenants in this Lease to be performed by Landlord shall be binding only upon the Landlord as herein above defined. (p) Reservations. Landlord reserves the right from time to time, to grant, I I ,-I without the consent orjoinder of Tenant, such easements, rights of way, utility raceways, and dedications that Landlord deems necessary, and to cause the recordation of parcel maps and restrictions, so long as such easements, rights of way, utility raceways, dedications, maps and restrictions do not unreasonably interfere with the use of the Premises by Tenant. Tenant agrees to sign any documents reasonably requested by Landlord to effectuate any such easement rights, dedication, map or restrictions. l I I } (q) Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are no agreements, warranties or representations between the parties except as expressly set forth in this Lease. Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any agent, employee or representative of Landlord have made any representation or warranty as to any matter except as may be expressly set forth in this Lease. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that there are no oral agreements between them affecting this Lease, and this Lease supersedes and cancels all previous negotiations, arrangements, brochures, agreements, and understandings, if any, between Landlord and Tenant with respect to the subject matter of this Lease. This instrument shall not be legally binding until it is executed by both Landlord and Tenant. No change, modification, amendment or addition to this Lease shall be binding unless in writing and signed by both Landlord and Tenant. l J 310492820.2 33 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Lease as of the first date in this Lease. Landlord: :__j Tenant: i I I, l J College Terrace Centre LLC, a California limited liability company ~~e~~ Its: Manager . College Te1rnce Centre LLC, a California limited liability company By: 1Ju~ , ( fl/t./. ~~ Name:~=( Its: Manager y Markets, Inc., By:~-+-___,,_,~---:--.,....--r..---_,..~­Name: t---==~~~:::_:___:_~~~.L...:+-­ Its: --1---,---"='""'-=--------+- 310492820.2 34 r-1 I ' , j II r-1 i Attachment A Years 1 - 5 $22,500.00 Years 6-10 CPI Index Years 11 -15 CPI Index Years 16-20 CPI Index I ! I I _J u J J J ·.·•-r,! • ~-, : I Exhibit 2 'J ' J I ] - I I : I -I ' l l _Jl j J - -.J -j 1 EXHIBITC Guaranty of Lease GUARANTY OF LEASE WHEREAS, COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company ("Landlord"), and J & A FAMILY MARKETS, INC., a California corporation ("Tenant"), "J about to execute or have executed a document entitled "Commercial Lease" dated U Ii.o I~ (the "Lease") concerning the premises to be located at the northwest corner ol 210 El Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, California, upon which Tenant will operate a grocery store containing eight thousand (8,000) square feet of floor space, along with an outdoor market of approximately two thousand (2,000) immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "Premises"), wherein Landlord will lease the Premises to Tenant, and WHEREAS, JAMES SMAILEY, an individual ("Guarantor") has a financial interest in Tenant, and WHEREAS, Landlord would not execute the Lease if Guarantor did not execute and deliver to Landlord this Guaranty of Lease., I I NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution of the Lease by Landlord and as a material inducement to Landlord to execute the Lease, Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees the prompt payment by Tenant of "Monthly Base Rent" (as defined in the Lease), Additional Rent (as defined in the Lease), any late charges (as described in Section 4(d) of the Lease) and any interest on past due obligations (as described in Section 4(e) of the Lease) (collectively, the "Tenant's Obligations"). It is specifically agreed by Landlord and Guarantor that: (i) the terms of the Lease may be modified by written agreement between Landlord and Tenant, and (ii) the Lease may be assigned by Landlord or any assignee of Landlord without consent or notice to Guarantor. Landlord shall provide Guarantor with written notice of any amendment to the Lease. This Guaranty shall not be released, modified or affected by the failure or delay on the part of Landlord to enforce any of the rights or remedies of the Landlord under the Lease. No notice of default by Tenant under the Lease need be given by Landlord to Guarantor, it being specifically agreed that the guarantee of the undersigned is a continuing guarantee under which Landlord may proceed immediately against Tenant and/or agai!lst Guarantor following any breach of default by Tenant in the payment of Tenant's Obligations or for the enforcement ofI any rights which Landlord may have as against Tenant under the terms of the Lease or at law or in equity, resulting from the default by Tenant in the payment of Tenant's Obligations. Landlord shall have the right to proceed against Guarantor following any breach or default by Tenant in the payment of Tenant's Obligations under the Lease without first proceeding against Tenant and without previous notice to or demand upon either Tenant or Guarantor. 310492820.2 Exhibit C-1 l \, ) , I Guarantor hereby waives (a) notice of acceptance of this guaranty, (b) demand of payment, presentation and protest, (c) all right to assert or plead any statute of limitations relating to this Guaranty or the Lease, (d) any right to require the Landlord to proceed against the Tenant or any other Guarantor or any other person or entity liable to Landlord, (e) any right to require Landlord to apply to any default any security deposit or other security it may hold under the lease, (f) any right to require Landlord to proceed under any other remedy Landlord may have before proceeding against Guarantor, (g) any right of subrogation that Guarantor may have against Tenant. Guarantor does hereby subordinate all existing or future indebtedness of Tenant to Guarantor to the obligations owed to Landlord under the Lease and this Guaranty. The term "Landlord" refers to and means the Landlord named in the Lease and also Landlord's successors and assigns. The term "Tenant" refers to and means the Tenant named in the Lease and also Tenant's successors and assigns. · No provision of this Guaranty or right of the Landlord can be waived, nor can the Guarantor be released from their obligations except in writing signed by the Landlord. Any litigation concerning this Guaranty shall be initiated in a state court of competent · . jurisdiction in the county in which the leased premises are located and the Guarantor consents to the jurisdiction of such court. This Guaranty shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and for the purposes of any rules regarding conflicts of law the parties shall be treated as if they were all residents or domiciles of California. In the event any action be brought by the Landlord against Guarantor hereunder to enforce the obligation of Guarantor hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such action shall pay to the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee. The attorney's fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any comt fee schedule, but shall be such as to full reimburse all attorney's fees reasonably incurred. Each individual executing this Guaranty on said entity's behalf represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorize to execute this Guaranty on behalf of such entity. Exec hlove~W tD rniley, an individual 310492820.2 Exhibit C-2 I I I I ,-1 GUARANTY OF LEASE ~ -1 WHEREAS, COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company ("Landlord"), and J & AFAMIL Y MARKETS, INC., a California corporation ("Tenant"), are about to execute or have executed a document entitled "Commercial Lease" dated November 20, 2013 (the "Lease") concerning the premises to be located at the northwest comer of2108 El Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, California, upon which Tenant will operate a grocery store containing eight thousand (8,000) square feet offloor space, along with an outdoor market of approximately two thousand (2,000) immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "Premises"), wherein Landlord will lease the Premises to Tenant, and WHEREAS, JOE OESCHGER, an individual ("Guarantor") has a financial interest in Tenant, and WHEREAS, Landlord would not execute the Lease if Guarantor did not execute and deliver to Landlord this Guaranty ofLease. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution of the Lease by Landlord and as a material inducement to Landlord to execute the Lease, Guarantor unconditionally guarantees to Landlord and the successors and assigns of Landlord the full and punctual payment, performance and observance by Tenant of all of the terms, covenants and conditions in the Lease to be kept, performed or observed by Tenant (collectively, the "Tenant's Obligations"). Without limiting the foregoing, Guarantor guarantees the performance or payment of any liability of Tenant which shall accrue under the Lease for any period preceding as well as any period following the term of the Lease. If, at any time, Tenant shall default in the performance or observance of any ofthe terms, covenants or conditions in the Lease to be kept, performed or observed by Tenant, including, without limitation, the payment of any rent or other charge, Guarantor will keep, perform and observe the same, as the case may be, in place and stead ofTenant. It is specifically agreed by Landlord and Guarantor that: (i) the terms of the Lease may be modified by written agreement between Landlord and Tenant, and (ii) the Lease may be assigned by Landlord or any assignee of Landlord without consent or notice to Guarantor. Landlord shall provide Guarantor with written notice of any amendment to the Lease. This Guaranty shall not be released, modified or affected by the failure or delay on the part ofLandlord to enforce any of the rights or remedies ofthe Landlord under the Lease. No notice of default by Tenant under the Lease need be given by Landlord to Guarantor, it being specifically agreed that the guarantee of the undersigned is a continuing guarantee under which Landlord may proceed immediately against Tenant and/or against Guarantor following any breach of default by Tenant in the payment or performance ofTenant's Obligations or for the enforcement of any rights which Landlord may have as against Tenant under the terms ofthe I Lease or at law or in equity, resulting from the default by Tenant in the payment or performance _J of Tenant's Obligations. 2924146.1 1 Landlord shall have the right to proceed against Guarantor following any breach or default by Tenant in the payment of Tenant's Obligations under the Lease without first proceeding against Tenant and without previous notice to or demand upon either Tenant or Guarantor. Guarantor hereby waives (a) notice of acceptance of this guaranty, (b) demand of payment, presentation and protest, ( c) all right to assert or plead any statute of limitations relating to this Guaranty or the Lease, ( d) any right to require the Landlord to proceed against the Tenant or any other Guarantor or any other person or entity liable to Landlord, ( e) any right to require Landlord to apply to any default any security deposit or other security it may hold under the lease, (f) any right to require Landlord to proceed under any other remedy Landlord may have before proceeding against Guarantor, (g) any right of subrogation that Guarantor may have against Tenant. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Guarantor hereby expressly waives any and all rights and defenses under California Civil Code Sections 2787 to 2855, inclusive. Guarantor does hereby subordinate all existing or future indebtedness of Tenant to Guarantor to the obligations owed to Landlord under the Lease and this Guaranty. The term "Landlord" refers to and means the Landlord named in the Lease and also Landlord's successors and assigns. The term "Tenant" refers to and means the Tenant named in the Lease and also Tenant's successors and assigns. No provision of this Guaranty or right ofthe Landlord can be waived, nor can the Guarantor be released from their obligations except in writing signed by the Landlord. Any litigation concerning this Guaranty shall be initiated in a state court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the Premises are located and the Guarantor consents to the jurisdiction of such court. This Guaranty shall be governed by the laws ofthe State of California and for the purposes of any rules regarding conflicts of law the parties shall be treated as ifthey were all residents or domiciles of California. · In the event any action be brought by the Landlord against Guarantor hereunder to enforce the obligation of Guarantor hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such action shall pay to the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee. The attorney's fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to full reimburse all attorney's fees reasonably incurred. Each individual executing this Guaranty on said entity's behalfrepresents and warrants that he or she is duly authorize to execute this Guaranty on behalf of such entity. j 2924146.1 2 ~~· 1. Joe eschger, an individ I ! l I 1 By::__.J.,,A~~~~~ir.&:l..Q~~~2'o/2~ I· .. GUARANTY OF LEASE ) GUARANTY OF LEASE ~-l 1 WHEREAS, COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE LLC, a California limited liability company ("Landlord"), and J & A FAMILY MARKETS, INC., a California corporation ("Tenant"), are about to execute or have executed a document entitled "Commercial Lease" dated November 20, 2013 (the "Lease") concerning the premises to be located at the northwest comer of2108 El Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, California, upon which Tenant will operate a grocery store containing eight thousand (8,000) square feet of floor space, along with an outdoor ~l market of approximately two thousand (2,000) immediately adjacent thereto and approximately i J six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "Premises"), wherein Landlord will lease the Premises to Tenant, and . WHEREAS, ELDORA MILLER, an individual ("Guarantor") has a financial interest in Tenant, and WHEREAS, Landlord would not execute the Lease if Guarantor did not execute and deliver to Landlord this Guaranty ofLease. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the execution of the Lease by Landlord and as a material inducement to Landlord to execute the Lease, Guarantor unconditionally guarantees to Landlord and the successors and assigns ofLandlord the full and punctual payment, performance and observance by Tenant of all of the terms, covenants and conditions in the Lease to be kept, performed or observed by Tenant (collectively, the "Tenant's Obligations"). Without limiting the foregoing, Guarantor guarantees the performance or payment of any liability ofTenant which shall accrue under the Lease for any period preceding as well as any period following the term of the Lease. If, at any time, Tenant shall default in the performance or observance of any of the terms, covenants or conditions in the Lease to be kept, performed or observed by Tenant, including, without limitation, the payment of any rent or other charge, Guarantor will keep, perform and observe the same, as the case may be, in place and stead of Tenant. It is specifically agreed by Landlord and Guarantor that: (i) the terms of the Lease may be I modified by written agreement between Landlord and Tenant, and (ii) the Lease may be assigned by Landlord or any assignee ofLandlord without consent or notice to Guarantor. Landlord shall provide Guarantor with written notice of any amendment to the Lease. I This Guaranty shall not be released, modified or affected by the failure or delay on the part of Landlord to enforce any of the rights or remedies ofthe Landlord under the Lease. i No notice of default by Tenant under the Lease need be given by Landlord to Guarantor, it being specifically agreed that the guarantee of the undersigned is a continuing guarantee under J which Landlord may proceed immediately against Tenant and/or against Guarantor following any breach of default by Tenant in the payment or performance ofTenant's Obligations or for the enforcement of any rights which Landlord may have as against Tenant under the terms of the Lease or at law or in equity, resulting from the default by Tenant in the payment or performance. ofTenant's Obligations. 2924149.1 1 -1 1 I I I I Landlord shall have the right to proceed against Guarantor following any breach or default by Tenant in the payment of Tenant's Obligations under the Lease without first proceeding against Tenant and without previous notice to or demand upon either Tenant or Guarantor. Guarantor hereby waives (a) notice of acceptance ofthis guaranty, (b) demand of payment; presentation and protest, ( c) all right to assert or plead any statute of limitations relating to this Guaranty or the Lease, ( d) any right to require the Landlord to proceed against the Tenant or any other Guarantor or any other person or entity liable to Landlord, (e) any right to require Landlord to apply to any default any security deposit or other security it may hold under the lease, (f) any right to require Landlord to proceed under any other remedy Landlord may have before proceeding against Guarantor, (g) any right of subrogation that Guarantor may have against Tenant. Without limiting the generality ofthe foregoing, Guarantor hereby expressly waives any and all rights and defenses under California Civil Code Sections 2787 to 2855, inclusive. Guarantor does hereby subordinate all existing or future indebtedness of Tenant to Guarantor to the obligations owed to Landlord under the Lease and this Guaranty. The term "Landlord" refers to and means the Landlord named in the Lease and also Landlord's successors and assigns. The term "Tenant" refers to and means the Tenant named in the Lease and also Tenant's successors and assigns. No provision ofthis Guaranty or right ofthe Landlord can be waived, nor can the Guarantor be released from their obligations except in writing signed by the Landlord. Any litigation concerning this Guaranty shall be initiated in a state court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the Premises are located and the Guarantor consents to the jurisdiction of such court. This Guaranty shall be governed by the laws ofthe State of California and for the purposes of any rules regarding conflicts of law the parties shall be treated as ifthey were all residents or domiciles of California. In the event any action be brought by the Landlord against Guarantor hereunder to enforce the obligation of Guarantor hereunder, the unsuccessful party in such action shall pay to the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee. The attorney's fee award shall not be computed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be such as to full reimburse all attorney's fees reasonably incurred. Each individual executing this Guaranty on said entity's behalf represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorize to execute this Guaranty on behalf of such entity. 2924149.1 2 Executed on 0 cJ-t'J' ,20lf ' ' By: ~lZt1A R:d-clkr.~ Eldora Miller, an individual I i ' i I J GUARANTY OF LEASE I I I ! Iii , J II ~, _J -',i ' I i ' .I ' ' ! I I I , I : I I I J' i I Exhibit 3 I I I 1 ' ) ~ I I I I I J _i J ~ ) URIEL CHAVEZ SUMMARY OF QUAUFICATIONS PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES: Results-driven., dynamic, and diligen.t professional, offering extensive years of experience in retail financial management and its full settings, including research, development, A/P and A/R, payroll, and implementation of business solutions, coupled with verifiable success in program and project development. Exemplify efficiency in working within fast-paced, constantly changing, and demanding business environment. LEADERSHIP QUALITIES: Respected and well-admired professional, with consistent success in addressing individual situations, managing programs, promoting team-driven environments, empowering employees, and enhancing performance toward attainment of organizational goals. Display outstanding problem solving, partnership building, as well as exceptional mentoring and persuasion skills. Possess exceptional skills in building trust among members and peers to ensure a successful team. KEY SKILLS: Possess keen eye for detail with proven efficien.cy to multitask within aggressively competitive and fast-paced environments. Able to adapt to diverse working environments, as well as able to manage and complete numerous projects simultaneously. High proficiency in using MS Office Suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access), QuickBooks, Silhouette, and Adobe After Effects CSS. Bilingual communicator; fluent in English and Spanish languages. Continuously seeks to self improve, current CPA candidate. CORE STRENGTHS Leadership and Team Building ~ RECENT ACCOMPUSHMENTS ./ Recent winner of the Silicon Valley Business Plan Competition 2012 -Best Written Business Plan ./ Displayed outstanding mentoring and teaching skills in educating department managers pertaining to effective organizational approaches toward attainment of organizational goals while constantly improving different processes used in budgeting, cash flow projections, and reporting mechanism ./ Significantly created marketing program that served as effective tool in order to increase awareness and sales, which led to 150% increase in customers' numbers, marking individual purchase average to 70%, and total sales to 200% within 2 years ./ Increased efficiency and on-time departures by 98 % while reducing salary and transportation expenses through effective management and implementation: of projects in aligrunent with standard reporting procedures RELATED EXPERIENCE MSI (DBA HACIENDA MARKETS) I San Mateo, CA Spearheaded the merge between LG Pharmacies and La Hacienda Markets, overseeing the"" implementation of new in-store pharmacy services and in-store food services .. Oversaw the management of three stores and logistic center of grocery, produce, and retail products .. Carried out relevant contribution in controlling all internal financial systems and analysis in accordance with the company's business' compliance and regulatory standards, weights and measures, sales tax, signage, laws, and accounting principles + Ensured correctness and accuracy of data in preparing financial summaries and reports to be submitted to the executive management, financial institutions, and internal shareholders • Demonstrated excellent management skills in facilitating staff training on functions within the areas of finance, budget, accounting, purchasing, insurance requirements, workers compensation claims, accident J.________________ I URIEL CHAVEZ prevention programs, POS training for management and front end employees, payroll, and management information systems ..Y Fostered harmonious relationship with vendors, clients, staff, local city and county officials, and community affairs while demonstrating effective leadership skills in supervising 4 managers and 115 employees ...;;. Functioned relevant role in determining, reviewing, and expanding the range of products and services offered to consumers ~ Exhibited excellent analysis and recommendation as results of thorough evaluation and management of vendor products and services implementation + Developed media relations and promotions in order to achieve continuous growth and development while implementing and conducting training program in collaboration with the management LATINO GROCERS LLC (DBA LA HACIENDA MARKET) I Sacramento, CA LG PHARMACIES, LLC (DBA SAN MIGUEL PHARMACY) ,j>, Played a pivotal role in the supervision of the entire operations within a 24K square feet Hispanic grocery store + Took full charge of establishing management structure and in-house training and promotion program for management positions ~ Exemplified great intellect in developing a year-round forecasting for procurement and allocation of proper staffing, equipment, POS upgrades, and strategic inventory -~ Utilized commendable communication skills in negotiating pricing and delivery with outside companies in order to acquire ordering, purchasing, and inventory guidelines that helped in maximizing product availability, lowering overstocked inventory levels, as well as reducing cost of goods -;y Orchestrated daily business operations; engaged in accounts payables, payroll, legal documentations, purchasing contracts, insurance requirements, and workers compensation claims; and ensured compliance with federal and state deadlines for documentation and tax reporting OTHER EXPERIENCE INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT I SELF I Menlo Park, CA ROTOSCOPE ARTIST I THE BASE STUDIO I Redwood Shores, CA LEAD SUPERVISOR I UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT I Menlo Park, CA ASSISTANT SECURITY MANAGER I US ARMY RESERVE, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE I Dublin, CA IMAGERY ANALYST I U.S. ARMY RESERVE, MILITARY INTELLIGENCE I Dublin, CA Jul 2011--Present Mar 2011-Jul 2011 Feb 2000-Dec 2001 May 2000-Apr 2005 Apr 1999-Apr 2005 EDUCATION BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Menlo College I Atherton, CA I 2012 CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT IN ACCOUNTING: TAXATION EMPHASIS-ADVANCED De Anza & Foothill College I Cupertino, CA I Conferred June 2012 ICPA Candidate July 2012 Credentials: Certified as an Imagery Analyst (96D-10) I United States Army Intelligence School Top Secret SCI Clearance Holder 2 ~l I I c ] I II I Mr. Uriel Chavez Uriel Chavez has been in the grocery business since 2002. He started as a project manager for Hacienda Markets where he expanded the range of products and services offered to consumers. In 2005, Uriel became the owner of Latino Grocers, LLC (DBA La Hacienda Market) and LG Pharmacies, LLC (OBA San Miguel Pharmacy). Uriel supervised the operations of the 24,000 square foot Hispanic grocery store, La Hacienda Market. He established the management structure and training and promotion program for management positions. He developed year-round forecasting for procurement and allocation of proper staffing, equipment, POS upgrades, and inventory. He negotiated pricing and delivery with outside companies in order to maximize product availability, lower overstocked inventory levels, as well as reduce the cost of goods. Daily business operations included accounts payables, payroll, legal documentations, purchasing contracts, insurance requirements, and workers compensation claims. Uriel expanded La Hacienda Markets to a total of four stores throughout the Bay Area. Uriel became the Chief Financial Officer of Hacienda Markets. He controlled all internal financial systems and analysis of the company and ensured financial reports were submitted to the executive management, financial institutions, and internal shareholders. He facilitated staff training on functions within the areas of finance, budget, account, purchasing, insurance requirements, workers compensations claims, .accident prevention programs, POS training for management and front end employees, payroll and management information systems. Exhibit 4 : I I "' I 1 Bank ofAmerica~ p,o. H~1x I52S-i Customer service information \Vilmin~·trm~ 111'~ 1P.8:'5('1 »} i .888.BUS!NESS (1.888.287.4637j ·It bankofamerica.com ~ Bank of America, NA P.O. Box 25118 Tampa. FL 33622-5118 j & AFAMlLY MARKET IN< Your Business Fundamentals Checking for October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014 ) & A FAMILY MARKET INC Account summary Beginning balance on October i, 2014 51,665.00 # of depositsicredits: 1 D_.,eposits and other credits 750,000.00 ..._..,....__,________ ;; of withdraw-als/debits: 1 Withdrawais and oi:her debits -0.00 #of items-previous cycfe1 : 2 ;; of days in cycle: 31 Service fees -16.00 Average ledger balance: $74.229.64 Ending balance on October 31, 2014 . $751,649.00 ;lnciudes chedr.s paid,deposi£ed ttems&ather debits Checks -0.00 j With our fasrer card pmcessing,You_ never stop working to improve g.et your funds as soon as the next business day.1 Plus:your business. Neither do vve. • U.S.-based 24/7 customer ser11ke • 99.99% authorization uptime Learn more. Just give us a caH at 1855.8333608. • Unparallelerl security ~~}PJ~£:~;~~fE!~~~~~K~t:~J1~~~~iE~~~Ef~!~~ff;~~z=?E~:~ Sff~·1':'es ~ff n1'r: sunit~o.r 1!'$.Jredty ~h~ F0iC r:tr .fjf';j ~thBgr.r~err.~r,:;gr.:~J. ~1014 £2P.k ~f.e.rre:ca MerG;...cn~ Serk:..0. UC ?Jl :ights re$erv00. ?...!:5VJ4YQH i.40.i.:41 i4--C~25,S Page 1of4 ! October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014 .-......-~------·-oO••• ••·•··~·----------.. --"•"------~-------··-Mo ~·-···-·-----------------·---- IMPORTANT INFORMATION: BANK DEPOSiT ACCOUNTS I-1 Change of address· Please call us at the telephone number listed on the front of this statement to tell us about a change of l address. Deposit agreement· When you opened your account, you received a deposit agreement and fee schedule and agreed that your account would be governed by the terms of these documents, as we may amend them from time co time. These documents are pan: of the contract for your depos.ii: accourn: and govern all transactions relating to your account, including all deposits and withdrawals, Copies of both the deposit agreement and fee schedule which contain the current version of the terms and conditlons of your accourn: relai:lonship may be obtained at our banking centers. Electronic transfers: ln case of errors or questions about your e!ecuonic uansfers~ If you think your statement or receipt is wrong or you need more information about an eiec:tronic transfer (e.g.. ATM transactions, direct deposits or withdrawals, point-of~saie transactions) on the statement o; receipt, te!ephone or write us at the address and number listed on the front of this statement as soon as you can. We must hear from you no iater than 60 days after we sent you the FIRST statement on which the error or problem appeared. Tell us your name and account number. Describe the error or transfer you are unsure about, and explain as clearly as you can why you believe there is an error or why you need more Information. Tell us the dollar amount of the suspected error. For consumer accounts used primarily for personal, family or household purposes, we will investigate your complaint and will correct any error promptly. If we take more than 1 O business days (1 O calendar days if you are a Massachusetts customer) (20 business days lf you are a new customer, for electronic transfers occurring during the first 30 days after the first deposit is made to your account) to do this, we will credit your account for the amount you think is in error, so that you wm have use of the money during the time it wili take to complete our investigation. For other accounts, we investigate, and ff we find we have made an error, we credit your account at the condusion of our investigation. Reporting other problems 0 You must examine your statement carefully and promptly. You are in the best position to discover errors and unauthorized i:ransactions on your account If you faH to nor:ify us fn wrl1:ing of suspected problems or an unauthoriz~d transaction wichfn. the tlme period specified In the deposii: agreement (v·lhlch periods are no more man 60 days after we make the statement available 1:0 you and in some cases are 30 days or iess}, we are no[ liable to you for, and you agree to not make a claim against: us for r.he problems or unaui:horfzed transactions, Direcc deposits -If you have arranged to have direct deposits made ro your account at least once every 60 days from the same person or company, you may call us at the i;elephone number fisted on the front of mis statement to find out ifthe deposit was made as scheduled. You may also review your activity online or visit a banking center for informai::lon, © 2013 Bank of America Corporation Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC ana G:l' &:Jual Ho11$ing Lemler -·--' Page 2 .of 4 I -I Your checking account I Bank of America..,. October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014 ~ _ ·--~-.. .......................~·· ....-_._..........."'-' ....~~'~ ~.-,....... ............,..,.,,__......,__ •""·~···· ··--... ---·' . -...... I I Deposits and other credits Date Description Amount 10/29/14 Deposit 750,000.00 Total deposits and other credits $750,000.00 ,... . ,-:::>erv1ce rees Based on the activity on your business accoums for the statemem period ending 09/30/14, a Monthly Fee was charged for your Business Fundamentals checking account (Primary). You can avoid rhe fee in the fu'cure by meeting one of the requirements below: At least one of the following occurred Q $250.,. in net new purchases en a linked Business debit card Q $2.50+ in net new purchases on a linked Business credic card Q $3/looo~ mlnimum daily balance in primary checking account Q $5,000"· average monthly balance in prim.:ry checking account Q Sl 5,000.,. combin~d averagi? monthly ba!am.:e in linked business accounts A chi1!ck mark indicates th<it you have qualified for a monthly fe<c~ waiver on rhP account based on your usage of these products or ssrvlc.es. For lnformm:ion on how to open a new produce or to !ink an exlsting service w yo•..1r account please caH 1-888-BUSlNESS or visit bankofamerica.com/smallbus!ness. Date Transaction description Amount 10/01/74 Monthly Fee for Business Fundamemais Total service fees -$16.00 /Vote your Ending Ba!once already reflects rhe subtraction of Sero.dee Fees. Daily ledger balances Date Balance($) Dare Balance($) i0/29 751.649.00 J Spend more time growing your business and less time on payroll We've ~med up with Intuit" to bring you efflciem: payroll solw:lons. Pius, get access ro your ched~ing account and payroll ali ln one plzcz. UiU 1.$66,700.2142. Our team rsf payroll speclalls":.s will help yo~ 1nturr Pcr,r,oi!Jfind th~ rigm ;;;ol~ion for your bi.1.Slti~55, Page 3 of 4 -16.00 ) &: A FAMJLY MARKET INC I ! October 1, 2014 to October 31, 2014----------------·------·----·---------·---..............---~---· To help you BALANCE YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT, visit bankofame;ica.corn,sta!ementba!ance or ~he Statements and Documents tab in Online Bar.king for a printable version of the How rn Balance Your Account Worksheet. I I I Page4 of 4 --·-, ' Exhibit 5 .--·, ~. ' !11 ~-, 'I ~ J '. ~ J ,---, I .----., I, 11 . ) r' j ', f ,. [ I I I l \ , l \ " I I_: J l 700 Airport Blvd., #260 Burlingame, CA 94010 • Tel. 650-343-4244 Fax 650-343-4944 • www.suttiassoc.com EXHIBIT 15 COMPARISON OF JJ&F WITH SUPERIOR PHYSICAL LAYOUT OF COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET This memo compares the physical layout with respect to parking, site amenities, interior floor display and marketing features for the JJ&F market and the proposed College CTM. Interior images, site plans and photographic displays are set forth in Exhibits 8,9,10, & 11. The CTM grocery area at 13,500 square feet is substantially greater than that of JJ&F, which was only at 11,500 square feet. Indoor sales floor area for CTM is 8,000 square feet while JJ&F was less than 6,000 square feet. JJ&F did not have an outdoor market while CTM will provide 2,400 square feet for attractive, inviting, outdoor food sales and service. Both JJ&F and CTM have some areas dedicated to storage and food preparation. CTM will provide 40 dedicated parking spaces compared with twenty-five shared spaces for JJ&F. There will be fifteen bicycle parking spaces on site for CTM compared to JJ &F, which had no controlled bicycle parking spaces. A major change for CTM and an important ARB influence on the PC Zone, CTM provides a full El Camino frontage with highly visible and attractive signage, JJ &F had no visible appearance to El Camino with a windowless wall that was uninviting. A California Corporation o License No. 338908 ' I 1: t, For CTM there will be elevator access from the garage areas, to the ~ ground floor store, and there will be contemporary, highly I functioning entry retail doors on the ground floor. These positive attributes were not provided by JJ &F. I ! Simply stated: The CTM project provides a superior physical condition with respect to size, sales floor area, ADA access, garage access and predominance along El Camino as compared to JJ &F. These improved features alone would allow CTM to proceed with ,-1 a building permit since it will have met or exceeded the conditions I,, of JJ&F. J A California Corporation ° License No. 338908 J I - 700 P.irport Blvd.: #260 Bur!ingam&, CA 94010 .:;. Tel. 650-343-4244 Fax 650-343-4944 ..:..:.i : I 1t../\NVV~suttiassoc.com. I City Consultant, Sutti Associates: After reviewing the information pr9vided to the City;s Consultant it is the opinion of the Consultant If that the proposed store layout, marketing, strategy, management team and advisors will create a store that will be a benefit to the community of Palo Alto and will be comparable; ifnot superior,! : I_: I I ' I in quality of products and services to JJ&F". . I , :I I ! : I _J : 1 ' - j Exhibit 6 ~-, -I ,. ' I . ) I . i I ; I I ; [ I ,--1 I ~ r-=iI i ~-I ,-l ~ :-1 :-1 i I '__ j "' ..... _J -' I I r---.. } ·~ ! J w ;~}·· 1~,,·;?. < w (!) w -' ·-' ,o () .• ~ >-l ~ ~ t:: en ~ ~ ~ z ~ u ~ u < ~ ~ ~ ~· f.Il ~ f.Il i-l i-l 0 u I :I :i_, I ·~ I Exhibit 7 ·~ -i ,.-.... 'i'!j i c-, II I . , 11 I i I I I ; I i [ j I ~ J ! f ' l J -------- I i II" .I ,. .I m~ ~ en io I ~ ~ ~ (.!) I.~mi -.-.GR POTENTIAL CARPOOL SPACES .... -(6) P!'~~";o:fi!!.~l 1!11 Iii 113' mrllI I I Ill Ill GROCERY - 6 S~ES ~ <::== i::::=> i::::=> __J::__ L.___ COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE BASEMENT LEVEL A PARKING ASSIGNED TO GROCERY STORE (40 SPACES) AND PUBLIC (65 SPACES) CARS HARE SPACES (2) MC SPACES· (2) ERY.-8 SPAC I!! Ill -I -1 --1 I -I -1 -1 I -1 -1 ------------------ I I . j Exhibit 8 • J r 1 I: ' J '. l ~ I I . I I I • I I ~_I ' I;-1 I [ " ' 1 I, ' ~ I I I J & A FAMILY MARKET ' ! / [ ' - I ' ) ' I J ': l J J Proud To Be A Local Family Owned Provider Of Only The Best! I I ! I CASH RE.GISTERS ' • I\I Ti CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1885 EL CAMINO REAL PALO AlTO, CA. 94306 650-322-2288 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 2100 EL CAM!NO REAL PALO ALTO, CA GROCERY STORE LAYOUT DATE: 06-26-2014 r~-~~~ r-1~: i. ' ~ Exhibit 9 ; I .. I ! J : i I I ! I '.J . . i ) ' i ;-1 . j r-1 I I J 1J I _) ' ! ~ I ~ , I I J I ! ! I I I I : l '. ( i I '! .1-· ( l I I I , I ', .' )I ) ' l '. _J l I ~ J ,~, I I ! iiI . ) ) ~ J J i l ' ,, 1 ' II J /_ l J ,-----, 1- ! ~1 i '. ! I _I I 'I I - J l l. j I I J _J -------------------~ ! I ~ .~ ~l ' J I ' I ·, J J : I I Exhibit 10 ~---- --; ' ' ( ' i: ' " l ~ ,·-...., i I !! --J ' ' , I i ' .' . I I , I ~ _I , ' I i 06/23/10 JJ&F Food Stores Current Period This Year 03/01110 To 03/31/10 Statement ofOperations For the Six Periods Ending March 31, 2010 Current Period Last Year 03/01/09 To 03/31/09 Year To Date This Year 10/01/09 To 03/31/10 The enclosed financial statements and attached supplemental information have been prepared by MJN Consulting. The financial statements have not been audited or reviewed.. The information presented therein has been provided by the client and no opinion is expressed or implied as to the accuracy of such information. The financial statements are intended for the use ofinternal manangement only. i. r· Year To Date Last Year 10/01/08 To 03/31/09 Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. i ~l.l~~ .,. 06/23/10 2JJ&F Food Stores Statement ofOperations For the Six Periods Ending March 31, 201 O Current Period This Year 03/01/10 To 03/31/10 Current Period Last Year 03/01/09 To 03/31/09 Year To Date This Year 10/01/09 To 03/31/10 Year To Date Last Year 10/01/08 To 03/31/09 4.5 166,455.04 53,330.38 44,494.35 75,882.83 13,269.56 353,432.16 47.10% 15.09% • 12.59% 21.47% 3.75% 100.00% 4.5 198,848.34 59,778.76 48,752.90 76,541.59 16,056.83 . 399,978.42 49.71% 14.95% 12.19% 19.14% 4.01% 100.00% Number of Weeks Sales Grocery Meat Produce Delicatessen Liquor Total Sales 26. 1,020,680.05 333,311.67 262,932.69 423,228.72 83,816.41 2,123,969.54 48.06% 15.69% 12.38% 19.93% 3.95% 100.00% 26. 1, 193,584.10 39{584.10 292,647.27 435,220.55 103,996.93 . 2,420,032.95 49.32% 0 16.30% 12.09% 17.98% 4.30% 100.00% 78,540 88,884 Average Sales Per Week 81,691 93,078 Gross Profit 64,917.32 18,665.42 18,687.99 34,147.52 4,909.83 39.00% . 35.00% 42.00% 45.00% 37.00% 77,550.96 20,916.02 20,476.42 34,443.96 5,941.26 39.00% 34.99% 42.00% 45.00% 37.00% Grocery Meat Produce Delicatessen Liquor 398,903.44 117,178.70 110,430.97 190,454.45 31,013.02 39.08% 35.16% 42.00% 45.00% 37.00% 465,497.71 138,097.66 122,911.22 195,849.46 38,480.04 39.00% 35.00% 42.00% 45.00% 37.00% 141,328.08 39.99% 159,328.62 39.83% Total Gross Profit 847,980.58 39.92% 960,836.09 39.70% Rebates & Allowances 0.00 .00% 183.00 .05% All Departments 1,118.29 .05% 3,251.71 .13% 0.00 .00% 183.00 .05% Total Rebates & Allowances · 1,118.29 .05% 3,251.71 .13% 141,328.08 39.99% 159,511.62 39.88% Total Gross with Rebates 849,098.87 39.98% 964,087.80 39.84% Controllable Expenses Salaries 19,415.21 24,247.25 14,133.32 0.00 2,830.18 11.66% 45.47% 4.00% :00% .80% 24,441.04 25,892.73 19,929.00 0.00 4,117.49 12.29% 43.31% 4.98% .00% 1.03% Grocery Meat Executive Holiday Vacation 113,742.89 128,569.42 78,848.32 7,111.04 26,562.72 11.14% 38.57% 3.71% .33% 1.25% 145,075.52 156,720.15 116,700.00 10,323.63 18,483.53 12.15% 39.72% 4.82% .43% .76% 60,625.96 17.15% 74,380.26 18.60% Total Salaries 354,834.39 16.71% 447,302.83 18.48% Benefits 4,815.16 1.36% 5,696.29 1.42% , Employer FICA Tax 27,301.87 1.29% ' 34,219.55 1.41% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. ---~-,\ _-]r· -- ----' -~----------~------------------- 06/23/10 3 JJ&F Food Stores Statement of Operations For the Six Periods Ending March 31, 2010 Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 03/01/10 03/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 03/31/10 03/31/09 03/31/10 03/31/09 190.92 .05% 274.61 .07% State Unemployment Tax 3,072.66 .14% 4, 178.73 .17% 56.95 .02% 73.30 .02% Federal Unemployment Tax 910.37 .04% 1,109.74 .05% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Workers Comp Audit Adjustment 1,909.00 .09% 0.00 .00% 3,303.79 .93% 1,840.69 .46% Workers Compensation Insurance 12,916.92 .61% 14,/'83.91 .61% 21,996.68 6.22% 24,003.56 6.00% Health and Welfare 125,510.11 5.91% 136,381.40 5.64% 2,082.76 .59% (602.89} -.15% Life Insurance 9,388.10 .44% 12,522.45 .52% 32,446.26 9.18% 31,285.56 7.82% Total Benefits 181;009.03 8.52% 203,195.78 8.40% 93,072.22 26.33% 105,665.82 26.42% Tota! Salaries & Benefits 535,843.42 25.23% . 650,498.61 26.88% Supplies & Laundry 335.32 .09% 167.22 .04% Office 1,749.56 .08% 874.44 .04% 5,040.17 1.43% 4,363.25 1.09% All Departments 28,945.83 1.36% 31,180.11 1.29% 1,004.76 .28% 1,566.21 .39% Laundry-Uniforms 4,694.28 .22% 8,350.36 .35% 6,380.25 1.81% 6,096.68 1.52% Total Supplies & Laundry 35,389.67 1.67% 40,404.91 1.67% Advertising 550.88 .16% 768.95 .19% Advertising 3,253.30 .15% 10,725.92 .44% 571.81 .16% 786.38 .20% Promotional 4,234.23 .20% 5,220.51 .22% 1,781.61 .50% 2,155.43 .54% lnstore Coupons 9,276.19 .44% 10,774.12 .45% 2,904.30 .82% 3,710.76 ·.93% Total Advertising 16,763.72 .79% 26,720.55 1.10% 102,356.77 28.96% 115,473.26 28.87% ·Total Controllable Expenses 587,996.81 27.68% 717,624.07 29.65% Operating Expenses Depreciation & Amortization 667.63 .19% 647.56 .16% Fixtures and Equipment 4,005.78 .19% 3,885.36 .16% 3,471.47 .98% 3,471.47 .87% Leasehold Improvements 20,828.82 .98% 20,828.82 .86% 138.33 .04% 138.33 .03% Parking Lot Improvements 829.98 .04% 829.98 .03% 4,277.43 1.21% 4,257.36 1.06% Total Depreciation &Amortization 25,664.58 1.21% 25,544.16 1.06% Insurance Expense 1,755.78 .50% 1,498.33 .37% Property 10,144.50 .48% 8,657.00 .36% 1,755.78 .50% 1,498.33 .37% Total Insurance 10,144.50 .48% 8,657.00 .36% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. -·1:-,-_ ---1 l ___ 06/23/10 JJ&F Food Stores 4 Statement of Operations For the· Six Periods Ending March 31, 2010 Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 03/01/10 03/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 03/31/10 03/31/09 03/31/10 03/31/09 Rent 13,611.90 3.85% 13,611.88 3.40% Building 81,671.30 3.85% 81,671.28 3.37% ·0.00 .00% 469.05 .12% Equipment 0.00 .00% 1,226.70 .05% 0.00 0.00 .00% .00% . 0.00 0.00 .00% .00% Leased Equipment Storage_ 1, 178.62 831.76 .06% .04% 232.24 1,031.30 .01% .04% 13,611.90 3.85% 14,080.93 3.52% Total Rent 83,681.68 3.94% 84,161.52 3.48% Repairs & Maintenance 3,994.45 1.13% 838.68 .21% Repairs and Maintenance 9,076.78 .43% 14,268.79 .59% _Q:QQ .00% 0.00 .00% Common Area Maintenance 160.00 .01% 320.00 .01% 3,994.45 1.13% 838.68 .21% Total Repairs & Maintenance 9,236.78 .43% 14,588.79 .60% Taxes 247.52 .07% 653.36 .16% Personal Property Tax 1,430.12 .07% 1,899.59 .08% 423.15 .12% 401.59 .10% Real Estate Tax 2,753.15 .13% 2,320.31 .10% 670.67 .19% 1,054.95 .26% Total Taxes 4,183.27 .20% 4,219.90 .17% Utilities 5,214.00 1.48% 4,509.83 1.13% Eiectric 32,929.81 1.55% 28,844.19 1.19% 1,220.00 .35% 1,335.89 .33% Gas 6,354.08 .30% 6,246.32 .26% 2,611.00 .74% 4,524.41 1.13% · Sewer 16,456.88 .77% 25,640.54 1.06% 301.47 .09% 331.12 .08% Telephone 2,164.83 .10% 1,899.79 .08% 2,949.00 .83% 484.42 .12% Trash and Sewer 16,276.00 .77% 3,089.62 .13% 2,499.00 .71% 4,358.06 1.09% Water 15,788.04 .74% 24,670.51 1.02% 14,794.47 4.19% 15,543.73 3.89% Total Utilities 89,969.64 4.24% 90,390.97 3.74% Other Operating Expenses 367.41 .10% 214.51 .05% Automobile 1,393.74 .07% 885.36 .04% (127.81) -.04% 5qt.80 .13% Bad Debts Accounts Receivable 2,846,84 .13% 769.49 .03% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Bad Debts Returned Checks (179.01) -.01% 0.00 .00% 203.63 .06% 199.71 .05% Bank Service Charge 1,598.57 .08% 1,572.90 .06% 2,450.00 262.45 .69% .07% 0.00 266.46 .00% .07% Bank Overdraft Charge Contracted Services 12,355.00 1,670.11 , .58% .08% 1,400.00 1,832.54 . .06% .08% Financial Statementis incomplete without supplemental information. ---1T- 06/23/10 5JJ&F Food Stores Statement ofOperations For the Six Periods Ending March 31; 2010 Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 03/01/10 03/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 03/31/10 03/31/09 03/31/10 03/31/09 6,747.33 1.91% 6,664.62 1.67% Credit Card Fees 31,630.94 1.49% 36,970.34 1.53% 0.00 .00% 1,098.00 .27% Dues 0.00 .00% 3,202.00 .13% 0.00 .00% . 205.44 .05% Employee Training 0.00 .00% 205.44 .01% 1,057.24 .30% 1,277.14 .32% Interest 7,151.73 .34% 9,483.17 .39% 154.50 .04% 0.00 .00% Interest Other ·1,782.33 .08% 0.00 .00% 700.00 .20% 500.00 .13% Janitor Service 5, 150.00 .24% 3,580.00 .15% 0.00 177.00 .00% .05%. 0.00 177.00 .00% .04% Licenses Pest Control 1,398.00 895.94 .07% .04% 1,290.00 1,048.83 .05% .04% 0.00 .00% 492.10 .12% Postage 1,174.96 .06% 2,053.93 .08% 0.00 .00% 0.00 :00% Professional Services 250.00 .01% 40.00 .00% 553.51 .16% 578.75 .14% Payroll Service 3,022.86 .14% 3,162.20 .13% 715.00 .20% 715.00 .18% Retail Accounting 4,290.00 .20% 4,290.00 .18% 687.00 .19% 692.00 .17% Security 1,959.65 .09% 1,364.00 .06% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Tax Accounting 1,250.00 .06% 1,950.00 .08% 13,947.26 3.95% 13,582.53 3.40% Total Other Operating Expenses 79,641.66 3.75% 75,100.20 3.10% 53,051.96 15.01% 50,856.51 12.71% Total Operating Expenses 302,522.11 14.24% 302,662.54 12.51% 155,408. 73 . 43.97% 166,329.77 41.58% Total All Expenses 890,518.92 41.93% 1,020,286.61 42.16% (14,080.65) -3.98% (6,818.15) -1.70% Operating Profit (41,420.05) -1.95% (56,198.81) -2.32% Other Income & (Expense) 1.41 .00% 101.11 .03% Cash Over I Short 201.11 .01% 578.20 .02% 0.00 0.00 .00% .00% 0.00 0.00 .00% .00% Coupon Income Other Income 0.00 245.00 .00% .01% 140.29 0.00 .01% .00% 0.00 .00% (2,417.44) -.60% Other Expense 0.00 .00% (9,669.76) -.40% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Recycling Income 26.64 .00% 312.14 .01% . 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Insurance Loss (1,000.00) -.05% 0.00 .00% 1.41 .00% (2,316.33) -.58% Total Other Income & (Expense) (527.2_2) -.()2% _ (8,639.rn -.36% (14,079.24) -3.98% (9,134.48) -2.28% Net Income Before Ta>ces (41,947.30) -1.97% (64,837.94} -2.68% Estimated Taxes '0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Federal Tax Penalties . 2,454.32 .12% 245.00 ' .01% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental informa.tion. ---:-T 'l~. ... 06/23/10 JJ&F Food Stores 6 Statement ofOperations For the Six Periods Ending March 31, 2010 Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 03/01/10 03/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 03/31/10 03/31/09 03/31/10 03/31/09 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% State Tax Penalties 0.00 .00% 1,762.00 .07% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Local Tax Penalties 336.02 .02% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Estimatea Federal Tax 0.00 .00% 6,595.00 .27% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Estimated State Tax 0.00 .00% 3,887.00 .16% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Total tstimated Taxes 2,790.34 .13% ·12,489.00 .52% ---(14,079.24) -3.98% (9,134.48) -2.28% Net Income (44,737.64)---2.11% (77,326.94) -3.20% Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization (14,079.24) -3.98% (9,134.48) -2.28% Net Income (44,737.64) -2.11% (77,326.94) -3.20% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Income Taxes 0.00 .00% 10,482.00 .43% 1,211.74 .34% 1,277.14 .32% Interest 8,934.06 .42% 9,483.17 .39% 4,277.43 1.21% 4,257.36 1.06% Depreci;:ition 25,664.58 1.21% 25,544.16 1.06% (8,590.07) -2.43% (3,599.98) -.90% Total EBITDA (10, 139.00) -.48% (31,817.61) -1.31% Financial Statement is ·incomplete without supplemental information . . -,- 06/18/10 JJ&F Food Stores Current Period This Year 02/01/10 To 02/28/10 Statement of Operations For the Five Periods Ending February 28, 2010 Current Period Last Year 02/01/09 To 02/28/09 Year To Date This Year 10/01/09 To 02/28/10 The enclosed financial statements and attached supplemental information have been prepared by MJN Consulting. The financial statements have not been audited or reviewed. The information presented therein has been provided by the client and no opinion is expressed or implied as to the accuracy of such information. The financial statements are intended for the use ofinternal manangement only. Year To Date Last Year 10/01/08 To 02128109 Financial Statement is incompiete without supplemental information. r 06/18/10 2JJ&F Food Stores Statement ofOperations For the Five Periods Ending February 211, 201O Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 02/01/10 02/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 02/28/10 02/28/09 02/28/10 02/28/09 4. 4. Number of Weeks 21.5 21.5 Sales 143,656.19 48.35% 183)84.46 50.53% Grocery 854,225.01 48.25% 994,735.76 49.24% 43,447.03 14.62% 53,731.02 14.77% .Meat 279,981.29 15.81% 334,805.34 16.57% 36,545.06 12.30% 43,571.14 11.98% Produce 218;438.34 12.34% 243,894.37 12.07% 61,781.93 20.79% 66,933.73 18.40% Delicatessen 347,345.89 19.62% 358,678.96 17.76% 11,686.99 3.93% 15,661.99 4.31% Liquor · 70,546.85 3.98% 87,940.10 4.35% 297,117.20 100.00% 363,682.34 100.00% Total Sales __1,770,537.38 100.00"/o 2,020,054.53 100.00% 74,279 90,921 Average Sales Per Week 82,351 93,956 Gross Profit 56,026.23 15,206.92 39.00% 35.00% 71,676.01 18,8()5.58 39.00% 35.00% Grocery Meat 333,986.12 98,513.28 39.10% 35.19% 387,946.75 117,181.64 39.00% 35.00% 15,348.60 42.00% 18,300.23 42.00% Produce 91,742.98 42.00% 102,434.80 42.00% 27,802.06 45.00% 30,120.16 45.00% Delicatessen 156,306.93 45.00% 161,405.50 45.00% 4,324.62 37.00% 5,794.99 37.00% Liquor 26,103.19 37.00% 32,538.78 37.00% 118,708.43 39.95% 144,696.97 39.79% Total Gross Profit 706,652.50 39.91% 801,507.47 39.68% . Rebates & Allowan.ces 400.22 .13% 264.60 .07% All Departments 1,118.29' .06% 3,068.71 .15% 400.22 .13% 264.60 .07% Total Rebates & Allowances 1,118.29 .06% 3,068.71 .15% 119,108.65 . 40.09% 144,961.57 39.86% Total Gros$ with Rebates 707,770.79 39.97% 804,576.18 39.83% Controllable Expenses Salaries 16,404.07 11.42% 22,213.47 12.09% Grocery 94,327.68 11.04% 120,634.48 12.13% 18,248.11 42.00% 23,466.43 43.67% Meat 104,322.17 37.26% 130,827.42 39.08% 12,000.00 4.01% 18,000.00 4.95% Executive 64,715.00 3.66% 96,771.00 4.79% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Holiday 7,111.04 .40% 10,323.63 .51% 5,175.12 1.74% 4,989.26 1.37% Vacation 23,732.54 1.34% 14,366.04 .71% 51,827.30 17.44% 68,669.16 18.88% Total Salaries 294,208.43 16.62% 372,922.57 18.46% Benefits 3,794.45 1.28% 5,253.20 1.44% Employer FICA Tax , 22,486.71 1.27% 28,523.26 1.41% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. -r ·-· 06/18/10 JJ&F Food Stores 3 Statement of Operations For the Five Periods Ending February.28, 201O Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 02/01/10 02/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 02/28/10 02/28/09 02/28/10 02/28/09 948.89 .32% 1,186.67 .33% State Unemployment Tax 2,881.74 .16% 3,904.12 .19% 281.30 .09% 316.45 .09% Federal Unemployment Tax 853.42 .05% 1,036.44 .05% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Workers Crimp Audit Adjustment 1,909.00 .11% . 0.00 .00% 2,902.56 .98% 3,383.43 .93% Workers Compensation Insurance 9,613.13 .54% 12,943.22 .64% 21,001.67 7.07% 21,469.62 5.90% Health and Welfare 103,513.43 5.85% 112,377.84 5.56% 1,183.61 .40% 2,347.61 .65% Life Insurance 7,305.34 .41% 13,125.34 .65% 30,112.48 10.13% 33,956.98 9.34% · Total Benefits 148,562.77 8.39% 171,910.22 8.51% 81,939.78 27.58% 102,626.14 28.22% Total Salaries & Benefits 442,771.20 25.01% 544,832.79 26.97% Supplies & Laundry 228.56 .08% 489.56 .13% Office 1,414.24 .08% 707.22 .04% 3,364.26 1.13% 4,821.44 1.33% All Departments 23,905.66 1.35% 26,816.86 1.33% 593.40 .20% 1,387.17 .38% Laundry-Uniforms 3,689.52 .21% 6,784.15 .34% 4,186.22 1.41% 6,698.17 1.84% Total Supplies & Laundry 29,009.42 1.64% 34,308.23 1.70% Advertising 600.34 .20% 3,411.26 .94% Advertising 2,702.42 .15% 9,956.97 .49% 671.48 .23% 922.65 .25% Promotional 3,662.42 .21% 4,434.13 .22% 988.15 .33% 1,629.89 .45% lnstore Coupons 7,494.58 .42% 8,618.69 .43% 2,259.97 .76~ 5,963.80 1.64% Total Advertising 13,859.42 .78% 23,009.79 1.14% -88,385.97 29.75% 115,288.11 31.70% Total Controllable Expenses 485,640.04 27.43% 602,150.81 29.81% Operating Expenses Depreciation & Amortization 667.63 .22% 647.56 .18% Fixtures and Equipment 3,338.15 .19% 3,237.80 .16% 3,471.47 1.17% 3,471.47 .95% Leasehold Improvements 17,357.35 .98% 17,357.35 .86% 138.33 .05% 138.33 .04% Parking Lot Improvements 691.65 .04% 691.65 .03% 4,277.43 1.44% 4,257.36 1.17% Total Depreciation & Amortization 21,387.15 1.21% 21,286.80 1.05% Insurance Expense 1,560.69 .53% 1,331.85 .37% Property 8,388.72 .47% 7,158.67 .35% 1,560.69 .53% 1,3~1.85 .37% Total Insurance · 8 388.72 .47% 7,158.67. .35% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. ---,[ .. ---: l-l T~ i'r-·-~ 06/18/10 4JJ&F Food Stores Statement ofOperations For the Five Periods Ending February 28, 201O Current Period This Year 02/01/10 To 02/28/10 Current Period Last Year 02/01/09 To 02128109 Year To Date This Year 10/01/09 To 02/28/10 Year To Date Last Year 10/01/08 To 02128109 Rent 13,611.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 13,611.88 4.58% .00% .00% .00% 4.58% 13,611.88 469.05 116.12 0.00 14,197.05 3.74% .13% .03% .00% 3.90% Building Equipment Leased Equipment Storage Total Rent 68,059.40 0.00 1,178.62 831.76 70,069.78 3.84% .00% .07% .05% 3.96% 68,059.40 757.65 232.24 1,031.30 70,080.59 3.37% .04% .01% .05% 3.47% Repairs & Maintenance 3,533.63 0.00 1.19% .00% 755.44 0.00. .21% .00% Repairs and Maintenance Common Area Maintenance 5,082.33 160.00 .29% .01% 13.430.11 320.00 .66% .02% 3,533.63 1.19% 755.44 .21% Total Repairs & Maintenance 5,242.33 .30% 13,750.11 .68% Taxes 220.02 376.13 .07% .13% 231.86 356.97 .06% .10% Personal Property Tax Real Estate Tax 1,182.60 2,330.00 .07% .13% 1,246.23 1,918.72 .06% .09% 596.15 .20% 588.83 .16% Total Taxes 3 512.60 .20% 3,164.95 .16% Utilities 4,561.63 1,091.12 2,168.91 310.49 2,852.00 2,068.29 13,052.44 1.54% .37% .73% .10% .96% .70% 4.39% 5,461.14 1,165.19 3,911.52 338.54 541.42 3,758.21 15,176.02 1.50% .32% 1.08% .09% .15% 1.03% 4.17% Electric Gas Sewer Telephone Trash and Sewer Water .Total Utilities 27,715.81 5, 134.08 13,845.88 1,863.36 13,327.00 13,289.04 75,175.17 1.57% .29% .78% .11% .75% .75% 4.25% 24,334.36 4,910.43 21,116.13 1,568.67 2,605.20 20,312.45 74,847.24 1.20% .24% 1.05% .08% .13% 1.01% 3.71% Other Operating Expenses 259.00 2,298.28 0.00 242.27 3,045.00 221.93 .09% .77% .00% .08% 1.02% .07% 20.00 267.69 0.00 196.28 735.00 280.85 .01% .07% . 00% .05% .20% .08% Automobile Bad Debts Accounts Receivable Bad Debts Returned Checks Bank Service Charge Bank Overdraft Charge Contracted Sefvices 1,026.33 2,97.4.65 (179.01) 1,394.94 9,905.00 1,407.66 . .06% .17% -.01% .08% .56% .08% 670.85 267.69 0.00 1,373.19 1,400.00 1,566'.08 .03% .01% .00% .07% .07% .08% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. ---,·-r :L.-~ 06/18/10 5JJ&F Food Stores Statement ofOperations For the Five Periods Ending February 28, 201 O Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 02/01/10 02/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 02/28/10 02/28/09 02/28/10 02128109 5,062.63 1.70% 5,820.41 1.60% Credit Card Fees 24,883.61 1.41% 30,305.72 1.50% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Dues 0.00 .00% 2,104.00 .10% 1,051.50 .35% 1,118.13 .31% Interest 6,094.49 .34% 8,206.03 .41% 290.38 .10% 0.00 .00% Interest Other 1,627.83 .09% 0.00 .00% 770.00 .26% 500.00 .14% Janitor Service 4,450.00 .25% 3,080.00 .15% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Licenses 1,398.00 .08% 1,290.00 .06% 187.94 .06% 179.58 .05% Pest Control 718.94 .04% 871.83 .04% 536.87 0.00 .18% .00% 119.42 0.00 .03% .00% Postage Professional Services 1,174.96 250.00 .07% .01% 1,561.83 40.00 .08% .00% 443.05 715.00 0.00 ___Qj!Q .15% .24% .00% .00% 457.50 715.00 0.00 0.00 .13% .20% .00% ___.00% Payroll Service Retail Accounting Security Tax Accounting 2,469.35 3,575.00 1,272.65 1,250.00 .14% .20% .07% .07% 2,583.45 3,575.00 672.00 1,950.00 .13% .18% .03% .10% 15,123.85 5.09% 10,409.86 2.86% Total Other Operating Expenses 65,694.40 3.71% 61,517.67 3.05% 51,756.07 17.42% 46,716.41 12.85% Total Operating Expenses 249,470.15 14.09% 251,806.03 12.47% 140,142.04 47.17% 162,004.52 44.55% Total All Expenses 735,110.19 41.52% 853,956.84 42.27% (21,033.39) -7.08% (17,042.95) -4.69% Operating Profit (27,339.40) -1.54% (49;380.66) -2.44% Other Income & (Expense) (12.28) 0.00 0.00 .00% .00% .00% 27.87 0.00 0.00 .01% .00% .00% Cash Over I Short Coupon Income Other Income 199.70 0.00 245.00 .01% .00% .01% 477.09 140.29 0.00 .02% .01% .00% 0.00 0.00 . 00% .00% (2,417.44) 0.00 -.66% .00% Other Expense Recycling Income 0.00 . 26.64 .00% .00% (7,252.32) 312.14 -.36% .02% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Insurance Loss (1,000.00) -.06% 0.00 .00% (12.28) .00% (2,389.57) -.66% Total Other Income & (Expense) (528.66) -.03% (6,322.80) -.31% (21,045.67) -7.08% (19,432.52) -5.34% Net Income Before Taxes (27,868.06) -1.57% __(55, 703.46) -2.76% Estimated Taxes 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Federal Tax.Penalties 2,454.32 .14% 245.00 .01% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% State Tax Penalties 0.00 .00% 1,762.00 .09% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. [ ·-1· :T--~ --,c~ l. l .. . I 06/18/10 JJ&F Food Stores 6 Statement of Operations For the Five Periods Ending February 28, 2010 Current Period Current Period Year To Date Year To Date This Year Last Year This Year Last Year 02/01/10 02/01/09 10/01/09 10/01/08 To To To To 02/28/10 02/28/09 02/28/10 02128109 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Local Tax Penalties 336.02 .02% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Estimated Federal Tax 0.00 .00% 6,595.00 .33% 0.00 .00%. 0.00 .00% Estimated State Tax 0.00 .00% 3,887.00 .19% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Total Estimated Truces 2 790.34 .16% 12,489.00 .62% (21,045.67) . -7.08% (19,432.52) -5.34% Net Income = (30,658.40) -1.73% (68_,_'1~2.46) -3".38% Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization (21,045.67) ·-7.08% (19,432.52) -5.34% Net Income (30 ,658 .40) -1.73% (68, 192.46} -3.38% 0.00 .00% 0.00 .00% Income Taxes 0.00 .00% 10,482.00 .52% 1,341.88 .45% 1,118.13 .31% Interest 7,722.32. .44% 8,206.03 .41% 4,277.43 1.44% 4,257.36 1.17% Depreciation 21,387.15 1.21% 21,286.80 1.05% (15,426.36) -5.19% (14,057.03) -3.87% Total EBITDA (1,54!!_.93) -.09% (28,217.63) -1.40% Financial Statement is incomplete without supplemental information. ,,\. -I Exhibit 11 ,-l , I ' ' ' l ' ( I - 1 In Preparation for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment ', } 'l RETAIL BACKGROUND REPORT -j r· 1 City of Palo Alto May 5, 2009 Prepared by:_ j APPLIED DEV ELO PM ENT ECONOMICSJ I00 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560 Walnut Creek, California 94596 -(925) 934-8712 I 2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95833 -(916) 923-1562 . I _I 'I r---1 .· 1. I \ ; ! I ··' J i ' , . I I~.) 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The retail market analysis estimates the local demand for retail goods, and compares this demand to the sales patterns for types of retail stores in Palo Alto. This '1 information provides a baseline estimate of how Palo Alto's retail stores currently i attract local and regional retail spending. The analysis identifies which store categories are Palo Alto's strongest regional shopping attractors, and which categories have shortcomings that can potentially be addressed with new retail store attraction. The results of the retail analysis support the well-established common knowledge that Palo Alto is a regional attraction that draws shoppers from throughout Silicon Valley and the Peninsula. The key findings from the Retail Market Analysis are summarized below. • Palo Alto draws from a high local household income base (average annual income of $140,000), as well as a large regional market. • The local market spending totals $1.4 billion and comprises a combination of retail spending from Palo Alto households ($891 million), Stanford students and other full-time Stanford residents ($83 million), commuters ($287 million), and out-of- town visitors ($171 million). This local area spending will increase to over $1.5 billion by 2020. • Palo Alto retailers annually generate $1.6 billion in total retail sales. This sales total is greater than the $1.4 billion in local market spending, so the community as a whole has a net capture of retail spending. Despite this overall net capture, retail leakage occurs in specific retail categories, most notably with grocery stores and \ gasoline service stations where the sales fall well short of the total spending I I I potential. I • Department stores and restaurants/ eating places comprise the largest retail sectors in Palo Alto with each generating over $250 million in annual sales. Palo Alto is also a destination for specialty retail stores and apparel stores. • The retail attraction potential for Palo Alto totals approximately $215 million in unmet retail demand that is sufficient to support new retail establishments. Key retail attraction opportunities are in grocery stores and gasoline service stations. However, much of the potential occurs in categories such as home improvement that are already well represented just outside of Palo Alto's city limits. Key retail issues for Palo Alto are as follows: • Retaining regional market capture; • Retaining and strengthening auto dealerships; Applied Development Economics, Inc. I ( 1 I ------: • Addressing unmet demand in local-serving retail sectors; • Potential short-term increase in retail vacancies; and • Staying relevant and competitive as the retail market evolves. Palo Alto's long-standing status as a successful regional retail provider is primarily anchored by the downtown business district and Stanford Shopping Center. The success of these retail centers derives from Palo Alto's location in the middle of an affluent area, as well as the city's strong employment base. Stanford Shopping Center ranks as one of the highest grossing regional malls in the Bay Area, and serves as the primary high-end retail destination between San Francisco and San Jose. In addition, the downtown business district around University Avenue has a large and diverse base of successful businesses that make downtown Palo Alto a destination for local shoppers and residents from surrounding communities. While Palo Alto has maintained success in capturing regional spending and holding onto a specific niche for high-end retail stores, this success has not trickled down to the neighborhood level where Palo Alto households are currently underserved by retail stores that serve a smaller local market area. Generally, overcoming shortcomings with local-serving retail stores is easier than attracting regional spending. In addition, Palo Alto has large gaps in other specific retail niches, such as discount stores and general merchandise stores, that neighboring communities have successfully captured. In the past, Palo Alto has not been supportive of "big box" discount centers, contributing to their successful attraction by other cities. Palo Alto also faces multiple challenges in other retail categories, in particular retaining and attracting automobile dealerships. While this sector is well represented in Palo Alto, local dealerships must contend with declining market conditions for auto sales, as well as competition from surrounding communities that have seen their dealerships expand and consolidate. Palo Alto has limited sites with expansion potential for the dealerships, which reduces its competitiveness with other communities that do have larger sites. Even though regional retail has served as a major source for jobs and sales tax revenue for Palo Alto, there are numerous challenges that should be addressed in order for the City to retain its advantageous position and capitalize on new opportunities. Regional retail in particular is a difficult advantage to maintain because neighboring communities will inevitably try to recapture the spending that leaves their communities and dominate the market niches where Palo Alto's retail performance has been weaker. Competition from both San Francisco and San Jose contributes to the difficulty in maintaining a regional advantage. This analysis will provide a background context from which discussion of planning initiatives can begin. 2 Applied Development Economics, Inc. I 2. PALO ALTO'S RETAIL SETTING This retail market analysis consists of two main parts: an estimate of household retail spending and a comparison of overall spending potential and sales by Palo Alto retail :j establishments. The household retail spending totals are calculated from an analytical model developed by ADE. This model estimates spending for 40 different store types and 100 product categories. The taxable sales data is an annual total listed by retail category. The businesses listed in the analysis encompass all of the retail businesses operating in the City of Palo Alto. The retail sales data comes from the California State Board of Equalization sales tax allocation records, and the data was audited by MuniServices. Because certain retail items, such as food and prescription drugs, are not taxable, the analysis includes a conversion that calculates nontaxable sales.1 As described later in this paper, retail leakage represents the gap between local market demand (which includes household spending by Palo Alto residents, and additional retail spending by visitors and commuters) and retail sales by local retail establishments. This leakage represents an existing shortfall, as well as an opportunity for both retail expansion and possible attraction. Palo Alto has a very healthy and diverse base of retail stores, with strong regional capture across many retail sectors such as department stores, apparel stores, and specialty retail. The major economic engine driving Palo Alto's retail economy is Stanford Shopping Center, which accounts for the largest portion of retail sales among the city's shopping districts and captures sales well beyond the city limits. Stanford Shopping Center generates 27.8 percent of all taxable sales for the City, followed by the Downtown at 13.7 percent. Non-retail areas including Stanford Research Park and the San Antonio Industrial area generate 25 percent of taxable sales. In addition, Palo Alto has a large daily influx of commuters who provide further market support for local retail stores, as well as a large number of out-of-town visitors that come to Palo Alto annually. According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Palo Alto has a population of about 63,400 residents, with just over 27,000 households. The estimated annual income for Palo Alto households is approximately $140,000.2 1 The data provided to ADE did not include the sales data for individual businesses. All data reporting was done at the business category level. 2 The retail analysis uses the income distribution from the 2000 Census, adjusted to the Consumer Price Index. This assumes that the income between 2000 and 2007 grew. However, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) shows a constant dollar decline in household income from $160,300 in 2000 to $133,100 in 2005. ABAG's projection estimates that Palo Alto's average income will increase to $140,900 in 2010. Because the projected ABAG Applied Development Economics, Inc. 3 I __I i I The 2000 Census identified a commute pattern for Palo Alto showing that only about 36 percent of Palo Alto residents also work in Palo Alto. The total labor force in Palo Alto is approximately 31,300 workers, which means that over 20,000 of them commute out of the city for work. Concurrently, Palo Alto has over 76,000 jobs within the City limits, which equates to a daily influx of more than 65,000 workers who commute to Palo Alto from elsewhere. This creates a sizable daytime commuter base that exceeds the total population of Palo Alto. TABLE 1 PALO ALTO COMMUTE PATTERN Commute Pattern Palo Alto Labor Force 31,300 Palo Alto Local Commute Rate (2000) 35.7% Palo Alto Jobs 76,321 Estimated Local Workers 11,174 Estimated In-Commuters 65,147 Source: ADE, Inc.; data from U.S. Census, California EDD LMID, and ABAG. In terms of local market strength, The Palo Alto Sphere of Influence also includes an additional population of about 15,000 along with 20,500 workers, mostly at Stanford University. These residents and workers also shop heavily in Palo Alto. REGIONAL COMPETITION Palo Alto's regional advantage in the retail sector has historically come from successfully serving the multitude of retail constituencies that pass through the community, including commuters, tourists, and other shoppers living in other Bay Area communities. Historically, Palo Alto has served as the most prominent center for high-end retailing between San Francisco and San Jose, and attracted significant numbers of shoppers from throughout the Bay Area. Maintaining this regional advantage is key to sustaining the sales tax revenue that the city has received for many years. However, competition from neighboring communities and other regional attractions represents the one area where Palo Alto has minimal control over the outcome. TAXABLE SALES PERFORMANCE COMPARISON ' ' Compared to surrounding communities elsewhere along the Peninsula and in Santa Clara County, Palo Alto has the highest per capita sales, as shown in Table 2.3 In 2007, i I - l income was similar to the average income estimated from the Census data, ADE did not make any further adjustments to the income distribution. 3 In addition to the taxable retail sales, the retail market analysis also estimates the nontaxable sales by retail stores in Palo Alto, based on confidential sales tax data. However, because the published Board of Equalization data only Applied Development Economics, Inc. 4 Palo Alto's taxable retail sales averaged nearly $20,400 per household resident. The jurisdiction with the next highest per capita taxable retail sales was Santa Clara, with just over $17,400 in taxable retail sales per household resident~ It should be noted that a portion of Westfield Valley Fair mall is in Santa Clara, while the majority of the mall property is on the San Jose side of the boundary. If all of Valley Fair's sales were wholly contained within either Santa Clara or San Jose, it would significantly change their per capita retail sales. In general, the larger cities along the Peninsula generated higher per capita taxable retail sales than cities elsewhere in Santa Clara County. This is likely due to the near absence of retail stores in affluent areas such as Atherton and Hillsborough, and the relatively low per capita retail sales produced by other neighboring cities such as Los Altos, East Palo Alto, and Woodside. In addition, communities located within San Jose's commute area likely capture significant retail sales from the large number of workers who live in San Jose but work elsewhere. San Jose's lower per capita retail sales performance indicates that its residents support retail activity in neighboring cities. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA TAXABLE RETAIL SALES, 2007 Per Capita Taxable Retail City or Town Sales Palo Alto $20,396 Santa Clara $17,241 Redwood City $16,685 San Mateo $14,231 Menlo Park $14,202 Mountain View $13,823 Cupertino $11,793 Sunnyvale $11,510 San Jose $9,446 Los Altos $7,257 East Palo Alto $6,987 Woodside $6,579 Portola Valley $1,655 Atherton $560 Hillsborough $87 Source: ADE, Inc., data from California Department of Finance and Board of Equalization. Notes: Per capita calculations are based on comparison of taxable retail store sales with household population. Taxable sales do not include sales for nontaxable items such as prescription drugs and groceries. In addition, the data for retail sales excludes some store categories such as building materials dealers that are included in the retail market analysis elsewhere in this report. includes a su=ary total of taxable retail sales, this data is insufficient to make an estimate of nontaxable sales in · other co=unities. Applied Development Economics, Inc. s REGIONAL MALLS Stanford Shopping Center is a regional asset that holds numerous advantages over offerings in other communities, primarily because of its concentration of upscale and high end retail stores. ,, I The primary competition for Stanford Shopping Center is the Westfield Valley Fair mall in San Jose/Santa Clara. Valley Fair has aggressively extended its market reach through numerous expansion and remodeling projects that have established the mall as a high end retail destination. In addition, the mall has proposed another expansion project that would add at least another 600,000 square feet to the existing 1.5 million square foot property. Taxable sales trends indicate that Stanford Shopping Center sales only grew by about 13 percent between 2004 and 2007, while sales at Valley Fair mall grew by nearly 44 percent during this same time.4 In addition, the hub of activity created with the development of the mixed use Santana Row "lifestyle center" across the street from Valley Fair has benefited both properties, as Santana Row showed 36 percent growth in taxable sales. Aside from improvements to the store selection and buildings, Valley Fair also benefits from continued population growth south of San Jose. In contrast, the Peninsula is mostly built out, and population and income have not grown much over the past decade. The Westfield Shopping Center in Downtown San Francisco has introduced additional competition, adding a new Bloomingdale's to compete with the one in Stanford Shopping Center. Along the Peninsula, Stanford Shopping Center's other major competition is Hillsdalel shopping center in San Mateo. Unlike Valley Fair, Hillsdale showed a steep decline in taxable sales with a 27 percent sales loss between 2004 and 2007. Other market dynamics to be aware of come from the mall redevelopment projects in Cupertino and Sunnyvale. Those communities developed the competing Sunnyvale Town Center and Valko Fashion Park malls in the late 1970s, but after some initial success both properties went into a steep decline with very high vacancy rates. Except for the anchor department stores, Sunnyvale Town Center has been completely demolished and a new mixed use project incorporating office and residential towers along with an outdoor "lifestyle" shopping center is currently under construction. Vallco is in the middle of an ongoing renovation project and has been rechristened as Cupertino Square. The renamed center has recruited a movie theater, new restaurants, 4 MuniServices; City of Palo Alto Sales Tax Digest Summary Quarter 4, 2007, p.7. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 6 1 and other entertainment uses to the property, although many large spaces remain vacant and the mall owners recently filed for bankruptcy.5 DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS Palo Alto has a thriving downtown business district that has a considerable concentration of upscale retail stores and restaurants. The Peninsula has numerous other traditional downtown business districts that originally developed around commuter rail stops, and some of these districts have also evolved into upscale retail and dining destinations. Neighboring Mountain View has continually evolved as a successful destination for dining and shopping since initial downtown revitalization efforts during the mid 1980s. In addition, Redwood City and San Mateo have made significant recent investments in streetscape improvements and aggressive retail attraction efforts for their downtown areas. Even Santana Row in San Jose functions as a quasi-downtown area, with a mix of attractive pedestrian spaces, and upscale restaurants and retail stores that are comparable to the offerings in Palo Alto. Cumulatively, this has the potential to attract shopping and dining trips away from downtown Palo Alto. AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS Another significant source of regional sales is automobile dealerships. The City has seven automobile dealerships and Palo Alto's automobile sales come very close to matching the local demand. However, these dealers are located throughout the city, with only two of them operating in proximity to one another. This runs contrary to regional and national trends and potentially affects the competitiveness of Palo Alto's automobile dealerships. Along the Peninsula and throughout Silicon Valley in general, automobile dealerships are generally concentrated into auto mall developments or along corridors. This follows a national trend where automobile dealerships increasingly share facilities and joint marketing activities. These include auto malls in San Jose, Daly City, and Redwood City, as well as "auto rows" in San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Burlingame. In contrast, Palo Alto has a lack of available land to support a consolidated auto center. POWER (ENTERS In the regional retail market, Palo Alto has a significant gap because the community does not have any "power center" developments, which are anchored by large-scale discount retailers. Power centers became the dominant retail development prototype during the 1990s, and have led to a significant decline in retail market share for traditional mall-based retailers. This type of retail center has entailed both new development, as well as renovations of aging shopping centers, but it generally relies 5 Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal; "Cupertino Square owner files for bankruptcy"; September 4, 2008. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7 on large land tracts. Because Palo Alto has not developed any power centers, nearly all of the household spending for these types of retail stores has gone to neighboring communities. In particular, the power center developments and big box anchor stores in East Palo Alto at the Gateway 101 development and in Mountain View (around Charleston Road and San Antonio Road) are situated directly adjacent to the Palo ~· 1l Alto city limits. This places those centers well within the local market area for Palo Alto households and limits the market potential for attracting comparable stores to Palo Alto. ' i I ! I, I Applied Development Economics, Inc. 8 3. RETAIL DEMAND l I j I l The local retail market spending for Palo Alto totals approximately $1.4 billion. This market consists of Palo Alto households, Stanford University students and household residents, commuters who work in Palo Alto and live elsewhere, and out-of-town visitors to Palo Alto. LOCAL HOUSEHOLD SPENDING Based on data from ADE's retail demand model, the estimated annual retail spending by Palo Alto's approximately 27,000 households totals about $891 million, as shown in Table 3. It should be noted that not all of this spending occurs in Palo Alto because neighboring communities might provide retail offerings not available locally, and because a high percentage of local residents commute outside of Palo Alto. This commute pattern indicates that at least some portion of household spending will likely continue to leave Palo Alto. Household spending among Palo Alto residents is distributed across the full range of retail store categories. The largest retail store spending categories are department/discount stores, new car dealers, restaurants/eating places, gasoline service stations, and grocery stores. Each of these retail store categories accounts for over $85 million in household spending. By 2020, the number of households in Palo Alto is expected to modestly increase to just over 28,300. This household population increase will increase the local household spending from $891 million to $933 million, as shown in Table 4. STANFORD STUDENT AND RESIDENT SPENDING In addition to Palo Alto residents, the local market area also includes students and other full-time residents at Stanford University. Stanford students living in group quarters/dormitories account for approximately $11.3 million in retail spending annually.6 The largest portion of this spending goes towards off-campus food-related expenses. Other full-time residents at Stanford University create about $72 million of annual retail spending.7 The spending pattern for these residents is higher because it includes a higher average annual income and additional retail expenditures for other family members. Combining Palo Alto households with Stanford residents, the local household retail spending totals about $974 million. 6 The expenditure is based on the Stanford University's estimated annual student budget for incidental expenses, and enrollment of 6,200 students. The retail spending total does not include non-retail expenses, or on-campus expenditures for school supplies and books. 7 Other full-time residents at Stanford University include approximately 3,200 households with an average annual income of about $83,750. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 9 ~- TABLE 3 LOCAL MARKET RETAIL SPENDING DEMAND£ 2007 Stanford Household Stanford Palo Alto Spending Students Total Primary ·1 I I l j Total Retail Group Household Spending i890,668,028 (exc. Dorms) pl,984,077 (Group Quarters) ill,264,134 Commuter Spending p86/02,689 Visitor Spending i170,984,486 MarketArea Spending il,429,001,945 Apparel Store Group $42,527,072 $3,213,506 $509,916 $10,048,852 $10,383,026 $66,682,372 Women's Apparel $11,545,704 $855,785 $125,167 $3,779,449 $3,571,319 $19,877,424 Men's Apparel $3,168,285 $234,922 $31,965 $378,758 $411,520 $4,225,450 Family Clothing $19,776,272 $1,489,597 $228,342 $5,118,029 $5,560,739 $32,172,978 Shoe Stores i8,036,811 i633,202 i124,442 p72,616 $839,448 il0,406,520 l General Merchandise Group Department/Discount Stores $167,556,945 $85,331,532 $13,161,753 $6,451,070 $2,422,564 $977,115 $62,606,696 $31,719,402 $27,573,668 $19,845,641 $273,321,625 $144,324,760 other General Merchandise $48,234,178 $3,841,357 $754,365 $0 $0 $52,829,900 Drug & Proerieta!}:'. Stores p3,991,234 i2i869,326 i691,084 i30,887,294 p,728,028 p6,166,966 Specialty Retail Group $64,984,741 $4,878,422 $653,584 $26,504,312 $16,081,930 $113,102,989 Gifts & Novelties $3,913,863 $292,735 $40,204 $422,962 $783,224 $5,452,987 Sporting Goods $7,490,511 $594,584 $58,182 $1,471,816 $1,374,435 $10,989,528 Florists $1,772,758 $125,167 $13,548 $86,423 $160,035 $2,157,932 Photographic Equipment $818,174 $58,155 $4,758 $1,602,164 $1,496,158 $3,979,409 Records & Music $3,384,184 $255,794 $34,836 $162,073 $300,120 $4,137,007 Books & Stationery $8,249,188 $620,293 $104,593 $587,699 $1,088,276 $10,650,049 Office Supplies $9,871,146 $714,051 $67,485 $764,723 $714,126 $12,131,531 Jewelry $8,155,338 $549,109 $55,457 $1,789,079 $3,312,941 $13,861,924 Misc. SeecialEz'. Retail Fl,329,579 ~1,668,534 $274,520 ~19,617,373 i6,852,615 i49/42,621 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $265,222,874 $17,650,063 $3,910,008 $135,182,872 $86,742,202 $464,895,977 Grocery Stores $125,199,417 $10,333,662 $2,328,233 $23,866,755 $8,092,973 $169,821,041 Specialty Food Stores $3,517,771 $292,294 $67,348 $3,020,276 $1,024,145 $7,921,835 Liquor Stores $6,710,510 $517,098 $86,740 $1,280,118 $434,075 $9,028,542 Eating Places i85,983,134 $6,507,008 il,427,687 i107,015,723 i77,191,009 i278,124,560 I I I Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group Furniture/Home Furnishings $102,568,382 $30,984,323 $7,491,566 $2,212,748 $841,990 $191,202 $23,572,274 $2,123,618 $75,357 $0 $134,549,569 $35,511,890 Appliances & Electronics $19,606,767 $1,456,250 $191,363 $19,153,758 $0 $40,408,138 Used Merchandise $2,092,588 $155,038 $20,586 $83,173 $75,357 $2,426,741 Nurseries & Garden Supply $10,149,880 $735,229 $94,963 $531,440 $0 $11,511,512 Lumber/Building Materials $23,760,736 $1,765,337 $210,891 $620,545 $0 $26,357,510 Home Centers/Hardware $14,732,255 $1,071,937 $122,244 $729,701 $0 $16,656,137 Paint & walleaeer il,241,834 i95,027 il0/41 iJ30,038 $0 il,677,640 Automotive Group $291,620 ,057 $22,273,172 $2,926,071 $28,787,683 $30,842,429 $376A49,413 New cars & RVs $171,077,175 $12,436,194 $1,164,523 $0 $0 $184,677,891 Used Car Dealers $12,608,311 $914,759 $84,045 $0 $0 $13,607,115 Gasoline Service Stations $92,974,550 $7,717,933 $1,497,139 $28,787,683 $30,842,429 $161,819,735 Mobile Homes & Trailers $76,248 $6,191 $1,280 $0 $0 $83,719 Auto Parts & Accessories $8,674,458 $716,928 $139,567 $0 $0 $9,530,954 other Vehicles ~6,209,316 i481,167 p9,516 iO iO ~6,729,999 Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW-Extension, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 10 r--I TABLE 4 ;--·-1 I PROJECTED LOCAL MARKET RETAIL SPENDING DEMAND, 2020 ! c--i Stanford Household Stanford Palo Alto Spending Students Total Primary Household (exc. (Group Commuter Visitor Market Area Retail Groue seendin9 Dorms} Quarters} seending seending seending Total 1933,217,228 pl,984,077 111,264,134 po9,280,692 1222,279,832 11,545,638,730 Apparel Store Group $44,558,685 $3,213,506 $509,916 $10,840,205 $13,497,933 $72,620,245 Women's Apparel $12,097,268 $855,785 $125,167 $4,077,083 $4,642,715 $21,798,017 Men's Apparel $3,319,641 $234,922 $31,965 $408,585 $534,976 $4,530,090 Family Clothing $20,721,029 $1,489,597 $228,342 $5,521,076 $7,228,960 $35,189,004 Shoe Stores 18,420,747 1633,202 1124,442 :£833,460 $1,091,282 111,103,134 General Merchandise Group $175,561,514 $13,161,753 $2,422,564 $67,537,009 $35,845,769 $294,528,608 Department $89,408,010 $6,451,070 $977,115 $34,217,323 $25,799,333 $156,852,851 Other General Merchandise $50,538,432 $3,841,357 $754,365 $0 $0 $55,134,154 Drug & Pro12rieta!}:'. Stores p5,615,072 $2,869,326 1691,084 p3,319,686 110,046,436 182,541,603 Specialty Retail Group $68,089,207 $4,878,422 $653,584 $28,591,542 $20,906,508 $123,119,264 Gifts & Novelties $4,100,837 $292,735 $40,204 $456,271 $1,018,191 $5,908,237 Sporting Goods $7,848,349 $594,584 $58,182 $1,587,723 $1,786,766 $11,875,604 Florists $1,857,447 $125,167 $13,548 $93,229 $208,046 $2,297,437 ' l Photographic Equipment Records & Music Books & Stationery $857,260 $3,545,854 $8,643,270 $58,155 $255,794 $620,293 $4,758 $34,836 $104,593 $1,728,335 $174,836 $633,981 $1,945,006 $390,156 $1,414,759 $4,593,513 $4,401,476 $11,416,896 Office Supplies $10,342,713 $714,051 $67,485 $824,945 $928,364 $12,877,557 .-! Jewelry Misc. S12ecial~ Retail $8,544,936 122,348,541 $549,109 11,668,534 $55,457 1274,520 $1,929,970 121!162,252 $4,306,823 18,908,400 $15,386,296 :£54,362,247 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $265,222,874 $17,650,063 $3,910,008 $145,828,602 $112,764,863 $512,141,656 Grocery Stores $131,180,473 $10,333,662 $2,328,233 $25,746,275 $10,520,865 $180,109,509 Specialty Food Stores $3,685,823 $292,294 $67,348 $3,258,125 $1,331,388 $8,634,978 Liquor Stores $7,031,086 $517,098 $86,740 $1,380,928 $564,298 $9,580,150 Eating Places 190,090/40 16,507,008 11,427,687 1115,443,273 1100,348,311 $313,817!019 Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group $107,468,303 $7,491,566 $841,990 $25,428,604 $97,964 $141,328,427 Furniture/Home Furnishings $32,464,513 $2,212,748 $191,202 $2,290,855 $0 $37,159,317 Appliances & Electronics $20,543,426 $1,456,250 $191,363 $20,662,128 $0 $42,853,167 Used_ Merchandise $2,192,555 $155,038 $20,586 $89,723 $97,964 $2,555,866 Nurseries & Garden Supply $10,634,762 $735,229 $94,963 $573,291 $0 $12,038,245 Lumber/Building Materials $24,895,840 $1,765,337 $210,891 $669,414 $0 $27,541,481 Home Centers/Hardware $15,436,048 $1,071,937 $122,244 $787,165 $0 $17,417,395 Paint & Wall12a12er 11,301,159 $95!027 110/41 p561029 10 11,762,956 . Automotive Group $305,551,398 $22,273,172 $2,926,071 $31,054,730 $40,095,158 $401,900,530 New Cars & RVs $179,249,913 $12,436,194 $1,164,523 $0 $0 $192,850,629 Used Car Dealers $13,210,638 $914,759 $84,045 $0 $0 $14,209,442 Gasoline Service Stations $97,416,151 $7,717,933 $1,497,139 $31,054,730 $40,095,158 $177,781,112 Mobile Homes & Trailers $79,890 $6,191 $1,280 $0 $0 $87,361 Auto Parts & Accessories $9,088,857 $716,928 $139,567 $0 $0 $9,945,352 Other Vehicles 16,505,948 1481,167 p9,516 10 10 go26,632 Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW-Extension, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. I I -,,--1 71Applied Development Economics, Inc. The analysis did not project any spending increases from Stanford students and residents, since the number of students and residents is not expected to increase substantially by 2020. COMMUTER SPENDING Palo Alto's job base far exceeds the size of its labor force, which has the effect of broadening the local market base for retailers. The city has over 76,300 jobs and a local labor force of 31,300. Only about 11,200 Palo Alto residents work in Palo Alto, which ' I i i, means that over 65,100 workers who commute into Palo Alto from other . I communities (see Table 1 for references for this data). Altogether, these commuters account for approximately $287 million in annual retail spending.8 ,.-----, ~-1 Restaurant spending represents by far the largest expenditure category for commuters, with about $107 million in annual spending or 37 percent of the total commuter spending. When combined with grocery stores, nearly half of the total commuter spending goes towards food-oriented businesses. The other major expenditure 'l categories for commuters include department stores, drug stores, and gasoline service : ) stations. As with local households, this reflects the estimated amount that commuters into Palo Alto will spend while they are at work, not necessarily that all of their spending while at work will occur in Palo Alto. : l ' J By 2020, the job base for Palo Alto is expected to increase to just over 82,000 workers. Assuming that the commute patterns will remain similar to the current patterns, this increases the number of daily commuters coming into Palo Alto to over 70,000. Consequently, the total commuter spending will increase to $309 million by 2020. ' l 1 VISITOR SPENDING Santa Clara County's estimated visitor spending across all expenditure categories for 2006 totaled approximately $3.6 billion, as shown in Table 5.9 This visitor spending, a significant part of which is associated with business travel, includes overnight accommodations; transportation, recreation, entertainment, and restaurant as well as retail spending. More than half of the countywide visitor spending goes towards retail stores (retail stores, food stores, food service, and ground transportation/fueD. 8 Data for expenditures comes from the International Council of Shopping Centers(ICSC) and UW-Extension. The ICSC survey data accounts for average weekly expenditures by product type. ADE matched the product-based data to the most appropriate retail store categories to calculate the expenditures by store type. 9 Dean Runyan Associates; Travel Impacts by County; 2008. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 12 I I . ' I 'I ! TABLE 5 VISITOR SPENDING, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND PALO ALTO, 2006 Visitor Spending by Commodity Santa Clara County Palo Alto (Estimate) Total $3,639,000,000 $269,268,830 Accommodations $643,000,000 $66,840,222 Food Service $889,000,000 $76,050,255 Food Stores $110,000,000 $9,410,043 Ground Trans and Motor Fuel $776,000,000 $30,386,630 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation $524,000,000 $29,325,860 other Retail Sales $615,000,000 $52,610,694 Air Transportation $83,000,000 $4,645,127 Source: ADE, Inc., data from Dean Runyan Associates, California Board of Equalization, and U.S. Economic Census. .-, I I ' J Based on the city's share of the countywide transient occupancy tax and taxable retail sales receipts, the estimated annual visitor spending that occurs in Palo Alto totaled approximately $269 million in 2006.10 Of this total, approximately $169 million in visitor spending occurred at retail stores. Among the individual retail store categories, restaurants are by far the largest beneficiaries of visitor spending, with over $76 million in retail sales generated by out-of-town visitors. Two other categories - gasoline service stations, and department stores -also attract more than $19 million visitor spending. Using normalized historical growth patterns, the retail sales from visitor spending for 2007 is estimated to total $171 million, while projected visitor spending in 2020 is expected to total $222 million.11 SECONDARY MARKET AREA SPENDING In addition to the local market area spending, Palo Alto also draws potential household spending from residents of surrounding communities, including East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, and Redwood City, which are referred to as Palo Alto's secondary market area. Altogether, the retail spending potential for this area totals over $3.2 billion annually. Because these communities have their own base of retail businesses, only a portion of this spending is available for Palo Alto retailers to capture. j 10 The countywide visitor spending data separates the spending by visitors requiring overnight accommodations from other visitors. Palo Alto's spending by overnight visitors was based on the city's share of countywide transient occupancy tax (TOT) receipts. Spending by other visitors was based on the city's share of countywide taxable retail sales. 11 The growth in visitor spending is based on a linear regression trend of total visitor spending in Santa Clara County that occurred between 2001 and 2006. This trend is based on inflation adjusted constant dollar growth. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 73 However, because many of the apparel stores, department stores, and specialty retail stores represented in Palo Alto lack any local presence in the surrounding communities, Palo Alto retailers can capture a significant portion of the secondary l market area spending in specific niches. It should be noted that because many residents ~J living in these communities work in Palo Alto, the local market area total already includes some of the retail spending by these households. A more detailed distribution 1 , I of secondary market area spending by community is included as an appendix table. TABLE 6 SECONDARY MARKET AREA SUMMARY Household Demand By Community Household Spending East Palo Alto $154,734,578 Portola Valley $94,685,371 Los Altos Hills $158,089,043 Los Altos $440,521,833 Mountain View $901,934,963 Atherton $151,688,987 Woodside $108,046,412 Menlo Park $431,431,646 Redwood City $798,322,016 Secondary Market Area $3,239,454,849 Source: ADE, Inc., data from U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. SERVICES DEMAND In addition to demand for retail goods, another prominent component of household spending is services. The types of services that local residents make use of include rentals, professional services, medical services, repair, personal services, and entertainment/recreation. Because services are generally nontaxable with no reliable sources available for estimating the revenues by Palo Alto services providers, the analysis will only estimate the services spending by local households and visitors. RENTAL SERVICES This category includes rental and leasing services for items such as automobiles, sports equipment, recreational vehicles, health care equipment, formal wear, appliances, furniture, and office equipment. Generally, most of the demand in this category comes from automobile leasing and rentals. Altogether, local spending on rental services totals about $32 million annually, with Palo Alto residents accounting for $30 million in spending and Stanford students and residents accounting for about $2.3 million, as shown in Table 7. The projected spending for rental services will increase to about $34 million by 2020, as shown in Table 8. ' _J Applied Development Economics, Inc. 14 TABLE 7 LOCAL MARKET SERVICES DEMAND, 2007 -------! I I I I Service Category Total Services Spending Rental Services Professional Services Medical Services Repair Services Personal Services Entertainment/Recreation Palo Alto Households $210,263,583 $30,154,136 $14,252,156 $56,955,183 $43,917,682 $40,063,003 $44,210,806 Stanford Households $14,896,305 $2,136,296 $1,009,706 $4,035,039 $3,111,386 $2,838,298 $3,132,153 Stanford Students $1,922,821 $136,161 $148,856 $688,217 $373,859 $419,168 $159,820 Visitors $29,325,860 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $29,325,860 Total $256,408,569 $32,426,593 $15,410,719 $61,678,438 $47,402,927 $43,320,469 $76,828,639 Source: ADE, Inc., data from U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean I I Runyan Associates, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ) TABLE 8 PROJECTED LOCAL MARKET SERVICES DEMAND, 2020 Palo Alto Stanford Stanford Service Category Households Households Students Visitors Total Total Services Spending $220,308,344 $14,896,305 $1,922,821 $38,123,618 $275,251,087 Rental Services $31,594,666 $2,136,296 $136,161 n/a $33,867,123 Professional Services $14,933,013 $1,009,706 $148,856 n/a $16,091,576 Medical Services $59,676,059 $4,035,039 $688,217 n/a $64,399,315 Repair Services $46,015,727 $3,111,386 $373,859 n/a $49,500,973 Personal Services $41,976,902 $2,838,298 $419,168 n/a $45,234,368 Entertainment/Recreation $42,433,855 $3,132,153 $159,820 $38,123,618 $83,849,446 Source: ADE, Inc., data from U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. l PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ! I Professional services encompass a wide range of professional fields and generally derive most of their revenues from services to business clients. Services to household clients are more limited to accounting, financial, and legal services. Local spending on professional services totals about $15 million, and is projected to increase to about $16 million by 2020. MEDICAL SERVICES Medical service providers include physicians, dentists, alternative medical providers, home health care, hospitals, eye care professionals, and child care. The household spending by local households on medical services totals $62 million annually, and will increase to $64 million by2020.12 12 Spending totals only account for potential out-of-pocket expenditures and do not include medical insurance costs. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 75 REPAIR SERVICES Most of the local household demand for repair services comes frorn automobile repairs. Other repair service categories include shoes, appliances, electronics, furniture, and other household items. The annual spending on repair services by local households totals about $47 million. The demand for repair services expects to increase to about $50 million by 2020. PERSONAL SERVICES Personal services include a wide range of business types such as personal care (including beauty services and hair care), funeral services, laundry services, pet care, photo finishing, and auto parking. The annual household spending for personal services totals about $43 million, and will increase to about $45 million by 2020. i ~ l ENTERTAINMENT /RECREATION SERVICES . Consumer spending on entertainment and recreation services includes movie theaters, ' performing arts organizations, sporting events, arnusernent parks, other event tickets, participant sports (including bowling, skating, skiing, and golfing), recreational lessons, and club rnernberships. The local market spending in this category totals $77 million, with about $29 million in spending corning frorn out-of-town visitors. By 2020, this total is projected to increase to $84 million. ' 1 l , I Applied Development Economics, Inc.76 4. PALO ALTO SHOPPING DISTRICTS AND SALES I ! _j The shopping districts in Palo Alto each serve a distinct retail niche, and greatly differ in the types of retail stores that they offer. Stanford Shopping Center and the downtown district around University Avenue together account for more than half of the taxable retail sales for the entire city. Stanford Shopping Center alone generates over 39 percent of the taxable retail sales for Palo Alto, as shown in Table 9. TABLE 9 PALO ALTO 2007 TAXABLE RETAIL SALES BY SHOPPING DISTRICT 2007 Taxable Percent of Taxable Shopping District Sales Retail Sales Stanford Shopping Center $560,014,700 39.1% Downtown (UniverslfY/We) $242,211,900 16.9% California Ave. & Park/Lambert $171,464,900 12.0% San Antonio Industrial Park $124,299,300 8.7% El Camino Real $87,558,600 6.1% Town and Country Shopping Center $24,756,300 1.7% Midtown · $18,522,400 1.3% Stanford Research Park $12,571,900 0.9% Stanford Professional Center $8,787,500 0.6% Total Taxable Retail Sales $1,432,000,000 ' 1 I ' I Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto and MuniServices Notes: Due to confidentiality restrictions, data from Alma Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Plaza, Embarcadero (East of 101), and SOFA is not shown. Some data overlaps more than one shopping district. CALIFORNIA AVENUE & PARK BLVD./LAMBERT AVE. The retail stores around California A venue are not as prominent at attracting regional retail spending as the nearby shopping district around University Avenue. But, combined with the stores around Park Boulevard and Lambert A venue, the area constitutes a significant concentration of retail spending with over $171 million in taxable sales generated. Together, these stores generate nearly double the taxable sales generated by those located along El Camino Real, and the stores in the area include Fry's Electronics. The dominant sales tax generators in this area are electronics, restaurants, camera stores, specialty store, and service stations. In general, many of the stores around California A venue primarily serve the local market, while Park Blvd/Lambert Avenue's dominant store categories serve more of a regional market. EL CAMINO REAL The stores along El Camino Real are highly visible as they stretch along the primary commercial corridor on the Peninsula. Not including Stanford Shopping Center and the Town and Country shopping center, which are discussed separately below, El Camino Real's other retail stores in Palo Alto generate taxable sales of approximately $88 million. The primary store types represented along El Camino Real encompass a Applied Development Economics, Inc. 77 I I I I , I I combination of local-serving retail store types such as fast food and service stations, and more regionally-oriented retail categories such as new car dealers, specialty stores, and building materials. MIDTOWN The commercial area along Middlefield Road is part of Palo Alto's primary local- serving commercial corridor.13 The taxable retail sales in Midtown are relatively low at $19 million, but this also includes drug stores and supermarkets, which generate a very large amount of nontaxable retail sales. The primary retail sales generators in this area generally serve local spending. Recently, other commercial uses such as offices and fitness centers have located in this area, further reducing sales tax receipts. SAN ANTONIO INDUSTRIAL PARK The San Antonio Industrial Park comprises several large-scale taxable sales generators that serve a more regional market. Located close to the Mountain View city limits, this district generates over $124 million in taxable sales and primarily fills retail niches pertaining to home improvement, light industry, and new car sales. STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER Stanford Shopping Center is a regionally oriented 1.3 million square foot mall that specializes in high end retail stores and attracts shoppers from throughout the Peninsula and Silicon Valley. The mall is anchored by four high end department stores, and has numerous other specialty retail niches that further contribute to its $560 million in taxable retail sales. Based on 2008 sales data, Stanford Shopping Center ranks below Valley Fair in San Jose/Santa Clara. However, its sales exceed those of other regional centers in the market area including Santana Row, Hillsdale, and Oakridge Mall. TOWN AND COUNTRY SHOPPING CENTER Located adjacent to Stanford University, the 100,000 square foot Town and Country shopping center is more of a local-serving shopping center. Even though the center has lacked a supermarket as an anchor tenant, it does have a drug store as well as numerous restaurants and locally-oriented specialty retail stores. In addition, a Trader Joe's market is due to open at the center soon. DOWNTOWN (UNIVERSITY AVENUE) The downtown district is the second largest taxable sales generator in Palo Alto with $242 million in taxable sales. The retail base in the downtown area serves a very 13 The sales totals do not include Charleston Center. Data for Charleston Center is not available due to confidentiality restrictions. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 18 diverse range of retail markets. While not dominated by any single retail store category, the downtown district is the primary center for both full service and fast food restaurants in Palo Alto. OTHER SHOPPING DISTRICTS I ----; Other shopping districts in Palo Alto include Embarcadero (East of 101), Charleston Center, Alma Plaza, and Edgewood Plaza. Taxable sales for these districts cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality restrictions associated with reporting sales tax data. Embarcadero (East of 101) is located in an area dominated by offices. The primary retail sales generators in this district are the two neighboring automobile dealerships. ' . Currently, these are the only auto dealerships in Palo Alto that do not operate alone. ' ' Charleston Center is a 41,800 square-foot local-serving commercial center located [j along Middlefield Road, down the street from other local-serving retail stores in the Midtown shopping district. The center is anchored by a 16,800 square-foot supermarket. The retail sales at this center are dominated by supermarkets, specialty food stores, restaurants, and other specialty stores. Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza are local-serving retail centers whose supermarket anchor stores have closed in recent years. Neither center is located in a high visibility location and the anchor spaces are insufficiently sized to accommodate the larger building spaces specified by many major supermarket chains. With 40,000 square feet of space and 16 retail store spaces, Alma Plaza has been completely vacated and is in the process of redeveloping into a mixed use project comprised of a grocery store, l limited additional retail, single family homes, and affordable housing . . J The Eichler-designed Edgewood Plaza still has stores operating on the premises, but the majority of the shopping center is vacant. The City made an effort to redevelop. l the site but neighboring residents opposed the project. A new proposal to demolish the existing buildings and build a mixed use project on the site with a 20,000 square foot grocery store and detached housing is currently in the preliminary stages of review. PALO ALTO RETAIL SALES In addition to the amount that local households spend at retail stores, the other component that defines the local retail market is the retail sales generated by local stores. Sales tax data from the State Board of Equalization was used to calculate the retail store sales by store category for the City of Palo Alto. The City's finance department provided an audited record of this data, from which ADE estimated the taxable retail sales. After adjusting the sales tax data to account for nontaxable item sales, the 2007 retail sales by businesses in the City of Palo Alto totaled approximately $1.6 billion, as Applied Development Economics, Inc. 19 _J - I i I ! I l ' I ' ! I ~ shown in Table 10. The two largest retail sales categories are department stores and restaurants/ eating places, which each generated more than $260 million in retail sales in 2007. Other retail store categories with more than $100 million in annual sales include gasoline service stations, drug stores, new auto dealerships, miscellaneous specialty retail, and appliances/ electronics. Findings for retail sales by major store group are summarized below. APPAREL STORES Palo Alto generated a total of $155 million in apparel store sales. More than half of these sales ($83 million) occur in family clothing stores. Women's apparel stores account for another $50 million in sales. Stanford Shopping Center accounts for the vast majority of apparel store sales in Palo Alto. Other large concentrations of apparel store sales include Town & Country shopping center and the downtown business district. Midtown generates sales in men's apparel and family clothing, while El Camino Real includes sales from shoe stores. GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES Department stores constitute by far the largest concentration of retail sales in Palo Alto, with over $296 million in sales. It should be noted that traditional department stores such as Macy's and Bloomingdale's make up all of the department store sales in Palo Alto. Palo Alto does not have any discount department stores, variety/dollar stores, or warehouse club stores. The remaining general merchandise stores in Palo Alto are drug stores, which generate about $115 million in total retail sales.14 All of the department stores in Palo Alto are located at Stanford Shopping Center. In contrast, drug store sales are scattered throughout Palo Alto, with stores located in the Downtown, Midtown, Town and Country Shopping Center, El Camino Real, and California Avenue. SPECIALTY RETAIL STORES Specialty retail stores include a broad cross-section of different product offerings and store types. These stores generated a total of $240 million in 2007 retail sales. Among the individual store categories, the largest sales generators are miscellaneous specialty retail stores and jewelry stores. Each of these store categories generated more than $40 million in retail sales. However, Palo Alto is well represented in a broad range of specialty retail store categories, with stores specializing in gifts and novelties, sporting goods, music, books, office supplies, and photographic supplies each generating more than $10 million in retail sales. 14 The drug store sales include an adjustment to account for prescription drug sales, which are nontaxable and therefore not included in the sales tax data. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 20 ~-1 :_ ) .~] Specialty retail stores are well represented throughout Palo Alto's business districts, and these concentrations vary considerably by retail store category, as shown below. • Gift and novelty stores are primarily concentrated in the downtown district; • Sporting goods stores are well represented in Town and Country shopping center, El Camino Real, Downtown, and California A venue; • Florists are concentrated Downtown; • Music store sales are concentrated along El Camino Real and Park Avenue/Lambert Blvd.; • Stationery/book stores sales are primarily concentrated Downtown with additional sales focused at Stanford Shopping Center, California Avenue, and Town and Country shopping center; • Nearly all jewelry store sales occur at Stanford Shopping Center and Downtown; • Miscellaneous retail store sales are concentrated at Stanford Shopping Center, Downtown, and California A venue . FOOD, EATING, AND DRINKING GROUP Food-oriented retail stores generated about $383 million in retail sales in 2007, with $264 million in sales coming from restaurants/ eating places. Restaurants represent the second largest retail store category in Palo Alto. Grocery stores generate another $101 million in retail sales, with specialty food stores and liquor stores making up the remainder. Restaurant/ eating places generate significant retail sales throughout Palo Alto and are represented in nearly every shopping district in the city. Grocery stores are also located throughout Palo Alto, but the supermarkets are primarily concentrated in Downtown, Midtown, Stanford Shopping Center, Charleston Center, and California Avenue. BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOME FURNISHINGS GROUP The building materials and home furnishings group includes stores that specialize in home improvement products, and also includes electronics/ appliance stores, furniture stores, and used merchandise stores. Altogether, these stores generated about $191 million in retail sales, with sales predominantly occurring in electronics/ appliance stores ($131 million) and furniture/home furnishings ($29 million). Home improvement store categories such as home centers, hardware stores, garden supply stores, paint stores, and building materials stores are minimally represented by comparison. Sales from furniture and home furnishing stores are concentrated in the downtown district, with additional concentrations of retail sales around San Antonio Industrial Park, Stanford Shopping Center, California Avenue, and Park Blvd./Lambert Ave. i I - ! Applied Development Economics, Inc. 27 Electronics/ appliance store sales almost entirely occur at Park Blvd./Lambert Ave., Stanford Shopping Center, and the downtown district. Sales from home improvement stores primarily center around San Antonio Industrial Park, El Camino Real, California Avenue, Park Blvd./Lambert Ave., and the downtown district. The IKEA store in East Palo Alto also provides significant competition in the home furnishings sector. AUTOMOTIVE GROUP Retail businesses in the automotive group include new and used automobile dealerships, gasoline service stations, auto parts stores, as well as dealers for other vehicles such as boats, motorcycles, and trailers. In Palo Alto, new car dealerships ($171 million), used car dealerships ($17 million), and gasoline service stations ($64 million) together make up 99 percent of the $252 million in total retail sales for this I ii retail group. Palo Alto does not have significant sales in auto parts and other vehicle dealerships. Geographically, the new car dealerships are concentrated at Embarcadero (east of 101), San Antonio Industrial Park, and El Camino Real. Palo Alto's used car dealerships are primarily concentrated around Park Blvd./Lambert Ave. and San Antonio Industrial Park. Service stations are only located in San Antonio Industrial Park, Edgewood Plaza, El Camino Real, and California Avenue . . t ) 22 Applied Development Economics, Inc. I : ! I l 1. ; J \ I 1 I ! 5. RETAIL LEAKAGE AND ATTRACTION POTENTIAL Retail leakage represents the mismatch between local market spending and the retail sales by Palo Alto retail establishments. Leakage indicates both an existing shortcoming in terms of local retailers not meeting existing household and daytime population demand, as well as an opportunity because unmet retail demand can create potential for new stores or sales expansions for existing stores. Conversely, those store categories with net capture of regional sales extend their market reach into the surrounding region. RETAIL LEAKAGE AND NET CAPTURE Overall, Palo Alto's retail sales total of $1.6 billion exceeds the local consumer spending total of $1.4 billion, as shown in Table 10. This means that Palo Alto overall has a net capture of regional sales where Palo Alto retailers attract spending from outside of the community. The sales leakage trend identified in the analysis shows a mixed trend as Palo Alto is a net regional retail provider in some key retail store categories, but also experiences significant retail leakage in other major store categories. The retail store categories where the sales exceed the local market spending attract a total net capture of $508 million in regional sales, while the retail store categories where sales fall short of local market spending generate a total of $303 million in retail leakage. In general, Palo Alto is a regional provider for apparel stores, general merchandise, and specialty retailers. These retail groups generate sales that far exceed the local market spending, and they generally confirm the strong regional shopping attraction of Stanford Shopping Center and Downtown. By far the largest net capture of regional sales occurs with department stores. This store category alone captures $152 million from outside of the local market. Other strong performing retail store categories where Palo Alto attracts more than $30 million in sales from outside of the local market include family clothing ($51 million), electronics/ appliances ($91 million), women's apparel ($33 million), jewelry stores ($36 million), miscellaneous specialty retail stores ($53 million), and drug stores ($39 million). The projected long-term market growth through 2020 will not substantially change these findings, as shown in Table 11. During this time the retail leakage and capture trends will remain similar to the current situation, unless the makeup of Palo Alto's retail store mix changes during this time. The combined effect of population growth, job growth, and growth in visitor spending will only result in an increase of $119 million of local spending potential, or 8.3 percent over 13 years. In store categories Applied Development Economics, Inc. 23 TABLE 10 PALO ALTO RETAIL SALES LEAKAGE AND NET CAPTURE, 2007 Retail Group Local Market Area Spending Palo Alto Retail Sales Sales Leakages Net Capture of Regional Sales Total $1,429,001,945 $1,633,164,290 $303,397,722 $507,560,067 -l ! Apparel Store Group Women's Apparel Men's Apparel Family Clothing Shoe Stores $66,682,372 $19,877,424 $4,225,450 $32,172,978 $10,406,520 $154,980,800 $53,306,800 $6,142,500 $83,001,600 $12,529,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $88,298,428 $33,429,376 $1,917,050 $50,828,622 $2,123,380 General Merchandise Group Department Stores other General Merchandise Drug & Proprietary Stores Specialty Retail Group Gifts & Novelties Sporting Goods Florists Photographic Equipment Records & Music Books & Stationery Office Supplies/Computer Equipment ~l ! I Jewelry Misc. Specialty Retail ' J Food, Eating & Drinking Group Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Liquor Stores Eating Places Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group Furniture & Home Furnishings Household Appliances & Electronics Used Merchandise Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores Lumber & Other Building Materials Home Centers and Hardware Stores Paint & Wallpaper Automotive Group New Cars & RVs Used Car Dealers Gasoline Service Stations Mobile Homes & Trailers Auto Parts & Accessories Other Vehicles $273,321,625 $411,574,553 $52,829,900 $191,082,827 $144,324,760 $296,223,216 $0 $151,898,456 $52,829,900 $0 $52,829,900 $0 $76,166,966 $115,351,337 $0 $39,184,371 $113,102,989 $240,044,703 $1,472,231 $128,413,945 $5,452,987 $11,690,679 $0 $6,237,691 $10,989,528 $20,515,315 $0 $9,525,787 $2,157,932 $2,388,744 $0 $230,812 $3,979,409 $22,332,200 $0 $18,352,791 $4,137,007 $4,479,700 $0 $342,693 $10,650,049 $16,244,000 $0 $5,593,951 $12,131,531 $10,659,300 $1,472,231 $0 $13,861,924 $49,450,150 $0 $35,588,226 $49,742,621 $102,284,615 $0 $52,541,994 $464,895,977 $169,821,041 $7,921,835 $9,028,542 $278,124,560 $134,549,569 $35,511,890 $40,408,138 $2,426,741 $11,511,512 $26,357,510 $16,656,137 $1,677,640 $376,449,413 $184,677,891 $13,607,115 $161,819,735 $83,719 $9,530,954 $6,729,999 $383,086,107 $100,853,054 $12,762,694 $5,409,359 $264,061,000 $191,225,980 $28,718,938 $131,471,800 $1,124,800 $7,186,974 $8,392,000 $9,868,168 $4,463,300 $252,252,147 $171,427,300 $14,681,800 $64,403,247 $0 $575,900 $1,163,900 $86,650,729 $68,967,987 $0 $3,619,183 $14,063,560 $37,172,911 $6,792,953 $0 $1,301,941 $4,324,538 $17,965,510 $6,787,969 $0 $4,840,860 $0 $4,840,860 $0 $0 $93,849,321 $0 $91,063,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,785,660 $125,271,952 $1,074,685 $13,250,591 $0 $0 $1,074,685 $97,416,488 $0 $83,719 $0 $8,955,054 $0 $5,566,099 $0 Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW-Extension, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. J Applied Development Economics, Inc. 24 I TABLE 11 PROJECTED PALO ALTO RETAIL SALES LEAKAGE AND NET CAPTURE, 2020 Local Market Area Palo Alto Retail Sales Net capture of Retail Group Spending Sales Leakages Regional Sales Total $1,545,638,730 $1,633,164,290 $382,077,841 $469,603,401 Apparel Store Group $72,620,245 $154,980,800 $0 $82,360,555 Women's Apparel $21,798,017 $53,306,800 $0 $31,508,783 Men's Apparel $4,530,090 $6,142,500 $0 $1,612,410 Family Clothing $35,189,004 $83,001,600 $0 $47,812,596 Shoe Stores $11,103,134 $12,529,900 $0 $1,426,766 General Merchandise Group $294,528,608 $411,574,553 $55,134,154 $172,180,099 Department Stores $156,852,851 $296,223,216 $0 $139,370,365 other General Merchandise $55,134,154 $0 $55,134,154 $0 Drug & Proprietary Stores $82,541,603 $115,351,337 $0 $32,809,734 Specialty Retail Group $123,119,264 $240,044,703 $2,218,257 $119,143,697 Gifts & Novelties $5,908,237 $11,690,679 $0 $5,782,442 Sporting Goods $11,875,604 $20,515,315 $0 $8,639,712 Florists $2,297,437 $2,388,744 $0 $91,306 Photographic Equipment $4,593,513 $22,332,200 $0 $17,738,687 Records & Music $4,401,476 $4,479,700 $0 $78,224 Books & Stationery $11,416,896 $16,244,000 $0 $4,827,104 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $12,877,557 $10,659,300 $2,218,257 $0 Jewelry $15,386,296 $49,450,150 $0 $34,063,854 Misc. Specialty Retail $54,362,247 $102,284,615 $0 $47,922,369 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $512,141,656 $383,086,107 $133,183,265 $4,127,716 Grocery Stores $180,109,509 $100,853,054 $79,256,455 $0 Specialty Food Stores $8,634,978 $12,762,694 $0 $4,127,716 Liquor Stores $9,580,150 $5,409,359 $4,170,791 $0 Eating Places $313,817,019 $264,061,000 $49,756,019 $0 Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group $141,328,427 $191,225,980 $41,421,424 $91,318,977 Furniture & Home Furnishings $37,159,317 $28,718,938 $8,440,379 $0 Household Appliances & Electronics $42,853,167 $131,471,800 $0 $88,618,633 Used Merchandise $2,555,866 $1,124,800 $1,431,066 $0 Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores $12,038,245 $7,186,974 $4,851,271 $0 Lumber & other Building Materials $27,541,481 $8,392,000 $19,149,481 $0 Home Centers and Hardware Stores $17,417,395 $9,868,168 $7,549,226 $0 Paint & Wallpaper $1,762,956 $4,463,300 $0 $2,700,344 Automotive Group $401,900,530 $252,252,147 $150,120,741 $472,358 New Cars & RVs $192,850,629 $171,427,300 $21,423,329 $0 Used Car Dealers $14,209,442 $14,681,800 $0 $472,358 Gasoline Service Stations $177,781,112 $64,403,247 $113,377,865 $0 Mobile Homes & Trailers $87,361 $0 $87,361 $0 Auto Parts & Accessories $9,945,352 $575,900 $9,369,452 $0 other Vehicles $7,026,632 $1,163,900 $5,862,732 $0 Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW-Extension, Stanford University, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. where the city currently experiences leakage, the opportunities to attract new stores to fill the gaps will marginally improve as potential spending levels for these store categories increases. But, this level of growth does not open up any new opportunities for retail development that do not already exist. That is, for store categories that are -j already meeting available demand and there is no leakage currently, the increased demand from future growth would not be sufficient to support additional new stores. In addition, regional competition from San Jose and San Francisco will continue to exert pressure on Palo Alto retailers. Applied Development Economics, Inc. I 25 r 1 i I \. J c ' I I I _J ~ I J LINKING RETAIL LEAKAGE TO NEW BUSINESS ATIRACTION POTENTIAL Retail leakage represents potential for new business attraction or business expansion. Retail groups where there was a general trend towards retail leakage include food stores and automotive businesses. While Palo Alto attracts significant retail sales from outside of the community in many retail categories, there are many other retail categories where Palo Alto has significant unmet local demand. Retention of Palo Alto's existing retail economy depends largely on the city's continued capacity to attract spending from throughout the region. In those categories where Palo Alto has retail sales leakage, the community has potential to expand its retail economy by recapturing some local spending that currently goes outside of the area. In terms of expanding total taxable sales in the City, non-retail businesses can also have a significant role. As noted earlier in the report, the Stanford Research Park area and the San Antonio Rd. industrial area generate 25 percent of total taxable sales for the City. Taken as a whole, non-retail businesses generate about $7,000 in taxable sales annually per employee in Palo Alto. Such business to business transactions have potential for this to grow as well and in San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Cupertino such businesses generate more than $10,000 in taxable sales per employee.15 This should be a consideration in the City's economic development program and it is acknowledged in the fiscal analysis for the comprehensive plan update. The present report, however, is concerned with growth and expansion in the retail sector primarily. As shown in Table 12, Palo Alto households spend almost $302 million annually at retail stores outside of Palo Alto. In many retail categories, this spending leakage is large enough to support new retail businesses. The sales leakage can potentially support at least 41 new retail establishments with a total sales capture of $215 million in annual sales, assuming that this retail leakage could be captured. These supportable establishments represent categories where the sales leakage (unmet demand) is large enough to support a viable business for a given retail category. However, other consideration such as the availability of suitable sites and the effect of competitive stores outside Palo Alto would need to be taken into account in order to determine the specific retail expansion potential in the City. The remaining $89 million in retail leakage will either continue to leave Palo Alto, or existing retail stores can potentially capture this continuing leakage through expansion of their business and retail sales. The analysis established a minimum support level for each retail category by estimating the average sales by store type for retail 15 Calculated based on ABAG employment figures and taxable sales data from the State Board of Equalization. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 26 I I I establishments in the San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) .16 It should also be ' noted that in addition to showing the types of new businesses that could fill existing vacancies and provide the base for potential new development, this analysis can also be used by existing businesses that want to identify new product lines for business expans10n. The store categories with retail leakage large enough to support potential new retail stores are concentrated in the grocery store, building materials and home furnishings, and automotive retail groups. The specific store categories with potential for new establishments are as follows: .----, I • Grocery stores • Liquor stores • Eating places • Furniture and home furnishings • Used merchandise • Nursery/garden supply stores • Lumber and building materials • Gasoline service stations • Auto parts • Other vehicle dealerships • General retail As shown in Table 12, the retail categories with the most potential for attracting new retail establishments are gasoline service stations and grocery stores with $97 million and $64 million in attraction potential, respectively. The gas station leakage is very significant, but opportunities to develop new gas stations may not be readily available due to high land costs and a lack of sites. The grocery store leakage could support a number of smaller sized stores, such as currently exist in the City, but probably would be consolidated into larger modern store formats. Currently two smaller sized stores are proposed as part of new developments in older commercial centers. The City could support an additional two large grocery stores of 40,000 to 50,000 sq.ft. each. Even though the unmet demand is sufficient to support new establishments, it is unlikely that all of this retail leakage will result in new business formation. For example, the retail leakage shown with restaurants represents less than 5.0 percent of the total market area spending. Sales growth by existing restaurants in Palo Alto canJ easily absorb this leakage, so it is not likely that 17 new restaurants will develop in 16 Data for average sales per establishment was calculated from the 2002 Economic Census, escalated to 2007 dollars. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 27 TABLE 12 PALO ALTO RETAIL ATTRACTION POTENTIAL, 2007 Retail Group Sales Leakages Potential New Stores Attraction Potential Continuing Leakage Square Footage Potential Total $303,397,722 41 $214,869,902 $88,527,820 381,725 Apparel Store Group $0 0 $0 $0 0 General Merchandise Group $52,829,900 0 $0 $52,829,900 0 Specialty Retail Group $1,472,231 0 $0 $1,472,231 0 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $86,650,729 24 $80,856,521 $5,794,208 184,100 ,----, Grocery Stores Liquor Stores Eating Places Building Materials & Home $68,967,987 $3,619,183 $14,063,560 4 3 17 $64,914,826 $2,655,240 $13,2861455 $4,053,161 $963,942 $777,104 133,638 6,701 43,761 Furnishings Group $37,172,911 10 $26,711,684 $10,461,227 165,308 Furniture/Home Furnishings Used Merchandise $6,792,953 $1,301,941 3 1 $5,927,743 $1,083,938 $865,210 $218,004 29,639 4,336 Nurseries/Garden Supply Lumber/Building Materials $4,324,538 $17,965,510 1 5 $2,307,682 $17,392,321 $2,016,856 $573,188 15,385 115,949 Automotive Group $125,271,952 7 $107,301,697 $17,970,255 32,318 Gasoline Service Stations Auto Parts & Accessories $97,416,488 $8,955,054 n/a 6 $95,084,312 $8,079,479 $2,332,176 $875,575 n/a 32,318 other Vehicles $5,566,099 1 $4,137,905 $1,428,194 n/a Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California , I Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW- Extension, Stanford University, Urban Land Institute, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ) Palo Alto as shown in Table 12. In addition, market conditions have shown a general decline in restaurant sales across the Bay Area, a likely reflection of lower demand for eating out. Moreover, with a commute pattern that shows a very high out-commute rate among Palo Alto residents, at least some portion of the retail leakage will continue to leave Palo Alto, even though the City captures significant sales from its I-,.! daytime in-commuter population (see Table 3). The recent general retail market decline also impacts short-term attraction potential for home improvement (building materials and nurseries) and furniture stores, since those stores depend on a growing market for new home construction and remodeling projects. Furthermore, the square footage potential identified for home improvement and furniture stores in Palo Alto is already tempered by the large concentration of competing stores of this type in East Palo Alto in the Ravenswood 101 center. The general retail category at the bottom of the list above would address the $52 million in leakage in the General Merchandise category. Ideally, more upscale small to medium box outlets would respond best to Palo Alto's market characteristics. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 28 TABLE 13 PALO ALTO RETAIL ATTRACTION POTENTIAL, 2020 --i . ! I I ! Square Sales Potential Attraction Continuing Footage Retail Group Leakages New stores Potential Leakage Potential Total $382,077,841 90 $279,050,307 $103,027,534 542,484 Apparel Store Group $0 0 $0 $0 0 General Merchandise Group $55,134,154 0 $0 $55,134,154 0 Specialty Retail Group $2,218,257 0 $0 $2,218,257 0 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $133,183,265 71 $124,905,945 $8,277,320 319,594 Grocery Stores $79,256,4S5 4 $72,127,584 $7,128,871 148,487 Liquor Stores $4,170,791 4 $3,540,320 $630,471 8,934 Eating Places $49,756,019 63 $49,238,041 $517,978 162,173 Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group $41,421,424 12 $30,995,280 $10,426,144 190,572 Furniture/Home Furnishings $8,440,379 4 $7,903,657 $536,722 39,518 Used Merchandise $1,431,066 1 $1,083,938 $347,128 4,336 Nurseries/Garden Supply $4,851,271 2 $4,615,364 $235,907 30,769 Lumber/Building Materials $19,149,481 5 $17,392,321 $1,757,160 115,949 Automotive Group $150,120,741 7 $123,149,082 $26,971,659 32,318 Gasoline Service Stations $113,377,865 n/a $110,931,697 $2,446,168 n/a Auto Parts & Accessories $9,369,452 6 $8,079,479 $1,289,973 32,318 Other Vehicles $5,862,732 1 $4,137,905 $1,724,827 n/a Source: ADE, Inc., data from City of Palo Alto, California State Board of Equalization, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, California EDD, Dean Runyan Associates, International Council of Shopping Centers, UW- Extension, Stanford University, Urban Land Institute, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Using national benchmark averages, the $215 million of retail attraction potential generates a demand for about 453,700 square feet of retail space. 17 This amount of retail square footage does not necessarily mean that new retail developments are feasible in the short-term, because some of this demand could presumably be accommodated in existing vacant commercial spaces or through sales growth by existing retailers. The likeliest retail stores that can be attracted to Palo Alto in the short-term are grocery stores and gasoline service stations. The estimated unmet demand for grocery stores can support 133,600 square feet of space, which is the equivalent of two large supermarkets. However, since two smaller stores are currently proposed for sites in Palo Alto, Table 12 shows a total of four potential stores. Even though the market potential exists to support new grocery stores, the more pressing question is whether suitable sites for larger stores are available. Gasoline service stations are in short supply in Palo Alto, but accommodating the unmet demand also depends on finding suitable sites for locating these businesses. By 2020, the retail attraction potential will increase to $279 million, with a square footage potential of 626,400 square feet, as shown in Table 13. The growth in local demand is not projected to create new store potential for additional retail categories, 17 Sales per square foot benchmark data comes from the Urban Land Institute Dollars and Cents ofShopping Centers, 2008. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 29 I J but rather increase the retail attraction potential for those store categories that already have large enough unmet spending demand to support new retail stores. In particular, restaurant potential will capture a very high proportion of the new store potential. By 2020, the market growth will create enough unmet demand to support multiple new restaurants. : l I ' I J i I ~ I 30 Applied Development Economics, Inc. I I I J 6. KEY RETAIL ISSUES Palo Alto has significant strength in specific retail niches, but also has numerous retail gaps that present both challenges and opportunities for future planning. The city's --l regionally oriented retail sector has served the community very well by attracting ' I ! shoppers from throughout the Bay Area and capturing significant sales tax revenue. However, Palo Alto's regional retail centers need to react to shifts in economic trends, and competition from surrounding communities. Moreover, Palo Alto has a significant shortcoming in its local-serving retail centers and the lack of power center discount stores, which have left a large portion of local household demand unmet. A significant challenge here is the difficulty of assembling larger lots from the existing narrow parcels under multiple ownerships in many commercial districts of the City. The City may be able to pursue more upscale, smaller box stores to fill this niche. The following discussion addresses existing shortcomings in Palo Alto's retail sector as well as competitive challenges that Palo Alto needs to meet in order to maintain its position of strength in the retail market. RETAINING AND STRENGTHENING AUTO DEALERSHIPS Auto dealerships represent a significant source of sales and tax revenue for the City. These dealerships are also competitively vulnerable, even under favorable market conditions. The existing dealerships in Palo Alto are in different parts of the City such as Embarcadero, El Camino Real, Park Boulevard, and San Antonio Road, which limits opportunities for shared facilities and marketing. In addition, most of the existing dealerships have limited space for expansion. Given how far the market conditions for the automotive sector have deteriorated in 2008, supporting Palo Alto's dealerships is more of an imperative. In the short-term, developing new dealerships is not a realistic option, given that dealerships have been closing throughout Santa Clara County and some auto manufacturers such as GM and Ford have indicated a desire to reduce the size of their dealer networks in order to strengthen the remaining dealerships.18 I I Auto malls and auto rows have the advantage of providing shoppers with the I opportunity to compare multiple makes and models in close proximity. The newer auto malls in particular use a much larger land area than older dealerships located along mixed commercial streets, and locate in high visibility locations along major highways. In addition, the dealerships band together to not only market themselves collaboratively, but to also address infrastructure and facility issues. 18 Associated Press; "Automakers look to consolidate dealer ranks"; December 4, 2008. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 37 I I I Retaining Palo Alto's existing automobile dealerships will require addressing their competitive disadvantages. This entails potentially planning for an alternate location that provides dealerships with sufficient space to run a more modern operation, greater visibility, and/or the opportunity for dealerships to concentrate together. In other cities, dealerships have expanded operations from landlocked locations by building multilevel parking structures and relocating maintenance and administrative operations off-site. In a novel approach, the City of Cerritos leased land areas underneath utility right-of-ways, which allowed its auto mall dealerships to use this otherwise undevelopable land as overflow storage for new cars. Initiatives like these potentially require modifications to existing regulations. Palo Alto has adopted a "grow in place" strategy with some auto dealers that involves adoption of an auto dealer overlay zone that permits the dealers to expand onto nearby sites. RETAINING EXISTING REGIONAL CAPTURE AND COMMUTER SPENDING Palo Alto has significant retail assets that have made the community a shopping destination for a broad range of Bay Area consumers. In the past, Palo Alto has successfully captured retail spending from neighboring communities partly because those communities lacked regional malls that were competitive with the offerings at Stanford Shopping Center and the attractiveness of its outdoor spaces. As the overall retail market has shifted towards power centers, mall-based retailing has declined nationally. Stanford Shopping Center's sales have held up well despite these trends. Much of the mall's distinctiveness has been in its attraction as a high-end retail j destination. With the current economic downturn, sales of luxury goods have taken the biggest hit. This disproportionally affects Palo Alto because of its concentration of stores that carry luxury products . . l For the long-term however, Palo Alto has a well-established niche as a regional shopping destination and needs to maintain the distinctiveness of its mall and downtown area in order to retain the market capture of regional sales, tourism spending, and commuter spending. Relative to its neighbors, Palo Alto has retail assets in place, as well as an established pattern of shoppers coming into Palo Alto from outside. Because of this, Palo Alto has a strong base from which it can continue to attract shoppers from throughout the Bay Area. ADDRESSING UNMET DEMAND IN LOCAL-SERVING RETAIL I I SECTORS ___! The retail leakage analysis identified a large shortcoming with grocery stores in Palo Alto. Because grocery stores typically serve as anchors for local-serving shopping centers, this shortfall also points to unmet demand for other locally oriented establishments that currently goes into neighboring communities. The closure of the 32 Applied Development Economics, Inc. Albertson's supermarkets at Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza eroded grocery store spending in Palo Alto and contributed to the loss of other retail stores at those shopping centers. The grocery store closures occurred because of corporate strategy j decisions, but are difficult to rectify because of the small site configurations. However, the favorable market conditions for new grocery stores in Palo Alto have led to Trader Joe's developing a new store at Town and Country shopping center, and: I have attracted interest from British grocery store operator Tesco to build a Fresh & Easy market in Palo Alto. Both of these grocery store operators tend to develop smaller stores (20,000 square feet or less), and offer a more limited product selection than larger full-service supermarkets. However, even if both of these locations attract new grocery stores, there remains a significant market gap that would likely be filled by a large full-service supermarket. A new full-service supermarket would need contemporary floor configurations that generally take up at least 50,000 square feet and often more than 100,000 square feet of space. Most of the existing shopping centers in Palo Alto are not large enough to support these newer supermarket configurations and also provide space for other local-serving tenants. Therefore, alternative sites would need to be identified if existing shopping centers cannot accommodate new stores of this size. These shopping centers could add space by constructing a second level, but this potentially raises the development costs and increases the number of parking spaces needed. Typical neighborhood and community-level shopping centers with supermarkets anchoring the center include secondary local-serving tenants such as variety stores, auto parts stores, beauty supply stores, fast food restaurants, small clothing stores, dry cleaners, banks, pet stores, florists, and other small-scale specialty retail stores. In addition to supermarkets, Palo Alto also has a significant shortcoming in its gasoline service station sales. Compared to the large volume of commuters that pass through Palo Alto on a daily basis, Palo Alto does not have a very large number of gas stations. In addition, many of the existing gas stations in Palo Alto are located on relatively small sites, which limits the number of pumps that the station can provide and creates access problems. Further development of gas stations is likely hindered also by the high cost of land and the relatively low return compared to other development options. All of these factors create a very large amount of unmet spending potential. ANTICIPATING SHORT-TERM INCREASE IN RETAIL VACANCIES The retail downturn that occurred in 2008 cut deep across a broad range of different retail store categories, retail chains, and individual stores. Analyst projections 1 --i anticipate that many retail chains and stores will close in 2009 as low consumer confidence reduces discretionary spending. For Palo Alto, this has the potential to significantly increase the number of retail vacancies throughout the city in a short time. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 33 I ' l ,-' : I l While many of these vacancies will likely be short-term as retail spending rebounds, some of the vacant spaces will remain vacant or need to convert to other uses. Along aging strip commercial corridors such as El Camino Real in particular, there is a general glut of commercial space as communities have added considerable new commercial space closer to freeway interchanges. This trend has affected Palo Alto, as East Palo Alto and Mountain View have built large-scale power centers adjacent to Highway 101 and eroded the market support for other commercial corridors and business districts. Other Peninsula communities such as Redwood City and Sunnyvale have addressed the long-term vulnerability of El Camino Real by adopting plans for the corridor that include mixed use development, streetscape improvements, and transit-oriented configurations. Minimizing the negative impacts of retail vacancies should be a short-term objective. This entails keeping viable businesses that face short-term financial shortfalls from going out of business. Potential actions include mobilizing business retention resources and disseminating information about small business loan and grant programs, City programs, and other business assistance resources. It also includes identifying any applicable assistance that might come through the various economic stimulus approaches currently in discussions at the federal level. STAYING RELEVANT AS RETAIL MARKET EVOLVES Retail trends can evolve quickly, and thus far, Palo Alto has maintained a strong enough retail base to serve its particular niche in the regional retail market. Keeping on top of changes to these trends is vital because Palo Alto's local retail spending growth is expected to be minimal through 2020. Generally, retail markets grow by increases in the population and/or income growth. In Palo Alto's retail market, population and income growth have been minimal. However, shifts in spending habits also present market opportunities even as the overall demand for retail shows little change. Staying relevant means identifying which retail sectors are growing, and adapting as those shifts within the retail sectors occur. The City needs to recognize potential vulnerabilities within its existing retail centers, and be prepared to proactively address market opportunities. For example, the City has allocated funds to update a market study, originally completed in 2000, of the grocery store sector. Nationally, the recent trend in retailing has been towards upscale "lifestyle" centers that place emphasis on architectural amenities, outdoor walkable spaces, and more upscale shopping opportunities mixed with entertainment. This was in response to the rising number of "empty nesters" (working couples whose children have grown up and moved out of the house), who have greater discretionary income because they no longer need to support their kids. To a great extent, potential opportunities with lifestyle centers are already addressed by Palo Alto's existing regional retail centers. The upscale blend of stores and restaurants in downtown Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center, with both sites Applied Development Economics, Inc.34 featuring outdoor walkable spaces, place Palo Alto ahead of the curve. However, Valley Fair and Santana Row have emerged as formidable competitors for upscale ,-·1 shopping and dining, and those developments have expansion plans of their own. I i~ Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center represent assets that surrounding communities cannot readily replicate. Shopping malls create constant opportunities ·r-j i for reinvention, as other malls throughout the country have repositioned themselves into a variety of different configurations. Some malls have incorporated power center anchors, such as discount stores and other big box retail stores that have traditionally shunned or have been shunned by regional malls. In addition, other recent lifestyle center developments such as Santana Row in San Jose and the Paseo Colorado in Pasadena have added housing as a way of reinventing a more traditional shopping center. Currently, the luxury retailing market is most vulnerable, but also represents Palo Alto's greatest strength. Palo Alto's largest unmet retail demand is with local-serving retail uses and middle market big box types of retail stores. In addition, new lifestyle centers have the potential to accommodate entertainment anchors that draw larger shopping crowds. Those types of uses could potentially be accommodated at Stanford Shopping Center and to a lesser extent in the downtown area. However, attracting those types of uses could also detract from the well established image of Stanford Shopping Center as a high end shopping destination and might not generate the high sales per square foot that existing stores do.19 I 19 Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal; "Stanford mall eyes expansion"; August 11, 2006. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 35 ! I APPENDIX TABLES APPENDIX TABLE 1 AREA AND ESTABLISHMENT BENCHMARK SALES Benchmark Sales Benchmark Sales Per Retail Grou~ PerS.F. Establishment Apparel Store Group Women's Apparel $221 $1,294,460 Men's Apparel $275 $990,768 Family Clothing $269 $4,506,418 Shoe Stores $193 il,018,435 General Merchandise Group Department Stores Other General Merchandise Drug & Pro~rieta!}'. Stores $250 $250 i429 $39,872,575 $71,190,146 $5,833,215 Specialty Retail Group Gifts & Novelties Sporting Goods Florists Photographic Equipment ~] Records & Music I Books & Stationery Office Supplies/Computer Equipment Jewelry Misc. S~ecial~ Retail Food, Eating & Drinking Group Grocery Stores Specialty Food Stores Liquor Stores Eating Places Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group Furniture & Home Furnishings Household Appliances & Electronics Used Merchandise Nurseries & Garden Supply Stores Lumber & Other Building Materials Home Centers and Hardware Stores Paint & Wall~a~er $170 $743,912 $221 $1,746,353 $265 $405,839 $630 $1,663,352 $250 $1,851,940 $220 $2,741,838 $202 $4,368,712 $303 $1,168,703 i245 il,185,116 $486 $7,212,758 $193 $765,481 $396 $885,080 po4 p81,556 $200 $1,975,914 $302 $2,188,441 $250 $1,083,938 $150 $2,307,682 $150 $3,478,464 $150 $9,095,824 i150 $9,095,824 Automotive Group New Cars & RVs N/A $41,774,004 Used Car Dealers N/A $2,149,803 Gasoline Service Stations $1,321 $3,169,477 Auto Parts & Accessories $250 $1,346,580 Other Vehicles N/A i4,137,905 Source: ADE, Inc. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 37 I f I l ,__J __L ____ J!_ -~--1 APPENDIX TABLE 2 SECONDARY MARKET AREA DEMAND Portola Los Altos Secondary Primary East Palo Alto Valley Hills Los Altos Mountain View Atherton Woodside Menlo Parle Redwood City Market Area Total Market Market Area Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Household Area Household Retail Group Spending ~g___~pending Spending Spending Spending Spending Spending Spending Spending Spending . Spending Total $1,429,001,945 $154,734,578 $94,685,371 $158,089,043 $440,521,833 $901,934,963 $151,688,987 $108,046,412 $431,431,646 $798,322,016 $3,239,454,849 $4,668,456,794 Apparel Store Group $66,682,372 $6,662,.417 $4,.478,494 $7,S08,907 $20,.433,962 $39,830,459 $7,228,969 $5,120,683 $19,556,250 $35,214,643 $146,034,785 $212,717,157 Women's Apparel $19,877,424 $1,763,235 $1,222,687 $2,050,949 $5,571,129 $10,751,866 $1,975,555 $1,398,015 $5,304,776 $9,489,515 $39,527,728 $59,405,152 Men's Apparel $4,225,450 $481,284 $338,689 $568,729 $1,535,840 $2,935,791 $548,764 $387,732 $1,456,089 $2,594,985 $10,847,903 $15,073,353 Family Clothing $32,172,978 $3,098,794 $2,077,589 $3,482,442 $9,493,991 $18,564,513 $3,352,814 $2,375,742 $9,097,183 $16,409,732 $67,952,801 $100,125,779 Shoe Stores $10,406~:!()_ $1,319,104 $839,530 $1,406,787 $3,833,001 $7,578,289 $1,351,836 $959,194 $3,698,201 rn $6,720,111 • _$27,706,353 $38,112,873 General Merchandise Group $273,321,625 $28,276,494 $16,905,995 $28,217,993 $78,660,910 $162,050,609 $27,045,934 $19,279,694 $77,371,989 $143,595,270 $581,.404,887 $854,726,512 Department Stores $144,324,760 $13,620,206 $8,822,147 $14,758,254 $40,653,663 $81,062,820 $14,194,381 $10,078,164 $39,301,339 $71,668,900 $294,159,872 $438,484,632 Other General Merchandise $52,829,900 $8,309,510 $4,824,692 $8,046,827 $22,518,354 $46,969,567 $7,704,338 $5,501,229 $22,292,308 $41,648,931 $167,815,756 $220,645,655 Drug & Proprietary Stores $76,166,966 $6,346,777 $3,259,156 $5,412,913 $15,488,893 $34,018,222 $5,147,215 $3,700,301 $15,778,342 $30,277,439 $119,429,259 $195,596,225 Specialty Retail Group $113,102,989 $10,289,629 $6,703,786 $11,209,442 $30,989,572 $61,749,429 $10,780,337 $7,647,763 $29,953,847 $54,635,039 $223,958,844 $337,061,832 Gifts & Novelties $5,452,987 $614,545 $409,784 $686,539 $1,876,603 $3,692,348 $661,465 $469,050 $1,801,184 $3,262,230 $13,473,747 $18,926,734 Sporting Goods $10,989,528 $1,332,232 $687,777 $1,133,177 $3,410,703 $7,632,119 $1,077,982 $770,662 $3,503,357 $6,839,657 $26,387,666 $37,377,194 Florists $2,157,932 $252,133 $190,662 $320,271 $865,850 $1,624,086 $308,968 $217,873 $813,404 $1,429,353 $6,022,599 $8,180,532 Photographic Equipment $3,979,409 $127,909 $81,026 $134,757 $384,558 $798,202 $129,142 $92,202 $377,566 $701,011 $2,826,373 $6,805,782 Records & Music $4,137,007 $556,823 $342,607 $571,791 $1,595,063 $3,285,301 $550,408 $392,333 $1,561,533 $2,904,199 $11,760,058 $15,897,065 Books & Stationery $10,650,049 $1,336,224 $812,414 $1,352,472 $3,852,854 $8,037,085 $1,291,178 $921,567 $3,812,704 $7,093,897 $28,510,396 $39,160,446 Office Supplies/Computer Equipment $12,131,531 $1,483,327 $1,038,572 $1,740,180 $4,767,704 $9,236,312 $1,675,615 $1,185,806 $4,540,208 $8,144,469 $33,812,192 $45,943,722 Jewelry $13,861,924 $1,009,660 $966,875 $1,636,445 $4,171,644 $6,902,344 $1,597,775 $1,115,020 $3,687,523 $6,049,425 $27,136,711 $40,998,635 Misc. Specialty Retail $49,742,621 $3.576,777 $2,174,070 $3,633,811 $10,064,594 $20,541,631 $3,487,804 $2,483,250 $9,856,369 $18,210,797 $74,029,102 $123,771,723 Food, Eating & Drinking Group $464,895,9n $39,687,652 $33,080,210 $41,947,015 $108,542,980 $209,508,323 $42,248,490 $33,036,045 $118,141,922 $223,182,359 $849,374,996 $1,314,270,973 Grocery Stores $169,821,041 $22,784,455 $12,193,908 $20,285,331 $57,513,734 $124,354,660 $19,357,960 $13,890,669 $58,011,116 $110,472,865 $438,864,699 $608,685,740 Specialty Food Stores $7,921,835 $648,662 $338,918 $563,133 $1,607,128 $3,518,137 $536,669 $385,744 $1,631,439 $3,126,280 $12,356,110 $20,277,944 Liquor Stores $9,028,542 $1,084,965 $701,863 $1,176,115 $3,206,410 $6,340,414 $1,132,332 $803,392 $3,089,802 $5,614,712 $23,l!ll,005 $32,178,546 Eating Places $278,124,560 $15,169,570 $19,845,522 $19,922,436 $46,215,708 $75,295,112 $21,221,529 $17,956,240 $55,409,565 $103,968,501 $375,004,182 $653,128,742 Building Materials & Home Furnishings Group $134,549,569 $15,996,541 $10,507,713 $17,541,713 $48,829,691 $97,953,881 $16,879,721 $11,992,616 $47,200,525 $86,356,462 $353,258,863 $487,808,432 Furniture & Home Furnishings $35,511,890 $4,714,962 $3,236,852 $5,402,898 $14,897,451 $29,296,351 $5,231,581 $3,708,439 $14,167,762 $25,795,243 $106,451,538 $141,963,429 Household Appliances & Electrcnics $40,408,138 $3,121,146 $2,006,406 $3,351,627 $9,304,944 $18,785,900 $3,223,699 $2,293,025 $9,034,403 $16,572,630 $67,693,780 $108,101,918 Used Merchandise Nurseries & Garden $2,426,741 $326,382 $217,753 $364,302 $1,001,766 $1,978,903 $351,020 $248,955 $961,929 $1,747,182 $7,198,193 $9,624,935 Supply Stores Lumber & Other Building $11,511,512 $1,503,753 $1,074,572 $1,802,395 $4,911,207 $9,418,350 $1,735,427 $1,226,667 $4,664,530 $8,302,455 $34,639,356 $46,150,868 Materials Home Centers and $26,357,510 $3,870,642 $2,322,746 $3,861,525 $11,078,267 $23,326,729 $3,685,562 $2,633,946 $11,006,867 $20,575,727 $82,362,009 $108,719,519 Hardware Stores $16,656,137 $2,250,110 $1,527,188 $2,555,701 $7,056,748 $13,923,434 $2,457,640 $1,742,505 $6,789,127 $12,277,688 $50,580,142 $67,236,279 Paint & Wallpaper $1,677,640 $209,547 $122,196 $203,265 $579,308 $1,224,214 $194,791 $139,078 $575,908 $1,085,537 $4,333,844 $6,011,485 Automotive Group $376,449,413 $48,421,338 $29,285,720 $48,846,036 $137,120,170 $283,644,265 $46,843,289 $33,.408,669 $134,799,702 $250,93g,oo8 $1,013,308,198 $1,389,757,612 New Cars & RVs $184,677,891 $26,250,158 $17,838,839 $29,861,184 $82,177,712 $161,717,212 $28,759,303 $20,394,982 $78,740,860 $142,576,004 $588,316,254 $772,994,145 Used Car Dealers $13,607,115 $1,927,889 $1,316,945 $2,204,835 $6,062,349 $11,902,510 $2,123,875 $1,505,756 $5,802,142 $10,492,746 $43,339,046 $56,946,161 Gasoline Service Stations $161,819,735 $17,496,240 $8,747,121 $14,495,334 $42,112,147 $94,687,948 $13,788,042 $9,942,988 $43,280,355 $84,223,093 $328,773,270 $490,593,005 Mobile Homes & Trailers $83,719 $13,489 $7,595 $12,659 $35,452 $74,676 $12,119 $8,668 $35,221 $66,284 $266,163 $349,882 Auto Parts & Accessories $9,530,954 $1,660,467 $793,806 $1,311,732 $3,879,508 $8,998,806 $1,244,220 $902,393 $4,044,174 $7,986,568 $30,821,674 $40,352,628 other Vehicles $6,729,999 $1,073,095 $581,414 $960,291 $2,853,002 $6,263,112 $915,730 $653,883 $2,896,951 $5,594,314 $21,791,791 $28,521,791 Source: AUE, Inc. Applied Development Economics, Inc. 38 ~ I I I C I ~--. I Exhibit 12 ' -. I . I : j : 1 I . I . I I I Sedway Group Downtown Retail Study May 1, 1982 Page 9 In general, it is recommended that an emphasis be placed on positive incentives rather than restrictive policies to maintain long-term retail vitality. Changing national and local economic conditions, demographics, community needs, and a myriad of other influences will impact the future. I '.) Page 58 The issue before the City is the significance of maintaining neighborhood- serving retail uses despite market forces to the contrary. Ifit is determined that neighborhood-serving uses take priority, the City must implement policies that ·would, in effect, subsidjze these uses so that neighborhood- serving retail uses are able to compete. PageA6 Market analyses have shown that people tend to shop for day-to-day items where convenient (i.e., close to home or work), but will travel much further to make "special" purchases. I I I Sedway Retail Study 1982 Page 1of1 I I' Staff Report Revenue Impact Analysis September 6, 1990 c J Annual Sales Tax per square foot (1989) Location Sales Total Sales Tax Per Foot I Alma Plaza I$52, 150 I $0.9s I Charleston Plaza $39,048 $1.03 Edgewood Plaza $80,849 $1.39 *Downtown $197,858 $1.97l -J Stanford Shopping Center $3,145,417 $2.25 l * 300-400 Blocks Only TABLE II Percentage Palo Alto Taxable Sales Revenues By Sales Category 1989 Retail Category Percent Total I I Apparel 6.0% Department Stores 17.3% Drug Stores 0.7% I !Food Stores 2.3% ~ --J Liquor Stores 0.3% Restaurants 10.2% Furniture/ Appliance 3.0% Building Materials 1.7% Automobile 10.6% Service Stations 2.2% Other Retail 11.7% .1 Subtotal: Retail 66.0% I I I Business-To-Business 34.0% TOTAL REVENUES: 100.0% Revenue Impact Analysis 1990 Page 1 of 1 _J i i Gruen Gruen _I Audit of Retail Areas January 1992 Page 1 Page 3 ·1 I I '1 l I I', ~-' ·1 I j The City of Palo Alto wm need to take a proacfrre stance to encourage the long-run physical maintenance and fiscal health of its retailing base. In the economic climate of the '90's, when Palo Afto is forecast to expelience a slowdown or even a negative trend in the growth, policies which adversely impact the long-run competitive strength ofthe City's retailing areas need to be re- evaluated if the City wishes to avoid the loss offuture sales revenues and the deterioration ofsome ofits shopping centers. 1t will be dit11cult for many of Palo Alto's existing neighborhood centers to avoid becoming increasingly obsolete. In order to increase their ability to respond to the demands oftheir markets, the City should consider the following policy changes: 1. Parking requirements per square foot ofretail and restaurant space should be lowered for neighborhood centers. Empirical studies performed by organizations like The Urban Land Institute suggest a 4.5 ratio to be more than adequate for most sized shopping centers. 2. The cunent cap of20,000 square feet on grocery stores should be eliminated. Ifthe are not, the City will lose increasing dollars to those adjacent communities that provide sites for large supennarkets. 3. The potential for the conversion of portions of obsolete centers to residential use should be enhanced !by increasing the certainty that densities !between 15 and 25 units to the acre would be allowed on portions of such neighborhood centers. Grnen Grnen Retail Audit 1992 Page 1 of 3 L__ I l J Page 12 The success of retail sales is being influenced by significant nation-wide trends in the retailing industry. ' ' Page 20 ,---j I There have been both national and regional economic factors exerting downward pressures on retail sales, there has also been changes in the retailing industry that have altered consumer expenditure patterns. Page 20 The 80's saw a proliferation ofthe off-price, discount and power centers. These new types of discount and off-price centers are attracting an increasing share of those consumer dollars that had heretofore been expended at the traditional department stores. Page 21 During the decade ofthe 80's, both the nation and the region experienced a significant growth in the number ofretail outlets and the amount of built retail space. This increase in retail space has resulted in an oYersupply of square footage in strip, neighborhood and community-sized shopping centers. Page 22 As dynamic new retailers enter the market, the less enterprising, less well-located and less financed of the existing merchants are likely to be forced out. Page 58 All ofthese Neighborhood Centers are undersized and likely to result in a continuous weakening of the centers' ability to compete with bigger and newer centers offering the mix and scale ofretail stores that will draw from a more extensive geographic area. Page 52 The Alma Plaza Center The Center shows its age and the effects of under-maintenance. The layout of the Center is poor with limited visibility from its Alma points of entry.~1 J I _J Gruen Gruen Retail Audit 1992 Page 2of3 I I ) J Page 52 The Center's size, layout and location make it a very poor candidate for a major rehabilitation effort. Increasingly, neighborhood centers with undersized and obsolete grocery anchors cannot successfully compete with new centers anchored by the 65,000-square-foot supermarket. While current City policy has kept such supennarkets out ofPalo Alto, neighboring c01mnunities such as Menlo Park and Mountain View welcome these megamarkets because of the high volumes they are able to generate. Page 53 Sooner or later pressures are likely to build up within the City for retail agglomerations anchored by the 55-60,000-square-foot anchor. Should such an agglomeration at some future point in time locate on El Camino within a 5-mile radius of a neighborhood center such as Alma Plaza, the potential impact on this smaller obsolete center is likely to be extremely deleterious. Page 53 One possible solution for the long-run Yiabiiity of this Center is to tear rlo\vn the existing Center and create nevv retail space fronting Alma. This repositioning of the retail space would remove one of this Center's current handicaps, which is its limited visibility from Alma. The back of this -L26- acre site could then be put into high-density residential. Page 53 Alma Plaza appears to be operating somewhere between the lowest and second lowest decile in the 20+-year neighborhood shopping center. Page 55 Changes in Sales Tax Revenues for Three Neighborhood Centers: 1988-1990 Year-end Year-end Year-end Change 1988 1989 1990 1988-1990 Edgewood Plaza Charleston Center Alma Plaza $6,657,600 $2,093,800 $5,716,800 $7,706,700 $1,996,200 $5,916,000 $7,361,300 $2,142,000 $4,655,00{) $703,700 10.6% $48,200 2.3% $-],061,800 -18.6% ... Therefore, as suggested above in the section ofthis Chapter describing market conditions, properties such as the Alma Plaza may best adopt to the conditions that prevail in the marketplace by a combination of downsizing to a convenience center with high-density residential on the less accessible portions ofthe site. Gruen Gruen Retail Audit 1992 Page 3of3 Staff Report Economic Future Study April 8, 1993 The purpose of the study was to determine whether or not a "structural deficit" existed in the General Fund. It is important to recognize that "structural deficit" may be defined in a number ofdifferent ways. In ordinary economic tenns, it can be taken to mean a basic misalignment between ongoing revenues and expenditures such that the General Fund will repeatedly experience a budget shortfall. Sales Tax Revenue 1986-87 1988-89 1991-92 City General Retail $1,848,000 $2,157,000 $1976,000 Alma Plaza NIA $52,750 $46,000 Alma Plaza Percentage NIA 2.4% 2.3% Fiscally Positive Scenario Retail sales activity significantly higher than CPI increases in contrast to recent trends, especially has increased the shifting of significant retail sales to the "large box deep discount" sellers that are not located in Palo Alto. Fiscally Negative Scenario Closing of two neighborhood shopping centers, in large part as a response to Palo Altans spending more money outside the City. Economic Future Study Page 1of1 City of Palo Alto Economic Resource Plan November 1993 • To develop an economic framework for City Council decision-making. • To revisit past problems affecting the business and development • To establish an internal "market perspective" on issues. While Palo Alto's assets still far outnumber its liabilities, \Ve are showing some signs of decline -in the City's strip commercial and neighborhood retail centers... c l ~ I Economic Resource Plan 1993 Page 1 of 1 r I I Keyser Marston -;! Midtown Market Analysis I I '-/ January 1995 Page 29 Alma Plaza The center has an awkward L-shaped configuration with no visibility from the ,._, ', ! street The space has a below par level of sales activity with average sales below ,: ! $100 per square sq.ft.. The total sales is estimated to be $8,000,000. Page 6 The trade area served by the Midtown Shopping Center is mostly the residential area bounded by within approximately 1 mile.' l j Midtown Trade Area Midtown Shopping Center Trade Area J Midtown Market Analysis Page 1 of2 Page 16 Midtown is 72,350 total sq.ft. Safeway . Co-op Midtown Market Page 24 17,500 sq.ft. 12,070 sq.ft . 12,700 sq.ft. Midtown Food Store Sales Midtown Potential Food Sales Alma Plaza Food Sales Page 25 I f $21,850,000 $41,000,000 $8,000,000 Collectively, between the Midtown Shopping Center and the other food stores serving the trade area, the demand for food is essentially being met by the existing stores. i l, However, existing food stores at Midtown do not reflect the trend in the industry to develop larger supermarkets. Additionally, we conclude that there is a demand for specialty food stores that can be successful in smaller stores (as evidenced by the recent remodeling ofPiazza) \ l l J Midtown Market Analysis Page 2 of2 _J I Staff Report Retail Trends August 3, 1995 Page 2 Neighborhood Shopping Centers fared most poorly showing significant retail sales losses. Page 5 The state of the City's neighborhood and service commercial areas present some very real policy dilemmas for the City. Upgrading such areas \'till require greater recognition of market-related issues, and, possibly, greater City interwntion in facilitating re-use of structures and private redeYelopment efforts. There has been a substantial loss of certain kinds of retail to surrounding communities that is unlikely to be recaptured in Palo Alto; deep-discount operations will continue to be located outside the City, given land availability in Palo Alto and community sentiment that is often unreceptive to "box" retail operations. There is a difference, however, between regional retail loss to the City and community retail losses. The data indicate that both these losses have taken place; a re-emphasis on attracting conununity commercial uses to the City, however, incorporates an important service component. Page 17 Sales Tax Trend 1990 1991 1992 1993 • 19941989 Change (89-94) . 58,000 46,000 46,000 51,000 43,000 32,000 -45%Alma 51,000·49,000 58,000 53,00040,000 41,000 33%Cbarluton 42,000 46,000 33,00036,000 24,00044,000 -46%Edgewood Page 18 Retail trends for neighborhood and sh·ip commercial development have changed dramatically over the last two decades; Palo Alto's aging physkaH plant and zoning restrictions have been partially responsible for economic decline in these areas. Retail Trends 1995 Page 1of1 l City of Palo Alto Retail Trends November 1996 ' [ August 1997 Sales Tax Data Page 19 Nolghborhood Shopping Center CY 1989 CY 1990 CV 1991 CY1992 . CY1993 CV1994 CY !995 CY 1996 Change: 1989·95 In Curren! S Change: 1989·96 In 1989 $ Alma Plazo; ~o change from 1989 Alma PJ:a.a Sales /~q ft 57,392 $103 46,056 ·20% $63 4?,330 -21% $82 49,102. -14~. $88 42,471 -26% $77 31,998 -44% SS8 25,192 -56~'. $45 24,169 -Se% $44 -58% ·66% Charleston Shopping Center: 'lo change from 198Q Ch•rles!Dn Sales / aq n 39,560 $95 41,445 5% $99 46,665 23% $116 57,839 46% $138 51,132 29% $122 53,1~9 34% $127 58,696 48% $140 61,181 55% $146 55% 26% Edgewood Shopping Cnnter: % change from 1989 Edgewood Sales I aq ft 44,013· $87 36,223 -18% $72 42,341 -4% $84 45,907 4% $91 33,240 -24% $66 29,813 -32% $59 25,057 -43% $49 24,116 --t5% $48 .4·53 -5511/0 Retail Trends 1996 Page 1 of 1 _j I Gruen Gruen Retail Trends j 1996 -1997 There is a relationship, perhaps a strong one, between retail growth in an area and the City's policies with regards to zoning intervention and discretionary approval processes. Examples of such relationships include: 1 Neighborhood Shopping Centers and El Camino real fared most poorly in the study, ~ J showing significant retail sales losses throughout the city. \Vhile the City of Palo Alto's land use policies and governmental regulation have played an intermittent role in the City's retail environment, it is both Staff's and the experts' opinions that market considerations have been much more contributory to the City's changing retail climate. \Vhether an area experiences relative success or failure appears to reflect a synergistic relationship behveen public and private sector factors, with a much greater weight on the latter. r \ Data :for the four neighborhood shopping centers indicate a steady and significant decline in sales. In particular, Alma Plaza, Edgewood Shopping Center and Midtown have experienced increasing vacancies and declining neighborhood services. These centers' grocery stores are all less than 20,000 square feet, while the typical, new neighborhood grocery stores being built are often in excess of 50,000 square feet and provide a combination of retail merchandise and non-food items. Palo Alto neighborhood centers have outdated, conventional grocery stores anchoring similarly outdated retail facilities. Factors such as multiple ownership, unrealistic expectations of property values and lack of owner investment in stmctures have also been contributory. That, combined with antiquated zoning codes and rigorous public hearing process, has limited redevelopment efforts. Gruen Gruen Retail Trends 1996-1997 Page 1of1 Sedway Group Retail Strategy for Palo Alto June 8, 2000 Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza are characterized as blighted Page 6 !Alma Plaza! has shown a consistent decline in sales from 1989 to 1999. During this eleven year period sales declined from $7.0 million to $2.5 million, a decrease of 64 percent. This represents a loss of approximately $45,000 per year in sales tax revenue for the city. Page 9 The most significant barrier to the revitalization of Alma Plaza is obtaining community support. Albertson's will only lmdertake renovation ofthe center if it is able to expand the size of its supermarket. Page 6 First opened in 1962, the Alma Plaza Shopping Center is a 40,0DO square foot neighborhood shopping center. : j ~ l ] J I _j Sedway Retail Strategy 2000 Page 1 of 1 Gruen Gruen Evaluation of Alma Plaza February 2006 Page 1 Alma Plaza consists of approximately 41, 100 square feet of space on 4.26-acres I of land.' J • The center had limited visibility from points of entry off ofAlma Street; ,-, I • The primary tenant was an older, small-sized, poorly-stocked and unattractive Lucky's grocery store; • The primary base of convenience-oriented tenants served a limited trade area ofhouseholds in the immediate neighborhood; • Some merchants served a wider trade area because of their advertising and promotional activities but derived limited benefits from operating from within the center; • Sales levels were decreasing and indicated weak productivity; • The center was unlikely to be successfully cured of its competitive and physical obsolescence through rehabilitation and renovation; and • The City ofPalo Alto's signage policy and 20,000 square foot limitation on the size of grocery stores served to make it unlikely that the center could be successfully repositioned and restored to economic viability. Page2 To make the Alma Plaza property viable in the future, GG+A recommended the following: 0 The demolition of the existing improvements; ~ The creation of new retail space fronting Alma Street; and "' The development of high-density ( 15 to 25 units per acre) residential uses on the rear portion of the site. J Evaluation ofAlma Plaza 2006 Page 1 of 3 Page 5 Alma Plaza has Physical Constraints Alma Plaza has been adn~rsely affected by physical constraints related to its small size, poor visibHity, and relative iack of access. Alma Plaza's potential trade area is circumscribed by railroad tracks bordering Alma Street on the west that substantially hinders cross traffic. As opposed to the traditional shopping center location; that is, at a major intersection ·with both a traffic signal and access from t\Yo or more streets, A.Ima Plaza's mid-block location dictates that it have a signal major entry point, limiting its access. The lack of a traffic signal at its single entrance compounds this limitation. Moreover, Alma Plaza's billboard effect is limited by its narrow street frontage and the high traffic speeds along Alma Street. In addition, the center is isolated from other retail uses so that agglomerational advantages cannot be established. Pages 5-6 Competitive Impacts of Larger Sized Grocery-Anchored Shopping Centers Since 1992, \Val-IVfart and Costco have opened stores in Mountain View. l\foreover, in the last eighteen months, Costco expanded its Rengstorff Ave store by 20,000 square feet of space to approximately 138,000 square feet, substantially increasing the area allocated to grocery products. A \Vhole Foods of 55,000 square feet is under construction in Los Altos 1.8 miles away from Alma Plaza. Pages 7-8 Since J993 Taxable Food Sales in \fountain ·view have increased from $33,746,000 to $47,724,000. This is an increase of $13,978,000 or 41.4%. A dominate retail agglomeration has been established at San Antonio and El Camino real in Mountain View about 1.4 miles from the Alma Plaza site. Tenancies include a 44,000-square-foot Safeway, a 66,000-square-foot Albertson's, a Trader Joes, Wal-Mart and Target. In addition, a 55,000-square- foot Whole Foods is under construction on El Camino real about 1.8 miles from Alma Plaza. J Evaluation of Alma Plaza 2006 Page 2of3 Whether a direct result of this increased competition from modem markets in Mountain View or from other factors, it is clear that a number of smaller markets have closed in Palo Alto since the GG+A 1992 report: the All-American Market of 12,500, the Co-Op market of 18,000 square feet and John's Town & County Market, also of 18,000 square feet have all ceased operations. Two closed grocery stores have been replaced by national chain drug stores, entities which now devote a substantial amount of their floor area to the sale of food. Pages 8-9 Market area dominance primarily depends upon three factors: location, size and tenant make-up. An isolated, under-sized, retail center such as Alma Plaza, even if built new today, will not have sufficient scale and magnetism to successfully compete with the nearby retail and services agglomeration for the expenditures of time constrained shoppers. ~ 1 I, J Page 9 The findings summarized above from GG+ A's current reconnaissance suggest the continued use of the site as a neighborhood shopping center is not viable. Shifts in consumer shopping preferences and the development of dominant supply near the site since the 1993 report preclude the feasible continuation ofthe site for a neighborhood shopping center use. As a result, the Alma Plaza property wm experience further deterioration if it is not repositioned to include a small amount of retail space in the front and residential uses on the rest of the property. Jn the absence of a timely repositioning and reuse, the negative appearance of the property wiU have a blighting effect on the adjacent properties. A wen planned and designed mixed-use project can be expected to enhance the desirability of the acl.iacent uses, contribute to improving the jobs- housing balance in Palo Alto and generate significantly more property tax and other fiscal benefits to the City. Evaluation ofAlma Plaza 2006 Page 3 of3 Exhibit 13 ~--1 I I ' ' I I ,. ' I I : I .l . l . I l' ;· J J & A FAMILY MARKET II i l : J I I Proud To Be A Local Family Owned Provider Of Only The Best! i --I J &AFAMILYMARKET BUSINESS PLAN ,.., i I ~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY J&A Family Market (J&A) will continue a 70 year history of serving the College Terrace neighborhood as ' ! j an independent operator by replacing a historical operation that has vacated the site due to the age of the proprietors, the lack of visibility from El Camino Real (the major north/south interstate highway corridor between San Francisco and San Jose) and the physical obsolescence of an eighty year old structure. By City Ordinance and community preference, Palo Alto California prohibits the construction of new grocery stores larger than 20,000 square feet. As with most retail operations, locally owned and operated businesses are preferred and supported. J&A will open in a new structure facing El Camino Real with the benefit of exposure to approximately 60,000 daily vehicle trips, an all new building and premises, a history of neighborhood support and a growing client base as Stanford University continues to add residential units to the immediate area. With historical sales in excess of $4,000,000 annually and growing demand, the prospects of success for this full service grocery in a community with exceptionally high barriers to entry are very strong. MISSION STATEMENT j J&A Family Market is committed to providing our customers the best food and beverage values and the highest quality products, while minimizing our carbon footprint. By providing a full array of products to serve the neighborhood and community, J&A Market is committed to supplying merchandise that is I ]. locally grown and sustainable whenever possible and Tobacco Products will not be available in the' I store. We will provide information to our customers that allows them to make informed buying decisions, and will do so with a dedication to the highest quality of customer satisfaction delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, fun, individual pride and company spirit. MANAGEMENT TEAM The Management Team and its advisors have more than 100 years of grocery and retail experience between them. Backgrounds include the current Chairman of the Board of a NYSE listed company, the CFO of a regional grocery chain and extensive direct sales and management of retail stores in the Palo Alto market. This experience coupled with a twenty year history of auditing and observing the operations of the prior grocery store's business provides an excellent base from which to launch this new operation in a growing and proven market. STRATEGIC AND MARKET ANALYSIS J&A Family Market has been developed to provide a full service grocery operation within walking distance to the College Terrace neighborhood, Stanford University housing for professors, grad students and coaching staff, those residing in Escondido Village, and the work force in the adjacent Stanford Research Park. These customer groups have a history of "walk-ability" and rarely use their vehicles to - J 1 I j I l J - J shop at the store, preferring to either bike or walk to the store to do their shopping. The total customer base adjacent to or within walking distance to the store is in excess of 12,000 individuals (there are over 6,000 residents within the College Terrace neighborhood alone plus the work force within the Stanford Research Park, the existing and to be built Stanford University housing and over 300 employees and clients populating the office and retail portions of the development on a daily basis). This client base has significant disposable income and they have a history of purchasing products that offer the highest profit margin for the grocery, primarily ready to eat meals and delicatessen and sandwich products. Below is historical sales data for JJ &F Sulc~by Dcparom:nt CGnm:ry DDcli •Liquor The viability of the new store and its prospects for success were clearly identified during the entitlement process for the development of the project which houses the grocery. Staff for the City of Palo Alto acknowledged in open forum that they had never seen such strong community support for the construction of a neighborhood grocery. They also acknowledged that the number of signatures submitted in support of the grocery surpassed any previous submitt.al. MARKETING SUMMARY Historical sales indicate a strong client base within the neighborhood. However, to expand the business we have identified prospective clients outside those predisposed to the walk-ability of the grocery and there are new opportunities for business to business sales as well. Companies within a mile radius present an opportunity to provide food for meetings and presentations. Proximity to businesses creates an ease of shopping experience for employees traveling home after work as the grocery offers parking capacity at a 5/1,000 ratio. With parking available for small buses local retirement homes have expressed interest in busing their clientele to the site for shopping and the Stanford Margarite (the free Stanford University shuttle) has agreed to add the project to its daily schedule. Outreach to returning ;' ' and new customers will be done through social media, newspapers and local publications with announcements and traditional advertised specials and sales. A strong focus will be placed on joint advertising with suppliers and supplier specials/loss leaders will be utilized. There will also be an on- going outreach program to local neighborhood associations that include: • The College Terrace neighborhood population 6,055 • Evergreen Park neighborhood population 2,589 • Green Acres neighborhood population 921 I • Old Palo Alto neighborhood population 3,554 ' ) I • Proffesorville neighborhood population 543 • Research Park neighborhood population 844 • Southgate neighborhood population 441I • J • Ventura neighborhood population 2,368 ' i Additionally, a shopping relationship with the houses for Stanford Fraternities and Sororities will be re-i J established. Exposure will be further enhanced via the 2,000 square foot Open Market facing El Camino Real with its brightly colored awning and food bin displays (please see the project rendering below). A Shop Local campaign will also be emphasized. ,r-; 1 I '. J i ( COMPETITION Palo Alto is made up of distinct neighborhoods and geographically separate areas. For example, CalTrain has tracks running from San Francisco to San Jose that dissect the community, thereby creating distinct. j shopping areas to the west and east of that divide. In a similar manner El Camino Real is a state highway that also runs north to south and presents the same impression of separation. With this separation in place, it is noted that there are no competing grocery stores west of El Camino Real servicing the client base referenced above. Neither are there competing grocery stores within 2 miles to the north or 4 miles to the south. It is also noteworthy that Big Box retailers do not exist within the city limits of Palo Alto. Therefore, immediate/proximate competition from retailers such as Costco does not exist.I . ) However, J&A Market does not plan to compete with outlets such as Costco, but rather it will focus on providing a local and convenient shopping experience with a full array of products requested by its client base. It is also worth noting that as a local enterprise with an attentive staff, J&A will be aware of the needs of its clients through surveys and questionnaires, personal interactions and requests for feedback and evaluation. Based on the results of this feedback J&A will have the flexibility to select products in keeping with client needs and demands. To capture and retain customers, on-site/on-line ordering for the 300 +/-office employees plus neighborhood residents and other customers will allow for orders to ---j be prepared and ready for pick up, Leapset is an app that people can download and use to order items I ahead of time and allows for frequent shopper programs to be tracked and used, thereby reducing the time needed to shop. Lastly, an Open Account will be reinstated for frequent shoppers and neighborhood residents with monthly billing. FINANCIAL SUMMARY ' I Historical sales for the grocery operation indicate sales figures of approximately $13,000+ per day. While these figures represent sales from a mature operation with a lengthy history, they are from a store that was physically and operationally obsolete, in a building that was ncit visible from El Camino Real and was operated by ownership that was not reinvestfng in the operations, building interior or stock/merchandise. It is acknowledged that as a start up it will take time to reach sales in excess of $4,500,000+/annum, but the base of clients and demand are present, and growing (the addition of the projected 250 units of Stanford University housing two blocks south of the grocery location alone will grow sales). Below is an outline of Gross Profit and Net Profit projections as sales stabilize: DAILY SALES YEARLY EXPENSES $7,000 x 360 days= $2,520.000 x 40% = $1.008,000 $1,380,972 -$1,008,000 =-$372.972 r---,,, I $7,000 x 360 days= $2,520,000 x 45% = $1.134,000 $1,380,972 -$1,134,000 =-$246,972 . l $7,000 x 360 days= $2.520,000 x 50% = $1.260,000 $1.380,972 -$1,260,000 =-$120.972 $8,000 x 360 days = $2,880,000 x 40% = $1. 152,000 $1 ,380,972 • $1!152,000 =-$228,972 $8,000 x 360 days = $2,880,000 x 45% = $1,296,000 $1.380,972 -$1,296,000 =-$84,972 $8.000 x 360 days = $2.880,000 x 50% = $1.440.000 $1,380,972 -$1.440,000 =$59,028 $9,000 x 360 days = $3,240.000 x 40% = $1,296,000 $1,380,972 -$1.296.000 =-$84,972 $9,000 x 360 days = $3,240,000 x 45% = $1 ,458,000 $1 ,380,972 -$1.458,000 =$77,028 $9,000 x 360 days = $3,240.000 x 50% = $1 .620.000 $1,380,972 -$1,620.000 =$239.028 $10,000 x 360 days= $3,600,000 x 40% = $1.440,000 $1,380,972 -$1 .440,000 =$59,028 $10,000 x 360 days = $3,600,000 x 45% = $1 ,620,000 $1 ,380,972 -$1 ,620,000 =$239,028 $10,000 x 360 days = $3,600,000 x 50% = $1.800,000 $1,380,972-$1.800,000 =$419,028 j c ' ' I I $11.000 x 360 days = $3.960.000 x 40% = $1,584,000 r-··\ $11 .000 x 360 days= $3.960,000 x 45% =$1 .782,000 $11.000 x 360 days = $3,960,000 x 50% = $1,980,000 ,-----, . I I $12.000 x 360 days= $4,320.000 x 40% =$1,728.000 $12.000 x 360 days= $4.320,000 x 45% = $1.944000 $12.000 x 360 days= $4,320,000 x 50% = $2,160,000 $13.000 x 360 days= $4.680,000 x 40% = $1.872,000 $13.000 x 360 days= $4,680,000 x 45% = $2,106,000 $13,000 x 360 days= $4,680,000 x 50% = $2,340,000 ~l '--' PROJECTED START UP COSTS Inventory $280,000 lean• $1,380.972 -$1 .584.000 =$203,028 $1.380.972 -$1.782.000 =$401.028 $1,380.972 -$1,980.000 =$599,028 $1 ,380.972 -$1,728,000 =$347.028 $1.380.972 -$1.944.000 =$563028 $1,380,972 -$2, 160.000 =$779,028 $1 .380,972 -$1 .872.000 =$491.028 $1 .380,972 -$2, 106.000 =$725.028 $1,380.972 -$2,340,000 =$959,028 • POS (point of sale system) for hardware and software for 4 registers with scales registers 2 U shaped, 1 ADA compliantJ • ~ales for deli/meat (3) ~frigeration all new walk ins, beverages and product refrigeration •·~ ' • R3cks for dry goods aislel A"oduce section tables, stands and 1 refrigeration section• 8Jpplies, small cutlery/kitchen utensils, desks, work tables, store named supplies, 2-3 ! -l • computers, video security system Equipment $400,000• • 1st month payroll $60,000 Tl's $630,000 •1 Start up promotion $50,000• • Start up staff approx 1 week $15,000 • Overhead/admin prior to opening $5,000 • Deposit $22,500 • Working Capital allowance $200,000 Estimate $1,662,500,000 to get started • • Owner's Equity and funding of $3,000,000 has been obtained for start up OPERATIONS _j Si!• ~It! 0 ..I0 .;a ... ~ ----:: ZC> . ! Wz ,---, : I • l : ! D.-o::.:: ~ ~ ; j I Hours of operations Monday thru Friday 6:00am -8:00pm Saturday and Sunday 7:00am -7:00pm. We are assuming the store will be open 360 days a year, closed for Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years Day, and the 4th of July. J&A will always provide a butcher, cashier, food prep, stocker and cleaner during business hours which will allow us to have the customer relation/satisfaction we are striving for. J&A will provide delivery services to the building tenants and local residents. The deli will also have warm food entrees and side dishes, a salad bar with soup, pre made meals to take home and re heat or cook, such as marinated meats that can be barbequed or baked. Having full time butchers will also allow us to give customers select cuts of meat or make fresh ground meat such as beef, turkey, chicken with the trend of eating healthy this should be very popular. The "open air market" will also have tables and chairs for people to sit and eat their meals, with free WI-Fl. We will have fresh produce and will also cut and package for sale. We will have fruit platters available for delivery to the offices to go along with bagels, cream cheese, coffee, juices. STRATEGY AND IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY The months leading to the opening of J&A Family market will be used for oversight of the construction phase, establishing a social network presence to update and build neighborhood awareness, working · with the majority of vendors for product placements and promotions, and training of middle management on system and store policies. Having a licensed contractor background allows for r-', ~ complete understanding and oversight of the construction phase to ensure the grocery store I infrastructure is properly established. This background will also allow for more insightful updates during the project for Yelp, Facebook, and Twitter followers. Vendor coordination and negotiation for product placement and promotions are planned during the construction phase. Certain vendors offer additional equipment units and racks for specific products, as well as a marketing coordination of seasonal products and time events. An example is Coca Cola who provides refrigeration units and large display specials, along with promotional prizes for events like Stanford sports which are year round and the local hosting of the next NFL Super B:>wl. These promotional activities can and will be coordinated with a Grand Opening event. Other larger vendors : I that provide a majority cif the grocery items like Pitco and Unified Grocers design product merchandising layouts, row by row, item by item, with our Management team that best suits the clientele of J&A Family Market. Other vendors like Harris Ranch Meat and Boars Head Deli provide promotional products to be prepared and sampled on an ongoing basis during the opening period to ensure product recognition and awareness is established. All vendors provide database information and support for ,, , I Point of Sale systems and inventory tracking which is coordinated during the training of middle I management and department supervisors for both system understanding and product awareness. With the Fire Department and Police Department conducting their training at the site we have already been promoting J&A Family Market and the possibility of the Fire Houses buying their food from us and both Departments getting a discount on their meals. Over the next 12 months we will be meeting with representives from numerous firms such as UNIFY, Clover and Unified Grocers all of which are well known industry leaders that provide assistance and expertise to independently owned stores just starting up. Primary areas of assistance include but are not limited to purchasing, design, marketing, equipment and the latest industry specific technology. These resources further facilitate space planning and floor lay out to ensure maximum profitability and product placement. We will also reach out to establish delivery services for the local offices/businesses such as breakfast, lunch and dinner delivery along with catering services for their office parties/meetings. Another area of focus will be contracting with suppliers to benefit from both free advertising and displays as well as free fixtures for their products thereby minimizing start up costs. Lastly, we will be pursuing a strategic partnership with a coffee franchise to put in the store as well as sell their brand in bulk on the shelves. Preliminary research indicates in-store kiosk operations require approximately 200 sq ft, yet provide a margin of 70%+. Reaching out to the community to let them know that their demand for a full service grocery store in the College Terrace Centre project has been met will not only act as marketing for the store but overall mutually beneficial goodwill toward the project. Through our cultivation of relationships with the local papers, networking with the Fraternity and Sorority houses on campus, and outreach to the general community reiterating that J&A Market is an independent, family owned market (as was their predecessor of some 70 years on-site) we are assured of not only free press but that they will be purchasing from us as well. Sources I Uses Start up J&A Family Market 2-28-14 Sources & Uses Budget I Key Assumptions r---1 ; l 'j,, J ~1 I retail sq ft total sq ft lease rate per month insurance CAM Uses leasehold improvements equipment inventory overhead/admin prior to opening start up promotion start up staffing holding site costs/deposit working capitial, allowance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7000 9000 22,500.00 2,500.00 6,000.00 630,000.00 400,000.00 280,000.00 5,000.00 50,000.00 15,000.00 22,500.00 200,000.00 sub total uses $ 1,602,500.00 Reserves $ 1,397,500.00 total uses $ 3,000,000.00 Sources owner .contribution $ 3,000,000.00 sub total owner contribution $ 3,000,000.00 landlord contribution $ total sources $ 3,000,000.00 JAFM CONFIDENTIAL Monthly Operating Expenses ' i ,' I c-; MONTHLY EXPENSES ~: RENT $ 22,500.00 1, ~ PAYROLL $ 52,000.00 UTILITIES $ 15,000.00'j $OFFICE SUPPLIES 300.00 ALL DEPT $ 2,834.00 LAUNDRY $ 584.00 ; I STATE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX $ 513.00 : I I' FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX $ 152.00 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE $ 2,167.00 CREDIT CARD FEES $ 5,334.00 I I JANITORS $ 500.00 POSTAGE $ 200.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 42.00i , I PAYROLL SERVICES $ 21.00 RETAIL ACCOUNTING $ 350.00 SECURITY $ 150.00 STATE/FEDERAL/LOCAL TAXES $ 467.00 ADVERTISING $ 550.00 PROMOTIONAL $ 717.00 CAM $ 6,500.00 INSURANCE $ 2,500.00 STATE INCOME TAX $ 1,700.00 TOTAL $ 115,081.00 __J JAFM CONFIDENTIAL i -l l l :___:_-J_' L1 ~ ' SCHEDULE MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY WAGES 6:00AM·B:OOPM 6:00AM-8:00PM 6:00AM-8:00PM 6:00AM-8:00PM 6:00AM-B:OOPM 7:00AM-7:00PM 7:00AM-7:00PM BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) 6:00AM-2:30PM 6:00AM-2:30PM 6:00AM-2:30PM 6:00AM-2:30PM 6:00AM-2:30PM 7:00AM-3:30PM 7:00AM-3:30PM $ 840.00 CASHIER (2) 6:00AM-CASHIER (2) 6:00AM-CASHIER (2) 6:00AM-CASHIER (2) 6:00AM-CASHIER (2) 6:00AM-CASHIER (2) 7:00AM-CASHIER (2) 7:00AM- 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 3:30PM $ 1,120.00 STOCKER (1) 6:00AM-STOCKER (1) 6:00AM-STOCKER (1) 6:00AM-STOCKER (1) 6:00AM-STOCKER (1) 6:00AM-STOCKER (1) 7:00AM-STOCKER (1) 7:00AM- 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 3:30PM $ 560.00 FOOD PREP (3) 6:00AM· FOOD PREP (3) 6:00AM· FOOD PREP (3) 6:00AM· FOOD PREP (3) 6:00AM· FOOD PREP (3) 6:00AM· FOOD PREP (2) 7:00AM· FOOD PREP (2) 7:00AM· 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 3:30PM $ 1,200.00 MANAGER (1) 6:00AM-MANAGER (1) 6:00AM-MANAGER (1) 6:00AM-MANAGER (1) 6:00AM-MANAGER (1) 6:00AM-MANAGER (1) 7:00AM-MANAGER (1) 7:00AM- 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 3:30PM $ 840.00 CLEANER (1) 6:00AM-CLEANER (1) 6:00AM-CLEANER (1) 6:00AM-CLEANER (1) 6:00AM-CLEANER (1) 6:00AM· CLEANER (1) 7:00AM-CLEANER (1) 7:00AM- 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 3:30PM 3:30PM $ 560.00 BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) BUTCHER (1) 11 :OOAM-7:30PM 11 :OOAM-7:30PM 11 :OOAM-7:30PM 11 :OOAM-7:30PM 11 :OOAM-7:30PM 3:00PM-7:30PM 3:00PM-7:30PM $ 735.00 CASHIER (1) CASHIER (1) CASHIER (1) CASHIER(1) CASHIER (1) CASHIER (1) 3:00PM-CASHIER (1) 3:00PM- 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 7:30PM 7:30PM $ 490.00 CASHIER (1) 2:00PM-CASHIER (1) 2:00PM-CASHIER (1) 2:00PM-CASHIER (1) 2:00PM-CASHIER (1) 2:00PM-FOOD PREP (1) 3:00PM· FOOD PREP (1) 3:00PM- 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 7:30PM 7:30PM $ 415.00 FOOD PREP (2) FOOD PREP (2) FOOD PREP (2) FOOD PREP (2) FOOD PREP (2) STOCKER (1) 3:00PM-STOCKER (1) 3:00PM-11 :00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 11:00AM-7:30PM 7:30PM 7:30PM $ 490.00 STOCKER (1) 2:00PM-STOCKER (1) 2:00PM-STOCKER (1) 2:00PM-STOCKER (1) 2:00PM-STOCKER (1) 2:00PM-ASST MANAGER ASST MANAGER 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 3:00PM-7:30PM 3:00PM-7:30PM $ 433.00 ASST MANAGER ASST MANAGER ASST MANAGER ASST MANAGER ASST MANAGER CLEANER (1) 3:00PM-CLEANER (1) 3:00PM-2:00PM-8:30PM 2:00PM-8:30PM 2:00PM-8:30PM 2:00PM-8:30PM 2:00PM-8:30PM 7:30PM 7:30PM $ 480.00 CLEANER (1) 2:00PM-CLEANER (1) 2:00PM-CLEANER (1) 2:00PM-CLEANER (1) 2:00PM-CLEANER (1) 2:00PM-8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM 8:30PM $ 320.00 TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL WAGES 120 120 120 120 120 91 91 $ 8,483.00 JAFM CONFIDENTIAL PRODUCTS DRY GOODS DRlNKS PRODUCE MEAT DAIRY HYGIENE DOG FOOD JUICES FRUITS DELI MEAT MILK TOOTH PASTE CAT FOOD SODAS VEGETABLES HAMBURGER CHEESE DEODORANT CHIPS WATER FLOWERS STEAKS YOGURT FLOSS BREAD WINE CHICKEN SOUR CREAM TOOTH BRUSH KETCHUP BEER TURKEY BUTTER MOUTH WASH MUSTARD TEAS FISH WHIP CREAM CHAP STICK MAYO ENERGY SAUSAGE CREAM CHEESE GEL CANDY COOL AID SHRIMP CREAMER SHAMPOO TORTILLAS POWDERS CRAB EGGS . CONDITIONER BBQ SAUCE HAIRSPRAY 'I GUM RlCE LOTION POWDER I BEANS DIAPERS SOUP NAIL POLISH REMOVER MARINADE QTIPS SPICES COTTON BALLS CEREAL RUBBING ALCHOL UTENSILS HAIR TIES '1 PLATES/BOWLS WIPES PAPER TOWELS J TOILET PAPER SOAP DISH SOAP LAUNDRY SOAP BAGELS SALAD DRESSINGS NUTELLA COOKIES PASTA COFFEE CUPS SUGAR BAKING SODA FLOUR PICKLES NUTS CRACKERS OATMEAL OILS TACO SHELLS HOT SAUCES ASIAN SAUCES CAKE MIX FABRlC SOFTENER BATTERIES COFFEE FILTERS CANNED VEGETABLES CANNED FRUIT FRUIT SNACKS COFFEECAKE DANISHES FROSTING KLEENEX CUP OF NOODLES TOPRAMEN PEPPERS JAFM CONFIDENTIAL PERSONAL TAMPONS PADS CONDOMS TYLENOL ASPIRlN COLD MEDICINE r I ALLERGY MEDICINE i MEDICINES COUGH DROPS MAKEUP PANTYHOES BAND AIDS SHAVINO CREAM RAZORS '.J I . I - FROZEN ICE ICE CREAM POPSICLES MEALS PIE CRUSTS DESERTS VEGETABLES PRODUCTS CLEANING BLEACH SPONGES MOP BROOM CLEANERS RUBBER GLOVES LYSOL SPRAYS SWIFTERS WIPES TOILET CLEANER SHOWER CLEANER WINDEX PRE MADE MEALS MACNCHEESE RICE BOWLS POTAOSALAD MACARONI SALAD SALADS SOUPS MEATS CHICKEN FISH CRAB SHRIMP BURRITOS BREAKFAST LUNCH DINNER PASTAS SNADWHICHES FRUIT PLATTER VEGTABLE PLATTER BURGERS TURKEY BURGER VEGITERIAN BURGER HOT DOG HOTLINK. BBQ RIBS FRIES MADE TO ORDER OFFICE SUPPLIES POSTCARDS CARDS TAPE STAPLES THUMBTACKS PENS MARKERS PAPER STAMPS GIFT BAGS WRAPPING PAPER GLUE JAFM CONFIDENTIAL r ~-·---! ------1c __ :L_ ~ ~: '. r-u_ '-~-_J Attachment D ill ()fflC(\bOO>' ~\ CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES A~CTS • PLA.".!NE.RS A AAOr::.SSIONAt. CO~O~TION 1635 El. CAMINO REAL PAlOAJ..TO.CA 94J<Xi 650-322·2268 COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 2100 EL CAMINO REAL PALO ALTO, CA GROCERY STORE LAYOUT OATC: 06·26-2014 Attachment E L I 1. How will rent be structured to give the market the best chance of success, especially during first few years? Response: The rent structure has been agreed to between the operator, the ownership and the lender to provide assurances of success and profitability. The lease and rent structure is identical to that provided to and accepted by John Garcia which the City Attorney has reviewed and approved. L 2. What assurances can you give the City that a new market will open if the current market goes out of I business? Response: Pursuant to PC Ordinance 5069, "The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery store." Ownership is compelled and committed to ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance and is doing all it can to ensure the success of this operator.L, Should the operator close, Ownership will take all necessary steps in the marketplace to procure a replacement operator as required by the Ordinance. l 3. What position will former CFO have in new company? What will the structure of the organization actually be? How many total people will you employ? Response: The former CFO will act as the11 Operations Manager reporting directly to the store owner. In addition to being the CFO of a regional grocery operator he has personally owned and operated grocery and pharmacy stores. The Manager, who oversees all departments and reports to the Operations Manager, has grown up in the grocery business, his family has owned and operated a grocery store since before he was born and he followed l-1' into the family business. Agreements are in place with these individuals as to duties/responsibilities, compensation, participation and organizational structure. Obviousiy no one has been "hired" yet because the store will not open for another 16-18 months but when the hiring process starts we have a pool of) cashiers, butchers, produce specialists and assistant managers that we will hire from. An outline of duties and a preliminary schedule is attached for your review. 4. You mention a 20 year history of observation of the former market. This is a significant opportunity to provide some detail about what you have learned from those years of observations? Response: The success of the JJ&F operation was built on decades of service to a neighborhood that grew up around the store. As time passed, it was the wish of the operator to relocate to El Camino Real so as to market the store to a larger client base while maintaining the neighborhood feel of the operations. Accomplishing the relocation of the store is step one. Step two will be to expand on a sixty plus year history of providing excellent service and afull spectrum of products. Historical sales data will be used as a basis for stocking the new store with products that have proven demand. The Garcia's made it very clear that the neighborhood does not shop at the store for their large grocery purchases. Historically the main business was the meat department and the deli department. However, buying habits have changed and are fluid. Beef is no longer a primary food source, with poultry and fish now making up a much larger portion of the household diet. By maintaining close communications with the core neighborhood client base, the 300 +/-on site employees and the larger community, products will be adjusted from time-to-time to meet current demands and needs of our clients. With a propensity for prospective customers to buy locally and a commitment to quality product and customer service, we are confident that we can build on a 60 plus· year history of success in a newly designed and better located store. 5. l think it would be helpful if you are able to be more specific about the management team and their experience. I am not suggesting the names of individuals be provided, but listing the specific positions each individual would fill within your organization and detailing the experience or background of each one of those key individuals within the management or advisory team is Important. Response: Please see our response to question #3 above and the schedule and assigned responsibilities outlined therein. 6. How many total people within walking distance? I am sure you have those numbers, and it is generally public knowledge and won't give anything away. Response: J&A Family Market has been developed to provide a full service grocery operation within walking distance of the College Terrace neighborhood, the adjacent housing for professors, grad students and coaching staff, those residing in Escondido Village at Stanford University, and the work force in the adjacent Stanford Research Park. I Please reference the attached 1-3-5 Mile Demographic data. These customer groups have a history of "walk-ability" and rarely use their vehicles to shop at the store, preferring to either bike or walk to do their shopping. There are approximately 20,986 residents in a 1 mile radius, 140,425 in a 3 mile radius, 275,708 in a 5 mile radius. Further, 2014-2019 estimated growth trends are positive and reflect a strong and growing sales base. Additionally, there are approximately 20,000 employees in the Stanford Research Park, many of which are within walking distance of the store and have historically provided a strong daytime client base -http://lbre.stanford.edu/realestate/sites/all/lbre- shared/files/docs public/Stanford%20Research%20Park%20September%202012.pdf. 7. This section really needs to be beefed up beyond two sentences. Who will you outreach to? And how? You can keep it broad by giving generally categories of outreach. For example, "senior housing communities" rather than Lytton Gardens. Also how will you outreach to net customers? Response: Marketing professionals will be retained to promote the new store and to accomplish outreach through community associations. Additionally, direct outreach to neighborhood organizations such as the College Terrace Residents Association {CTRA} will be pursued. In reviewing the concerns of the old JJ&F store, it was clear that location setback from El Camino Real was the primary deficiency. The new project design has been built around locating the grocery store to the predominant location on the block. With nearly 50,000 daily vehicle trips on El Camino Real, a European style store with colorful awnings and food displays, outdoor seating and spire signage, the physical asset will be a primary market/outreach tool. In addition, Marketing Professionals will be retained to advertise the grand opening to the community and press, and to market the store {through local publications, store and neighborhood flyers, electronic media, local community and civic organizations, Stanford University, and others) in its on-going operations. 8. I think you need to acknowledge Molly Stones in this statement. While they are not on El Camino Real, they are close by. Response: While we recognize and respect Mollie Stone's as a competitor, our outreach to the community to date indicates that El Camino Real acts as a physical barrier and impediment to shoppers. Therefore, we have focused on our primary client base, serving residents, businesses and employees adjacent to our location, such as employees from the Stanford Research Park and the university, and traffic from El Camino Real. 9. I like the layout, but this isn't a "professional" drawing. I would suggest having an architect or designer lay out the floor plan and include it as an attachment {you can insert the image here). You are going to need a designer to complete a floor plan during the Tl stage anyway. Also, please say why you have selected this floor plan -has it worked well in other locations? Where? Response: The store layout remains a work in progress. For example, the location of the project Grease Trap was finalized just prior to Plan Check submittal and subsequent to our discussions with Staff regarding this preliminary layout. Another factor still effecting the final lay out is the selection of adjacent retail tenants. To be specific, since this initial submittal we have entered into lease negotiations with a higher end restaurant that will occupy nearly one half of the remaining retail space. We have also had discussions with a second retail user that will effect whether or not we have a coffee subtenant/kiosk in the store. The result of these efforts is that we no longer anticipate a "traditional cooking area" in the store, but rather a "food prep" area. The impact of this change is the potential deletion of fire suppression equipment, major venting, gas line and drain locations, etc. Furthermore, these changes affect all display cabinet sizing (dry goods, cold and freezer), lighting locations, isle widths and sight lines within the store. While the basic layout of the store, such as point of sale systems {POS), has been vetted {i.e., the flow of the store will take the customer to the most purchased items: produce, dairy and deli) by visiting other similarly sized stores on the Peninsula, in the South Bay and in San Francisco. To that end we are interviewing firms that specialize in grocery store layouts such as East Bay Restaurant Supply, Berliner, Duray and Sudie and have also discussed preliminary plans with Carrasco & Associates, but we intend to defer finalizing plans until we have completed the garage and are starting the building structure or within nine (9) months of : I ~ J -I I I I 11 j j I : ( I : !I I ) - ~ our proposed store opening. At that time we will be able to better quantify display areas and needs, and provide plans sufficient to obtain our permit for tenant improvements. 1O. Sounds great -but where is this on the site plan? Please note. I would also elaborate on this as it is a cool concept that would attract people. Response: The Open Air Market will act as both a primary marketing tool with bright/colorful eye catching displays visible from El Camino Real, and it will also provide an added seating area adjacent to the fence enclosure for this area. The produce bins and merchandise will be located up against the window line so people can't just grab things as they are walking along El Camino Real. The seats and tables will be located along the 4ft high fence that goes around the open air market. We plan on offering free wi-fi and flat screens for viewing. Customers will only be able to acces and exit this area by going through the store. 11. Once again, need examples. You don't need to be specific, but we do need some broad categories of outreach noted. And a timetable of those outreach efforts leading up to the grand opening. Will you be having a ribbon cutting ceremony? Response: As construction progresses, we will have notification signs erected on the project announcing future tenancies. As we progress toward occupancy we will reach out to local publications and periodicals to generate press releases as we did with the announcements of our construction loan. This will be particularly impactful when we announce the restaurant tenant as the operator is a local, very well known and respected person that will generate considerable buzz. As construction nears completion, ribbon cutting ceremonies, Chamber of Commerce announcements and advertisements in local publications will be released leading up to and announcing the Grand Opening. These efforts and a calendar of events will be coordinated with all of the retail tenants to benefit their individual businesses. We are being very careful to emphasize the synergy we anticipate between their products and to maximize cross selling/mutual support as much as possible. We will not create a situation where a business suffers because it is being cannibalized by an adjacent use. 12. In our meeting you explained that the reason you decided to take on the financial risk of being the grocery tenant yourself is that you wanted to ensure that the grocery store would not fail. You did not want the let the community down, as was the case with Mikl's. This was a pretty compelling statement but you have not included that here. You should consider some discussion in your document about the "why?". What is your reason and motivation for tae difficulties that other developers king this on beyond the fact that you believe it will be a financially successful endeavor? Response: Ownership and the development team remain committed to having a successful grocery store as part of the project for another 60 years. When College Terrace Centre was originally envisioned, it went through a series of designs that focused on retaining and improving the grocery store. The grocer "wish list" was solicited from JJ&F and consisted in part of store size, location, access, visibility and numerous other factors that were all considered in the final plan and agreed to by the operator. The family has a sixty year history of supporting that use, as a customer, a public proponent and a generous landlord that provided economic benefits to the tenancy. As part of the planning process, and substantial expenditures in time, effort and money, a grocery location was agreed to and the project moved forward with that design as the keystone to the development. The ownership team remains committed to the successful operation of a grocery in the project. Having observed the difficulties experienced by other noted owners/developers in the Palo Alto market to keep their stores open and operating, the development team elected to open and operate the store themselves. This commitment to operations and service is unwavering. ,J Attachment F ·d~mographic Trend Report 1 Mile Radius ' ' < • , , ~ ~ ' ' :-' ,.. • ~ ~ ~ ' < <... '• ,..'i > l ~, ~ ' , ~ ' , 1 Age 0-4 974 4.79% 1,565 7.46% 1,752 7.86%j I Age 5 - 9 878 4.32% 1,119 5.33% 1,505 6.75% Age 10 -14 837 4.12% 917 4.37% 1,208 5.42% Age 15 -19 2,027 9.97% 1,270 6.05% 1,134 5.09%II Age 20 -24 3,504 17.23% 2,225 10.60% 1,482 6.65% Age 25 -29 3,049 15.00% 2,870 13.68% 2,095 9.40% Age 30-34 1,392 6.85% 2,331 11.11% 2,389 10.72% Age 35 -39 970 4.77% 1,483 7.07% 2,104 9.44%II Age40 -44 970 4.77% 1,081 5.15% 1,589 7.13% ,_ .. Age45-49 1,082 5.32% 1,027 4.89% 1,233 5.53% Age 50 -54 1,027 5.05% 1,031 4.91% 1,094 4.91% Age 55 -59 936 4.60% 986 4.70% 1,043 4.68% 11 Age60-64 783 3.85% 876 4.17% 965 4.33% Age 65-69 614 3.02% 716 3.41% 837 '3.76% Age 70-74 427 2.10% 530 2.53% 670 3.01%i Age75-79 329 1.62% 378 1.80% 486 2.18%I . Age 80 -84 246 1.21% 262 1.25% 323 1.45% Age 85+ 287 1.41% 319 1.52% 372 1.67%I f. White 13,265 65.24% 13,569 64.66% 14,415 64.70% Black 668 3.29% 692 3.30% 729 3.27% Am. Indian & Alaskan 100 0.49% 106 0.51% 108 0.48% Asian 5,212 25.63% 5,535 26.37% 5,878 26.38% Hawaiian & Pacific Islander 42 0.21% 45 0.21% 46 0.21% Other 997 4.90% 1,039 4.95% 1,104 4.96% 6/11/2014This copyrtghted report contairs researd1 licensed to Casady Turley-628813. Page 1 J ' Demographic Trend Report 1 Mile Radius J: r 1. White Black Am. Indian & Alaskan Asian Hawaiian & Pacific Islander Other <$25,000 $25,000 -$50,000 $50,000 -$75,000 $75,000-$100,000 $100,000-$125,000 $125,000 -$150,000 $150,000 -$200,000 $200,000+ 1,358 85.79% 1,432 86.06% 46 2.91% 48 2.88% 48 3.03% 49 2.94% 48 3.03% 48 2.88% 3 0.19% 5 0.30% 79 4.99% 82 4.93% 1,776 22.23% 1,642 19.95% 1,176 14.72% 1,335 16.22% 948 11.87% 962 11.69% 787 9.85% 737 8.95% 367 4.59% 474 5.76% 596 7.46% 653 7.93% 734 9.19% 677 8.23% 1,604 20.08% 1,751 21.27% 1,525 86.30% 49 2.77% 50 2.83% 50 2.83% 3 0.17% 90 5.09% 1,700 19.45% 1,454 16.64% 1,015 11.61% 757 8.66% 535 6.12% 706 8.08% 695 7.95% 1,877 21.48% 6/11/2014This copyrlghted report contalre researe!l llcensed to Cassidy Turley-628813. Page 2 r I --- ---- 'Demographic Summary Report • ' ' ~ , • ' ' ' J ' : ' ; -~ ' --------------------------------------·------ I I I I I 2019 Projection 2014 Estimate 2010 Cens_us Growth 2014 -2019 Growth 2010-2014 22,280 150,003 20,986 140,425 20,332 132,530 6.17% 6.82% 3.22% 5.96% 294,182 275,788 261,382 6.67% 5.51% White Black Am. Indian & Alaskan Asian Hawaiian & Pacific Island Other 13,569 64.66% 95,259 67.84% 692 3.30% 5,876 4.18% 106 0.51% 708 0.50% 5,535 26.37% 31,108 22.15% 45 0.21% 1,824 1.30% 1,039 4.95% 5,649 4.02% 195,774 70.99% 11,437 4.15% 2,118 0.77% 51,638 18.72% 4,059 1.47% 10,763 3.90% 2019 Projection 2014 Estimate 2010 Census Growth 2014 -2019 Growth 2010 -2014 Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 8,740 57,001 8,231 53,338 7,988 50,437 6.18% 6.87% 3.23% 5.76% 3,021 36.70% 26,970 50.56% 5,210 63.30% 26,368 49.44% 108,838 101,990 96,848 6.71% 5.51% 53,473 52.43% 48,517 47.57% Income: <$25,000 Income: $25,000 • $50,000 Income: $50,000 -$75,000 Income: $75,000 -$100,000 Income: $100,000-$125,000 Income: $125,000-$150,000 Income: $150,000 • $200,000 Income: $200,000+ 1,642 19.95% 6,975 13.08% 1,335 16.22% 7,735 14.50% 962 11.69% 5,942 11.14% 737 8.95% 4,798 9.00% 474 5.76% 4,951 9.28% 653 7.93% 3,568 6.69% 677 8.23% 5,110 9.58% 1,751 21.27% 14,259 26.73% 13,766 13.50% 15,646 15.34% 11,765 11.54% 9,703 9.51% 9,572 9.39% 7,106 6.97% 9,582 9.40% 24,850 24.37% 6111/2014This copyrighted report contairJl research licensed to Casady Tu~ey • 628613. Page 3 Demographic Market Comparison Report 1 mile radius I I !. 6/11/2014This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Cassidy Turley-628813. Page 4 I i , I I ! Demographic Market Comparison Report 1 mile radius --------~-------·--------.--_------------------------------ Ir c• .. r· : ''o"r ·c ' •='"•Jr"= l' , '~ \ • •' • ~ .,,. 1 • • •. \ r( , ,. :r· 1...\JI~ ' Growth 2010 -2014 3.23% Growth 2014 -2019 6.18% Renter Occupied 5,210 63,30% Owner Occupied 3,021 36.70% Income <$25K 1,642 19.95% Income $25K -$SOK 1,335 16.22% Income $SOK -$75K 962 11.69% Income $75K -$100K 737 8.95% lncome$100K-$125K 474 5.76% Income $125.K-$150K 653 7.93% Income $150K -$200K 677 8.23% Income $200K+ 1,751 21.27% 5.38% 6.86% 269,919 364,259 89,472 97,445 84,063 81,217 69,794 45,544 70,566 96,077 42.56% 57.44% 14.11% 15.37% 13.26% 12.81% 11.01% 7.18% 11.13% 15.15% County: Santa Clara '!:\ _,' ,,, ~~E~;J~f1ttl~t[o1?.·}(~-iC;}~!~111~~;~1~~q~~Tu~5(i~~=~t:;i~~:~~~,-l~ .~ ~.__,·~, ~~~~;4~-~;~~}_:.~~~~:1x~;3~~~~~~(t~~~~~~:~~~~~l:~f.~~if~~~~i~kl~ia,s~~:~'Ii~j~]~E~~:~:}~J:~i;[fr!~~~~~~-:· Growth 201 O'-2014 3.22% 4.87% Growth 2014 -2019 6.17% 6.75% Employed 9,652 96.79% 914,325 92.20% Unemployed 320 3.21% 77,330 7.80% White Black Am. Indian & Alaskan Asian Hawaiian & Pacific Island Other 64.66% 1,090,706 58.38% 692 3.30% 55,327 2.96% 105 0.50% 26,418 1.41% 5,535 26.38% 614, 188 32.87% 45 0.21% 9,266 0.50% 1,039 4.95% 72,469 3.88% This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Cassidy Turley -628813. Page 5 6/11/2014 'Demographic Detail Report .· .'' --. , ,•' ' --------------r ,.----, I I ,1 , I ! Ir· i I r 2019 Projection 22,280 150,003 294,182 2014 Estimate 20,986 140,425 275,788 2010 Census 20,332 132,530 261,382 Growth 2014 -2019 6.17% 6.82% 6.67% Growth 201 O -2014 3.22% 5.96% 5.51% <~1~µn11iiii1~1":~"'lf]ilili:!~lii'4'1~iun11P.~i!Wffiilil'!mH~m11~um~"l!!~llW~!!l!i'$.'Ji~!l.ifi~mpnmrourr1i1~111~1amJJ~ifil,~m1~1ru•~~!i'iffiru~mmnuU!m11~1m~~i1fqllin1!ii•1~s1mliii@liil~j~w1"1l~lf:iil11111m1m11:•Hiumm111i!iiOOi!l!i~ur'~~lllffiil!~ilil!Jl.ll;l.ig,Jlj!rij1H1"l'IJl'""11•"~'1~i@r:m~a~ii~f~llfliw~1~1~·1BOJlWUlb~l'lt~ffiHllmli~.~y~~n~Jlim!Jtfw~fi1&~mmt~~H1iJPj\l~~UJ~.IMlli.~lli1~Ullill!P.\lli\~~~~\k~1~~!U~!W.1~~~\L~i~.tlWi~t~~a~~J~\W.U.~.,l~J~~~l~i~~~~ili~li~Jrul«1W~~~DU~~NIMlt1n~I~ Age 0 - 4 1,565 7.46% 9,110 6.49% 18,008 6.53% Age 5 - 9 1,119 5.33% 9,008 6.41 % 18,032 6.54% Age 10 -14 917 4.37% 8,815 6.28% 17,464 6.33% Age 15-19 1,270 6.05% 8,808 6.27% 17,001 6.16% Age 20 -24 2,225 10.60% 9,528 6.79% 17,360 6.29% Age 25 -29 2,870 13.68% 10,459 7.45% 19,400 7.03% Age30-34 2,331 11.11% 10,143 7.22% 20,129 7.30% Age35-39 1,483 7.07% 9,630 6.86% 19,680 7.14% Age40-44 1,081 5.15% 9,723 6.92% 19,678 7.14% Age45-49 1,027 4.89% 9,891 7.04% 19,674 7.13% Age 50 • 54 1,031 4.91% 9,485 6.75% 18,975 6.88% Age55-59 986 4.70% 8,382 5.97% 16,995 6.16% Age 60 -64 876 4.17% 7,195 5.12% 14,668 5.32% Age65-69 716 3.41% 5,823 4.15% 11,735 4.26% Age70-74 530 2.53% 4,438 3.16% 8,794 3.19% Age 75 -79 378 1.80% 3,370 2.40% 6,481 2.35% Age 80 -84 262 1.25% 2,680 1.91 % 4,957 1.80% Age 85+ 319 1.52% 3,938 2.80% 6,758 2.45% Age65+ 2,205 10.51 % 20,249 14.42% This copyrighted report contalra researd! licensed to CssEidy Tu~ay.628813. 38,725 14.04% 6/11/2014 Page 6 :: 1 j - :-1 I c· I j I I ' j : I ! ! Demographic Detail Report ' • < ' , • - , ' : ' ------------------------------------------------------------------ ·~~''1011111-'.1,111,-·,q,11llt=' ·;-.1,v, tjk •r. 9 'o 0 / m1JJ~I ' II'~~,,. : ; ~~l'I' ,-u' ,lu *!I! • •' J •q1~: "~: White 13,569 64.66% 95,259 67.84% 195,774 70.99% Black 692 3.30% 5,876 4.18% 11,437 4.15% Am. Indian & Alaskan 106 0.51% 708 0.50% 2,118 0.77% Asian 5,535 26.37% 31,108 22.15% 51,638 18.72% Hawaiian &Pacific Island 45 0.21% 1,824 1.30% 4,059 1.47% Other 1,039 4.95% 5,649 4.02% 10,763 3.90% Non-Hispanic Origin 19,322 92.07% 118,441 84.34% 209,790 76.07% Hispanic Origin 1,664 7.93% 21,984 15.66% 65,998 23.93% Civilian Employed 9,652 56.36% 67,121 60.07% 134,326 61.37% Civilian Unemployed 320 1.87% 3,669 3.28% 8,758 4.00% Civilian Non-Labor Force 7,155 41.78% 40,928 36.63% 75,652 34.56% Armed Forces 0 0.00% 13 0.01% 147 0.07% Married 3,353 26,215 51,303 Married No Children 1,762 12,823 25,829 Married w/Children 1,592 13.~92 25,474 Some High School, No Diploma 238 1.67% 6,538 6.61 % 19,658 9.97% High School Grad (Incl Equivalency) 644 4.51% 7,275 7.35% 20,684 10.49% Some College, No Degree 1,515 10.62% 12,741 12.88% 30,634 15.54% Associate Degree 375 2.63% 3,774 3.81 % 9,261 4.70% Bachelor Degree 4,364 30.59% 27,236 27.53% 50,374 25.55% Advanced Degree 7,129 49.98% 41,367 41.81% 66,573 33.76% 6/11/2014This copylighted report contalrs researdl licensed to Cas!idy Turley -628813, Page 7 !JI ---------------------- - -- .L ·Demographic Detail Report L, L I ---~------------~-------~----;oll' ~"'111\'li'll!l'-ij'. he~'@F "" !f.l"'~< ''" ii!l!l -t • r: 0 0 • ~ 9 ·® "' • 0 Real Estate & Finance Professional & Management Services Information Sales Transportation Education & Health Retail Wholesale Construction Agriculture & Mining Farming, Fishing, Forestry <30 Minutes 30-60 Minutes 60+ Minutes 1-Person Households 2-Person Households 3-Person Households 4-Person Households 5-Person Households 6-Person Households 7 or more Person Households "',1\r- 1 !I : : :C:1illl 11 , - · •n lJ!! ' l " • ~ ~I 520 1.36% 9,070 23.72% 747 1.95% 602 1.57% 1,436 3.76% 452 1.18% 3,857 10.09% 491 1.28% 118 0.31% 337 0.88% 24 0.06% 7 0.02% ----------~---:·lMH:• ; IMH:' • ·jJi ' "" ".""" " " 1 : "': , """ r • ll ' ' D Q i' 'ITT 4,120 1.56% 7,853 1.49% 61,630 23.28% 110,729 20.97% 7,778 2.94% 19,478 3.69% 3,381 1.28% 7,081 1.34% 9,148 3.46% 21,191 4.01% 3,193 1.21% 6, 111 1.16% 20,294 7.67% 33,723 6.39% 3,939 1.49% 9,161 1.73% 1,172 0.44% 2,707 0.51% 4,227 1.60% 12,322 2.33% 117 0.04% 647 0.12% 25 0.01% 299 0.06% 7,059 80.20% 1,334 15.16% 409 4.65% 2,738 34.28% 2,870 35.93% 1,052 13.17% 921 11.53% 288 3.61% 93 1.16% 25 0.31% 47,591 76.79% 93,956 75.14% 11,631 18.77% 25,574 20.45% 2,753 4.44% 5,507 4.40% 15,355 30.44% 27,435 28.33% 15,880 31.49% 30,161 31.14% 7,362 14.60% 14,438 14.91% 7,295 14.46% 14,012 14.47% 2,720 5.39% 5,881 6.07% 963 1.91% 2,390 2.47% 861 1.71% 2,532 2.61% 2019 Projection 2014 Estimate 2010 Census Growth 2014 -2019 Growth 2010 -2014 8,740 8,231 7,988 6.18% 3.23% 57,001 53,338 50,437 6.87% 5.76% 108,838 101,990 96,848 6.71% 5.51% r 6/11/2014This oopynghted report contalrs research licensed to Cassdy Turley -628813. Page 8 I'I \ I ( I i I ___) J · Demographic Detail Report I -.. ', ' ' ., ---------------------------------------------------------------~---·~hof'"r-· 1.'1!th :\i1¥1tlk ·; IMH': •) ~ fi I~ !\;l ' ",, " -I I I r.; <~ I • 1''" II l u ' ! -il.li l Q • ~ I ·1 ' .:: 0.:: • .. <$25,000 . 1,642 19.95% 6,975 13.08% 13,766 13.50% $25,000 -$50,000 1,335 16.22% 7,735 14.50% 15,646 15.34% $50,000 -$75,000 962 11.69% 5,942 11.14% 11,765 11.54% L $75,000 -$100,000 737 8.95% 4,798 9.00% 9,703 9.51% $100,000 -$125,000 474 5.76% 4,951 9.28% 9,572 9.39% $125,000 -$150,000 653 7.93% 3,568 6.69% 7,106 6.97%I $150,000 -$200,000 677 8.23% 5,110 9.58% 9,582 9.40% $200,000+ 1,751 21.27% 14,259 26.73% 24,850 24.37% Owner Occupied 3,021 36.70% 26,970 50.56% 53,473 52.43% Renter Occupied 5,210 63.30% 26,368 49.44% 48,517 47.57% 1 Unit 4,229 49.39% 31,922 56.24% 64,556 60.04% 2-4 Units 867 10.12% 4,203 7.40% 7,539 7.01% 5-19 Units 1,435 16.76% 7,511 13.23% 13,701 12.74% 20+ Units 2,032 23.73% 13,124 23.12% 21,719 20.20% <$100,000 15 0.50% 384 1.42% 1,027 1.92% $100,000-$200,000 35 1.16% 487 1.81% 909 1.70% $200,000 -·$300,000 14 0.46% 664 2.46% 1,435 2.68% $300,000 -$400,000 . 43 1.42% 1,079 4.00% 2,863 5.35% $400,000 -$500,000 67 2.22% 1,340 4.97% 3,169 5.93% $500,000 -$1,000,000 614 20.32% 7, 111 26.37% 16,364 30.60% $1,000,000+ 2,233 73.92% 15,905 58.97% 27,705 51.81% I i I Built2010+ 344 4.01% 3,472 6.09% 6,222 5.72% Built 2000 -2010 891 10.39% 4,751 8.33% 6,589 6.06% Built 1990 • 1999 766 8.93% 3,599 6.31 % 6,309 5.80% Built1980-1989 947 11.04% 3,526 6.18% 8,160 7.51% Built 1970 -1979 1,087 12.67% 7,363 12.91% 16,105 14.81% Built 1960 -1969 880 10.26% 8,692 15.24% 19,107 17.58% Built 1950 -1959 1,120 13.06% 13,602 23.85% 25,866 23.79% Built <1949 2,544 29.65% 12,028 21.09% 20,357 18.73% This copyrighted report contalra research licensed to Casady Turley-628813. 6/11/2014 Page 9 I I ------------------------- J · Daytime Employment Report 1 Mile Radius -' ~ :. , ' ----------~---~-----------------~----------~-------------- -I I I J Retail & Wholesale Trade Hospitality & Food Service Real Estate, Renting, Leasing Finance & Insurance Information Scientific & Technology Services Management of Companies Health Care & Social Assistance Educational Services Public Administration & Sales Arts, Entertainment, Recreation Utilities & Waste Management Construction Manufacturing Agriculture, Mining, Fishing Other Serv'ices 133 75 42 96 50 556 0 271 43 8 12 36 32 23 0 102 1,124 1,367 241 1,127 564 4,515 0 1,348 1,068 55 176 415 372 5,327 0 707 8 18 6 12 11 8 0 5 25 7 15 12 12 232 0 7 6/11/2014This copyr111lted report contalrs research licensed to Cassdy Turley -628813. Page 10 I. I I I -·-·· ----· ·-----· . ---. -__ --·~-~--·----<-~~-~ , ----L - : ~-J Traffic Count Report • S California Ave S California Ave College Ave el Camino Real Park Blvd Oregon Expy JJ}!fJ~~),p·-\ . /<.,.•/./A"',,-., '-<.. /;/'" ''·'~~-·.. :,// .,'"";I "lif~ .,., .-"",..,~·~ ;~/r~~~ ..... -.:,r:;>!h-,, )0'<-' ' .~~ . <~ . '# ~~~~..... ~••/ ?,!').); 1 << ,,,.~!t, ,, )~ 'V/ "-.,"c,") ~~~·····~,.~· Cambridge Ave 0.03NW Grant Ave 0.03 SE Princeton St 0.03 SW Princeton St 0.03SW Oberlin St 0.03SW Princeton St 0.03 NE Palo Alto Sq 0.00 Grant Ave 0.02SE Ash St 0.06NE 2007 2012 2012 2007 2006 2007 2012 2012 2012 1,529 1,645 5,382 5,173 1,659 8,543 39,830 10,089 34,260 ADT MPSI MPSI ADT ADT ADT MPSI MPSI ADT .15 .28 .33 .33 .35 .36 .36 .37 .41 6/1112014Cassid · This copyrighted report contains research licensed to Cassidy Turtey-628813.Tili:IeY/.__ Page 1 . YI~"''""""~- i I ~ I I ,- 1 I Exhibit 14 ,. .. , : I , ' ' I' i l l , j : l 1 I MISSION STATEMENT r I COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET offers a vintage shopping experience with quality food I selection, service and price. It is a higher-end market that utilizes a price-impact format that breaks the rules of both conventional and natural foods grocery stores by lowering prices, supporting small-scale food manufacturers and local farmers. While creating the ambience of a relaxed, stress free shopping environment while operating as a well- organized business. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET WILL -Create, operate, and develop a sustainable basis for the Store, its employees and investors, the community, and the environment. , I I -Sell a wide variety of organic, natural, and healthy groceries and other real food and conventional items that fit the Store's profile while continually developing resources and better ways to offer the best possible prices. -Champion the cause for delicious, fresh, local, and seasonal meals and foods while demystifying the basics of shopping for food. I I , -Provide jobs to local employees, offer excellent products and services to customers, and improve shopping options for local residents. -Operate on a sound financial basis of profitable growth and increased value while creating career opportunities and financial rewards for the store's employees. -Conduct its business in a consistent manner with honesty and integrity in all ' ' i I. matters with its employees, customers, suppliers, and the community in which ·__, we live and work. -Identify the importance of people as individuals, and recognize that the contribution of our employees is the cornerstone of the Store's success. i I Exhibit 15 I ' ; ; 'i l, - I ' ! ' i ' ' \ I j I c 1 ~-1 1 I VISION AND VALUES COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET avows that good food should be a right, not a privilege. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET will create a large, joyous gathering attracting thousands of culinary artists and food connoisseurs, producers and purveyors, grangers and growers, farmers and ranchers, cheese makers and winemakers, bakers and beekeepers, fishermen and foragers -all united by a passion for food and for a sustainable future. ; I COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET is helping foster a new food nation. The whole ! I I I process of thinking about food, deciding what to eat, shopping for the L__J ingredients, and cooking and eating a meal is the purest pleasure. It is too much fun to be reserved exclusively for "foodies." Indeed, cooking and shopping for food brings rhythm and meaning to our lives. Daily cooking improves the economy of the kitchen. A garden brings life and beauty to the table. There is enormous pleasure in cooking quality food simply, and in sharing the cooking and the eating with friends and family. Cooking creates a sense of well being for yourself and the people you love, and brings beauty and meaning to everyday life. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET will provide regular shopping routines that are pleasing, efficient, and economical. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET is a price-driven, upper-end format, obtaining image through merchandising and buying "right." COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET will encourage local and community participation for the benefit of the Company, its employees and investors, ~ i the city of Palo Alto, and the environment. The Company believes in the importance of economic growth and profits in order for it to remain competitive, provide jobs, and preserve its financial strength. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET will be a leader in the marketplace -never a follower. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET will quickly capitalize on market trends and growth, offer innovative and dynamic merchandising, implement aggressive buying techniques, and understand and faithfully serve its customer base. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET believes in astute management and well-trained employees. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET plays an essential role -acting as a purchasing agent for the consumer. By creating and operating a price-impact, higher end grocery store, allows us to offer delicious, affordable, wholesome food that is organic, local, and seasonal. Freshness is key. There is little comparison to the beauty, smell, taste, and feel of fresh natural ingredients. Touch conveys so much about freshness, ripeness, condition, and texture. Vegetables and fruit just harvested have a vitality that one can see and taste and smell. That is one of the arguments for buying locally produced food: the closer you are to the source, the fresher the food is likely to be. Local quality organic food is critical. It will taste the best because it will have been grown in healthy soil. The food we eat is simply not wholesome if it contains harmful chemical residues. And by choosing to buy food from farmers and ranchers who produce food organically, together we support the people who are taking care of the environment and nurturing the soil. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET -real food with real quality, selection, and price. Exhibit 16 ~ .. ' I ' . I I '· I l ! \ "··" , , i I i , ( BUSINESS OVERVIEW If you are what you eat, and what you eat is what you become, then it's all about the quality of food you eat. It has also become the fastest growing paradigm in the grocery industry -organic, natural, and healthy foods. And people wanting these real foods are voting both for their health and against a marketplace that has increasingly provided them with "food products" that could hardly be considered real or whole food. In fact, more than 60% of shoppers surveyed considered themselves either health conscious or very i health conscious. I Format College Terrace Market is a return to basics -real food with real quality, selection, and price. Its format breaks the rules of both conventional and natural foods grocery stores by lowering prices, supporting small-scale food manufacturers and local IIr i farmers, and creating the ambience of a relaxed, interesting shopping I , environment while operating as a well-organized business. The tenets are simple: Develop an attractive store model, an appealing design, a branded store name, an enhanced "esprit de corps" among employees, and improved product lines. The store will be an exceptional mix of local products made by small-scale businesses and farms with local flavor and local appeal on the shelves along side name-brand products, all at moderate prices, in an eclectic atmosphere. It's a viable and extremely successful concept. Viewed as an open-air, European-style market, the proposed College Terrace Market at 2100 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California, is located in an attractive area, and meets the demographic guidelines: a collegiate community located in a medium-sized, prosperous Bay-area suburb with ·an : _ J educated population, including lower economic areas, where value is recognized and patronized. Core Ingredients With fresh, local produce making up one-third of the sales floor, the store will offer a wide variety and choice of sustainable, organic foods (grown without chemicals), natural foods (minimally processed), and health foods (highly beneficial to health) that are uniquely integrated with conventional, namebrand products. Also featured will be an assortment of bulk foods, international cheeses, olive oils, vinegars, spices, and coffees, meals-to-go, an "A"-list deli, homemade soups, service meat and fish, range-free, grass-fed angus USDA prime and choice cuts of beef, smoked meats, and cage-free chicken. There will also be dairy products, frozen foods, dry groceries, beer, an outstanding selection of wines, and sundries, all moderately priced and available for everyone. Creating "destination" shopping is key; the store will be a "complete shop." , I The essential role of College Terrace Market is to act as purchasing agent for the consumer, offering excellent products and services to customers while improving shopping options to local residents. Further, the store will conduct its business in a manner that encourages community participation for the benefit of Palo Alto, College Terrace Market, its principals and employees, and the environment. I College Terrace Market will provide new job opportunities and financial u I rewards for its employees who will be well-trained and well-versed in customer service, and recognizes that their contribution will be the cornerstone of the store's ultimate success. Market Trends The store intends to capitalize on market trends and growth. Shoppers are migrating away from the conventional, chain, and mega-grocery stores because of high prices and gimmicks, and disenchantment with the corporate image. Research demonstrates that the new movement is toward the natural, organic, and healthy life-style foods. This concept is viable and extremely successful. College Terrace Market has expanded upon that movement by developing the concept of a local, community-oriented store. Since the El Camino location is under-stored, College Terrace Market is in a unique position to capture the marketplace in this area. j It's also a price-driven format, which obtains a more highly successful image through innovative merchandising and aggressive buying, and always passing the savings on to the customer. In other words, it's buying "right" while understanding the customer base. The store will serve as an exceptional, one-of-a-kind alternative to the chain and conventional supermarkets. I I I --1 The store will never be a follower in the marketplace. Advertising Marketing and advertising will not be conventional in nature. Instead, it will be comprised of word of mouth, in-store flyers, radio, strategically located billboards, and a strong internet/website presence. Its campaign will be dynamic and combine both brand image and a sense of merchandising urgency. Customers will shop the store because College Terrace Market will provide a legitimate incentive to shop -providing national brands and organic, natural, and healthy products at moderate prices. Vendor Support After years of nurturing thousands of vendor relationships, and helping develop, introduce, and promote new, unique, organic and natural products, and fresh, l_ocal produce to the marketplace, the vendor support for College Terrace Market and this store is unparalleled. Using moderate and aggressive pricing, utilizing specials offered by vendors and wholesalers, offering the convenience of discovering a wide range of unique grocery items, and making a commitment to healthy living is key to attracting and keeping a wide spectrum of customers -from hip to conventional, from the affluent to the working class to the low-or fixed income families, from professionals and the trades to students and retirees. Equally important, College Terrace Market will provide small-scale organic, natural, and healthy food manufacturers and local farmers and growers sufficient shelf space without the exorbitant real estate prices demanded by larger chains and corporate stores. As a result, customers will have a greater choice while supporting their local community of manufacturers and farmers. In addition, College Terrace Market will also develop high-quality, organic, private-label products. For the store and its vendors, it is providing the customer real food with real quality, selection, and price. Space The store will comprise approximately 9,000 SF. Date of Opening College Terrace Market anticipates opening the store in Fall 2015. Hours of Operation At a minimum, the store will operate as follows: Monday through Friday from 6:00AM-8:00PM, and Saturday-Sunday from 7:00AM-7:00PM. The store will close in observance of certain national holidays. Exhibit 17 . I . I L j ' . i I I . i l I I I I I : i ! ~-j ! i . I I J 08/23/2013 66:43 fi5(1 MOLLIE ~1TOHES .ET PAGE 02/02 UilS 11!RM1NAT!ON OF AGREEMENT TO J~EASE ("Agreement") b dated n~ of August~. 20'13 (the "Effective Date''), and is mitdc l>y and among JOSEPH E. OF,.5CHGER• .ELDORA O. !vfil..LER and PA'.m1CK SMAlLEY, all a.o trust¢es of the C.'l~A.l<A n. CHJ.l.CO'fP.. TRUST ("Owner'') nt1d JOI-JN GARCIA. an indblidunl ("GllrCfa "). [j A. Gaicia i~ a party to tb~t "ertnin Agreement to Lease elated Dc¢Cttl'bet 1, 2009 (the "A~t?llt to l.Cll.~e"} for (hat ozruiitl premises kJ~1cd on the norlJ1Woot corner of 2180 El Camino Real, Palo Alto. State of Cnlifomi;1 ("the Preml~e.~'') and known as College Tetr.'lce Cc1lf.r•~. consisting of approximately 8,ClOO sq1wrc feet on the Pri::rniscs, along with appt<>1d1nntely 2,000 square foot <>f outdoor roark¢ nnd 600 nqunte feet of dry stornge. The capitalized renn~ U.'!Cd and not otherwise defined herein ~hall hav1~ the same dc:fhiition a.~ se.t forth in the Agn-,cmcmt to U:w;e. U. Ptu:stmnt to Sl'..ction 4 . .3 of the Agreement to Lc1isc. Onrcla desu1:: to t.crruinn~ IJle ~cmcnt to tense upon tbc term~ and condilions ctllll.l'lincc! in this Ar.recment11 , I A. .!1lltt. Owner and Gnrcin ogree thnt, as of the Effective Date, 1hc Aflrecment to Lease shaiJ tcrrninnte u11ton111ti~1lly without. 'l'imhe-1· uction by lhc pnrtie..~ ("T~nation bate"}. B. Snrnpdcr ofJ..ease. S11bjl'.ct to thci !lm-r1s of this Agrc¢1nc11t and effective as Cof the Tem1inntlo11 Diiie., Garoia surnmdei'S. forfeits nnd quitclaims any nnd $ll intme~t in And to the Agreement to T..ellSe nnd t1ie 'li'remises to Owner, including without !imitation any :and nil opti911 rights granted therein. C. .§.1!.'01l.!1!ltr of~. Upon the Tenninntion J)nte, O'JJ:cin shall surrender all rights or intere.~t~ to possess th~ l'temisc.9 t0 Ownet<. D. ~sm,..~. Su~jcct to .an<.l <::011(.litiomld upon the t~'!'.l.l1s, ng.i:comc11ts, and repi<escntations hctcin contained. Owner acccpli; the reoninaclon of the AgN"..imcnt to Lease as of the Te:rmin»tmn Dn1c. IV. GENf<.iRAL. A. .Mfil<W's Fm. 11m provisions of the Agrccmof\t to Lca.~c re.~pecting, I oucrney'~ foe~ sh:1ll 11pply lo this Agi-aer<'lent 1 13. Govet1'1ing Ll!.,'IY.· Thi~ Agreement and any enforcement of ~he ngn-,cments, nckrlawfodgmcnts and n:prcscutatfons Q( Owner nnd G:u'Cia :iet forth above shiill be governed by and construed iii accordnncc with tho J,.aw~ of the State of C~Hforni11. D. ~,9.IJD..~. lf thfo Agre:e111eni in cxccntCi.l in counterplll'l<;, <11ich connterpart shnll be dr..emed tto origiml. TIJis A,grei;mcnt slmll bQ dec1r.ed cx.ccute<;l nnd dclfvercd t1pon each party's delivery of e.,eciited sip,:mitnre pnees of th.is Agreement. which sigti~(um pnges may be ifolivero!l by li1r~imill! ur email wilh the i::ime effect as delivery ofthe o!'igirmls. · Signaturr..1· tm the fo1!11wi11g p<tlJt 08/23/2013 15:18 PAX 208 73A 8500 '.l'he UPS Store 3386 @0011001 68i23i2G13 1:~: 42 650 Aug 23 13 02:00p Oaschgsr &0:1 AD\/ENTERA 4Uti·745·5145 PAGE: p.1 02/1'.12 09/23/2013 . 06! 411 6503232357 ttU...UE STONES MARKET PA~ 0lnll n . J I I -1 Exhibit 18 i ' I I ~·~. I •. I ~ I I I I , I I I, ' ' I I I ' I i j ' ' ! ! 11/1/2010 ' ' '-~ Dear JJ&F Customers, Friends, Family, Since 1948 JJ&F has been an institution in the College Terrace area of Palo Alto. We have been there through thick and thin, good times and bad, births and deaths. 62 years of family and fun. If you add up all our years, Lloyd, Dennis and John have been in this location for over 145 years. You, the Cusfomer have been our family for t~ose 145 years. I rea.lly wish this was to be a happy letter to you, but we can't hide it any longer. It is with great sorrow that rhave to tell you that JJ&F has been sold. Between this terrible economy, and the ·new shopping habits, we can no longer compete. We are a union shop so our costs are much higherthan non union. We don't have the buying power of our competition, so things cost more. We have tried, but we can;t do this any longer. We have sold our assets to a very nice person that has the means and knowledge to make your J neighborhood store much better. He also has the means to build the new market, and is planning to do .J I so. We were lucky to find Issa Aho of Emerald Market in the Emerald Hills area of Redwood City, looking for another location. He has a very nice quality store, with a knowledgeable staff, something we think you deserve. If you like JJ&F, we think you will love Emerald Market. Please understand that they ~re here for YOU, because we can't be. REMEMBER THIS...In order to have a neighborhood market in YOUR neighborhood, you MUST shop there. 1: ( We also want you to know that JJ&F's leaving has nothing to do with the College Terrace Center, and or our landlords. They have been very forgiving to us this last year. They have tried to help us get through this, been very patient with our late or skipped rents. Since the last City Council meeting a lot has happened to us. Mostly, Trader Joes has opened. We didn't think that they would hit us as hard as 'they did. We have lived through many tough stores, comjngs and goings, why woul.d this be any different. Well they are! JJ&F is not a business, it's a family business, a many family business. We have Joe, John & Frank, Lloyd, Dennis & John, Mike, Mike, Dan, Martin, Lupe, Juan, Gus, Elisa, Elmer, Efrain & Frank. Mostly ·though, we have you. Without you, JJ&F would have been gone a long time ago. We have had tears ofJ joy, with your families growth, and tears of sadness with loss. ft is now our time. 62 beautiful years! Thank you! Lloyd, Dennis & John Garcia I r Exhibit 19--~ ---; . I ,-i I I I, . I - 1 I I ( . I -) I J Jam es Smailey Adventara, Inc. P.O.BOX 620186 ~--1 Wo9dside, CA 94062 Re: Our welcome of a fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. Dear James: I i I have enjoyed my dental practice for nearly ten years at 1795 El Camino practically I across the street from 2100 El Camino at College Avenue. · We have enjoyed the success of this property and medical practice in the College Terrace neighborhood. Please approve the College Terrace Market as rapidly as you can under the ·leadership of Miki Werness and James Smailey. Sincerely yours, Tim Mulcahy, DDS I '. I ' 1 'j ' 1 '. j I I I l~ l ! i , I ' ' II James Smailey Adventara Re: Our welcome of Mild's fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. To Whom It May Concern; I have been a principal of Premier Properties for several years, Premier Properties is the largest manager and operator of buildings in the California Avenue District. We and our landlords and tenants look forward to the development of 2100 El Camino with a fine grocery store to replace JJ&F We are especially enthusiastic with the participation and management by Miki Werness. Please approve the College Terrace market as rapidly as you can under Miki Werness' leadership of grocery operations. Sincerely yours, Bradley Ehikian ;I ' I l ' , 1I I I I I ---' James Smailey Adventara Re: Our welcome of a fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. To Whom It May Concern; I am the owner of about 7/8 (help me out Brad) proeprteis in the California A veneu Business District. We are greatly excited by the redevelopment of a neighborhood grocery store to serve where JJ&F has been closed. We will all enjoy a higher quality and larger market store to now be operated by Miki Werness who established a fine Community reputation with his beautiful, fresh Miki's store at Alma Plaza. Please approve the College Terrace market as rapidly as you can. Sincerely yours, Bradley Ehikian ' J ' j I ' J James Smailey Adventara Re: Our welcome of Miki's fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. To Whom It May Concern; I was a principal and general partner with Jim Baer when we developed 555 College that is directly south and across the street from former JJ&F market. I continue to own a few key buildings in the California Avenue District,foremost on the corner of El Camino and California Avenue We look forward to the re-development of 2100 El Camino with a fine grocery store to replace JJ&F. We are especially enthusiastic with the participation and management by Miki Werness. Please approve the College Terrace market as rapidly as you can under Miki Werness' leadership of grocery operations. Sincerely yours, Rick Holmstrom ) I James Smailey Adventara, Inc. P.O.BOX 620186 Woodside, CA 94062 Re: Our welcome bfa fine replacement store for JJ&F Market Dear James: I have enjoyed my State Farm Insurance office for over ten years at 2255 EI Camino practically across the street from 2100 EI Camino at College Avenue. We have enjoyed the success of our business in the College Terrace neighborhood. Please approve the College Terrace Market as rapidly as you can under the leadership of Miki Werness and James Smailey. We need a walkable grocery store. c : ' i Sincerely yours Je~· State Farm Insurance I ) POL.LOCK REA.LTY CCH'<!PORA.TION September 15, 2014 J runes Smailey Adventera Inc. 93 9 Laurel Street San Carlos, CA 94070-3943 Re:. Support for Rapid Approval of Replacement JJ&F Market by Miki Wemess Dear James: Pollock FRB, LLC is the owner of2755 El Camino Real. I have been excited to learn that JJ&F market is to be replaced by a new grocery store that will be managed by Miki Werness in conjunction with you. What a great opportunity for College Terrace and for California Avenue businesses. Please le~ me know how I can help. Sinscerely, ,/";(,,../2/Je -~" ~>-·)''(;/'~" Jeffrey 0. Pollock VP Real Estate/Marketing ! I ,I ! 150 Portola Road, Portola Valley, California 94028-7852 Telephone: (650)529-0500 Fax: (650)529-2131 www.pollockfinancial.com I i l ' Jeffrey A. Morris 2500 Sand Hill Road, Suite 240 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Mr. James Smailey Adventara To Whom It May Concern; I am the general partner of the property at 2275 El Camino Real in Palo Alto where First Republic Bank is located. We are delighted to hear about the neighborhood grocery store that is interested in the space wher~ JJ&F has been clo.sed. The employees of my tenant will enjoy the quality store which will be operated by Miki Werness, who established a fine reputation with his Miki's store at Alma Plaza. Please approve the proposed market at College Terrace as rapidly as you can. r -~ I. i I I I I James Newman, MD I September 14, 2014 I . l James Smailey r1 Adventara, Inc. P.O.BOX 620186 ' ,' Woodside, CA 94062 Premier Plastic Surgery 1795 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 T 650.321.7100 F 650 .323-3220 PremierPlasticSurgery.com info@PremierPlasticSurgery.com Re: Our welcome of a fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. Dear James; I have been an owner, general partner and developer for nearly 10 years practically across the street from 2100 El Camino at College Avenue. My building is 1795 El Camino where I also maintain my medical offices. We have enjoyed the success of this property and medical practice in the College Terrace neighborhood. Please approve the College Terrace Market as rapidly as you can under the leadership of Miki Werness and James Smailey. · Sincerely yours, /James Newman/ J?tmes Newman, MD i James Smailey Adventara, Inc. P.0.BOX 620186 Woodside, CA 94062 September 15, 2014 Re: Our welcome ofa fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. r: Dear James: I "J We are the owner of the·property located on the SE corner of Cambridge and El Camino about 1 block form 2100 El Camino. We are building a new fine building and may have our offices in this building along with other tenants. A fine neighborhood grocery store will add to the experience of our tenants and their business guests. Please approve the College Terr.ace Market as rapidly as you can under the leadership of Miki Werness and James Smailey. We need a walkable grocery store. Sincerely yours, Karen Kam Tai Ning Trading &Investment Co., Inc. I I I I '· I I' i PALO ALTO LAND USE CONSULTING James Smailey Adventara, Inc. P.O.BOX 620186 Woodside, CA 94062 Re: Our welcome of a fine replacement store for JJ&F Market. Dear James; I have been an owner, general partner and developer of over 10 properties in the California Avenue business district and along El Camino Real near 2100 El Camino. I re-developed an immediate neighbor at 555 College. We have enjoyed the continuing success of these properties in the California Avenue and College Terrace neighborhood. Please approve the College Terrace Market as rapidly as you can under the leadership of Miki Werness and James Smailey. Sincerely yours, James E. Baer 555 Bryant Street, Box 348, Palo Alto, CA 94301 I CELL: 650.814.7709 jimbaer@paloaltoland.com I www.paloaltoland.com I . ' ' Exhibit 20 :1 I~-, , I . ' . i I I . I From: "Silver, Cara" <Cara.Silver@CityofPaloAlto.org<mailto:Cara.Silver@CityofPaloAlto.org>> Date: December 8, 2013 5:03:51 PM PST To: "Po lentz, Michael" <MPo lentz@manatt.com<mailto:MPo lentz@manatt.com> > Cc: "Bohannon, Katerina" <KBohannon@manatt.com<mailto:KBohannon@manatt.com>>, "Reich, Russ" <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org<mailto:Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org>>, "Aknin, Aaron" <Aaron.Aknin@CityofPaloAlto.onz<mailto:Aaron.Aknin@CityofPaloAlto.org>> Subject: RE: College Terrace Centre (2180 El Camino real) Michael, ) Thank you for forwarding the commercial lease for the above project. This email confirms (i) the City Attorney's approval ofthe Commercial Lease as required by Section 4(b)(3) of~) Ordinance 5069 and (ii) that the applicant has now satisfied the necessary conditions precedent related to showing proof of a grocery store lease for purposes ofpulling the building permit for the project. Feel free to contact me ifyou have any questions. Regards, Cara [ cid:image002.png@O 1 CDA6CF .CD885FOO] Cara E. Silveri Senior Assistant City Attorney Office ofthe City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue IPalo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2171 IE: cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org<mailto:cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org> Please think ofthe environment before printing this email -Thank you. This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. Ifyou received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. j -----, Exhibit 21 ' r-1 1 c , I '1I i I -, ! I I I I ! I . I From: "Reich, Russ" <Russ.Reich@CitvofPaloAlto.org> To: "Patrick Smailey" <psmailey@adventerainc.com> Subject: PC ordinance language Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 10:34 AM Hello Patrick, Please see the highlighted language below. My only purpose in bringing this to your attention is to assist you and the project in this process. r l i (b) Special limitations on land uses include the following: ~ j (1) A grocery store, with an area of at least 8,000 square feet, shall exist within the development for the useful life of the improvements; (2) The grocery store shall be a neighborhood. serving grocery store that provides all the typical grocery store products and services of a neighborhood serving store such that it shall not become a convenience mart facility; " l J (3) A signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the City Attorney, shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits on the site. (4) The grocery tenant shall occupy and begin operations prior to any office tenant occupancy. (5) The below-market rate housing shall be occupied not later than 120 days after the first occupancy of the office building. No more than 50% of the office space shall be occupied prior to occupancy of the housing. (6) The grocery tenant, if it is a party other than John Garcia (DBA JJ&F), I shall be subject to the prior approval of the City of Palo Alto and shall not ..I be withheld unless the City reasonably finds that such proposed grocery tenant is not likely to be comparable in quality of products and service as J J &Fas it existed and operated on December 7, 2009. J I (7) The grocery store space shall remain in continuous operation as a grocery store. "Continuous shall be defined to include brief closure for ordinary business purposes. " -~J (8) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (9) The office uses within the project shall not exceed 38,980 square feet; (10) The 5,580 square feet of area designated as "Other Retail" on the development plan shall not be converted to ground floor office space; and (11) The "Other Retail" space may be occupied by retail uses, personal service use, or eating and drinking services only. (12) Use of the outdoor market area as shown on the project plans as being 2,447 square feet shall be limited to an open air market for grocery related uses only. -_J Russ Reich Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment City Council Members c/o Planning Director Gitelman City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5'• Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 7, 2014 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: I am writing today on behalf of Yelp Inc. in regards to our recently announced agreement to lease a significant amount of office space in the College Terrace Centre project, located at 2100 El Camino Real. While Yelp is extremely excited about expanding its presence in the Palo Alto community, I also want to express our support for another proposed tenant at the site, the College Terrace Market. Prior to committing to the College Terrace Centre project, Yelp considered numerous other locations in and around the Palo Alto area. This site stood out above the rest given its convenient access to public transportation for our employees, along with the availability of local retail and small businesses; in particular it's adjacency to the College Terrace Market. It is my hope that this full-service grocery will serve many of the produce and sundry- purchasing needs of Yelp's employees, in particular for lunch and other prepared meals. Yelp prides itself as being a company that connects people to great local businesses. As such, we made a conscious decision not to locate a cafeteria on site, thereby encouraging our employees to frequent local businesses in the area. As you continue through the process of approving permits for the College Terrace Centre project it is our hope that you will support the inclusion of the College Terrace Market. There are many reasons that Yelp is excited to have a larger presence in the Palo Alto community, from the caliber of workforce in the area, to the overall high-quality of life for our employees who will work out of the space. Yelp looks forward to having a long and positive relationship with the City of Palo Alto. If you would like any additional information or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 415.230.6557. John Lieu Director Real Estate & Facilities Yelp Inc. Yelp Inc. 140 New Montgomery Street, gth Floor, San Francisco, California 94105 Attachment D - OPERATING AGREEMENT THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement'). dated November.!:/._, 2014 (the "Effective Date"), is entered into by and between J & A Family Markets, Inc., a California corporation doing business as College Terrace Market (the "Company"), and Uriel Chavez, an individual residing in the State of California ("Operator"). The Company desires to engage Operator to provide operating services as set forth more specifically below, and Operator desires to accept such engagement, on the terms and conditions set forth herein. In consideration of the foregoing and of the material promises and conditions contained in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT I. Engagement and Duties. Operator is hereby engaged as a Operator to the Company. In such capacity, Operator shall advise the Company's executives in connection with the Company's business and affairs, review and advise the Company with respect to the operation of a full service grocery store/market to be located on a portion of that certain real property commonly known as 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California (the "Property") and assist the Company's executives in formulating and implementing Company culture, vision, execution, strategy/planning. brand and major initiatives as more particularly described in Schedule l attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Any services not specifically set forth herein or on Schedule 1 shall constitute "Additional Services" and shall only be performed by Operator upon written agreement of the parties. 2. Term; Termination; Expiration. (a) Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue until terminated for cause or expiration in accordance with this Section 2. In addition, this Agreement shall terminate immediately upon the retirement, disability or death of Operator, or if Operator is arrested and charged with a felony or commits any act of moral turpitude. (b) Termination. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Agreement shall terminate immediately upon any of the following, (i) the dissolution, liquidation; or bankruptcy of Company, whether voluntary or involuntary; (ii) Operator's or Company's failure to cure their material breach of this Agreement within thirty (30) days following such party's receipt of written notice thereof from the other party; and (iii) Company's failure to make any monetary payments required under the terms of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice or statement therefore. ( c) Expiration. If this Agreement is not sooner terminated or extended as the case may be, it shall expire and terminate at the close of business on March H_, 2019. 3. Compensation. (a) Base Salary. In consideration for the services to be rendered under this Agreement, the Company shall pay Operator a salary at the rate set forth on Schedule 3 attached hereto per year, less taxes and withholdings as required by applicable law (the "Base Salary"). The Base Salary shall be paid in accordance with the Company's regularly established payroll practice. Operator's Base Salary will be reviewed from time to time and may be adjusted, in the sole discretion of the Company, but in no event to a level lower than the original Base Salary, as directed by the Board of Directors of the Company. (b) Bonus. Operator shall be considered for an annual bonus, which shall be within the sole discretion of the CEO and the Board of Directors, based upon the overall performance, operation and net- profit of the Company. 313251345.2 1 Attachment E - (c) Benefits. Operator will not be eligible to participate in any Company benefits or vacation, sick leave, medical, dental, vision, disability, 401(k) plan, car allowance and other employee benefits plans ofthe Company. (d) Forfeiture. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the compensation described in this section 3 shall be forfeited i( during the term of this Agreement, Operator is (i) terminated for Cause in accordance with Section 2(b) above or (ii) arrested and charged with a felony or commits any act ofmoral turpitude in connection with Operator' performance of duties hereunder. 4. Expenses. Operator shall be entitled to reimbursement for ordinary and customary expenses actually incurred in good faith in connection with the performance ofservices hereunder, provided that requests for reimbursement are accompanied by reasonable detail and supporting documentation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company shall have no obligation to reimburse aggregate expenses incurred in any calendar month in excess ofFive Hundred Dollars ($500.00) unless the Board shall have consented to such excess expenses in advance. 5. Confidentiality. In connection with providing services to the Company, Operator will have access to the Company's confidential information. At all times during the term ofthis Agreement and thereafter, Operator shall not disclose or use any confidential or proprietary information relating to the Company or its affairs, and shall use its best efforts to ensure its sub-operators do not disclose or use any confidential or proprietary information relating to the Company or its affairs, except for the benefit of the Company. This section 5 shall survive the termination ofthis Agreement. 6. Disclosure ofOpportunities & Conflicts of Interest. (a) Disclosure of Opportunities. During the term of this Agreement, Operator shall disclose and make available to the Company each and every development opportunity related to and within the scope ofthe Company's business ofwhich it becomes aware. (b) Conflicts ofInterest. During the term ofthis Agreement, Operator shall not enter into any agreement with any other person or entity nor provide services to any other person or entity that would be in conflict with or give rise to a conflict with the best interests of the Company, as reasonably determined by the Company. 7. Return ofProperty: Transition. Within five (5) days oftem1ination ofthis Agreement, Operator shall return to the Company all materials, books, files, manuals, equipment and 0th.er property that belongs to the Company, including any items purchased by Operator for which it received reimbursement hereunder. This section 7 shall survive the termination ofthis Agreement. 8. Non-Solicitation & Non-Interference. During the term ofthis Agreement and for twenty-four (24) months thereafter, Operator and the Company shall not, directly or indirectly, without the written consent ofthe other, solicit for employment, or advise or recommend that another employ or solicit for employment, any person that Operator or the Company, respectively, knows is employed by the other or any affiliate ofthe other. Further, each ofOperator and the Company agree that during the term ofthis Agreement and thereafter, it shall not take any action that interferes with the business ofthe other in a way that causes material damage to the other, such as, by way ofexample: (i) interfering with any ongoing business relationship between the other party and any other person or entity; or (ii) interfering with the other party's ability to receive funds from any person or entity that provides or contemplates providing funds to the other party. The obligations ofeach party under this section 8 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 9. No Partnership. This Agreement does not constitute a partnership or joint venture between the parties. This Agreement does not constitute any legal association which would impose liability upon one party 313251345.2 2 for the act or failure to act ofthe other. Neither party will have authority to act, to make any representation, to enter into any contract or commitment or to incur any liability on behalf ofthe other. 10. Indemnity. (a) The Company shall indemnify, defend, save harmless and pay all judgments and claims against Operator, any of its affiliates, and any of its officers, directors or shareholders, from any and all claims, losses, costs, damages, liabilities and expenses (collectively, "claims") ofany kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, incurred in connection with its performance of services as a Operator hereunder, except to the extent any such claim arises out ofthe negligence or intentional misconduct ofOperator or its agents. (b) Operator shall indemnify, defend, save harmless and pay all judgments and claims against the Company, any of its affiliates, and any of its officers, directors or shareholders, from any and all claims of any kind whatsoever, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs, except to the extent any such claim arises out ofthe gross-negligence ofor intentional misconduct ofthe Company or its agents. 11. Arbitration. Except for claims by the Company for injunctive relief under Section IO(b) above, any controversy, claim or dispute between Operator, on the one hand, and the Company and its officers, directors, employees and/or agents, on the other hand, in any way arising out of, relating in any way to, or connected with this Agreement, its enforcement or interpretation, or because ofan alleged breach, default, or misrepresentation in connection with any of its provisions, or arising out of, relating in any way to, or connected with your employment or termination ofthe same, shall be resolved through final and binding arbitration conducted by the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) (or their successor, and ifno successor, then by the American Arbitration Association (AAA)) before a single arbitrator, in Santa Clara County, California. Jn the event either party initiates arbitration under this Agreement, the party prevailing shall be entitled, in addition to all other relief, to reasonable attorneys' fees relating to the arbitration. The nonprevailing party shall also be solely responsible for all costs of the arbitration, including but not limited to the arbitration fees, court reporter fees, and any and all other administrative costs ofthe arbitration, and promptly shall reimburse the prevailing party for any portion of such costs previously paid by the prevailing party. Any dispute as to the reasonableness ofcosts and expenses shall be determined by the arbitrator. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall affect the party's ability to seek injunctive or other equitable relief, including but not limited to relief for unauthorized use or disclosure ofconfidential information. 12. No Tax Advice; Independent Counsel. Operator has not relied upon any representation or statement ofthe Company or its representatives with regard to the tax consequences of the compensation contemplated hereunder. Operator has been advised to seek and has sought independent cow1sel in connection with all tax and other legal matters pertaining to this Agreement, or has determined not to seek such counsel, having had adequate opportunity to do so. 13. Prohibition of Assignment. Operator may not assign or delegate any of its rights or obligations hereunder without first obtaining the written consent ofthe Company. 14. Notices. All notices required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be served personally or by depositing same in the United States mail, addressed to the party to be notified, by registered or certified mail, with postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or may be transmitted by facsimile or electronic transmission, and addressed to the party to its respective addresses set forth below, or to such other address as shall from time to time be supplied in writing by any party to the other in accordance with the procedures of this section. Notice sent by registered or certified mail, postage paid, with return receipt requested, receipt addressed as above provided, shall be deemed given upon actual receipt or upon the date such notice is tendered and refused delivery at the address provided for herein or the date of failure ofdelivery by reason ofchanged address ofwhich no notice was given. Ifany notice is transmitted by facsimile or electronic 3 transmission, the same shall be deemed served or delivered upon actual receipt. Any notice or other document sent or delivered in any other manner shall be effective only ifand when received. Company Address: Operator Address: J & A Family Markets, Inc. Uriel Chavez 274 Redwood Shores Parkway, #201 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Attn: Mr. James Smailey Email: jsmailey@adventerainc.com Email: uriel.chavez@gmail.com 15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Company and Operator pertaining to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous written or verbal agreements and understandings with Operator in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any amendment ofthis Agreement will be effective only to the extent such amendment is in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives ofthe Company and Operator. 16. Governing Law. This Agreement and the rights and obligations hereunder shaJJ be governed by the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia. 17. Severability. Ifany provision ofthis Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. 18. Waiver. Neither the Company nor Operator shall be deemed to have waived any right under this Agreement unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the waiving party. No delay in exercising any right shall be a waiver, nor shall a waiver on one occasion operate as a waiver of such right on a future occasion. 19. Insurance. No less than thirty (30) days prior to the grocery store/market opening for business, the Company and the Operator shall mutually secure and maintain during the term ofthis Agreement the insurance specified on Schedule 2 attached hereto and comply with the conditions set forth therein. 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each ofwhich shall be considered an originaJ, but alJ ofwhich together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 21. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE IN CONNECTION WITH OR ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, USE, DATA, OR OTHER ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE), HOWEVER IT ARISES, WHETHER FOR BREACH OR TERMINATION OF TIIIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING BREACH OF WARRANTY, OR IN TORT, EVEN IF THAT PARTY HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first set forth above. The Company Operator By:~ Name: Uriel Chavez J&AF a Califo By: 313251345.2 4 Schedule 1 Scope of Services • Operator will be responsible and have authority for managing all grocery operations including, but not limited to, vendor selection, purchasing, displaying, staffing, purchase and leasing ofgrocery equipment, including refrigeration, marketing, selling grocery inventories and developing recurring neighborhood and community programs for holidays and for periodic special events. • Operator agrees at all times to ensure that the quality, availability, and/or supply ofthe products at the grocery store/market are in strict accordance with all applicable Company specifications, which Company has the right to modify, change and update at any time and from time to time following sixty (60) days prior written notice. In the event of any such modification, change or update, Operator agrees to comply with such revised specifications immediately following the 60-day notice period. Operator shall promptly notify the Company if at any time he is unable to provide products that meet specifications provided by the Company. Without limiting any of the foregoing, Operator shall also be responsible for any and all product recalls instituted by any product manufacturers and/or distributors. • Operator, along with industry experts of his choosing, will be responsible for designing the grocery store/market, its refrigeration and display racks and other specialty features for the grocery store/market. • Operator will also manage the financial operations of the grocery store/market and implement POS systems, purchasing, display, staffing, marketing, vendor selection and financial accounting. • Operator will perform his services on all days that the grocery store/market is open for substantially all business functions. Operator will be expected to work at and be physically present at the grocery store/market no less than 40 hours per week unless otherwise agreed upon by the Company. 313251345.2 Schedule 2 Jnsurance Requirements [To be determined 30 days prior to market opening.] 313251345.2 Attachment F -URIEL CHAVEZ OBJECTIVE To be an integral team member where my experience, education, and skills will thrive and continuously improve in an environment that will allow for creative solutions based on innovative ideas and sound managerial practice. SKILLS Proven leadership and management skills in overseeing daily operations of corporate headquarters, three retail businesses, four managers, and 115 employees. Ability to develop and implement daily, monthly, and yearly retail growth forecasts and business plans to meet forecasts. Software: Strong Proficiency in all MS Office Applications- Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. Strong proficiency in retail Point of Sale systems including inventory controls and pricing. Certified Military expert in Spanish-verbal and written. EXPERIENCE 02/12-Current Ferma Corporation Division Manager Responsible for both the Debris Box Division and the Recycling Operations. Oversee all aspects of the two divisions with 21 employees. Ensure divisions meet quarterly revenue goals, DOT regulation compliance, Accounts Receivables, city and state reporting, safety program compliance, and assist sales teams with growing market share on continual basis. 10/09-09/10 MSI dba Hacienda Markets, San Mateo, CA 94401 Chief Financial Officer Established a 3 store distribution and logistics center of grocery, produce, and retail products. Responsible for the control of all internal financial systems and analysis necessary to carry out the company’s business in compliance with governing regulations, weights and measures, sales tax, signage, laws and accounting standards. Coordinated and developed company budgets and department financial analysis designed to increase production, lower inventory and hourly costs, and to meet or exceed quarterly budgeting goals. Prepared financial quarterly and annual summaries to present to Executive Management, financial institutions, and internal shareholders. Additional responsibilities included: providing management and development of staff in the areas of finance, budget, accounting, purchasing, insurance requirements, workers compensation claims, accident prevention programs, POS training for management and front end employees, payroll and management information systems. Continuously improved the budgeting process, improved cash flow projection process, and reporting mechanisms through education of department managers. Maintained professional relationships with vendors, clients, staff, local city and county officials, and community affairs. Led 4 managers and 115 employees. 06/05-10/09 Latino Grocers LLC, dba La Hacienda Market, Sacramento, CA 95820 LLC has adopted new name of LG Pharmacies, LLC dba San Miguel Pharmacy LLC Manager, Owner Responsible for the complete operation of a 24,000 sq.ft. Hispanic grocery store. Established management structure and in house training and promotion program for management positions. Developed Year-round forecasting for procurement and allocation of proper staffing, equipment, POS upgrades, and strategic inventory for specific time of year sales. Negotiate pricing and delivery with outside companies to establish ordering, purchasing, and inventory guidelines to maximize product availability, lower overstocked inventory levels, and lower cost of goods. Established employee standard operating procedures to meet business and government requirements for safety practices, job responsibilities, insurance requirements, workers compensation claims, prevention programs and behavior and conduct policies. Developed a marketing program to increase awareness and sales and increased customers 150%, increased individual purchase average 70%, and total sales 200% within 2 years. Maintained accounts payables, payroll, legal documentations, purchasing contracts, insurance requirements, workers compensation claims, and meeting Federal and state deadlines for documentation and tax reporting. Led 2 managers and 22 employees. 02/02-03/05 MSI dba Hacienda Markets, San Mateo, CA 94401 06/02-03/05 Chief Financial Officer Responsible for the control of all internal financial systems and analysis necessary to carry out the company’s business in compliance with governing regulations, laws and accounting standards. Coordinated and developed company budgets and department financial analysis designed to increase production, lower inventory and hourly costs, and to meet or exceed quarterly budgeting goals. Prepared financial quarterly and annual summaries to present to Executive Management, financial institutions, and internal shareholders. Additional responsibilities included: providing management and development of staff in the areas of finance, budget, accounting, purchasing, insurance requirements, workers compensation claims, accident prevention programs, payroll and management information systems. Continuously improved the budgeting process, improved cash flow projection process, and reporting mechanisms through education of department managers. Maintained professional relationships with vendors, clients, staff, local city and county officials, and community affairs. Led 4 managers and 65 employees. 02/02-06/02 Project Manager Identified, defined and expanded the range of products and services offered to consumers. Coordinated and conducted business analysis, facilitating and producing specifications for staff and vendor products services. Evaluating, selecting, and managing implementation of vendor products and services. Expanded media relations and promotions for continued growth and development. Developed, implemented, and maintained Management Training program. 04/99-04/05 US Army Reserve, Military Intelligence, Dublin, CA Imagery Analyst Managed the collection, analysis, and interpretation of geographic information for strategic planning. Researched and prepared maps and other spatial data for legal, political, education, and design purposes. Top Secret SCI Clearance Granted Assistant Security Manager Responsible for the management and maintaining security documents, personnel records, administering security interviews, and ensuring security policies were accurately maintained. 02/00-12/01 United Parcel Service, Operations Management, Menlo Park, CA Lead Supervisor Successfully managed and implemented projects that established standard reporting procedures, which increased efficiency, reduced salary and transportation expenses, and increased on-time departures to 98%. Directed daily operations, managed policies and procedures documentation, oversaw inspections for quality controls, training of new employees, conducted strategic operation information meetings, and supervised air and ground operations for on time departures. Coordinated operational planning and staffing with logistics, human resources, and corporate headquarters for optimum effectiveness. EDUCATION Menlo College, Atherton, CA Bachelor of Science in International Business Management US Army Intelligence School, Certified as an Imagery Analyst (96D-10), Fort Huachuca, AZ Joseph Oeschger College Terrace Centre 2100 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA November 9, 2014 VIA HAND DELIVERY City Council Members c/o Planning Director Hillary Gitelman 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Re: Surety for Continued Performance of a Grocery Store at 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Gitelman and Council Members: In recent meetings with City Staff, our team has discussed the rent guaranty offered by the project owner, the Clara E. Chilcote Trust, to lenders ensuring the payment ofrent for College Terrace Market. This guaranty runs for the full twenty (20) year term of the lease. While this commitment of rent assurance is extraordinary in and of itself, and assures the likely success of a full service grocery, City Staff has commented that the City has limited mechanism in place to enforce the continued operation of the grocery as required in PC Ordinance 5069. As a further expression of our commitment to the on-going operation of the grocery, we offer the following: Should College Terrace Market vacate the premises and cease business operations, and a replacement full service grocery tenant/operator has not opened for business in the premises within six (6) months, the Clara E. Chilcote Trust, an irrevocable trust created under California law, will pay a penalty to the City of $375 per day, or $11,250 per month, until a new full service grocery store is open for business. The proposed "surety" or penalty is equal to one half of the Base Rent of $22,500 per month under the grocery lease, and represents a significant economic incentive to replace the lost rental income resulting from the vacancy and the cost of the penalty, which total $33,750 per month. Please note-the loss of Base Rent and the "surety payment" are in addition to the loss ofrecouping Operating Costs estimated at $10,000 per month. When considering the total economic cost of lost rent with a vacant grocery, the "surety" and the loss ofrecovering operating costs, the potential exposure to ownership is $43,750 per month. Obviously, this is an extraordinary incentive to work with the grocery to ensure its success and to work expeditiously to replace the tenancy should College Terrace Market cease business operations. 313259466.1 Attachment G - City Council Members clo Planning DireCtor Hillary Oitelman 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 November 9, 2014 .,. Page2 success and,to work expeditiously to replaceithe ~naI).cy should College Terrace Market cease business operations. ' .· . . I We appreciate your consideration ofthis proposal and look forward to your acceptance of same. Sincerely, ~J{)~ . Jqseph ~s~~ger ' Trustee ofthe Clara E. Chilcote Trust eel/Michael C. Polentz (via email) _.....,......·-- Spotwood, Alicia To: Reich, Russ Subject: RE: college terrace resident urges you to "pis go ahead" with the JJ&F development From: gfine@modeln.com [mailto:gfine@modeln.com] On Behalf Of Gary Fine Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:37 PM To: Council, City Subject: college terrace resident urges you to "pis go ahead" with the JJ&F development Hi there I am a 25+ yr college terrace resident and certainly enjoyed JJ&F over the years. However i believe that the development on el camino should no longer be held hostage to the demand for an equivalent deli/grocery store, and I urge you to approve the project so we can get that dirt lot "upgraded" :-) Clearly the difficulty attracting a competent and experienced grocery operator, coupled with the success of trader joe's and mollie stones, indicates that the time for a full fledged store in CT has passed. It would be nice to have a coffee shop+ deli+ .... , but i dont think we should be any longer dictating to property owners what the precise tenants should be. This may have been a good idea years ago, but the CT style of obstructing and delaying things has made the whole issue moot in my mind. So lets get on with the development, get some decent tenants in there, and get that area of our neighborhood re-vitalized without all these out-dated restrictions. thanks gary 1 Reich, Russ From: Sent: To: Subject: Gitelman, Hillary Monday, Nove.mber 17, 2014 5:57 PM Silver, Cara; Rei<:h, Russ FW: College Terrace Market This is another substantive comment on the College Terrace Market... Hillary Gitelman I Plann.ing Director I P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 9430~ T: 650.329.2321 IE: hillary.gitelman@cityofoaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email -Thank you! From: Jeff Levinsky [mailto:jeff@levinsky.org] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26 PM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Market Dear City Councilmembers: The information provided on the grocery store shows that JJ&F was losing money in 2009. Lloyd, Dennis & John Garcia's letter in the packet dated January 2010 explain this was ·due to the economy, new shopping habits, union wages, and their lack of buying power. They add that, "We have tried, but we can't do this any longer ... Trader Joes has opened. We didn't think they would hit us as hard as they did."· Any new non-chain grocery store in the same location will face the same competition and difficulties. But its operating costs will be even greater due to: • higher rents, per the lease, • reassessed property taxes based on the new construction (the lease has the grocer paying. these taxes, not the landlord), and • increased advertising costs and discounts needed to attract back clientele lost when JJ&F and its successors ceased operation. Based on numbers provided and some reasonable assumptions, here's a quick summary: Likely for New JJ&F JJ&F Grocer Change 10/09-3/10 Annualized Annualized from JJ&F Notes Rent $81,671 $163,343 $270,000 $106,657 Based on lease supplied agreement Property Taxes $2,753 $5,506 $37,953 $32,447 Based on additional 1 Attachment H - $400 per sq. ft. Advertising I Promotional I Coupons $16,738 $33,475 $66,951 $33,475 I Assume doubles - was only 0.79% of gross Net Income Before Taxes (Loss) ($41,947) ($83,895) ($256,474) ($172,580) In other words, the new store will likely operate even further in the red. Grocery stores that can't cover their costs go out of business, as Miki's demonstrated recently. The current submission indicates that the prospects for the proposed grocer are even more bleak than for JJ&F's, which failed. I don't see then how the new information given to the council is an improvement over that in August. Moreover, other grocery stores, including Miki's, have reportedly turned down this location. That suggests they also can't ~ee it being profitable. In a nutshell, the applicant's own submission suggests the new grocery will go broke and cannot provide the promised public benefit of an operating grocery similar to JJ&F. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky 1682 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 2 Reich, Russ From: Maryjane Marcus·< maryjane.marcus@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:49 PM To: Council, City Subject: 2180 El Camino -recommend grocery space reverts to City if it fails Dear Council Members, I know this 2180 El Camino process is far along but there might be a way to make it even better. As a resident of College Terrace, new mother and a longtime member of Transition Palo Alto, I urge you to: 1) Require that the 'public benefit' space at 2180 El Camino revert to the City of Palo Alto (for community space) at a reduced rate if the grocery store fails.. Why? •This requirement will ensure a lasting community benefit. It would be much more enforceable and lasting than a grocery requirement. It is impossible to enforce a Landlord leasing to itself, as is the case with the plan for the grocery store. As you know, the 'public benefit' process is problematic and is currently-under review because of some of its limitations. •Market conditions make it difficult for a market to succeed, so we need a contingency plan that preserves a public benefit. Alma Plaza has taught us a lot about this issue. · . • If the grocery store fails, low-cost or free community space is desperately needed in the Cal Ave area. DETAILS: Market conditions~ When this agreement was made, it was 2009, JJ&F was still in business and we did not have the Alma Plaza experience. Now there are other conditions (such as access) that may have led to Miki's market failing, but we know here it is going to be very challenging for any sizable market to succeed. Trader Joe's has opened and taken considerable business from Stanford students that JJ&F once had, and the community has come to rely on mo/lie stone's and country sun as well now that JJ&F has been gone for several years under its original owner (and last year under its subsequent). Value ofreverting to City for community space: Ifyou establish a plan that the lease reverts to the City if the market fails, we will be assured the building will have a lasting public benefit. There is a dire shortage of free/low cost community space in the California Ave area. The College Terrace library is small and open only daytime hours, and many of us, especially Transition Palo Alto, relied on WorldCentric (formerly at 2180 El Camino) for many film screenings, potlucks and gatherings. The future of our community depends on community space to support public goods and the betterment of the whole community. Transition Palo Alto has only been able to find church space far from Ca/Train now that WorldCentric has closed. It is important to have non-sectarian space. OR 2) Revert to the original Neighborhood Commercial zoning which is more appropriate for this space and given current market conditions. · Sincerely, Mary Jane Marcus College Terrace Resident & Transition Palo Alto Member (415)269-9079 1 Reich, Russ From: James Smailey <jsmailey@adventerainc.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:27 PM To: Reich, Russ; Gitelman, Hillary Cc: James Smailey; 'Jim Baer'; 'sandrighetto@comcast.net' Subject: FW: letter for city council Importance: High Russ below is an email from the owner of Shasta Produce, he can not make it this evening because he starts work at 3:00am but sent his email. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Andrighetto [mailto:sandrighetto@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:21 PM To: James Smailey Subject: Re: letter for city council Importance: High To whom it may concern My name is Steve Andrighetto and I am writing this letter on behalf of James Smailey. I have known Jim for 5 years. Jim . and I have discussed his new venture in the grocery business for over a year noW. I have been in the wholesale produce business for 30 years and have extensive knowledge about the grocery business. In my discussions with Jim, I feel that his store will be a tremendous asset to the Palo Alto community. That area of Palo Alto is in need of a a nice friendly neighborhood market and that is what Jim intends to do. I have worked with the previous tenant JJ&F market and have discussed this with Jim. I am convinced with Jim's new ideas and the upgrades he is planning his store will be a great neighborhood market .. I would highly recommend your approval in considering this market. Thank You Steve Andrighetto 1 Schedule 3 Compensation Schedule 1. 2. Annual Salary will be $80,000.00 Annual Performance Bonus will be up to 2% of the Company's net profit. 313251345.2 1 l,.;U~Nl,.U. ,.,...._•An""H 13; tlf'r£Plals Before Meeting[ 1 Received at MeetingSpotwood, Alicia To: Reich, Russ Subject: RE: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre -draft reply to russ From: Jim Baer [mailto:jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:12 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: james smailey; Patrick Smailey Subject: Fwd: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre -draft reply to russ November 14, 2014 To: Russ Reich, Project Planner Re: College Terrace Centre At our November 8 meeting with the The CTRA Board we delivered 20 sets of collated materials pulled from primary features of the entire project submittal that had been completed a few weeks earlier. We did not bring the entire submittal with its many pages of exhibits so that major issues presented in the hand outs could be discussed that evening. · When frustration was expressed about having incomplete materials we repeatedly advised CRTA attendees that you as City Project Planner had complete documents that could be reviewed at City Hall or that could possibly be received electronically if asked of you. That same evening the full project narrative was provided to Brent Barker for his further distribution to any other neighbors. All materials have been timely filed and there are only 3 brief letters submitted Monday November 10. There has been abundant opportunity for interested and prepared CRTA members to review all materials related to College Terrace Market. There will be unanswered questions and points of confusion that will deeply concern CRTA neighbors even during and after a City Council hearing; It is difficult to have the skills to process a comprehensive application and to discern business and land use issues without 1 political confusion if there is underlying immobile animus on the part of CRTA neighbors. We were advised on November 5 that the CRTA meeting would be November 15, a Saturday. We have conducted several meetings with CRTA Board and neighbors on other Saturdays. Jim Baer will be traveling November 19 and we would have so advised CRTA if they had indicated the next meeting request was for that date rather than November 15 as communicated, unfortunately, on November 5. CRTA could hold meetings this Saturday or Sunday as they often do, just as the applicant must further prepare this Saturday and Sunday in response to matters expressed by CRTA neighbors in emails today, November 14. It is now time to approve the operator of College Terrace Marketso the Market can be constructed, occupied and prepared to deliver fine products and services to CRTA superior to the products and services of JJ&F Market in December 2009 as is the standard of reasonable judgment by the City Council. Thank you, Jim Baer To: Mayor, City Council, City Manager ,From: Brent Barker, President, CTRA Board of Directors Re-: College Terrace Centre The CTRA Board has been informed by city staff that the College Terrace Centre matter will neturn to the City Council for consideration on Monday the 17th of November. Ifthe Council would like input from the CTRA, we request that this item be continued to a ·later date, allowing adequate time to review, analyze and discuss the new information that project representatives have recently made available to the neighborhood. Jim Baer, James Smailey, and Uriel Chavez attended our CTRA board meeting on November 5, provided limited material, and made brief presentations to residents. There were a number of unanswered questions and points of confusion that left us deeply concerned about the long-term viability of a full-service grocery store. Mr. Baer apologized for the incomplete set of materials provided, committed to provide them as soon as possible, and committed to return to a follow-up CTRA board meeting on Wednesday the. 19th. Approval on the 17th would preclude our follow up meeting on the 19th. 2 We would like to understand the incentives and guarantees the developer is putting in place to ensure continuous operation of a full-scale grocery store for the next 20-50 years. Similarly, we would like to understand the mechanisms the City has in place to enforce the continued operation of grocery as required in the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. 3 Spotwood, Alicia To: Reich, Russ Subject: RE: CTRA letter answering some CRTA questions~-that are in the City materials filed From: Jim Baer [mailto:jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:37 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: james smailey; Patrick Smailey Subject: Fwd: CTRA letter answering some CRTA questions --that are in the City materials filed Dear CRTA neighbors: College Terrace Market has incentives and protections in place that are extraordinary for a beginning grocery operation. 1. The rent is modest at $22,500 per month for total area of approximately 12,000 sq ft ofwhich 8,000 sq ft is sales area -and there is also exlucively available outdoor seating and plaza area totaling 2,44 7 sq ft and basement storage ~rea of approximately 600 sq ft -so all together approximately 12,000 sq ft for $22,500 per month. This was the transaction offered by the Landlord to ensure success of College Terrace Market by being far below market rate rents. 2. The landlord provides four and a half months free rent after the store has opened and begun operations. 3. James Smailey has invested over $750,000 cash into College Terrace Market to use these funds to leverage total dollars available from leasing freezers, racks and cooking appliances. The funds will also allow substantial credit lip.es with the primary good and grocery lenders so the store can be well stocked on a renewing basis. 4. James Smailey will guarantee any lessees or vendors for appliances and fixtures and groceries . .. 5. James Smailey has guaranteed payment by College Terrace Market to the landlord. 6. The landlord has guaranteed payment of rent from the grocery store to the lender and has committed not to create a default by the tenant since landlord will cover rental income requirements from the grocery store. t 7. The landlord is providing a surety to the City for $1000 per day as a penalty for each day that the grocery store is vacant after its initial occupancy; This is the penalty available to the City under PAMC. 1.08.010 8. Bringing Uriel Chavez to operate College Terrace Market with his unique experience (40 stores $200Million annual revenue) assures fine operation for the 20-year term of the Operating Agreement and the Lease. 1 Betten, Zariah From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:57 AM To: Council, City . Subject: #12: Whose Benefit? The Grocery Tenant/ Operator Bifurcation Council Members, The PC calls for "a signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the City Attorney." [PC 5069, your Attachment A, page 4, Section (b) 3] Was it the intent or expectation of any council member in 2009 that the lease (of up to 30 years) would go to an entity other than an established grocer? Highly doubtful. The split between grocery tenant and operator adds unneeded levels of complexity and makes if far more difficult to ascertain the suitability and chances for success of the grocery operation, and increases the likelihood ofturnover of a manager/operator hired via relatively short-term, at-will, employment contr~ct. The fact that the proposed tenant, his father and brother, have been, and unless evidence is presented otherwise, continue to be part ofthe Clara E. Chilcote Trust, which is now College Terrace Centre LLC for the purposes of construction, gives further credence that this unexpected and non-standard tenant-plus-operator arrangement has been put together to benefit certain individuals over that ofthe public. [Note: As per a 12/31/13 Construction Deed (obtained via public records from the county) between the Chilcote Trust as "Borrower" and Canyon Capital as "Lender" the members of the trust are identified as Patrick Smailey, his sons James and Shaun-Patrick, their company Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC in addition to Joseph Oeschger and Eldora Miller.] The easiest, best, and most logical way to find a grocer to meet the requirements of the PC, would be tQ promote the need for such a grocer, provide the location, and requirements, and offer each grocer the opportunity to directly assume the. lease. · Has the opportunity to explore, discuss, and negotiate the terms of the lease been made available to markets such as Sigona's, Roberts, Milk Pail, Piazzas, the Khoury Family, and suitable others? Ifso, what was the result? Was the rent too high? Was some condition unacceptable that could not be changed? Or was there some other reason? Ifnot a single one ofthe above mentioned or and other comparable markets was intereste.d in the lease, it is evidence that something is terribly wrong. This entire project was built around the location and prominence of the market on this site; the Garcias we were told, designed it to suit their needs. Just prior to the council meeting, in summer, 2009 overriding the PC denial at the P&TC, the city had the applicant forgo 6 of the BMR units so the market could be extended back further to Staunton Court to make it larger if needed. Canyon Capital has touted the location as "one of the most coveted addresses in the Bay Area ... the development's proximity to Stanford University and the Stanford Research Park provides a dynamic environment for prospective retailers and office users." http ://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2014/02/01 Icollege-terrace-centre-to-begin-construction-in-spring 4 Ifwe are to be told now that this location -one which requires that a quality grocer be there and with all incentives that the word "requires" implies --is not viable for a quality grocer or that no grocer is interested in directly assuming the lease and therefore, the best way, possibly the onlyway, to bring forth a grocer is to have one ofthe members of the trust, who has no experience in the grocery business, assume a 20-year lease from the trust and hire managers and employees, then all of us have truly been taken and the PC permit should be allowed to expire. Require that the lease be offered directly to established, quality grocers and have the representatives of the College Terrace Centre LLC report back on this effort. Thank you, -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street 5 Reich, Russ From: M. Fruth <mafruth@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:42 PM To: Council, City Subject: Hearing the People Your appointments at your last meeting are amazing. Did you notice we just had an election with a change of direction? 65% of the voters voted for a residentialist agenda. I haven't seen such thwarting of the public's will since the citizens' attempts to negotiate _a compromise on the Palo Alto Housing Corporation's Maybell project led to an expensive reversal at the polls. I believe you are capable of representing all of the city. Please prove me right! Margaret Fruth Note to staff: Please confirm that this email will be part of the city council packet for the Monday, 11/17/2014 meeting. Thank youl 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO.• CA Carnahan, David CHY. CLERK'S OFF113'E From: William Ross <wross@lawross.com> I~ NOV ig AH 1: 49 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 5:26 PM To: Council, City Subject: City Council Meeting; November 17, 2014; Agenda Item No. 12; Approval of the Proposed Grocery Store Tenant (College Terrace Market) Within PC 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Attachments: Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members of City Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.pdf Please see the attached. William D. Ross, Esq. Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professional Corporation Los Angeles: 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90071; Tel: (213) 892-1592; Fax: (213) 892-1519 Palo Alto: 400 Lambert Street, Palo Alto, California 94306; Tel: (650) 843-8080; Fax: (650) 843-8093 E-Mail: wross@lawross.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND AS SUCH IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT AN INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY REPLY E-MAIL OR TELEPHONE, AND DELETE THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ALL ATTACHMENTS FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU William D. Ross Palo Alto Office: Law Offices of Karin A. Briggs David P. Schwarz William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kypros G. Hostetter Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Of Counsel Facsimile: (650) 843-8093 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 File No: 1/10 November 17, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY City.council@,cityofoaloalto.org Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Council Meeting; November 17, 2014; Agenda Item No. 12; Approval of the Proposed Grocery Store Tenant (College Terrace Market) Within PC 5069 (College Terrace Centre) Based ori the Finding that the Proposed Grocery Tenant Would Likely be Comparable in Quality of Products and Services as JJ&F as it Existed and Operated on December 20, 2009 at 2180 El Camino Real Dear Mayor Shepherd and Members of the City Council: The matters advanced in this communication by a resident and taxpayer question whether Agenda Item No. 12 is properly before your Council to determine the now claimed comparability of the current proposal for a grocery store tenant at College Terrace Market ("Project") as required by Ordinance No. 5069. The following are issues yet to be resolved: 1. Regardless of the Staff recommendations, the circumstances under which the Project would be carried out have changed requiring major revisions to the previously approved Project Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq. "CEQA"); changes to the Project analysis are also required because of new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time of the Project MND which will have impacts previously not examined as to their impact on the physical environment; G:\001.010\L1R\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members of City Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page2 2. That the proposed penalty provision advanced by the Project applicant (Staff Report, Attachment G) in the event that a neighborhood grocery store is not maintained is inadequate to assure that any proposed grocery tenant would maintain a neighborhood grocery store at the Project site; and, 3. The matter of determining comparability of a neighborhood grocery store is not properly before the Council as the authority granted for the September 3, 2013 extension of the 2009 PC approval did not exist because the enabling authority for such an extension, Ordinance No. 5061 had sunsetted at the time the extension was purportedly granted. I. FUTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT UNDER CEQA The original PC approval was analyzed by a MND which, among other things, was based on technical information which is now more than five years old, a geotechnical investigation dated July 20, 2007, an environmental subsurface investigation dated April 7, 2008, a Transportation Impact Analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated February 18, 2009, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment dated November 21, 2005 and Santa Clara Valley Water District Groundwater Plume Map dated April 12, 2004. See, pages 28-29 of the Project MND. First, there are analogous CEQA requirements (See, Pub. Res. Code Sections 21080.20.5; 21081.2; 21155.3(c); 21157.6; 21158.5 and 21159.1) that information older than five years needs to be updated requiring in this instance that the underlying material for the Project MND be brought current. Separate and apart from the lack of current underlying environmental information is the method for assessing the adequacy of the prior MND with respect to the now contemplated action before the Council of finding comparability as to the now proposed tenant to provide neighborhood grocery services. The Staff recommendation is a discretionary action by the Council that is not quasi- legislative and is a Project under CEQA that is not otherwise exempt. The current Staff Report maintains that: The current decision regarding a specific grocery tenant would not alter the project as originally approved or analyzed, and no further G:\001.01 O\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page 3 (environmental) review is needed. However the Staff assertion is incorrect. CEQA Guidelines section 15162, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" provides that when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, a further environmental analysis shall be prepared when: . . . substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to ... substantial increase in severity ofpreviously identified significant effects or [if] new information of substantial importance which was not known previously has become available showing that there will be more severe impacts. Previously, the Project MND under Section 0 "Transportation and Traffic" based on the February 2009 Hexagon traffic analysis which did not include conducting a cumulative traffic analysis concluded that only two mitigation measures would berequired. One dealing with a curb cut approval by Caltrans and, Mitigation Measure #7 that a Transportation Demand Management ("TOM") ·program must be submitted and approved by the City Transportation Department prior to submittal of a building permit application. However, critical information was omitted from the Hexagon Traffic Study such as, any cumulative traffic analysis and any analysis of project impacts on the El Camino Real/Cambridge A venue intersection. First, Mitigated Measure #7 is prohibited as a deferral of the determination of a mitigation measure. See, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal App.3d 296. Further, because there was no cumulative analysis at the time of the PC approval (again more than 5 years ago) and there is no updated information, there is the need to perform that analysis now. Minimally, the following are Projects that have either been approved or applied for that need to have the traffic generated accounted for in any determination of a TOM mitigation measure for the Project: 1. The continuing lane reduction and utility relocation for California A venue; 2. The Mayfield Housing Project of Stanford University 1457-160 I California A venue; 3. The Project proposed at 2275 El Camino Real; 4. The Project approved for 385 Sherman Avenue; G:\00 I.010\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page4 5. The Project approved for 2209 El Camino Real (directly across the street from the proposed Project); 6. The Project approved for a 55,122 square foot four story building for 3159 El Camino Real; and, 7. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) action entitled "El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit Project" which was the subject of a Council workshop preceding this Council Meeting. The projects referenced authorize or would authorize the construction of more than a half million square feet of commercial and residential development as well as significant alterations to traffic capacity and composition on thoroughfare immediately adjacent to the Project, El Camino Real and the California Avenue traffic impacts. It would be a nullity to allow a TDM Program to be prepared for the 2180 Project without supplementary information on those Projects. The current Project MND is lacking in any recognition of the traffic generated by those projects or their cumulative impact. Additionally, the VTA Project proposes the dedication of one full lane of El Camino Real (directly adjacent to the open face portion of proposed College Terrace Market) for dedicated bus traffic. What impact this would have, on the aesthetics of the Project is unknown but certainly is an impact that should be evaluated. Also, there is no reference in the record, including the 2009 Traffic analysis of whether a fuel tanker truck accessing the adjacent Shell Gas Station could comply with the requirements of Vehicle Code Section 21650(e), among others because of insufficient width of El Camino Real. The need for further environmental evaluation is also present with respect to the determination in Section P of the Project MND about the availability of sufficient of water supplies (page 23) in view of the two declarations of Statewide emergency by the Governor of the State of California and of the adoption of mandatory water restrictions by the State Water Resources Control Board. Obviously the drought conditions did not exist and further mitigation measures are needed in this area, the extent of which would be determined in a further environmental analysis. These comments are timely, notwithstanding the very limited time provided by Staff for review of what is being proposed, as they are submitted prior to final approval of the Project. Pub. Res. Code Section 21177(b)(i). Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors, (2001) 91 Cal. App.4th 342, 384. G:\001.0 IO\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page 5 II. THE PROJECT APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL FOR A "PENALTY AGREEMENT", STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT G, IS INCOMPLETE AND WOULD NOT SERVE AS A BASIS OF SECURITYFOR THE PROPOSED NEIGHBORHOOD MARKET Again, assuming that a proposal for a tenant is found to be sufficient, the determination of the ability to implement that decision and secure the presence of a neighborhood market, as required by the PC must be present. A comparison can be made to more common conditions of approval for development such as the requirement of posting a security for the construction and maintenance of park or parkland or providing for improvements to a parking lot on a phased basis in the future. Either one of these conditions would be accompanied by either a performance bond or a letter of credit in an amount sufficient to accomplish both the construction of those conditions of development but also in an amount to encourage that the developer actually accomplishes them thereby obviating the need for the security. What is proposed here, which is only partly revealed by the Project applicant, is insufficient. First, it is not known what the balance of "surety agreement" is. or would be. The only thing presented in the November 9, 2014 communication is an offer of the following without reference to an agreement in which it would be contained whether it would be recorded as a restriction against the property, whether it would be a modification to the PC or other indication of how it would be affectively implemented: Should College Terrace Market vacate the premise and cease business operations, and a replacement full service grocery/operator has not opened for business in the premises within six (6) months, the Clara E. Chilcote Trust, an Irrevocable Trust created under California law, will pay a penalty to the City of $375 per day or $11,250 per month until a new full service grocery store is opened for business. Again, is not known how this so-called commitment of the Applicant would be accomplished. Whatever that method is it would involve further action by your Council not agendized for consideration tonight such as amendment of the existing PC. For example, it could be by way of a restriction recorded against the property. It could be by way of modification to the original PC approval, something not agendized. It also could be by G:\001.010\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page 6 way of an agreement between the City and the developer setting forth the terms and conditions of how it would be implemented if the neighborhood grocery would cease to exist. None of these are provided. Perhaps more importantly is the inadequacy of the monetary amount, whether it is chargicterized as liquidated damages, a surety amount or something else. Whether it is $375 a day or $1,000 a day the amount does nothing to assure the presence of a neighborhood grocery store when it is recalled that the whole basis for the Project is the tradeoff of slightly under 40,000 square feet of commercial office space for a neighborhood grocery store. At the now conservative estimate of $8 a square foot per month rental for commercial office space in Palo Alto, a monthly income from the Project at $320,000 would be forthcoming making the monetary amount proposed inadequate for any type of assurance of a neighborhood grocery store even assuming it could be used to obtain a neighborhood grocery store. There simply is no existing procedure for the City to implement the payment of funds for securing a neighborhood grocery store. Accordingly it must be concluded that the penalty agreement in inadequate to secure a comparable tenant assuming a comparable tenant can be found. III. THE RECORD DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT ORDINANCE 5069 WAS PROPERLY EXTENDED. An issue not dealt with in the Staff Report is whether the PC was properly extended by Planning Director action on September 3, 2013. (A copy of the "extension letter" is enclosed as Exhibit "B"). The Project PC had requirements for certain actions to take place such as the commencement of the Project construction on or before December 2012 unless extensions were granted [Ordinance 5069 section 4(g)]. Under the provisions of Ordinance No~ 5061, which became effective on November 7, 2009 permits granted could be extended for certain specific periods of time including by the Planning Director for one year. However, Ordinance No. 5061 section 2(f) provided as follows: (f) this ordinance shall be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council not later than March of 2011 and annually thereafter to determine whether it should remain in effect be repealed or further extended. G:\001.010\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto November 17, 2014 Page? A review of City records indicates that the last time that the matter of Ordinance 5061 was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission was a reference on March 5, 2013 a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit "C." There, the Chief Planning Official indicated with respect to a proposed extension for site and design review for a hotel at 1700 Embarcadero Road (the "Mings Development") that the extension would be in accordance with the Ordinance adopted on November 4, 2009-0rdinance 5061. The Planning Official went on to note: As you can see, we're near the sunset of this ordinance because this approval that is being requested to be extended was in April 2010. Without the annual review of Ordinance No. 5061 then the September 3, 2013 action of the Planning Director purportedly extending Ordinance 5069 would be without authority and void and the matter before you is moot. IV. CONCLUSION The proposal for a tenant that would provide a comparable neighborhood grocery store to that provided by JJ&F on December 20, 2009 should be delayed until: a) a further environmental review is conducted addressing the cumulative traffic impacts of the Project in conjunction with those approvals now proposed as well as the availability of water; b) the Applicant be required to provide financial security in the form of a performance bond or a letter of credit in an amount determined by the Director sufficient to ensure the presence of a neighborhood grocery store in the Project; and, c) that a) and b) only be required if it is determined that the PC authorized by Ordinance 5069 was properly extended because the procedures of annual review by March of each year had occurred with respect to the sunsetting authority of Ordinance No. 5061. Very truly yours, w~.L).~ William D. Ross WDR:bk Enclosures Exhibit "A" CEQA Guidelines section 15162 Exhibit "B" September 3, 2013 Director Letter purporting to extend PC 5069 Exhibit "C" Transcript of Chief Planning official remarks, March 5, 2013 G:\001.010\LTR\2014\Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor & Members ofCity Council (College Terrace Market) 111714.docx EXHIBIT A Page I •® LexisNexis0 BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS Copyright (c) 2014 by Barclays Law Publishers All rights reserved *This document is current through Register 2014, No. 44, October JI, 2014 * TITLE 14. NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION 6. RESOURCES AGENCY CHAPTER 3. GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ARTICLE 11. TYPES OF EIRS. 14 CCR 15162 (2014) ~ IS 162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent ElR shall be pre-pared for that project unless the lead agep.cy determines, on the basis ofsubstantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or nega-tive declaration due to the involvement ofnew significant environn1e.tjtal effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identifiedsignificant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances µnder which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous.EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant, environ-mental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not.known and could not have been known with the ex-ercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was· adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous HR; {C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially redl,l.ce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the miti-gation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (b) Ifchanges to a project or iis circumstances occur or new information becomes available &fter adopHon ofa neg-ative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine. whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documei1ta-tion. (c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discte-tfortary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not n')quire reopening 9f that approval. Ifafter the project is approved, any ofthe conditibrts described in subdivision{a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. shall only he prepared by the public agency wh.ich grants the next discretionary approval for the Page 2 14 CCR 15162 project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been ce1tified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice :!\nd public review as re- quired under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EiR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed. AUTHORITY: Note.: Authority cited: 8ection2I083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21166, Public Res61Jrces Code; Bo1vma11 v. City ofPetaluma {1986) 185 Cal.App.Jd 106); Benton v. Bo(lrd ofSupervisors (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department ofHealth Services et al. (1995) 38 CitI.App. 4th 1574. HISTORY: l. Ame.ndment of section heading, text and Note filed 8-19-94; operative 9-19-94 (Register 94, No. 33). 2. Amendment of subsection (c) and Note filed I0-26-98; operative 10-26-98 pursuant to Public Resources Code sec­ tion 21087 (Register.98, No. 44). 3. Change without regulatory effect amending subsections (b)-(c) and Note filed l 0-6-2005 pursuant to section I 00, title 1, California Code QfRegulations (Register 2005, No. 40). NOTES: LexisNexis 50 State Surveys, Legislation & Regulations Income Taxes EXHIBITB "·. ,._.., '';?\ ', gfy of Palo Alto Depa1·tment ofPlarming and September 3, 2013 Community Environment Patrick Smailey P.O. Box 620186 Woodside, CA 94062 Re: Property: 2180 El Camino Real Dear Mr. Smailey, This letter serves as confirmation that the approval for your project to constructa new mixed use development at 2180 El Camino Real has been extended f~r.~<,p,eflo~..q.f..~)'VQ .Years from the ·"'·"'-' ·I·· •1 f ); ,: 'lo \,~I . ·-~~ antic:ipated construction commencement date of Decetn~l!ri2Q12\speeified!:m.~thl~PPJ;QVed PC ordinance 5069. This extends the approval to"p~~m~e~~~ffi4. Q~df11~nc~~(061~Jt'fie·ie}(.(~~sii~ ordinance) approved by City Council on Oc~9per~.~;'200@fe'~tabllsh~~,afioyla~fes.fior the ~H_plic~nt'"'· .. to request a one year extension beyon!!;,try,jtfl'9e'•t~~.m~;gpeclfied§ln th~·de~eld~.~1.i~~~~ jNul~ <.) .. that was approved in the PC'or~lnan~e\Jri''addi,iion tll>jth.ij1on~,y,ear~~e:nsl,pn1tb~,?rdlf:lp ,. lso1•. .... _r.}~· "!-...~· ·~ -~~'-" ·~ ~· i~,. ~-.. ·~ provided for aone year aut.omatic ~xt.~n~.ion Jn iil;lqj,tiC>9.•~9,;~he~~~~.Y~.~JJ_eg'11~S,ted ex,;t.eo.~._on for a total extension of two years. Th~tO.idlnat;ice also m_.akes t>r'Pvisio'n fort~;~ applicatltloreq~e$t an·< i •· <" . ~· " •'•'. .. ,}'. . ];I'-< 1•,, :(.)' ' ~ extension of one additional ye~r..~ey<>nd··t~;, tw9 yelar~ but requires ~kf.~(.touncil apprbv.~I. ·,. ...l~ ..,:.:,.· !.·;' /' '· . / ./ <·:·-\ .· .. Ylti~· . . This project. approval was qfi~in~fift>1gr,~,nt~d..,~v.Ahe City Council o~~recember 7, 2009. ·Tbl.s·". approval is documented w~{h).h ~l~nnedi'qdm~unity Ordinance 505 :n ls the PC ordlnanc~' approved by Council to al!.o'4 tHe'censtructiojl of a new 57,900. ·· ot mixed use project. including retail, office, anc{i'~siqentiatus~s. This approval is based ci.ns dated received on . : .,. " ' . .October 22, 2009, The apP,.llc,ant:Jequ~st~d extension of ' this appro to the December 2012 . anticipated commencem~.M1dat~·:·orfsepterr)ber 21, 2012. ' ~-· ~-· _. ~ ' /;. ._ ..., ' -··;:71;1 If you have any questlonsiegarding this'lett~r please contact tn.~J~. ner, Russ Reich at ~:~.:·e3U9.. .. . . ...~~!{fi~~:-· {,,~.Ji. '. ~ :.t: :·~it< Aaron Aknlri, AICP Interim Dltect.or Attachment A: Extension Ordinance 5061 Attachment B: Table on Time Extensions for Valid Piariningint!tlemerjts . •' ,;~· ,. .-.. 250HamlltonAvenue P.O.Boxl~ PalQAlto/CA ~ 650.329.2441 650.329..2154 Pttnted with soy-b11nd lnkB on too'!'+ tt<y<led paper p1ol:ew!d will\Oul chlorltle Time Extensions for Valid Planning Entitlements Effective November 4, 2009 Table 1 (Revised per COUNCIL action) Time Extension -Permit Ufe ARB, DEE, CUP, VAR, IR, HIE, NPE (no automatic for historic incl. potentially eligible) Site and Design Review (not automatic for historic) Permit Type Current Code Requirements Initial Permit Allowed 2Life Extension($) 1-year1 year l year 1 year after Upto4years allowed extensi.ons by unless extension Director with ass<>dated findings GREEN with aVesting BUILDING Tentative Map 2 years l year after One extension0 Up to 4years unless allowed by Council after unless associated PTC-oneextension associated with a additional year with a Vesting Vesting GREEN Tentative Map Tentative BUILDING Map Planned Community Per 1 year 1 year after One extension Up to 3 years+ (not automatic for historic) alloweddevelopment by Council after timeline in schedule extension PTC-one development additional year schedule GREEN BUILDING 1. The ordinance applies to column one permit types valid from ordinance adoption through June 30, 2010. 2. Project applicants must apply for any extension (except automatic) prior to the permit expiratlon date. 3. Maximum permit life may be acquired through a combination of initial permit life, allowed extensions, additional extensions and automatic extension. The proposed project received three discretionary permits: a variance allowing the building to vary from "build to" lines; a rezoning.from Planned Community (PC) to Commercial Service with Design Review Combining District (CS(D)) by Ordinance and Site and Design review approval. In 2012, staff extended the project's Variance approval allowing the building to vary from ''build- to" lines. Council's rezoning decision does not require an extension because it is not a PC. The Applicant is requesting an extension of its Site and Design Review Approval which was granted on April 12, 2010. Under Ordinance 5061, Site and Design Review Approval Extensions must be recommended by the PTC prior to Council approval. Council's approval of the exte,nsicm would resul~ in a total permit life of four years, with commencement ofconstruction by April 2014. City of P(1/o Alto Page2 EXHIBITC 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 2 Draft Verbatim Minutes 3 March 5~ 2013 4 5 EXCERPT 6 7 Extension of Council Approval of a Site and Design Review Application for a Hotel at 1700 8 Embarcadero Road 9 10 Chair Martinez: Ok. We shall resume the public hearing of Planning Transportation 11 Commission (PTC) and fit~t we'll start with closing the public bearing on the last item. Let's 12 open the public hearing on Item Number 3. And this is, I have to recite it now; request for 13 extension of the Council approval of site and design review approval for a hotel at 1700 14 Embarcadero Road. We'll begin with a staff report. 15 16 Amy French. Chief Planning Official: Yes, thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning. Official, 17 onc.e again. Staff does recommend Commission recommend Council approval of the draft 18 Record of Land Use Action, Attachment A. This would allow a one year final extension of the 19 Council's April 12, 2010 site and design review approval for the Ming's Hotel project at 1700 20 Embarcadero Road. i1 f{th~,,~~~~~;io~~~~d ~~··in accordance with the ordinance that Council adopt~d:~~i:.&JV~AfBir 4k 23 f12009, in response to a recessionary based decline in development activity. This ordinance,t 24 ~t Ordinance 5061 is Attachment F to the report. The table was included in the body of the reportt1 25 !!to show you the range of projects, planning entitl~ments that could be extended through thisli 26 !iordinance. So it allowed for extension of permits approved before June 10, 2010. As you can~i 27 \]see we're near the sunset of this ordinance be.cause this approval that's being requested to bt1:Y 28 fjextended was April of2010. So we only have a couple of more months where this ordinance i~! ;~ ~;!.~~~~~t,,,,,..,'.t<<X: . . · f. 31 So the applicant does have a presentation and there are project plans available, but there are no 32 changes to the projects the applicant will be presenting. You can see the map on the screen there 33 shows the site and the surrounding area context. And staffs available for questions. So let me 34 call up the applicant's.presentation. 35 36 Commissioner Keller: Can I do a point of order please? 37 38 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller. 39 40 Commissioner Keller: Yes. ls this a quasi-judicial item? And if so should we declare any 41 contacts? 42 43 44 45 46 47 Chair Martinez: Fine. 48 49 Commissioner Kell~r: Thank you. 1 i~sta,nt City ¥w'b!fi1a be Schedule 3 Compensation Schedule 12 1. Annual Salary will be $80,000.00 2. Annual Performance Bonus will be up to 2% of the Company's net profit. 313251345.2 ---- CO~NCll. MEETING HI llff'l4 pl!Jed Before Meeting( 1 Received at Meeting· Spotwood, Alicia To: Reich, Russ s~~ctf'e RE: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre -draft reply to russ "\ r •••••• v ...-••• -•·•" ·--~ ---., ..........,, •••• -~ •••·~ -....... -· ·--· ........ ~·-·-· ~·-.-"•'• ··~-·~·...~.-....., ........ ~--..........~....................~ ••• ··•~......__,..,~ from: Jim Baer [mailto:jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:12 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: james smailey; Patrick Smailey Subject: Fwd: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre -draft reply to russ Noven1ber14,2014 To: Russ Reich, Project Planner Re: College Terrace Centre At our November 8 TI1eeting with the The CTRA Board we delivered 20 sets of collated materials pulled from primary features of the entire project subn1ittal that had been completed a few weeks earlier. We did not bring the entire submittal with its many pages of exhibits so that major issues presented in the hand outs could be discussed that evening. Wh~n frustration was expressed about having incomplete materials we repeatedly advised CRTA attendees that you as City Project Planner had con1plete documents that could be reviewed at City Hall or that could possibly be received electronically if asked of you. That s,ame evening the full project narrative was provided to Brent Barker for his further distribution to any other neighbors. All materials have been timely filed and there are only 3 brief letters submitted Monday November 10. There has been abundant opportunity for interested and prepared CRTA members to review all materials related to College Terrace Market. There will be unanswered questions and points of confusion that will deeply concern CRTA neighbors even during and after a City Council hearing; It is difficult to have the skills to process a comprehensive application and to discern business and land use issues without 1 political confusion if there is underlying immobile animus on the part of CRTA neighbors. We were advised on November 5 that the CRTA meeting would be November 15, a Saturday. We have conducted several meetings with CRTA Board and neighbors on other Saturdays. Jim Baer will be traveling November 19 and we would have so advised CRTA if they had indicated the next meeting request was for that date rather than November 15 as communicated, unfortunately, on November 5. CRTA could hold meetings this Saturday or Sunday as they often do, just as the applicant must further prepare this Saturday and Sunday in response to matters expressed by CRTA neighbors in emails today, November 14. It is now time to approve the operator of College Terrace Market so the Market can be constructed, occupied and prepared to deliver fine products and services to CRTA superior to the products and services of JJ&F Market in December 2009 as is the standard of reasonable judgment by the City Council. Thank you, Jim Baer To: Mayor, City Council, City Manager From: Brent Barker, President, CTRA Board of Directors Re: College Terrace Centre The CTRA Board has been informed by city staff that the College Terrace Centre matter will return to the City Council for consideration on Monday the 17th of November. Ifthe Council would like input from th'e CTRA, we request that this item be continued to a later date, allowing adequate time to review, analyze and discuss the new information that project representatives have recently made available to the neighborhood. Jim Baer, James Smailey, and Uriel Chavez attended our CTRA board meeting on November 5, provided limited material, and made brief presentations to residents. There were a number of unanswered questions and points of confusion that left us deeply concerned about the long-term viability of a full-service grocery store. Mr. Baer apologized for the incomplete set of materials provided, committed to provide them as soon as possible, and committed to return to a follow-up CTRA board meeting on Wednesday the 19th. Approval on the 17th would preclude our follow up meeting on the 19th. 2 We would like to understand the incentives and guarantees the developer is putting in place to ensure continuous operation of a full-scale grocery store for the next 20-50 years. Similarly, we would like to understand the mechanisms the City has in place to enforce the continued operation of grocery as required in the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. 3 Spotwood, Alicia To: Reich, Russ Subject: RE: CTRA letter answering some CRTA questions --that are in the City materials filed From: Jim Baer [mailto:jimbaer@paloaltolanduse.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:37 PM To: Reich, Russ Cc: james smailey; Patrick Smailey Subject: Fwd: CTRA letter answering some CRTA questions --that are in the City materials filed Dear CRTA neighbors: College Terrace Market has incentives and protections in place that are extraordinary for a beginning grocery operation. l. The rent is modest at $22,500 per month for total area of approximately 12,000 sq ft of which 8,000 sq ft is sales area -and there is also exlucively available outdoor seating and plaza area totaling 2,447 sq ft and basement storage area of approximately 600 sq ft-so all together approximately 12,000 sq ft for $22,500 per month. This was the transaction offered by the Landlord to ensure success of College Terrace Market by being far below market rate rents. 2. The landlord provides four and a half months free rent after the store has opened and begun operations. 3. James Smailey has invested over $750,000 cash into College Terrace Market to use these funds to leverage total dollars available from leasing freezers, racks and cooking appliances. The funds will also allow substantial credit lines with the primary good and grocery lenders so the store can be well stocked on a renewing basis. 4. James Smailey will guarantee any lessees or vendors for appliances and fixtures and groceries. 5. James Smailey has guaranteed payment by College Terrace Market to the landlord. 6. The landlord has guaranteed payment of rent from the grocery store to the lender and has committed not to create a default by the tenant 11ince landlord will cover rental income requirements from the grocery store. 7. The landlord is providing a surety to the City for $1000 per day as a penalty for each day that the grocery store is vacant after its initial occupancy. This is the penalty available to the City under PAMC. 1.08.010 8. Bringing Uriel Chavez to operate College Terrace Market with his unique experience (40 stores $200Million annual revenue) assures fine operation for the 20-year term of the Operating Agreement and the Lease. 1 [)d aced Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting November 13, 2014 To: Mayor, City Council, City Manager From: Brent Barker, President, CT.RA Board of Directors Re: College Terrace Centre The CTRA Board has been informed by city staff that the College Terrace Centre matter will return to the City Council for consideration on Monday the 17th of November. Ifthe Council would like input from the CTRA; we request that this item be continued to a later date, allowing adequate time to review, analyze and discuss the new information that project representatives have recently made available to the neighborhood. Jim Baer, James Smailey, and Uriel Chavez attended our CTRA board meeting on November 5, provided limited material, and made brief presentations to residents. There were a number of unanswered questions and points of confusion that left us deeply concerned about the long-term viability of a full-service grocery store. Mr. Baer apologized for the incomplete set of materials provided, committed to provide them as soon as possible, and committed to return to a follow-up CTRA board meeting on Wednesday the 19th. Approval on the 17th would preclude our follow up meeting on the 19th. We would like to understand the incentives and guarantees the developer is putting in place to ensure continuous operation of a full-scale grocery store for the next 20- 50 years. Similarly, we would like to understand the mechanisms the City has in place to enforce the--continued operation of grocery as required in the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. PALO ALTO City Council Members November 12, 2014 c/o Planning Director Hillary Gitelman City Hall 250 Hamilton Ave, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re; Upgraded Surety for Grocery Store Occupancy Dear Council Members: I have been authorized to upgrade and improve the Surety offer made by letter dated NoYember 9,,2014 with respect to continued occupancy of a grocery store at 2180 El Camino Real. Only yesterday did we learn that PAMC 1.08.010 provides a penalty of up to $1,000 per day for a zoning violatin which would occur if the grocery store becomes vacant (other than for short turn around time). We now offer $1,000.00 per day for any failure of 2180 to continue to be occupied by a neighborhood serving grocer store. Thanks for your help and consideration. I Sincerely yours, 1 Ji~~ I 5f)5 Bryant StrAet Box 348, Palo Allo, C/J., 94301 I Gb_L. 650.814.7709 jimbae:·fr~Jpaloa!toland.corr wiv\v -!~?.!oa!toland.corn Carnahan, David From: Brent Barker <brentgbarker@gmail.com> 14 NOV I~ AH (i: 3g Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:13 AM 'fo: Council, City; Keene, James Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Reich, Russ; ctraboard Subject: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre Attachments: CTRA Letter on College Terrace Centre 2100 ECR.doc Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager, Attached is a letter from the CTRA regarding the College Terrace Centre that will be before the City Council on November 17th. Brent Barker November 13, 2014 To: Mayor, City Council, City Manager From: Brent Barker, President, CTRA Board of Directors Re: College Terrace Centre The CTRA Board has been informed by city staff that the College Terrace Centre matter will return to the City Council for consideration on Monday the 17th of November. Ifthe Council would like input from the CTRA, we request that this item be continued to a later date, allowing adequate time to review, analyze and discuss the new information that project representatives have recently made available to the neighborhood. Jim Baer, James Smailey, and Uriel Chavez attended our CTRA board meeting on November 5, provided limited material, and made brief presentations to residents. There were a number of unanswered questions and points of confusion that left us deeply concerned about the long-term viability of a full-service grocery store. Mr. Baer apologized for the incomplete set of materials provided, committed to provide them as soon as possible, and committed to return to a follow-up CTRA board meeting on Wednesday the 19th. Approval on the 17th would preclude our follow up meeting on the 19th. We would like to understand the incentives and guarantees the developer is putting in place to ensure continuous operation of a full-scale grocery store for the next 20- 50 years. Similarly, we would like to understand the mechanisms the City has in place to enforce the continued operation of grocery as required in the ordinance. Thank you for your consideration. Carnahan, David :from: Diane Finkelstein <dianeef@comcast.net> I~ NOV f4 AH 8: 3i Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 6:16 PM Jo: Council, City Subject: Consideration of PC project for former JJ&F market .As a long time resident of College Terrace I was impressed with your response to the inadequate plans to replace JJ&F the last time it came before you. Because your concerns raised my concerns, I attended a meeting of the College Terrace Residents Association on November 5th to hear the applicants' presentation.of their updated plans. The presentation was very unsatisfactory on many levels. To be fair, all agreed, including the applicants' representatives, that the matter would be better presented at an extra CTRA 'Board meeting in two weeks, on November 19th when more materials could be considered. Now the Council is scheduled to hear the matter this upcoming Monday, November 17th . :P~ease continue this matter at least one week to allow all to carefully consider all the changed plans and assertions. Diane Finkelstein :Sent from my iPad t)lJY 0f PALO ALT@. QACarnahan, David eux GLERK'S (1fPteE From: doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 7:51 PM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Market Proposal Dear Mayor and City Council members, After reviewing the information for Monday night's Council meeting I am no more confident of the guarantee of the grocery store viability for the 2180 El Camino Real project than I was in August when the applicant came to you for approval; and I cannot imagine why the Council would be. Some of the problems listed below arise from the extremely short time between when staff received submittals from the applicant, and the the Council meeting on the 17th. My other concerns arise from the content of the same documents, including the "Visions and Values" statement that was brought by the applicant's team to the meeting with the CTRA and residents on November 5th. This is a partial list of problems, inconsistencies and questions that remain unanswered and extremely troubling. Very Best, Doria Summa Problems with College Terrace Market Proposal November 16, 2014 1 . INADEQUATE TIME FOR STAFF REVIEW: Most of the material from the developer describing the proposed grocery store was received by the city on the weekend of November 8-9, so the Veterans Day holiday, left staff just one business day (Monday) to review the materials before circulating the staff report on Wednesday. 2. UNSUPPORTED RECOMMENDATION: The staff report "recommends that the Council approve the tenant as likely to be comparable in quality in products and service to the former JJ&F market" but provides no details to support this. 3. CLAIM DOES NOT MATCH RESUME: The proposed grocery store operator, Uriel Chavez, is touted as having 25 years of experience in the grocery business but his resume says he hasn't worked in the grocery business for the last four years and lists only eight years of experience. 4. RESIDENTS NOT GIVEN ACCURATE INFORMATION: Mr. Chavez currently works for a local demolition company and manages their debris boxes and recycling operations, per his resume submitted to the city. However, this information was omitted from the resume version given to College Terrace residents. 5. RESIDENTS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE INFORMATION NOR PROMISED FOLLOW-UP: The College Terrace Residents' Association raised significant questions about the proposal and was promised further information by the developer to be delivered in the week of November 17 but has received nothing. The Association was also not given any information in advance of its meeting with the developer on November 5. 6. GROCERY DESCRIPTION CUT AND PASTED FROM ANOTHER SOURCE: Written materials touting the operations of the proposed grocery store are taken without attribution from Alice Waters' book "In the Green Kitchen: Techniques to Learn by Heart." For example, the developer says that the grocery store will be "a large joyous gathering [attracting ...] farmers and ranchers, cheesemakers and winemakers, bakers and beekeepers, fisherman and foragers -all united by a passion for food and for a sustainable future," which is taken word-for-word from the first sentence in Ms. Water's book. 7. INADEQUATE PENALTY: The proposed monthly penalty of $11,250 to be paid by the property owners if the grocery store fails to continue represents a very minor share of the significant profit generated by PC (Planned Community) zoning, which includes almost 40,000 square feet of new office space. 8. INADEQUATE INFORMATION ON OWNER: No background information or resume has been provided for James Smailey, the proposed owner of the grocery store. Doria Summa (650) 858 2920 Home (650) 867 7544 Mobile Carnahan, David From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:52 PM To: Council, City Subject: #12: Grocery Tenant: Non-Compliance Penalties Council. members, At your August 11 meeting on this item, council member Burt raised the topic of"ramifications ... for lack of continuous operation" of a market and whether the council could modify the existing PC Ordinance (#5067). As vesting had not occurred, City Attorney Stump indicated that was possible. [See bottom of page 25 to middle ofpage 26 in the agenda minutes (not included in your packet), but available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43838 In the last two pages of your packet for Monday's item, as Attachment G , and cited on the bottom of page 3 of your staff report you will find a letter from Joseph Oeschger, Trustee of College Terrace Centre, and a single paragraph of text with regard to the property owners' agreement to assume the obligation of a penalty of $375 per day ($11,250 per month) for each day a market is not open following 6 months of closure. A footnote at the bottom on page 3 of your staff report, indicates that the current penalty in the municipal code for zoning violations is $500, and has been interpreted to mean $500 day. Penalties are certainly appropriate for non-compliance of the overarching public benefit in this project. They will not adequately compensate for grocery store closure, or even slightly compare with the huge gain from commercial office rental of this PC, nor does their implementation discharge your responsibly to properly evaluate the proposed grocery tenant and operator before you (more on that in a subsequent communication), but it does send a message and can be an incentive toward compliance. With regard to penalties in this case, the following items need to be considered: 1. The term of the commitment/enforcement 2. The amount of the penalty 3. The ability of the entity to pay 4. Whether the commitment/enforcement carries over to any future buyer, and 5. Where the money that is collected goes. Here are my comments with regard to the above elements. 1. Term How long should it last? Mr Oeschgar's letter commits to 20 years. However the leaseholder has an option to extend the 20-year lease by an additional 10 years. However the PC states as "special limitation" (i.e., condition) that "a grocery store with an area of at least 8,000 square feet shall exist within the development for the useful life of the improvements." The term should run for the useful life ofthe improvements. 2.Amount The letter proposes $375 per day; city code specifies $500. No amount of penalty replaces a missing market. The penalty should stiff enough for the owners to significantly feel it and serve as real incentive to keep a quality market in operation. 3. Ability to Pay You can ask for financials, and you know they are handy as they have received an additional loan of $50 million on 12/31/13, but that only tells you about the present. Ifthe trust is dissolved or cash is drawn down significantly for some reason, e.g., a sale of the property and follow-up payout to principals, matters may change from a rosy picture on the LLC' s balance sheet. The easiest way to insure that the money is on hand and the city gets paid is via Letter of Credit made out to the city. 4. Future Buyer A Letter of Credit made, ifproperly written, will also run with the land as an obligation and may be the best way to ensure continuation of non-compliance payments after a sale. Note also, that sale of the properly within four years of entitlement is a quite likely scenario. Allow 2 years for construction. Then the hoped for occupancy of a fully tenanted project, with a prominent company occupying most or all of the Class A Office space, and grocery and other retail in place. I'm informed that a sale with two years after occupancy in such a circumstance is likely. With the elderly siblings who are owners ofthe property no longer residing in the area that potentiality may be even greater. City staff needs to build in the proper protection with the letter of credit (or other mechanism) so the penalty continues to be paid to the city when a new owner arrives. 5. Penalties Fees Collected These fees should be put in a separate holding fund and earmarked specifically for projects or activities in the vicinity of the project to, in part, compensate for the loss of the grocer. · Thank you, Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street i ~TY ~F PALO ALT!il. a.:A · Carnahan, David enx mfRK'S wereg From: M. Fruth <mafruth@yahoo.com> f4NOV I~ AM ta: 3i Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:39 PM To: Council, City Subject: J J & F Market Please continue this item until I & others have a chance to actually read the massive staff report. There is no basis for extending the PC zoning at this time. In any case, please continue to insist on a market from a proprietor who is independent of the property owner/developer (hiring his son is self- dealing &therefore does not met this standard). Also, include an enforceable penalty--& enforce it with a deed restriction. Thank you for representing all of the city! Margaret Fruth Note to staff: Please confirm that this email will be part of the City council packet for the Monday, 11/17/2014 meeting. Thank you! Carnahan, David From: Council, City Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 8:16 AM To: M. Fruth; Council, City Subject: RE: J J & F Market Good morning Ms. Fruth, The deadline for communications to be included in the Packet is Noon on the day the City prepares the packet. This was Wednesday, 11/2. Beginning in 2015, the deadline will be two weeks prior to the date of the meeting. Your email will be printed and available to Council and the public At Places at the 11/17 meeting. This email will also be included in the Packet that is produced on 11/19. David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: M. Fruth [mailto:mafruth@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:39 PM To: Council, City Subject: J J & F Market Please continue this item until I & others have a chance to actually read the massive staff report. There is no basis for extending the PC zoning at this time. In any case, please continue to insist on a market from a proprietor who is independent of the property owner/developer (hiring his son is self- dealing & therefore does not met this standard). Also, include an enforceable penalty--& enforce it with a deed restriction. Thank you for representing all of the city! Margaret Fruth Note to staff: Please confirm that this email will be part of the City council packet for the Monday, 11/17/2014 meeting. Thank you! Carnahan, David OfTY f:lF PALO Al~ro. CA vny Cl ERK'S OFFICE from: Carnahan, David 14 NOV It. AH ': I 2 Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 9:06 AM To: M. Fruth; Council, City Subject: RE: J J & F Market Ms. Fruth, I would like to clarify the email below. Beginning in January, City Council Packets will be produced 11 calendar days before a Monday meeting. The deadline for items to be included in the Packet is Noon on that date. For example, City Council Meeting: Monday, February 23, 2015 @ 6:00 PM Deadline for inclusion in the Packet: Thursday, February 12, 2015 @ 12:00 PM Any emails received after the deadline will be made available to the public and Council At Places at the meeting. These emails will also be included in the Packet that will be produced on Thursday, February 19, 2015. Additionally, all emails sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org are automatically sent to all Council Members upon receipt. Please let me know if you have any questions about this process, David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA 250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301 From: M. Fruth [mailto:mafruth@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:39 PM To: Council, City Subject: J J & F Market Please continue this item until I & others have a chance to actually read the massive staff report. There is no basis for extending the PC zoning at this time. In any case, please continue to insist on a market from a proprietor who is independent of the property owner/developer (hiring his son is self- dealing & therefore does not met this standard). Also, include an enforceable penalty--& enforce it with a deed restriction. Thank you for representing all of the city! Margaret Fruth Note to staff: Please confirm that this email will be part of the City council packet for the Monday, 11/17/2014 meeting. Thank you! ICOUNCIL MEETING 11 ( /ltf [ . Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting 12CITY OF PALO ALIO. GACarnahan, David CITY CLERK'S Qff!QF From: Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> f4NOV 17 PH 2: 41 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 12:19 PM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Centre proposed grocery store lease Dear Council Members, This PC has had a tortuous history over 8 years, beginning the various preliminary proposals brought to the city for feedback, and finally formally submitted for approved in 2009. Since then this development has languished. Only now, at the last minute, is the information for who is to lease the grocery store and how it will be managed brought before you. Despite the lease having been signed by James Smailey over a year ago. The developer writes in his proposal that he knew JJ&F could never have met the terms of the lease. So ifhe knew that, one question is why, in all this time, if not JJ&F, is this the b~st they can come up with for the lease? The owners of this development benefit from being given almost 40,000 square feet of prime office space. In return they must offer terms for the grocery store lease that are attractive enough to attract qualified grocers. Names have been thrown around in the last few months, but nothing has come of any of this. How serious was this search? What is going on behind the scenes? We do know the proposal that James Smailey lease and own the grocery store is more complicated than might first appear. The loan documents show the borrowers include the Chilcote Trust as well as the College Terrace Centre LLC, which includes James Smailey, his father, and brother as signatories on the loan documents. It appears that, as one of the borrowers on the loan documents, James Smailey, as a partner in the College Terrace Centre LLC, will share in the company's profits, so really he is proposing to lease from himself. In addition, his father, who has been the developer and is one of the principals in the College Terrace Centre LLC, owns the property company that will manage the development. The terms of this development is a huge gift from the city, income from leasing almost 40,000 square feet of prime office space in Palo Alto, in return for "Saving JJ&F" which Patrick Smailey repeatedly told us, must be honored. Providing space for a grocery store pales in comparison from the profits from this development over and above what otherwise could have been built. The terms of the grocery store must be attractive enough to be owned and run by a qualified grocer. Not leased and owned by someone who has absolutely no experience in the grocery business, who, because he cannot both own and manage will pay himself a salary and/or cut of the profits and then have to pay for a manager as well. This, in a highly competitive market, will be a huge drain on the market's operating costs and possibility of success. Uriel Chavez, who is proposed for the job as manager, has only had just over eight years experience working in the grocery business. And he hasn't worked in the grocery business for four years. He isn't even being offered benefits. We have no way of knowing ifhe will even be available when the grocery store is ready. Since he will be just an employee, in the meantime he might have accepted a more attractive offer, do better staying in his current job with the Fermi construction company, or have moved out of the area. In addition, despite the "twenty-five years" experience in the PR blurb they would like you to believe, and implying he has been professionally connected with all the other markets mentioned, according to his own resume was four years ago, 2010. He worked for a total of approximately four years for the La Hacienda Markets in San Mateo, (2002-2005 and 2009-200), and and owner or co-owner and manger o.fthe LLG Pharmacy in Sacramento, for four years (2005- 2009). Searching online, I found two, possibly a third, La Hacienda Markets in San Mateo, but no no mention in his 2010 that his responsibilities as CFO involved all two or three reporting to him. Online there is no mention of the LLO Pharmacy and it appears to have gone out of business. Leasing the market to someone who has no grocery business experience, completely dependent on the comings and goings of hired help, and a drain on the operating costs, was never proposed when this Public Benefit was approved. The description of the grocery store in the proposal and business plan, written to persuade you the construction permit can be issued, sounds delightful. But without a proper experienced grocer at the helm as the owner, with a long term vested interest for at least the 20 year length of the lease, all this is window dressing, meaningless. Mr. Oeschger even reveals in his letter that "City Staff has commented that the City has limited Mechanism in place to enforce the continued operation ofthe grocery as required in PC Ordinance 5069." Which does not give one confidence that they have a long term interest in the grocery store's existence. Compliance The terms for the market lease must allow it to operate successfully for the life of the improvements. City documents say that the "public benefits" must be inspected at least every three years. The question is, how is staff going to measure whether the grocery store is operating as required, and if it isn't what can they do about it? Who will do the inspection? What metric will they use? What happens ifthe market slowly morphs into a place servicing the lunch time crowd with sandwiches and take out food? At what point is the market no longer a full service neighborhood serving grocery store and not no longer in compliance? How many different kinds of cereal need to be on the shelves. Is there a sufficient choice of cuts of meat and poultry and fresh fish? Sufficient choice of dried spices, dairy goods, flours, jams, rice, and all the other goods expected in a full service neighborhood serving market? How will the city force the grocery store owner to continue to sell all the products and provide the services that JJ&F did? The space doesn't have to be empty and unused to not be in compliance with the PC. And what happens if the development is sold? How will the city enforce compliance with the grocery store as per the agreement with the current owners? Could new owners challenge the requirement to have a commercial for profit business? These are just some of the questions that are raised pertaining to the lease of the grocery store that if not addressed now will be unable to addressed after the construction permit is issued and building starts. Then it will be late. Another PC that does not deliver. Sincerely, Margaret Heath 2140 Cornell Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 eHY OF PALO f;LTO. CACarnahan, David SIT¥ 81:.11216'5 QfFICF From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> 1lt NOV 11 PH 2: lt1 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:57 AM To: Council, City Subject: #12: Whose Benefit? The Grocery Tenant/ Operator Bifurcation Council Members, The PC calls for "a signed lease for the grocery store, enforceable against the tenant and approved by the City Attorney." [PC 5069, your Attachment A, page 4, Section (b) 3] Was it the intent or expectation of any council member in 2009 that the lease (of up to 30 years) would go to an entity other than an established grocer? Highly doubtful. The split between grocery tenant and operator adds unneeded levels of complexity and makes if far more difficult to ascertain the suitability and chances for success of the grocery operation, and increases the likelihood of turnover of a manager/operator hired via relatively short-term, at-will, employment contract. The fact that the proposed tenant, his father and brother, have been, and unless evidence is presented otherwise, continue to be part of the Clara E. Chilcote Trust, which is now College Terrace Centre LLC for the purposes of construction, gives further credence that this unexpected and non-standard tenant-plus-operator arrangement has been put together to benefit certain individuals over that ofthe public. [Note: As per a 12/31/13 Construction Deed (obtained via public records from the county) between the Chilcote Trust as "Borrower" and Canyon Capital as "Lender" the members of the trust are identified as Patrick Smailey, his sons James and Shaun-Patrick, their company Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC in addition to Joseph Oeschger and Eldora Miller.]. The easiest, best, and most logical way to find a grocer to meet the requirements of the PC, would be to promote the need for such a grocer, provide the location, and requirements, and offer each grocer the opportunity to directly assume the lease. Has the opportunity to explore, discuss, and negotiate the terms of the lease been made available to markets such as Sigona's, Roberts, Milk Pail, Piazzas, the Khoury Family, and suitable others? Ifso, what was the result? Was the rent too high? Was some condition unacceptable that could not be changed? Or was there some other reason? Ifnot a single one of the above mentioned or and other comparable markets was interested in the lease, it is evidence that something is terribly wrong. This entire project was built around the location and prominence of the market on this site; the Garcias we were told, designed it to suit their needs. Just prior to the council meeting, in summer, 2009 overriding the PC denial at the P&TC, the city had the applicant forgo 6 of the BMR units so the market could be extended back further to Staunton Court to make it larger if needed. · Canyon Capital has touted the location as "one of the most coveted addresses in the Bay Area ... the development's proximity to Stanford University and the Stanford Research Park provides a dynamic environment for prospective retailers and office users." http ://v..rv.rw.paloal toonline. com/ news/print/2 0 14/02/01/co11ege-terrace-centre-to-be gin-construction-in-spring Ifwe are to be told now that this location -one which requires that a quality grocer be there and with all incentives that the word "requires" implies --is not viable for a quality grocer or that no grocer is interested in directly assuming the lease and therefore, the best way, possibly the only way, to bring forth a grocer is to have one of the members of the trust, who has no experience in the grocery business, assume a 20-year lease from the trust and hire managers and employees, then all of us have truly been taken and the PC permit should be allowed to expire. Require that the lease be offered directly to established, quality grocers and have the representatives of the College Terrace Centre LLC report back on this effort. Thank you, -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street 12 COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET 1. URIEL CHAVEZ: GROCERY OPERATOR 20-YEAR OPERATING AGREEMENT. Uriel Chavez of the 40 Chavez Markets, including Mi Pueblo, La Hacienda, Chavez and Artegas. With annual gross revenues of over $200,000,000 at their peak, these markets primarily in the Peninsula and all in Northern California cause Uriel Chavez to be the extraordinary candidate for serving as the grocery operator for College Terrace Market. Uriel has owned 2 of his own stores that he built from ground up. Chavez Markets are similar in size to College Terrace Market. We attach a resume for Uriel who will introduce himself and accept questions at the City Council hearing. 2. CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL NOW HAVE FULLY COMPREHENSIFE PACETKS WITH ALL DOCUEMNTS. We provide complete agreements and other documents requested by City Council ... and more. 3. COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET IS HIGHLY CAPITALZIED FOR DURABLE SUCCESS: Over $800,000. The exhibits provided Staff and City Council show a bank statement with $700,000 invested by James Smailey for College Terrace Market. Refrigeration, racks, and cook lines are financed by sellers and vendors greatly leveraging the $700,0001 This cash will well cover months of inve.ntories and community promotions. The Landlord is providing $101,250 or 4.5 months initial free rent after the store first opens. 4. NEIGHBORS WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE INCENTIVIZED TO RETAIN A FIEN GROCERY STORE.. We provide surety for $1000 per day that is the City's maximum daily zoning fine under PAMC 1.08.010 The surety letter and its supplement are in the Council packet. One of the Landlords has guaranteed the lender and other owners that the grocery store rent will be paid by him so as to avoid any possible financial default. EXTRAORDINARY for assuring the length of durable grocery operations. 5. CITY'S GROCERY CONSULTANT ENDORSES COLLEGE TERRACE MARKET. The Sutti Report is included in the set of exhibits for the Council packet. · 6. THE PC ZONE REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE GROCERY OPERATOR UNLESS THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED OPERATOR WILL NOT BE COMPARABLE IN PRODUCTS AND SERVICE TO JJ&F IN 2009. It is now time to approve the proposed Grocery Operator -College Terrace Market with Uriel Chavez. This will allow the project to move forward full steam ahead and will allow Uriel to hire senior staff and negotiate with equipment and grocery vendors. The standard of PC 5069 4(b)(6) is that the replacement grocer must be comparable to that of John Garcia's JJ&F Market in 2009. This condition has been fully satisfied with (i) Uriel Chavez as Grocery Operator; (ii) the financial ability of College Terrace Market with $700,000 newly invested, financial contributions by the Landlord, the Landlord's guaranty that the grocery store lease rent will be paid In full and never in default for nonpayment; James Smailey's guarantee of inventory and equipment leases, and having financial resources to have closed on the $40,000,0000 real estate loan; (iii) teh new grocery store is of superior quality, size and location along El Canino with adequate parking compared to JJ&F that had no parking. There can be no reasonable basis for the City Council denying approval of the College Terrace Market to replace John Garcia's JJ&F Market. It is, simply, now, time to approve the College Terrace Market. Betten, Zariah Subject: FW: Garcia LOI Attachments: JJ&F LOI_8.30.08.zip; Revised JJ Lease_l2.l.10.pdf From: James Smailey sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:03 PM To: 'ctraeditor@yahoo.com'; 'Brent Barker'; 'doriasumma@gmail.com' Cc: James Smailey; 'Jim Baer' Subject: Garcia LOI Attached are the Garcia LOI's to show that it is the same exact deal and term that J&A Family Market signed. James L. C. Smailey PCS Realty Advisors a division of Adventera, Inc. info@adventerainc.com P) 650.701.1610 F) 650.701.1609 This e-mail message may contain privileged and confidential information and is intended only for the addressee named above or its designee. Dissemination copying or use of this message or any information contained herein by any other party is strictly prohibited. Ifyou have received this message in error plea;e notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy any copy of this e-mail message. ' 1 MILLER STARR 300 Hamilton Ave. T 650 463 7800 REGALIA Third Floor F 650. 462 1010 Palo Alto, CA 94301 www.msrfegaf.com Robin B. Kennedy robin.kennedy@msrlegal.com (650) 463-7800 December 4, 2009 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre -Agreement to Lease Dear Russ: Enclosed, as promised, please find an original fully~executed Agreement to Lease by and between Joseph.E. Oeschger, Eldora 0. Miller and Comerica Bank, all as trustees of the Clara E. Chilcote Trust, on the one hand, and John Garcia, on the other hand. This document, as you know, is in satisfaction of the condition imposed by the City Council that, prior to its approval of the PC;.Zone for College Terrace Center, there be a signed binding agreement in place with respect to Mr. Garcia's intention to enter a lease for the grocery store, including the interior space and the outdoor market. Thank you, as always, for your patience. Very truly yours, MILLER STARR REGALIA /~1S. Robin B. Kennedy Enclosure cc: Project Team (via email) Melissa Tronquet (via email) (w/ enc.) PCSA\451061792299. 1 Offices: Palo Alto I Walnut Creek AGREEMENT TO LEASE THIS AGREEMENT TO LEASE (this "Agreement'') is entered into as of this first day of December, 2009 (the "Effective Date") by and between JOSEPH E. OESCHGER, ELDORA 0. MILLER and COMERICA BANK, all as trustees of the CLARA E. CHILCOTE TRUST ("Owner") and JOHN GARCIA, an individual (''Grocer"), with respect to certain real property to be located on the northwest corner of 2180 El Camino Real, City of Palo Alto, County of Palo Alto, State of California (the "Premises"). Owner and Grocer are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties"; each of Owner and Grocer is individually referred to herein as a"Party." RECITALS WHEREAS, Owner has owned the city block on which the Premises is located (the "City Block") for more than eighty (80) years; and WHEREAS, Grocer's family has leased a portion of the City Block for more than sixty (60) years and has operated thereon a family-owned grocery store during all that time; and WHEREAS, Owner has made application to the City of Palo Alto for a PC Zone for the City Block for the purposes of redeveloping the entire City Block (the "Application"): ~nd WHEREAS, the name of the new development of the City Block is College Terrace Centre; and WHEREAS, the Applicant includes a plan to locate a grocery store of eight thousand (8,000) square feet on the Premises, along with an outdoor market of approximately two thousand {2,000) square feet immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage in the basement garage (collectively, the "New Grocery Store"); and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document Grocer's intention to lease the Premises for the purpose of operating the New Grocery Store upon completion of construction of College Terrace Centre in satisfaction of a condition of approval in the "initiation" of the PC Zone pursuant to requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by the Palo Alto City Council (the "City Council") at the July 27, 2009 Palo Alto City Council hearing, which condition of approval was that, prior to final approval of the PC Zone by the City Council, the Parties would enter into a legal agreement (lease or other agreement), binding on Grocer, regarding Grocer's intention to lease the Premises; and WHEREAS, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Grocer hereby enters into such legal agreement with Owner. NOW, THEREFORE, FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows: · PCSA\451{)6\791128.3 AGREEMENT 1. Agreement to Lease. 1.1 So long as, by no later than January 15, 2010, the City Council gives final approval to PC Zone and the site and design plan for College Terrace Centre in their entirety with all appropriate and/or necessary authorizations and entitlements, including but not limited to those approvals required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Grocer, in the name of JJ&F or a yet-to-be formed entity (either, the "New Entity"), shall enter into a lease for the Premises on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement (the "Lease") as follows: 1.1.1 By no earlier than three (3) business days after the last to occur of the following: (a) the expiration of the statute of limitations period on a legal challenge by a third party to the City Council's approval of College Terrace Centre, including its approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, without the timely filing of any applicable actions by any such third party or (b) the final disposition in a court of law of any legal action brought by a third party to challenge the City Council's approval of College Terrace Center and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 1.1.2 By no later than the date that is eighteen (18) months prior to the expected completion of construction of College Terrace Centre and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development (the "Final Lease Date"), Owner will provide Grocer with written notice of the Final Lease Date at least sixty (60) days in advance thereof. 1.2 If Grocer has not entered into a Lease by the Final Lease Date, Owner shall vigorously market the opportunity to lease the Premises to other potential grocer owner/operators, and neither Party shall have any further obligation to the other hereunder. 2. Lease Terms. 2.1 The Premises shall comprise eight thousand (8,000) square feet of interior space ("Interior Space"), approximately two thousand (2,000) square feet of outdoor space ("Outdoor Space") immediately adjacent thereto and approximately six hundred (600) square feet of dry storage ("Storage Space") in the basement garage. 2.2 The initial term of the lease (the "Term") shall be a minimum of twenty (20) years. At Grocer's option, the Term may be as long as thirty (30) years. 2.3 The Term will commence on the first day of the month following the issuance by the City of Palo Alto of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located (the "Commencement Date"). PCSA\451061791 J28.J 2 3. Rent. 3.1 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located is issued before January 1, 2012, triple net base monthly rent for the first five (5) years of the term of the Lease shall be as specified in Attachment A-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Base Monthly Rent"}. 3.2 "Triple net" means that the Grocer will be responsible for payment of property taxes, insurance and utilities. Utilities (with the possible exception of water, which Owner may not be able to separately meter) will otherwise be separately metered. The Grocer will maintain all of its equipment, including but not limited to HVAC. 3.3 Notwithstanding the provisions in Section 3.1, during the first three (3) months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be waived completely and, during the following three (3) months of the Term, Base Monthly Rent will be reduced by fifty percent (50%). 3.4 The rent will be subsidized by the Owner and their successors-in-interest, if any, for as long as Grocer, any other grocer owner/operator and their successors-in- interest for the earlier of (a} the useful life of the improvements, (b) the taking of the Premises by eminent domain, or (c) the destruction of the Premises by fire or natural disaster. 3.5 If the Certificate of Occupancy for the building in which the Premises are located is issued on or after January 1, 2012, the Base Monthly Rental shall be as set forth in Attachment A~2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3.6 During the Term, the Base Monthly for each respective element of the Premises (i.e., the Indoor Space, the Outdoor Space and the Storage Space) will increase, every five (5) years, by the amount of increase, if any, in the San Francisco- San Jose-Oakland CPI Index over the previous five (5)-year period. 4. Termination of Agreement I Termination of Lease. Prior to the Commencement Date, but no later than six (6) months following the Final Lease Date, Grocer shall have the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement or the Lease, as the case may be, without liability to Owner or to any third party, under any of the following circumstances: 4.1 Grocer is disabled or otherwise incapacitated from performing his duties of owning and operating the New Grocery Store; 4.2 JJ&F or the New Entity, as the case may be, is unable to obtain, after exercising its good faith efforts, adequate and commercially reasonable debt financing required for the purchase and installation of those tenant improvements, equipment and fixtures necessary, in Grocer's reasonable judgment, to operate the New Grocery Store, such financing to be at an annual interest rate not to exceed two percent (2.0%) over PCSA\451011\791128.3 3 the prime interest rate (as determined by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. on the last day of the calendar month preceding the month in which Grocer plans to initiate construction and installation of such tenant improvements, equipment and fixtures); or 4.3 Grocer determines, in good faith, that changed business circumstances, economic conditions, or Grocer's own financial or personal conditions will not permit him to operate the New Grocery Store to Grocer's reasonable satisfaction. 5. General Provisions. 5.1 Successors and AssiQns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and Grocer and their respective estates, personal representatives, heirs, devisees, legatees, successors and assigns. 5.2 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, and according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against either Party. 5.3 Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement (which includes the Addendum hereto) embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and all prior negotiations, agreements and understandings, oral or written, related to the subject matter hereof are hereby revoked, cancelled and rescinded and are all merged herein and superseded hereby. To be effective, any amendment to this Agreement including but not limited to any oral modification supported by new consideration, must be reduced to writing and signed by both Parties. 5.4 Waiver. To be effective, any waiver of the performance of any covenant, condition or promise by either Party must be in a writing signed by the Party who has allegedly waived the covenant, condition or promise in question. The waiver by either Party of a breach of aprovision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same of another provision of this Agreement. 5.5 Severability. Should any part, term or provision of this Agreement or any document required herein to be executed or delivered be declared invalid, void or unenforceable, all remaining parts, terms and provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be invalidated, impaired or affected thereby. 5.6 Interpretation. The neuter gender includes the feminine and masculine, and vice-versa, and the singular number includes the plural. The word "person" includes, in addition to any natural person, a corporation, partnership, firm, trust, association, governmental body or other entity. The captions of the sections of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only, and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, or aid in the interpretation, construction or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. 5.7 Litigation. If either Party files any action or brings any proceeding against the other arising from this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover as PCSA\45106\791128.3 4 an element of its costs of suit, and not as damages, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and litigation expenses to be fixed by the court. Under no circumstances shall either Party be liable for consequential, special or punitive damages. 5.8 Construction. The Parties agree that each Party arid its counsel or advisor have reviewed and revised this Agreement and thatany rule of construction to the effectthat ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not apply in the interpretation of this Agreement or any amendments or exhibits hereto. 5.9 Time Periods. As used in this Agreement, (1) a "day" is a calendar day and (2) a "business day" is a calendar day other than a Saturday or Sunday upon which (a) the Office of the County Clerk of Santa Clara Cot.!nty is open and accepting documents for recording, (b) the United States Postal Service is delivering first class mail, and (c) banks in Santa Clara County are generally open for business. If, pursuant to this Agreement, a Party must act by a particular time, or an act is effective only if done by a particular time, and the last date for the doing or effectiveness of such act falls upon a day other than a business day, the time forthe doing or effectiveness of such act shall be extended to the next succeeding business day. 5.1 O Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of all provisions of this Agreement. 5.11 Assignment. Grocer acknowledges that Owner is entering into this Agreement because of the particular skills, knowledge, expertise, tenure in the Palo Alto Community and reputation ofGrocer. As a consequence, Grocer agrees that it is 'fair and reasonable that Grocer shall not be permitted to assign this Agreement, or the Lease, in whole or in part to any third party. No other person, firm, corporation, partnership or other legal entity shall have any right, title, interest or claim to any matters covered herein, or the right to demand performance of this Agreement. 5.12 Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute such other and further documents and do such further acts (provided the same do not expand or increase such Party's obligations hereunder or reduce or diminish such Party's rights hereunder) as may be reasonably required to effectuate the intent of this Agreement. [THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] l'CSA\45106\791128.3 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. OWNER: THE CHILCOTE TRUST By: Name: By: Name: .f PCSA\45106\791128.3 6 Attachment A-1 Calendar Year 2012 $--.-----..-·--+-'--------·~ Calendar Year 2013 $-- Calendar Year 2014 $--·~--~.~~~·---+-'.----~--~--i Calen_dar_!'._ea_r~9_1_5______ .!::__.__._______, lf_alendarYear2016 --·$-:__________ PCS1\\4510(>\79J 128.3 7 Attachment A"'2 Calendar Year 2012 $-- ~---~N·--·--------------' Calendar Year 2013 $--f----~~~--~-----1-'~~~~-~--·~-~ Calendar Year 2014 $- Calendar Year 2015 $-..::...::.:..:....=:....:'--'-'------~-----~--~--~· Calendar Year 2016 $--..-.~..,....-,.,,.,..~~-.,..,,,...,,________ ~-------------· PCSA\45106\791128.3 8 The Chilcote Trust c/o Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC 274 Redwood Shores Parkway, # 202 Redwood City, California 94065 August 30, 2008 Mr. John Garcia c/o JJ&F Market 2100 El Camino Real Palo Alto, California 94036 Dear Mr. Garcia: This letter, dated as of August 30, 2008, constitutes a "Letter of Intent" by and between The Chilcote Trust ("Trust"), as owner of that certain block located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on which the current JJ&F Market is located (the "Block"). As you are aware, the Trust intends to demolish all of the existing improvements on the Block and to replace them with a mixed retail, residential and office complex called "College Terrace Centre." As you are also aware, if the City of Palo Alto ("City") approves the Trust's application to re-zone the Block from CN (neighborhood commercial) to PC (planned· community), College Terrace Centre will be able to -and will provide a commitment to the City for -inclusion in the development of a neighborhood-serving grocery store (a "Grocery"), of the type and quality currently being operated by JJ&F in a more favorable and visible location on the Block. According to our most recent plans, the Grocery will have the following square footage: 7,035 ground level inte~or space, 1,500 attached and covered receiving area, 1,312 "Open Market" (comer sidewalk space), and 600 for dry storage in the basement (which latter storage space will be adjacent to a dedicated elevator), for a total of 10,447 square feet (the "Minimum Square Footage"). At the option of the owner/operator of the Grocery, the ground level interior space may be as large as 14,000 square feet (the "Maximum Square Footage"). Otherwise, the additional 6,965 of interior ground level space in the development will be leased to other neighborhood-serving retailers. The base monthly rent for the 7,035 ground level interior space and the 1,500 receiving/storage space (collectively, the "Primary Space") (for a total of 8,535) will be , $2.50/sq ft., or $21,337.50 per month). The monthly rental for the 1,312 open market space will be $0.75/sq ft, or $984.00 per month. _And the monthly rental for the 600 storage space will be a flat rate of $178.50. This brings the total, triple net monthly rent for the entire space to $22,500.00 (collectively, ''Base Monthly Rent"). This results in an effective blended rate of $2.15/sq ft/month. Triple net means that the Grocery will be responsible for payment of property taxes, insurance and utilities. Utilities (with the possible exception of water, which we may not be able to separately meter) will otherwise be separately metered. The Grocery will maintain all of its equipment, including but not limited to HVAC. 20200078. 11 As you have been involved with us in our efforts to move College Terrace Centre through the City of Palo Alto's entitlement process, you are well aware that the economic tenns set forth in this Letter of Intent depend upon the square footage of the:,entitlements that are actually approved by the City. The currentCN zoning, which authorizes 25,000 square feet of office/commercial space and 25,000 square feet of residential space, does not provide sufficient rent to produce the income necessary to subsidize the rent for a grocery. 'If the City does not grant approval for a zoning change from CN to PC, there will be no subsidy for the grocery. This letter acknowledges that your family members, Lloyd Garcia and Dennis Garcia, who have owned and operated JJ&F with you for many years, intendto retire at the end of the current lease tenn in preparation for ground breaking for College Terrace Centre. If our understanding of such impending retirements is incorrect, or if either Lloyd Garcia or Dennis Garcia sbould subsequently change their minds about their respective intentions to retire, the exclusive benefits providedto you in this Letter of Intent will of course be extended to them as well. By this Letter of Intent, the Trust offers to you, personally, a right of first refusal to lease the Grocery. You may exercise this right any time between the date on which the City gives final approval to the proposed development of College Terrace Centre and the date that is eighteen (18) months prior to the expected completion of construction thereof and the issuance of aCertificate of Occupancy for the development (the "Required Date of Acceptance"). The undersigned will provide you with written notice of the Required Date of Acceptance at least sixty (60) days in advance thereof, during which sixty (60) day period you will have the opportunity to exercise your right of first refusal. If you have not exercised your right of first refusal by such date, the undersigned will market the Grocery to other potential owner/operators. Until such time as the undersigned actually executes a lease with another owner/operator, you can make, and the Trust will warmly receive, an offer to lease the Grocery. The terms of the lease for the Orocery (the "Lease'') will include the following: 1. The initial term of the lease (the "Term") shall be a minimum of ten (10) years. At your option, the minimum term may be as long as thirty (30) years. 2. The rent will be subsidized by the owners and their successors-in-interest for as long as you (and your successors-in-interest) agree that the grocery use remains viable and so long as the premises are nottaken by condemnation or destroyed by fire or naturai disaster. If the Certificate of Occupancy is issued on or before Pecember 31, 2011, the lease rate for the Primary Space for the first five (5) years of the Term will be $2.50, NNN, per square foot. The lea8e rate forthe·Open Market and the basement storage space shall increase by a similar fraction. Ifthe Certificate of Occupancy is issued or•, or after January 1, 2012, the lease rate, per square foot for the Minimum Square Footage, for the first five (5} years of the Term will be as follows: Calendar Year 2012 $2.55 Calendar Year2013 $2.60 Calendar Year 2014 $2.65' Calendar Year 2015 $2.71 Calendar Year 2016 '$2'76 20200078.11 3. Notwithstanding the provisions in Paragraph 2, during the firstthree (3) months of the Tenn: Base Monthly Rent will pe;waive~ co~p*'eJ¥ ~~d, during the:following three (3) months of the Temi,.Base Monthly Rent will be:feduced'byjitly percent (50%). . . ·.:;·::. . 4. During the term of the Lease for the Grocery~ the per square foot rent for the 1'otal Square Footage (i.e., the Primary Space, the Open Market Spac~ and the storage space) will increase, every five (5) years, by the amount of increase, if any, in the San F:rancisco-San Jose-Oakland CPI Index over the previous five (5)-yearperiod. . · 5. You will have the right, exercisab!¢ nine (9) months prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development, to increase the. square footage of the Grocery, up to the Maximurn Square Footage; provided, however, that any square footage so leased in. excess of the Minimum Square Footage shall not.be provided at-a subsidized rerit, but rather at a. market-rate rent (which we. currently expect to be $4·..50 petsquare foot if the Certificate of Occupancy is issued on or before December 31, 2011}, and snail be. adjusted on the same basis as the rest of the retail space in College Terrace Centre.· · · . . .. Although most Letters of Intent are not.bincllilg oti.1he parties thereto liP.til and unless a lease or purchase agreement is executed between them; ourintentlons with respect to this Letter .of Intenfare different. .. If you agree with the foregoh1g~· and execute this Letter of Intent in the space provided below for. your signature on or before Sepfoinb~r 1, 2008, we agree to be bound by its terms. ·On _the other hand, underst~mding that your per~onhl circumstances may change between now artdthetime you would be required to"exerCise your right<;>ffirst refusal under this Letter of Intent,. we also agree that this Letter of Intent is not binding on you, and-that you have the tight, at any t~me prior. to the Required Date qf Acceptan,ce, to terrrtinate it by giving the undersigned notice, in writing, of your decis~on. . · · · If you are in agreement with the terms of this Letter 6flhtentt please so indicate by signing in the space proyided below for yoursignature and:retuining the original signature page to Robin Kennedy. ·· AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED: ! 20200078.11 MEMORANDUM OF LEITER OF INTENT . THIS MEMC?RANDUM OF LEJ1'ER. OF INTENT is effective as .of August 30, 2008 by and between John Garcia on behalf of JJ&F Market ( "JJ~F') and The Chilcote Trust ("Owner") (collectively, the "Partie$"), who hereby agree as follows: 1. ·By that certain Letter of Intent by. and betweeri the Parties, dated as of August 30, 2008, The Chilcote Trust offered to·JJ&F, and JJ&F accepted, aright of first refusal to lease . 10,447 square feet in new premises to be constructed by The Chilcote Trust in a new . developQlent in the City of Palo Alto known: as College·Terrace Centre. This square footage shali be dedicated for use by JJ&F Market as a• grocerystore. · . · . .·· ..· . . ~-.. ·. . . . . . .. 2. Pursuant to the Letter of Intent,the. initial terni of the lease will be ten (10) years. At JJ&F's.sole option, the initial temi of the lease may be as long as thirty (30) years. 3. Pursuant to the Letter of Intent; JJ&:F Market. shall have the right to lease up to an additional 6,965 square feet of ground level retail space at College Terrace Centre. 4.. Pursuant to the ~tter of Intent, the right to exercise the right of first refusal to lease the space shall be at JJ&F's sole discretion; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this instrUment as ofthe date first set forth above. . By:. ItS: Patrick Smailey Authorized Agent C\\?>~ . \ 2020001s.n ICOUtiCIL MEETING tl/17/llf [/j Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting CITY ~F PALO A\JO. CA 1 2Carnahan, David GUY Cl FRK'S Of Pl~E From: Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26 PM To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Market Dear City Councilmembers: The information provided on the grocery store shows that JJ&F was losing money in 2009. Lloyd, Dennis & John Garcia's letter in the packet dated January 201 O explain this was due to the economy, new shopping habits, union wages, and their lack of buying power. They add that, "We have tried, but we can't do this any longer ... Trader Joes has opened. We didn't think they would hit us as hard as they did." Any new non-chain grocery store in the same location wiU face the same competition and difficulties. But its operating costs will be even greater due to: • higher rents, per the lease, • reassessed property taxes based on the new construction (the lease has the grocer paying these taxes, not the landlord), and • increased advertising costs and discounts needed to attract back clientele lost when JJ&F and its successors ceased operation. · Based on numbers provided and some reasonable assumptions, here's a quick summary: Likely for New JJ&F JJ&F Grocer Change 10/09-3/10 Annualized Annualized fromJJ&F Notes Rent $81,671 $163,343 $270,000 $106,657 Based on lease supplied agreement Property Taxes $2,753 $5,506 $37,953 $32,447 Based on additional $400 per sq. ft. Advertising I $16,738 $33,475 $66,951 $33,475 Assume doubles - Promotional I was only 0.79% of Coupons gross Net Income Before ($41,947) ($83,895) ($256,474) ($172,580) Taxes (Loss) In other words, the new store will likely operate even further in the red. Grocery stores that can't cover their costs go out of business, as Miki's demonstrated recently. The current submission indicates that the prospects for the proposed grocer are even more bleak than for JJ&F's, which failed. I don't see then how the new information given to the council is an improvement over that in August. Moreover, other grocery stores, including Miki's, have reportedly turned down this location. That suggests they also can't see it being profitable. · In a nutshell, the applicant's own submission suggests the new grocery will go broke and cannot provide the promised public benefit of an operating grocery similar to JJ&F. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky 1682 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Carnahan, David From: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com> f4NOV I 7 PH ~: S? Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:49 PM To: Council, City Subject: 2180 El Camino -recommend grocery space reverts to City if it fails DearCouncilMembera, I know this 2180 El Camino process is far along but there might be a way to make it even better. As a resident of College Terrace, new mother and a longtime member of Transition Palo Alto, I urge you to: 1) Require that the 'public benefit' space at 2180 El Camino revert to the City of Palo Alto (for community space) at a reduced rate if the grocery store fails.. Why? •This requirement will ensure a lasting community benefit. It would be much more enforceable and lasting than a grocery requirement. It is impossible to enforce a Landlord leasing to itself, as is the case with the plan for the grocery store. As you know, the 'public benefit' process is problematic and is currently under review because of some of its limitations. • Market conditions make it difficult for a market to succeed, so we need a contingency plan that preserves a public benefit. Alma Plaza has taught us a lot about this issue. • If the grocery store fails, low-cost or free community space is desperately needed in the Cal Ave area. DETAILS: Market conditions: When this agreement was made, it was 2009, JJ&F was still in business and we did not have the Alma Plaza experience. Now there are other conditions (such as access) that may have led to Miki's market failing, but we know here it is going to be very challenging for any sizable market to succeed. Trader Joe's has opened and taken considerable business from Stanford students that JJ&F once had, and the community has come to rely on mo/lie stone's and country sun as wellnow that JJ&F has been gone for several years under its original owner (and last year under its subsequent). Value of reverting to City for community space: If you establish a plan that the lease reverts to the City if the market fails, we will be assured the building will have a lasting public benefit. There is a dire shortage of free/low cost community space in the California Ave area. The College Terrace library is small and open only daytime hours, and many of us, especially Transition Palo Alto, relied on WorldCentric (formerly at 2180 El Camino) for many film screenings, potlucks and gatherings. The future of our community depends on community space to support public goods and the betterment of the whole community. Transition Palo Alto has only been able to find church space far from Ca/Train now that WorldCentric has closed. It is important to have non­ sectarian space. OR 2) Revert to the original Neighborhood Commercial zoning which is more appropriate for this space and given current market conditions. Sincerely, Mary Jane Marcus College Terrace Resident & Transition Palo Alto Member ( 415)269-9079 Carnahan, David From: susan anuskewicz <basdesigns@icloud.com> I'· NOV II fH 4: 51Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 4:37 PM it To: Council, City Subject: College Terrace Center Council members, In seeing the size of the staff report and its release date to the public, please defer a decision until there is ample time for all sides to render its points. Tonight's discussion will certainly leave many valid points without a voice. Please delay the final decision to the next meeting. With best regards, Brian Anuskewicz Sent from my iPod GHY OF PALO AkT©. GACarnahan, David $11¥ GM li2K'S QES!Gf From: Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> I~ NOV 26 AM I@: 3i Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2014 10:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Application re College Terrace Market The Honorable Nancy Shepherd, Mayor, and Council Members: The sayingfool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me sums up where we are with this project. Ifyou give the final stamp of approval to this application the City will, in essence, be trading away a PC zone change for a non- existent public benefit. This started in 2009, when the applicant successfully used public affection for JJ&F Grocery to drive through a zone change that would otherwise not have been approved. JJ&F was nothing more than a pawn in a quest for Council approval b/c the developer had no other justification for the zone change. He still doesn't. Thank goodness the previous Council, which included many of you, wisely gave itself an out on this one by requiring that the development include a neighborhood serving grocery at least similar to what JJ&F was and Council approval ofthe designated grocery. I urge you to exercise that safety. The applicant has had 5 years to identify a grocer. Indications are that established grocers aren't touching this opportunity. As before, the devil is in the details. Contradictory and incomplete details have been pointed out by others questioning this application. It is concerning that Staff submitted essentially the same Staff Report for the 12/1 hearing as was given for the 11117 hearing even though additional information was provided (Ex Hin report). Had Staff more thoroughly reviewed information provided by the applicant they might have discovered that much of the description of what is now being called College Terrace Market is lifted from an Alice Waters cookbook. This underscores the concern that when it comes to the grocery business, these people simply don't have the experience and qualifications they purport to have. Ifthey did, they wouldn't have to "borrow" from a cookbook. Also, the public benefit has to be maintained by the applicant but that isn't really provided for; the fine requires that the City take an affirmative enforcement action for something that the applicant should be providing. A fine is not a public benefit and the applicant ought not be given latitude to cleverly avoid performance. The bottom line here is that the applicant doesn't want a grocer; he wants the square footage. A deal is a deal but the applicant is positioning himself to eventually not deliver on his end. By the time this happens it will be too late to "unbuild" the extra space and Smailey may himself be out ofthe picture. I think your best move is to exercise the safety now by not approving this application but instead encouraging the applicant to build under the Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Annette Ross 2103 Amherst Street Palo Alto 94306 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5304) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City-wide RPP Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a First Reading and adopt the attached Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance (Attachment C) adding Chapter 10.50 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Establishing a Citywide Framework for Establishment of Neighborhood-Specific Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Districts. Executive Summary At the City Council’s direction, City Staff has been working with community stakeholders over the last nine months to develop (1) a city-wide ordinance which would establish a framework or procedures for individual neighborhoods to become RPP Districts, and (2) a resolution outlining the design of the first proposed RPP District. The proposed ordinance outlines the general process for a neighborhood to become an RPP district and requires the adoption of neighborhood-specific resolutions to establish RPP program characteristics, with the expectation that these will vary somewhat from neighborhood to neighborhood. In addition, the ordinance calls for adoption of administrative guidelines to define details of the neighborhood petition process, permit eligibility requirements and other administrative details. The focus of this staff report is on the City-wide ordinance; a discussion of the accompanying Downtown resolution can be found in staff report 5305, heard this same evening. If the City Council votes to adopt the proposed ordinance (first reading), it would be placed on the consent agenda for a second reading on December 15, 2014 and (if adopted at that time), would become effective 31 days later. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background On January 27, 2014, in response to increasing concern that non-resident parking in residential neighborhoods was negatively impacting neighborhood quality of life, City Council directed staff to develop both (1) a City-wide ordinance establishing uniform procedures for establishment of RPP districts, and (2) an RPP program design for the first “priority” neighborhood, which ultimately was identified as the Downtown neighborhoods. In parallel with the development of the Downtown program, Staff began work on the ordinance which would detail the process by which all individual neighborhoods could pursue parking restrictions (RPP programs) within their neighborhoods. During this process, input on the ordinance was received from residential constituents in the Downtown and many other neighborhoods. Parking and TDM Initiatives RPP discussions have taken place in the context of a series of City-sponsored initiatives aimed at reducing traffic demand and more effectively managing parking supply. The initiatives respond to several related imperatives: improving the effective use of existing parking resources, increasing parking supply, decreasing traffic congestion and improving mobility in and around commercial centers. In addition, improvement of the quality of life in residential areas has emerged as a top concern in many neighborhoods, especially those close to Downtown, where intrusion of employee parking continues to increase. Figure 1 provides an update on the parking- and transportation-related initiatives underway since the beginning of 2014 to address the aforementioned issues. The programs fall into three categories: Parking Supply initiatives, Parking Management initiatives, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives. The establishment of RPP districts, or areas where non- resident parking is regulated, can be viewed as a parking management strategy, as these programs can help better manage parking supply and incentivize commuting behavior shifts away from single-occupant-vehicles. Parking Supply initiatives help maximize the use of existing parking supply as well as create additional parking, and Transportation Demand Management initiatives help reduce the overall demand for parking and traffic by incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. All of these programs work together to create an effective parking strategy. Figure 1: Palo Alto’s Parking Strategy Summary Program Status Parking Management Strategies Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) This staff report provides an overview of the RPP Ordinance. Discussion of the proposed RPP Downtown Resolution can be found in staff report 5305. Parking Technology The City will solicit bids for Parking Access and Revenue Controls and Parking Guidance Systems for garages and lots in November of 2014. This technology will allow for improved permit control, the implementation of paid parking and City of Palo Alto Page 3 improved information on parking occupancy. In addition, the City is exploring technology that tracks parking occupancy and turnover in parking lots and garages. Garage Branding / Signage The City has released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for improved wayfinding signage and branding for all of the parking garages. Improved signage will help motorists locate parking facilities more easily and reduce time spent looking for parking, in conjunction with Parking Guidance Systems. The City will also upgrade its parking website as part of the implementation of online permit sales for RPP to provide a more effective parking resource for residents and visitors. Transportation Demand Management Strategies City Employee “TDM” Programs The City piloted a program with Caltrain at the beginning of 2014 to help encourage Downtown City employees to use Caltrain. As part of the program, the City provided all regularly-benefited City employees with a free Caltrain Go Pass in exchange for giving up a parking permit in the Civic Center garage. The City is continuing the pilot program with modifications for 2015. The City also started a pilot program with TwoGo, SAP’s ridesharing mobile phone app, to see whether the mobile platform would encourage riders and drivers heading to Downtown businesses would be able to use technology to find each other and share rides. Zipcar The City kicked off a partnership with Zipcar in August, and the carshare company has provided ten vehicles at lots and garages in Downtown Palo Alto. The goal of the Zipcar program is to provide an alternative to vehicle ownership for residents and a viable alternative for commuters during the day. Stanford also provides a number of Zipcar locations on campus, as do many other peninsula cities, so members can enjoy convenient access to vehicles across the region. Current Zipcar utilization is between 10% and 26% overall, with certain cars being used more than 40% of the time, and the City is working with Zipcar to improve utilization. Bicycle Projects The city is currently in the design phase of 24 new bicycle boulevard projects, which are planned for construction in 2015 through 2018. Bicycle boulevards are streets which are prioritized for bicycle use by giving advisory warnings to motorists, traffic calming measures and directional signage. Providing bicycle boulevard streets helps cyclists ride to work or play in an easier and safer way. Free Shuttle The City has three active shuttle routes which are provided free of charge to residents and visitors to Palo Alto. The first City of Palo Alto Page 4 phase of a shuttle expansion program was implemented in July with the initiation of a route to East Palo Alto, and a phase 2 expansion will increase frequency of service on the existing Crosstown route, and (contingent on private funding partnership) add a new route connecting the Palo Alto Caltrain Station with the Shoreline business park. Parking Supply Satellite (Remote) Parking The City is analyzing the potential for a “satellite” parking lot for commuters that could be accessed by a free shuttle service to Downtown. The location is on Embarcadero Road east of Highway 101, and could potentially accommodate up to 132 spaces. Garage Valet Parking The City initiated its first “Valet-Assist” parking program at the Lot R, the garage on Alma and High Street, in early 2014. The program has two valet attendants who direct motorists to park in drive aisles once the garage becomes full. The program can help accommodate up to 42 additional vehicles in the garage, which allows the City to increase the number of permits that can be sold at the garage. The valet program has been parking between 10 and 20 cars on average at Lot R and has allowed City staff to increase the number of permits sold at Lot R from 230 to over 330. Expanding the valet assist program to two other garages could be accomplished via a contract amendment early in 2015 if desired. New Garages City Staff is developing the scope of work and evaluation criteria for an RFP to design a new parking garage at Lot D to increase Downtown’s parking supply. Other Parking Permit Programs in Palo Alto Palo Alto’s only other RPP ordinance is the College Terrace RPP program, adopted by City Council in 2009. The College Terrace RPP District was created due to concern about Stanford staff and students parking in this neighborhood, and later parking by Facebook’s employees from 1601 California Avenue. As a condition of approval for Stanford's 2000 General Use Permit, seed money was provided to the City to support a Residential Parking Permit Program in this neighborhood, and permits have been sold for $40 annually since 2009. The RPP program in College Terrace covers most of the neighborhood; however, individual blocks can opt out of the program by providing a petition with 51% of the addresses on the block in favor. College Terrace residents have shown continued support for the program, which has effectively reduced non-resident parking and traffic in that neighborhood. The College Terrace RPP program allows one residential parking permit to be purchased for each vehicle of a household owner, and up to two reusable guest permits for housekeepers, caretakers and other frequent visitors. Guest passes are provided per household rather than City of Palo Alto Page 5 per vehicle ownership, and are designed to hang from the rear view mirror. The program enforcement period is Monday-Friday, between 8:00am and 5:00pm. No business or employee permits are made available; only residents may purchase permits. The staff report outlining adoption of the College Terrace ordinance can be found in Attachment A. Another parking permit program exists in the Crescent Park neighborhood, enacted by resolution in August of 2013 for an original period of 12 months. This trial parking program was developed in response to concern that parking from non-Crescent Park residents was severely impacting Crescent Park residents’ ability to park in front of their own homes. Technically not a true RPP program, which regulates neighborhood parking by restricting non-resident parking, the Crescent Park program restricts parking from 2:00am to 5:00am to residents of the Crescent Park neighborhood only. Permits for the program hang from the rearview mirror, and are available for a cost of $100 annually. Staff recently recommended extending the trial program for an additional 12 months (the staff report can be found in Attachment B), and this recommendation was approved. Both the Crescent Park and College Terrace programs had unique development and outreach processes, and the implementation of a City-wide ordinance is meant to help standardize the development of future RPP programs. If the City-wide ordinance is approved, the College Terrace program would continue unchanged. However at a later date, the City could rescind the College Terrace ordinance and replace it with a resolution as envisioned by the city-wide ordinance. Incorporating the College Terrace program into the citywide program would allow for more uniform enforcement. The 2014 RPP Downtown Stakeholder Process The objective of an RPP program is to preserve neighborhood quality of life by ensuring adequate parking for residents. However, in some neighborhoods of the City, existing businesses and employees rely on street parking to supplement parking lots and garages. Because of this, the stakeholder committee selected by staff to provide input on the resolution and the city-wide ordinance included business and employee constituents as well as residents. A summary of the stakeholder discussions, which mostly focused on the Downtown resolution, is found in staff report 5305. Summary of Key Issues Initially staff had proposed to create a City-wide ordinance that would serve as an umbrella document for resolutions specific to any neighborhood that would address all of the particular characteristics of an RPP program for that neighborhood. Preliminary feedback from the stakeholders on the draft ordinance suggested that it was too complex, and also that different neighborhoods might have unique circumstances that didn’t lend themselves well to uniform, city-wide criteria. For this reason, Staff has suggested simplifying the framework into the following three components: 1. A simplified City-wide ordinance, which establishes the criteria and procedures for how City of Palo Alto Page 6 a neighborhood can establish an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood-specific resolution, which outlines the characteristics of a particular neighborhood program, including cost of permits, number of permits issued, whether or not permits would be issued to employees, hours of enforcement, program boundaries, etc. and; 3. Administrative regulations (to be developed after adoption of the Citywide ordinance), which would outline criteria for the required response rate for RPP implementation, requirements for how occupancy surveys and petitions are conducted, and other detailed criteria and procedures. As proposed by Staff, the City-wide ordinance, included in Attachment C, outlines a high-level process by which a neighborhood may petition to become an RPP District. The ordinance outlines the following: 1. Qualitative Criteria which must be met for a neighborhood to qualify as an RPP District. While some residents felt that the ordinance should contain quantitative thresholds in this section, some wanted the ordinance to have inherent flexibility to address neighborhoods that had different characteristics. For example, while a 70% parking occupancy level might be appropriate for a neighborhood close to a commercial center, it might be less appropriate for a neighborhood in a more suburban location. 2. The neighborhood petition process, including community outreach. The petition process involves a neighborhood coming forward with a recommendation for a District in its entirety (not on a street by street basis), along with a petition showing resident support for District implementation and other supporting data such as narratives or photographs. The Planning department would create a standard application for residents to use for the petition process. Once the applications were submitted, City Staff would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on the RPP District that should be prioritized for development that calendar year. Once the District had been decided, City Staff would conduct occupancy studies in accordance with criteria outlined in the administrative regulations, and community outreach to the residents and non-resident stakeholders. The resolution and program design for the neighborhood would be created as part of the outreach process. 3. The adoption of an RPP District, including the adoption of a district-specific resolution. This section outlines that, if approved by the Planning Commission and Council, a new RPP District might have a trial period of up to two years. 4. The administration of RPP Districts, including fees. 5. Allowance of contract enforcement of RPP Districts. Staff noted that enforcement costs for RPP Districts could be significant, and recommend allowing for contract (non-city employee) enforcement if appropriate. Program details for each neighborhood would be outlined in individual neighborhood resolutions. With respect to the percentage of support needed from a neighborhood to petition for or opt out of an existing RPP District, the ordinance authorizes staff to adopt administrative City of Palo Alto Page 7 guidelines, which Staff will develop early on in 2015. The reason this petition process was deferred to the administrative guidelines is that the RPP stakeholder group was divided on the appropriate petition threshold. Both staff and the RPP stakeholder group believe it is important to have flexibility on this issue to address particular neighborhood needs.. The RPP stakeholder group was divided on this particular issue; a straw vote was conducted where a 50+1% majority received 5 votes, a 55% majority received 2 votes, and 65% received 1 vote. The City of Menlo Park, Berkeley and San Francisco all reference a 51% vote for a District to be considered by Council, while other cities, including Santa Monica, require 66% support from at least 50% of the households on the block. Planning and Transportation Commission Feedback The PTC reviewed the draft ordinance on November 12, 2014 and directed staff to modify the ordinance to allow the City Council to initiate an RPP District as an alternative to having a neighborhood come forward to propose one. This change and a few minor edits since the PTC hearing on November 12, 2014 are shown in tracked changes in Attachment C. Timeline If approved by Council at a second reading on December 15, 2014, the ordinance would go into effect 31 days later, allowing for the implementation of the Downtown RPP Resolution. Policy Implications The City-wide ordinance is consistent with the three-pronged approach aimed at addressing traffic and parking demand, and is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Resource Impact The proposed ordinance would not in and of itself require an expenditure of City resources. The ordinance provides a framework for initiation and adoption of neighborhood-specific programs, each of which would require staff time to analyze, conduct neighborhood outreach, and prepare for hearings at the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council. Adoption and implementation of individual neighborhood programs would also require investments in the City’s permit, enforcement, and citation processes. These investments will be identified as part of the adoption of neighborhood specific programs. Environmental Review Adoption of a citywide ordinace establishing an RPP district in downtown Palo Alto is both exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a City of Palo Alto Page 8 significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments:  Attachment: Attachment A: City Manager Report dated July 6, 2009 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: City Council Report dated October 6, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C: Ordinance Residential Parking Program (RPP) (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment D: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Verbatim Minutes of November 12, 2014 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4997) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 10/6/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Update Title: Approval of Resolution Extending the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Boundares and Program Trial for Additional 12 Months From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution, authorizing staff to continue the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program trial until September 2015, and to expand the boundaries of the program. Executive Summary On August 12, 2013, Council approved the implementation of a No Overnight Parking program on select streets within the Crescent Park neighborhood. The program was developed to address concerns and complaints that non- residents were parking within the Crescent Park neighborhood, resulting in noise, litter and blocked driveways. Crescent Park residents petitioned and the City implemented a No Overnight Parking program requiring residents to display a valid City of Palo Alto parking permit on their vehicles between the hours of 2:00am and 5:00am. Only residents of streets within the program boundaries are eligible to purchase permits. Residents are allowed up to two annual permits per household at a cost of $100 each. The original staff report can be found in Attachment A. The program has proved successful at addressing resident concerns and an extension of the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking trial program is warranted. Background Table 1 lists the streets which were originally declared eligible for the program based on the initial Council direction, and indicates at the writing of this report whether or not the street has chosen to opt into the program. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Table 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Trial Program Participating Streets Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed West Crescent No Petition Request Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request Ashby Drive No Petition Request Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request Louisa Court No Petition Request Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval Arcadia Place Pending Approval Newell Place Pending Approval City of Palo Alto Page 3 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval Attachment B is a presentation which staff gave to the Crescent Park Annual Neighborhood Association in June. The presentation includes a summary of parking occupancy on participating streets in the program both before and after implementation. In most cases the program has drastically reduced parking occupancy on the streets on which it has been implemented, and has received favorable feedback from the Crescent Park residents. Enforcement of the streets is based primarily on resident-request but the Police Department does provide random enforcement. An estimated 275 parking citations have been issued since the implementation of the program. During initial implementation of the program, as blocks have opted into the program, parking occupancy on adjacent streets increased. This has meant that the program has grown as more residents organized and requested inclusion. Figure 1 shows the streets that are currently part of the program, the streets which have been approved for the program since last fall, and the streets which staff is recommending eligibility into the program for the upcoming year, based on resident requests. Figure 1 Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Program Current Participation and Proposed Program Eligibility City of Palo Alto Page 4 By adding additional street blocks into the program eligibility, residents of those streets are given the opportunity to organize and solicit participation by the City. The process that residents must follow includes: 1) Residents submit a petition signed by at least one member of at least 50% of the parcels on the street (City staff prepares the petition for residents); 2) The City issues a postal survey to verify participation/interest of all residents and a 70% support rate of responses returned is required for approval; 3) Following validation of majority support, City staff implements signs and residents are notified of eligility to purchase parking permits at City Hall. The additional street segments recommended for eligibility into the Crescent Park No Overnight trial parking program include:  University Avenue between East Crecent and Lincoln Avenue  Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln Avenue and West Crescent  Center Drive between Southwood Drive-Hamilton Avenue to Channing Avenue  Newell Road between Pitman Avenue-Louisa Court to Channing Avenue  Arcadia Place  Newell Place University Avenue in particular has experienced noticable parking impacts in recent months. University Avenue eligibility into the program will allow a resident champion to begin the petition and postal survey process for inclusion of the street. Staff is also pursuing sight distance improvements at intersections along Crescent Drive. Adding streets to the overnight parking restrictions requires a modification of the existing Crescent Park resolution, which summarizes the street names which are eligible for the program. The updated resolution has been provided in Attachment C for the Council’s consideration. Resource Impact The Crescent Park No Overnight Parking program currently receives no on-going targeted enforcement, the program is complaint driven. In addition, because the program enforcement period is during the early morning hours, the parking control officer program does not actively enforce the area, enforcement is by uniformed police officers as needed. The limited target enforcement minimizing the programs operations costs. The Revenue Collections Department manages permit sales at a cost of $100.00 per permit. During the first year trial of the program the city sold 222 permits over the trial period realizing about $20,000 in revenues to offset the limited enforcement and permit management costs. Permits were sold at various times of the year and permits purchased after the initial 6-months of the program were sold at a prorated basis. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Environmental Review Extension of existing parking restrictions and the additoin of streets to the program are covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Here it can be seen with certainty that the minor changes proposed will not have a significant impact and CEQA does not apply. (Public Resources Code 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)). Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Report dated August 5, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Update on Crescent Park dated June 25, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment C: Resolution Expanding NOP in Crescent Park (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 3969) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 8/5/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Allowing the Implementation of a One-Year Trial No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Program on Streets within the Crescent Park Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to implement a one-year trial for No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) program within certain street blocks of the Crescent Park Neighborhood. Background Citizens from the Crescent Park Neighborhood reached out to the City earlier this year requesting that the City implement parking restrictions within their neighborhood in order to limit parking intrusion from outside the neighborhood. This request was based on complaints involving overcrowded streets, blocking of driveways, noise and litter caused by overnight street parking. Following the initial request, the City implemented full-time, “No Parking” restrictions along Newell Road between Edgewood Drive and the Newell Road Bridge. Traffic calming improvements to improve pedestrian safety at Newell Road and Edgewood Drive and Newell Road and Hamilton Avenue were also implemented. These improvements included crosswalk improvements and all-way stop intersection controls. The Crescent Park citizens requested additional parking restrictions, initially along Edgewood Drive and worked with staff to develop and circulate petitions for No Overnight Parking (2AM- 5AM) for the following roadway segments, to manage the expected limits of parking intrusion:  Edgewood Drive: Southwood Drive to Jefferson Drive  Phillips Road: Edgewood Drive to Madison Way City of Palo Alto Page 2  Hamilton Avenue: Island Drive to Madison Way  Dana Avenue: Half-Block sections north and south of Newell Road  Newell Road: Dana Avenue to Edgewood Drive Following receipt of the petitions in June, staff released a follow-up post card survey to validate resident interest from each separate street block. These surveys were released throughout the month of July. Please note that the additional street block segments of Edgewood Drive between Southwood Drive and Island Drive were added to the post card survey following a petition received after the release of the initial post card surveys. The following additional street blocks have requested or submitted petitions for the No Overnight Parking restrictions but postal surveys have not yet been administered:  Edgewood Drive: Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane  Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive  Hamilton Avenue: Madison Way to Alester Avenue  Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive  Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive City staff required a minimum 70% support response from each street block to forward the restrictions to the Council for consideration. 70% has been the standard positive response rate used in Palo Alto for traffic calming programs. These restrictions would apply to resident vehicles, not just non-residents, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Overnight guest permits will be made available for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost of $5.00 per permit per night. Even with the guest permits, standard parking restrictions governed by the California Vehicle Code and Palo Alto Municipal Code continue to apply including a 72-hour parking restriction to avoid the storage of vehicles within the public right- of-way. The City has continued to accept responses to the post card survey through the month of July leading to the council meeting where this resolution will be considered. Table 1 below provides the findings of the post card survey through July 30th: Table 1 Crescent Park Neighborhood Post Card Survey Response No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Considerations City of Palo Alto Page 3 No. Street Block Segment No. of Households No. of Survey Responses (Yes and No) % Positive Support from Responses 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Dr to Island Dr 7 5 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Dr to Newell Rd 20 18 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Rd to Jefferson Dr 18 15 80% 4 Phillips Road Edgewood Rd to Madison Wy 9 9 89% 5 Hamilton Avenue Island Dr to Newell Rd 28 20 70% 6 Hamilton Avenue Newell Rd to Madison Wy 14 10 70% 7 Dana Avenue North of Newell Rd 14 10 30% 8 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road 16 13 54% 9 Newell Road Edgewood Dr to Hamilton Av 3 3 100% 10 Newell Road Hamilton Av to Dana Av 4 4 100% The post card survey shows that a majority of residents living on street blocks along Newell Road and towards the easterly limits of Crescent Park are in support of the No Overnight Parking Restrictions with only both blocks of Dana Avenue not currently in support of the restrictions. Staff recommends implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) for the streets that have positive support (70%+) for the restrictions to be implemented as a Phase 1 deployment City of Palo Alto Page 4 by September. Streets that opt to add in later can be deployed immediately upon receipt of a new petition and administration of another post card survey as a Phase 2 deployment. Under the current proposal, street blocks that did not have strong support for immediate implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions could opt in later. This recommendation is consistent with the conversations staff has had with neighborhood leaders. Therefore, staff requests authorization to implement additional restrictions in the future as part of this resolution including the blocks of: Edgewood Drive between Jefferson Drive and Patricia Lane; Hamilton Avenue: Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive; Hamilton Avenue between Madison Way and Alester Avenue; Madison Way: Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive; and Jefferson Drive: Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive, if supported by residents, for which a post card survey will be released following approval of the proposed resolution. Attachment A includes the Resolution. Attachment B describes the proposed Phase 1 and Phase 2 No Parking (2AM-5AM) considerations. Attachment C includes a sample of the post card survey released by the City. It is important to note that this is a proposed as a one-year pilot program. Staff will continue to work with neighborhood residents, as well as adjacent neighborhoods and communities to ensure that the program is being implemented as effectively as possible. Furthermore, staff will evaluate the ultimate request from many neighborhood residents for a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) program. Finally, staff will continue to work with City of East Palo Alto staff and nearby apartment owners on addressing the parking supply issue that is resulting in the need for this parking restriction trial. The City held a community meeting July 30th to present the above findings to residents. Residents noted that the proposed No Overnight Parking restrictions were not an ideal solution and that Residential Parking Permit (RPP) was a preferred alternative but that the proposal was a good step forward while solutions for RPP options are discussed further with the community. Residents from streets on Hamilton Avenue near Center Drive-Southwood Drive and on Madison Way and Jefferson Drive requested inclusion in the future Phase 2 program. Policy Implications The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 – Restrictions Established – Signs Designating allows the installation of parking restrictions by time-of-day following a city council ordinance or resolution. Vehicles that are cited for parking in areas where time restrictions have been established are cited by the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.40.020 (b) – Signs or Curb Markings to Indicated No Stopping and Parking Regulations. The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22507.5 – Local Regulations allows the issuance of City of Palo Alto Page 5 Day Permits for parking through parking restricted periods of the day for residents and their guests. Resource Impact The design and construction of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) are estimated to cost approximateyl $12,000 and will be funded through the existing Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – PL12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements) project. The Revenue Collections Department will make available for purchase Overnight Guest Permits for specific use by the Crescent Park Neighborhood on a limited basis at a cost of $5.00 per permit. Permits are good one night only and a limited amount of permits will be available. Timeline The City recommends implementation of the signage restrictions through the remainder of August followed by a 2-week warning period for vehicles that continue to park during the new No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) period with citations being issued on an as-needed basis by mid-September. City staff expects to meet with neighborhood residents at the six-month mark and again near the end of the one-year trial to assess te effectiveness of the program and at the year end to coniser recommendation for continuation or discontinuation of the program. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution for Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (PDF)  Attachment B: Crescent Park - No Overnight Parking Survey Findings (PDF)  Attachment C: Sample Crescent Park Postal Survey (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 130729 jb 0131119 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. Some of the residents of Crescent Park have requested No Overnight Parking Restrictions (2AM – 5AM) to minimize the impacts of parking intrusion on individual blocks. The following street block segments have been identified by staff as appropriate areas for the restrictions, pending resident support through a post card survey: No. Street Street Block Segment No Parking Restriction Period Post Card Survey Support 1 Edgewood Drive Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM 100% 2 Edgewood Drive Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 94% 3 Edgewood Drive Newell Road to Jefferson Dr 2AM – 5AM 80% 4 Edgewood Drive Jefferson Drive to Patricia Lane 2AM – 5AM Pending 5 Phillips Road Edgewood Drive to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 89% 6 Hamilton Avenue Island Drive to Newell Road 2AM – 5AM 70% 7 Hamilton Avenue Newell Road to Madison Way 2AM – 5AM 70% 8 Hamilton Avenue Madison Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM Pending 9 Hamilton Avenue Center Drive-Southwood Drive to Island Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 10 Jefferson Drive Hamilton Avenue to Edgewood Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 11 Dana Avenue North of Newell Road Half Way to Ashby Drive 2AM – 5AM 30% 12 Dana Avenue South of Newell Road Half Way to Alester Avenue 2AM – 5AM 54% 13 Madison Way Hamilton Avenue to Jefferson Drive 2AM – 5AM Pending 14 Newell Road Edgewood Drive to Hamilton Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% 15 Newell Road Hamilton Avenue to Dana Avenue 2AM – 5AM 100% B. The Post Card surveys administered by the City in July 2013 show a majority of the streets being supportive of the implementation of the No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) restrictions. C. The current results of the survey are depicted in Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by reference. Phase 1 streets have expressed support for the proposed overnight parking restriction and Phase 2 streets have been identified by staff as potential candidates for such regulations pending resident support. NOT YET APPROVED 2 130729 jb 0131119 D. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement a pilot one year program to attempt to mitigate this problem. E. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. F. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council authorizes staff to implement No Overnight Parking Restrictions on all of the street block segments identified in Recital A and labeled as Phase 1 and Phase 2 in Exhibit A as petitions by residents are received. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt and verification of a minimum 70% support from surveys received. SECTION 2: Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 3: The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 3 130729 jb 0131119 SECTION 4: This program shall expire within one year of adoption unless extended by City Council. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13 SCALE: NONE 10-o 10-a> +-' c a> () Channing Av Legend: Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM-5AM) Survey Findings Phase 1 -Community Support Received Phase 2 -Community Support Pending Last Update: 7-31-13       June 17, 2013                                                            Dear Edgewood Drive Resident,    The City received a petition requesting the installation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions for the areas designed on the map on the other side of this notice within the  Crescent Park Neighborhood.  The City is supportive of implementing parking considerations  requested by residents as long as the improvements are supported by a majority of residents.    In order for the City to implement the Crescent Park No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions a 70% positive response rate for each street block from surveys returns is required.   The restrictions will be implemented on a block‐by‐block basis for streets where the 70%  support threshold is received. The City Council will also need to approve a resolution  implementing the parking restriction.  Street blocks that do not have the 70% positive response  now, or that that did not originally request the parking restrictions, can request them at a later  date following the receipt of a petition circulated by residents.     This survey notice is intended to validate support for No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM)  restrictions identified in the petition for the block of Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and  Newell Road.    Please indicate your preference for the No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions by  completing and returning this survey in the self‐addressed stamped envelope provided.  The  City will accept survey responses through Friday, July 5th and present the results of the survey  process at a community meeting tentatively scheduled the week of July 22nd; a separate  community meeting notice card will be issued prior to the meeting with meeting location and  time information.    If you live on a street that you believe does not need restrictions at this time we encourage you  to complete the survey and return it as support will be evaluated based on returned surveys  only.  In addition, you may feel restrictions are appropriate after being implemented on an  adjacent street and the City restrictions can be implemented later following receipt of a  petition.    If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City of Palo Alto – Transportation  Division at (650) 329‐2442 or by email at transportation@cityofpaloalto.org.     Crescent Park Neighborhood  No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5PM) Restrictions  Survey                                             XXXX Edgewood Drive    Please mark your preference to only one of the options below:    □   We support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.  We understand that resident and non‐ resident vehicles parked on the street during this time period will be subject to citations during  the time restriction period.  □   We do not support the implementation of No Overnight Parking (2AM to 5AM) restrictions along  Edgewood Drive between Island Drive and Newell Road.    Comments:              Please return survey by July 5, 2013 to: City of Palo Alto    Transportation Division    250 Hamilton Avenue    Palo Alto, CA  94301  Survey for No Overnight  Parking (2AM to 5AM)  Restrictions on Edgewood  Drive, Island Drive to Newell  Road.  1 Update on the Crescent Park No  Over Night Parking (NOP) Program Crescent Park Neighborhood Association June 25, 2014 2 Agenda Program Boundaries – Then and Now Occupancy Studies Wrap Up and Questions 3 Program Background Original program boundaries – August 2013 4 Program Background Current Program Boundaries (Center in Process) June 2014 5 Parking Occupancy Studies Name of Street Before NOP  Program  (8/21/13) After NOP  Program  (1/22/14) Parking Reduction, % Edgewood 87 19 79% Hamilton (Newell to Island) 22 11 50% Newell (to Dana) 13 1 99% Phillips 16 3 82% Madison 6 4 67% Jefferson141214% Hamilton (Newell  to Alester) 22 10 50% 6 Parking Occupancy Studies,  Cont. Name of Street Before NOP  Program (8/21/13) After NOP  Program (5/8/14)  / (6/11/14) Parking Reduction, % Crescent N/A 3 N/A E. Crescent N/A 8 N/A Dana –Newell to  Ashby 19 16 16% Dana –Newell to  Alester 21 23 +10% Kings Lane 19 7 63% Island Drive 22 8 64% 7 Summary and Other Notes In general CP streets are significantly less parked  where the NOP program is active Petition Completed for Center Dr (University to  Hamilton) – Installation Pending Request for NOP on Pitman Av Several residents have expressed interest in  including parts of University within the program  boundaries. Residents must put hangtag permits on rearview  mirrors, or may face citations 8 Recommendations Continue program for another year to allow  for development of a Citywide Residential  Preferential Parking (RPP) Policy to be  completed. Consideration 1:  University Avenue – Permanent No Parking on South Side of  Street with NOP on North? Consideration 2:Expand NOP to Channing  Avenue and Lincoln Av (see map) 9 Option: Year  2 CP NOP Limits Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Expanding No Overnight Parking Restrictions around the Crescent Park Neighborhood as a One Year Trial Program R E C I T A L S A. On August 12, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution 9367 establishing a trial program prohibiting overnight parking from 2AM to 5AM on certain blocks in Crescent Park. On September 23, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9373A expanding the overnight ban to additional streets in the Crescent Park neighborhood and implementing a process for further extensions. B. Since adoption of the Resolution neighbors and staff have identified additional blocks that should be included in this trial program. The current streets and street segments that have been identified for inclusion in the trial program are depicted on Exhibit A attached and incorporated and described below: No. Crescent Park Street or Street Segment Status 1 Edgewood Drive between Southwood and Patricia Opted In September 2013 2 Newell Road between Edgewood and Dana Opted in September 2013 3 Phillips Road Opted in September 2013 4 Madison Way Opted in September 2013 5 Hamilton Ave between Island and Alester Opted in September 2013 6 Jefferson Drive Opted in September 2013 7 Southwood Court Opted In November 2013 8 Crescent Drive Opted in November 2013 9 Dana Avenue, Ashby to Alester Opted in November 2013 10 East Crescent Drive Opted In December 2013 11 Center Drive Opted in June 2014 12 Island Drive Opted in April 2014 13 Kings Lane Opted in April 2014 14 Newell Road, Dana to Pitman Opted in November 2013 15 Pitman Avenue, 1432 to 1494 Pitman Petition Received; Surveys Distributed 16 Southwood Drive from Hamilton to Edgewood Petition Distributed 17 West Crescent No Petition Request 18 Dana Avenue from Ashby to Center No Petition Request 19 Ashby Drive No Petition Request 20 Pitman Avenue from 1494 to Center No Petition Request 140923 jb 0131260 1 Not Yet Approved 21 Hamilton Avenue from Center to West and Crescent No Petition Request 22 Louisa Court No Petition Request 23 Hamilton Avenue from Island Drive to West Crescent No Petition Request 24 University Avenue between East Crescent and Lincoln Avenue Pending Approval 25 Hamilton Avenue between Lincoln and West Crescent Pending Approval 26 Center Drive from Hamilton to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 27 Newell Road from Alester/Dana to Channing Avenue Pending Approval 28 Arcadia Place Pending Approval 29 Newell Place Pending Approval 30 Lincoln Avenue between University and Hamilton Pending Approval C. The City Council finds that there is a parking intrusion problem in parts of the Crescent Park neighborhood and desires to implement an additional one year pilot program to attempt to mitigate this problem. D. The California Vehicle Code Section 22507.5 authorizes the City to enact, by ordinance or resolution, parking restrictions on public streets between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and further authorizes the City to provide for a system of permits for the purpose of exempting from the prohibition or restriction of the ordinance or resolution, disabled persons, residents, and guests of residents of residential areas. E. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.44.010 allows for the implementation of parking restrictions. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: Resolutions 9367 and 9373A are hereby repealed and superseded by this Resolution. SECTION 2: Restricted Parking Area. The City Council authorizes staff to retain the existing No Overnight Parking restrictions on the streets listed under Recital B that have opted in as indicated in Recital B. In addition, the City Council authorizes staff to allow additional streets listed under Recital B to be eligible for inclusion in the program upon successful completion of the process outlined in Section 3. SECTION 3: Petitions. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block upon receipt of the following: 140923 jb 0131260 2 Not Yet Approved 1.City-issued petition showing signatures from at least 50% of the block, and; 2.70% support from City-issued surveys to verify SECTION 4: Posting of Signs. No Overnight (2AM – 5AM) Parking restrictions shall be posted in each eligible block. SECTION 5: Permits. The City shall provide overnight guest permits for residents that require parking for their guests at a cost not to exceed $5.00 per permit per night. A prepaid parking permit will be made available for use by residents and their guests at a cost of $100 per permit. Two (2) pre-paid permits will be available per household. SECTION 6: Exemption. Vehicles displaying overnight residential parking permits for the designated streets shall be exempt from the posted parking restriction. SECTION 7: CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Section 21065 of the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 8: This program shall be reviewed in 12 months to determine if it should continue. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services _____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 140923 jb 0131260 3 Exhibit A Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferred Parking Districts) is hereby added to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICTS Sections: 10.50.010 Purpose 10.50.020 Definitions 10.50.030 RFP Designation Criteria 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts 10.50.070 Administration of Districts 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties 10.50.010 Purpose. Residential preferential parking districts are intended to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. The procedures and standards in this chapter are intended to provide flexibility so that the city council may adopt, after consultation with residents and neighboring businesses and institutions, parking programs that appropriately address each neighborhood’s unique characteristics. Residential preferential parking districts should be designed to accommodate non-residential parking when this can be done while meeting the parking availability standards determined by the city to be appropriate for the district in question. Residential preferential parking programs may be designed to reduce non-residential parking over time to give non-residential parkers time to find other modes of transportation or parking locations. 10.50.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: 140826 jb 0131250A 1 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a) “Director” shall mean the director of planning and community environment. b) “Dwelling unit” shall mean a self-contained house, apartment, stock cooperative unit, or condominium unit occupied by a single household exclusively for residential purposes. These residential purposes may include lawful home occupations. c) “Employee permit” shall mean a permit issued forto an employee working at a business located within an RPP District. d) “Guest permit” shall mean a permit issued to a Resident on an annual basis for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District or for workers providing services such as caregiving, gardening, repair maintenance and construction, to the Resident. The number of Guest permits issued to Residents shall be specified in administrative regulations adopted by the Director. e) “Non-resident vehicle” shall mean a vehicle operated by a person whose destination is not to a residence within the Residential Preferential Parking District. f) “Resident” shall mean a natural person living in a dwelling unit in an RPP District. g) “Residential Preferential Parking District” or “RPP District” shall mean a geographical area in which the city council has established a preferential parking permit system pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22507. h) “Visitor permit” shall mean a temporary 24-hour permit issued to a Resident for use by a person visiting a residence in an RPP District. 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 10.50.040 Initiation by City Council The city council may, by motion or resolution, initiate consideration of a RPP District by directing staff to undertake the analysis and outreach process set forth in Section 10.50.050(d) and (e). 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RRP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: 140826 jb 0131250A 2 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non-residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. (c) Prioritization of Applications. Applications determined by the Director to meet the criteria in paragraph (b) above shall be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission. The commission shall review the requests and recommend to the director which proposal or proposals should be given priority for review and possible implementation in the current calendar year. In making its recommendations, the commission shall consider the severity of non-residential parking impact, the demonstrated level of neighborhood support, and the staff resources needed to process requests. (d) Staff Review of Applications and Community Outreach. Once an application has been selected for council consideration during the current calendar year, staff shall promptly review the application, gather additional information and conduct a community outreach program. At a minimum the review process shall include the following: (1) The City shall complete parking occupancy studies to quantify the nature of the problem identified in the petition. Data shall be collected when schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District and Stanford University are in session, unless these institutions are irrelevant to the problem to be addressed. (2) Upon completion of the consultation and outreach process, the city attorney shall prepare a draft resolution containing the proposed boundaries and hours of enforcement. Staff shall undertake a survey of resident support within the RPP District. The results of this survey shall be included in and reported to the planning and transportation commission and the city council. (e) Planning and Transportation Commission Review. Staff shall bring the proposed RPP District to the planning & transportation commission no later than 140826 jb 0131250A 3 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved September of the calendar year in which consideration began. The commission shall review the draft resolution at a noticed public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding the RPP District. This recommendation may include proposed modifications of the boundaries. The commission’s recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council no later than September 30th. 10.50.060 Establishment of Residential Preferential Parking Districts (a) Adoption of Resolution Establishing District. Following the completion of the procedures described in Section 10.50.050, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on a proposed resolution to establish the residential preferential parking district. The resolution may specify a trial period of up to twoone years. Any such trial period shall begin running after the signs have been posted and permits issued. The council may adopt, modify, or reject the proposed resolution. (b) Resolution. The resolution shall specify: (1) The findings that the criteria set forth in Section 10.05.030 have been met. (2) The term of the trial period, if applicable. (3) The boundaries and name of the residential preferential parking district. The boundary map may also define areas which will become subject to the regulations of the residential preferential parking district in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Section 10.50.080 below. (4) Hours and days of enforcement of parking regulations and other restrictions that shall be in effect for non-permit holders, such as two-hour parking limits, overnight parking limits, or “no re-parking” zones. (5) The number of permits, if any, to be issued to merchants or other non-residential users, which number may be scheduled to reduce over time. (6) Such other matters as the Council may deem necessary and desirable. (c) Permanent Adoption. Before the expiration of the trial period, if applicable, the city council shall hold a noticed public hearing and determine whether the RPP District should be made permanent as originally adopted, modified or terminated. The council’s action shall be in the form of a resolution. 10.50.070 Administration of Districts (a) Issuance and Fees. (1) No permit will be issued to any applicant until that applicant has paid all of his or her outstanding parking citations, including all civil penalties and related fees. (2) A residential parking permit may be issued for a motor vehicle if the following requirements are met: A. The applicant demonstrates that he or she is currently a resident of the area for which the permit is to be issued. B. The applicant demonstrates that he or she has ownership or continuing custody of the motor vehicle for which the permit is to be issued. 140826 jb 0131250A 4 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved C. Any motor vehicle to be issued a permit must have a vehicle registration indicating registration within the area for which the permit is to be issued. (3) Visitor or guest parking permits may be issued for those vehicles or to those individuals or households that qualify for those permits under the resolution establishing the RPD District. (4) EmployeeNon-resident parking permits may be issued to those individuals and for those vehicles that qualify for such permits under the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) No Guarantee of Availability of Parking. A parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the permit holder an on-street parking space within the designated residential preferential parking zone. (c) Restrictions and Conditions. Each permit issued pursuant to this Section shall be subject to each and every condition and restriction set forth in this Chapter and as provided for in the resolution establishing the specific RPP District, as may be amended from time to time. The issuance of such permit shall not be construed to waive compliance with any other applicable parking law, regulation or ordinance. (d) Exemptions. The following vehicles are exempt from RPP District parking restrictions in this Chapter: (1) A vehicle owned or operated by a public or private utility, when used in the course of business. (2) A vehicle owned or operated by a governmental agency, when used in the course of official government business. (3) A vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, when used in the course of business. (4) A vehicle parked or standing while actively delivering materials or freight. (5) A vehicle displaying an authorized exemption permit issued by the City of Palo Alto. (6) A vehicle displaying a State of California or military-issued disabled person placard or license plates. (7) A vehicle parked for the purpose of attending or participating in an event taking place at a school within the Palo Alto Unified School District, provided that the vehicle is parked within two blocks of the school, the school has requested and received approval from the City at least fourteen days before the event date, and the school distributes notices to all addresses within a two‐block radius of the school. Exempt parking pursuant to this subsection is available for no more than five events per school year for each school. (8) All vehicles are exempt from parking restrictions pursuant to this Chapter on the following holidays: January 1, July 4, Thanksgiving Day, and December 25. (e) Authority of Staff 140826 jb 0131250A 5 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved a. The director is authorized to adopt administrative regulations that are consistent with the purposes of this Chapter. b. The Police Department or private parking enforcement contractor as approved by the Chief of Police shall have the authority to enforce the administrative regulations established pursuant to this Chapter. 10.50.080 Annexation of New Areas to Existing Districts Residents of any block may petition the director for annexation into a contiguous RPP District. The petition shall be on forms provided by the department. If the petition meets the criteria established in administrative regulations adopted by the director, a resolution annexing it to the RPP District shall be prepared by the city attorney and submitted to the city council, together with the director’s recommendation on the proposed annexation. The city council may approve, deny, or modify the annexation. 10.50.090 Modification or Termination of Districts (a) Opting out. After final adoption of an RPP District, Residents may file an application with the director to opt out of the RPP District. The minimum number of blocks and percentage of units supporting the opt-out shall be specified by the director in the administrative guidelines. Applications for opting out shall be made in the form and manner prescribed by the director and shall be acted up on by the director. Any opt out application shall be filed within ninety (90) days after council adoption of the resolution establishing the RPP District. (b) Dissolution. The city council following a noticed public hearing may adopt a resolution dissolving the RPP District: (1) Upon receipt and verification of a petition signed by 50% or more of all the households within an approved RPP District boundary, or (2) Upon findings by the City Council that the criteria for designating the RPP District are no longer satisfied. 10.50.100 Violations and Penalties (a) No person shall stop, stand or park a vehicle adjacent to any curb in a residential preferential parking zone in violation of any posted or noticed prohibition or restriction, unless the person has a valid and current residential preferential parking permit, visitor permit, guest permit or employee permit for that vehicle, or is otherwise exempt. Violations of this sub-section shall be punishable by a civil penalty under Chapter 10.60.010. (b) No person shall sell, rent, or lease, or cause to be sold, rented, or leased for any value or consideration any RPP District parking permit, visitor permit or guest permit. Upon violation of this subsection, all permits issued to for the benefit of the dwelling unit or business establishment for which the sold, rented, or leased permit was authorized shall be void. Violation of this sub-section (b) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 140826 jb 0131250A 6 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved (c) No person shall buy or otherwise acquire for value or use any RPP District parking permit, guest permit or visitor permit except as provided for in this chapter. Violation of this sub-section (c) shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. SECTION 2. Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.04.086 Parking Enforcement Contractor “Parking Enforcement Contractor” means any duly qualified company that the City has entered into a contract with and that has been approved by the Chief of Police to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to Palo Alto Municipal Code infractions only in parking zones. Enforcement includes both the issuance and processing of citations for RPP District parking violations. SECTION 3. Section 10.08.015 (Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby added to read as follows: 10.08.015 Authority of Parking Enforcement Contractor The City may enter into a contract with a duly qualified company, approved by the Chief of Police, to provide enforcement of Chapter 10.50 relating to RPP District parking violations (as permissible by the Palo Alto Municipal Code). SECTION 4. Section 10.60.010 (Parking violations punishable as civil penalties) of Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 10.60.010 Parking Violations Punishable as Civil Penalties Except as otherwise provided, violations of any provision of Chapters 10.36, 10.40, 10.44, 10.46, and 10.47, and 10.50 of this Title 10 (hereinafter referred to as a “parking violation”) shall be punishable by a civil penalty (hereinafter referred to as a “parking penalty”). These parking penalties, together with any late payment penalties, administrative fees, and other related charges shall be established by ordinance or resolution of the city council. SECTION 5. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. 140826 jb 0131250A 7 November 17, 2014 Not Yet Approved SECTION 6. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ Interim City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Planning & Community Environment 140826 jb 0131250A 8 November 17, 2014 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing (Item will start at approximately 7:30 PM)7 RPP Recommendation to Council: The Commission will be asked to recommend that the City Council8 adopt a City-Wide Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance establishing a framework for9 implementation of area specific Residential Parking. For more information contact Jessica Sullivan at10 Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org11 12 Chair Michael: Everybody’s coming back to their seats. Let’s see, these aren’t numbered. Do you know13 how this works? Maybe you can figure it out. Ok. So let me introduce the public hearing on the parking14 and on the published agenda this is broken down into two items. First is the Citywide Residential15 Preferential Parking (RPP) Ordinance and then the next item is the Downtown ordinance. And I’m going16 to ask our Senior Assistant City Attorney for clarification shortly, but the Commission along with the17 Council has a conflict of interest policy, which is if any Commissioner has an economic interest within 50018 feet of a topic that we are taking action on then they may be required to abstain from consideration of19 that Motion and actually leave the room. And one of our Commissioners, Commissioner Rosenblum lives20 in the Downtown area so when we get to the Downtown topic Commissioner Rosenblum will adhere to21 our policy and he will leave the meeting. That requires that the first part of the discussion will focus on22 the Citywide Parking Ordinance and when we have comments from staff, the Commission, and the public23 it would be, it would help us stay in compliance with our conflict of interest rules if first we focus as much24 as possible on the citywide issues and reserving the Downtown specific concerns to after Commissioner25 Rosenblum departs. And maybe Cara Silver could you, did I get that right?26 27 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Sure, thank you Chair and Commission. So the State Fair28 Political Practices Commission has some adopted conflict of interest rules and that’s what the Chair is29 referring to and under those rules if a Member of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) has30 a real property interest that is within 500 feet of an action that the Commission is acting on then there is31 a presumption that there is a conflict of interest and accordingly since Commissioner Rosenblum owns32 real property in the Downtown area that is the subject of the second action that you’re going to be33 hearing this evening he will be recusing himself from that action; however, he can participate in the first34 action, which is the citywide development of a preferential parking program. There is an exception to the35 conflict of interest rules that apply to regulations that while they may impact a Commissioner individually36 in their financial interest that impact has similar impact on the public generally and so he will be able to37 participate in the first item. So I think what we would like to do in order to facilitate an efficient meeting38 we would like to encourage speakers to if they would like to speak on the first item then they should39 direct their remarks on the first item, which is the general framework for the preferential parking program40 and then if they have discussion items on the Downtown resolution in particular defer those items until41 the second item so there’s not duplicative speaking.42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: Can I ask a quick question on this topic? If, if Commissioner Rosenblum was44 interested in contributing to this conversation as a resident could he exit the dais and participate as a45 speaker?46 47 Ms. Silver: No, he would still be conflicted from that decision.48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: And does that conflict continue if he was interested in [unintelligible yell in50 background], if he was interested in participating in the process at City Council is he still restricted as a51 general member of the public?52 53 Ms. Silver: With respect to the Downtown issue, yes. He cannot participate at all in that decision.54 55 ATTACHMENT D 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you. 1 2 Chair Michael: Hopefully this is a reflection of the absolute commitment by the PTC to be ethical and 3 above board. So I appreciate your forbearance with our struggling to understand exactly where to draw 4 the line between citywide and Downtown and with that let’s turn this to staff for a presentation on the 5 proposed Citywide RPP Ordinance and do we hear from Director Gitelman or Jessica Sullivan our Parking 6 Manager? 7 8 Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager: Good evening Chair Michael and Members of the Commission. It’s 9 great to see everybody tonight. So as we just discussed the first item we’re talking about is the overview 10 of the proposed Citywide Ordinance for RPP districts. So I’m just going to kind of quickly go just a very 11 small presentation just sort of on where this, where this all came from, where we’ve ended up, and then 12 just give you a quick overview of how we’re proposing this Ordinance to work as well as the content of 13 the Ordinance. 14 15 So as many of you have heard me talk about many times this, the whole RPP discussion is really a crucial 16 part of our multi-pronged approach to addressing our parking and transportation challenges in Palo Alto. 17 So you can see here we’ve got parking management with the RPP program being a crucial component of 18 parking management looking at our existing parking supplies and figuring out how we can really 19 maximize them and use them strategically. So the staff report obviously is not about all these other 20 things, but I think it’s important to mention them in the context of the RPP discussion. We’re moving 21 forward with parking technology, garage branding and signage, and several other, several other 22 measures related to management of parking supply. Transportation demand reduction is another crucial 23 component. I know we’ll come back to you soon with some updates on that. Development of our 24 Transportation Management Association (TMA), increasing our shuttle service and looking at other 25 routes, city employee commute programs, our Zipcar program, and then parking supply measures 26 ultimately managing and increasing the parking supply that we have available to us. So again, part of 27 the big picture strategy that we’ve been really working hard on for the last year. 28 29 So when Council directed us in January to kind of embark on this parallel process including both a 30 citywide ordinance to address RPP districts across the City as well as a development of a priority district 31 program, which ended up being the Downtown, staff has sort of taken this, this direction and made a 32 sort of modification of it. So we’re proposing that the Citywide Ordinance outlines the criteria that need 33 to be met in order for our neighborhood to become an RPP district and to be vetted against that. The 34 neighborhood specific resolution, which we’ll hear about in the second item tonight for downtown, which 35 would outline neighborhood specific design criteria so the idea being that different permit programs 36 within the City could potentially have different characteristics. Things like cost of permits might be 37 different, hours of enforcement, things like that. 38 39 And a third piece, which we sort of added in working with the attorneys office is this piece of 40 administrative regulations. One of the things that we notice as we worked through drafts of the 41 Ordinance and the resolution was that there’s a lot of detail and sort of parking policy requirements and 42 how we do occupancy studies and who’s eligible for permits and why and so we made a recommendation 43 that that sort of information be put in a document that we’re calling the administrative regulations. So 44 it’s not substantive to the program design, but it would be developed as part of the proposed program if 45 we move forward in 2015. 46 47 So I’ll quickly go through the Ordinance as it’s proposed and as it’s laid out in the staff, staff report. I 48 think the one of the most important things about the Ordinance is it lays out the criteria that have to be 49 met in order for a neighborhood to move forward with a petition process to become an RPP district. And 50 I’ve sort of paraphrased them here in this slide, this is not how they’re worded exactly in the Ordinance, 51 but you all have a copy of that in the staff report. So basically the first one is just that nonresident 52 vehicles ultimately interfere with the use of parking by neighborhood residents who live within that 53 neighborhood. That the interference itself is frequent, and that this nonresident vehicle parking disrupts 54 neighborhood quality of life, which is also another way of saying that shortage of parking spaces could 55 3 result noise, traffic, those types of things. And the last one is that other strategies are not feasible or 1 practical. So these are the criteria that we came up with for the Ordinance to lay out. 2 3 The Ordinance then goes into a description of the neighborhood petition process that a neighborhood 4 would need to move forward with assuming that they satisfy the criteria outlaid in the Ordinance. So 5 basically and this is quite similar to the process that most cities go through when they create RPP 6 districts. The residents need to complete an application and a petition which is submitted to the Planning 7 Department. The Planning Department reviews the application and in this case we would review the 8 application to make sure that the criteria are in fact met as outlined in the Ordinance. The Planning 9 Director would review all the applications and make sure the criteria are met and make a 10 recommendation to the Planning Commission for the neighborhood that seemed to be the most 11 appropriate to move forward with then the Planning Commission would review the application and 12 ultimately make the recommendation for staff to move forward with, with developing the program. So 13 then this is where staff conducts the community outreach that’s really necessary to develop this type of a 14 program so including not only reaching out to residents in the impacted area, but also to the potential 15 cause of the parking intrusion to the neighborhood. This is also where we would conduct occupancy 16 studies of the neighborhood to determine the level of impact. 17 18 We’ve actually included a sort of time stipulation in the Ordinance stating that we, the Director would 19 review all the applications by March 31st of that year and then that staff would bring the draft resolution 20 to the Planning Commission by September of that year and then ultimately the Planning Commission 21 review the petition application, the occupancy data, and then make the final recommendation to Council. 22 So the adoption of the resolution is also laid out in the Ordinance as what content needs to be inside the 23 resolution and I’m not going to go too much into that because we’re going to talk about the resolution 24 later, but the Ordinance specifies that the resolution can have a trial period of up to one year and also 25 that parts of, parts of neighborhoods that are not in the district at first can annex themselves into an 26 existing RPP district and also that a district can terminate itself by the same petition process. The other 27 thing the Ordinance outlines is the allowance for contract enforcement for the enforcement of the 28 proposed district. Right now we don’t have a municipal code that allows us to contract out for 29 enforcement. The Police Department does all of our enforcement and looking at potential costs of 30 enforcing programs like this we’ve decided that contract enforcement may be a good option for us. So 31 that’s a quick summary of the Ordinance and our recommendation is that the PTC recommend adoption 32 of the Ordinance by City Council. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Michael: Ok, so I think we’ll go to the public now and we have a number of speaker cards. By the 35 way if anybody has come into the room and would like to speak and hasn’t had a chance to fill out a 36 speaker card we would love to hear from you. And we have two new Commissioners who joined the PTC 37 this meeting, Commissioner Downing and Fine. And they asked if we always have so many people at our 38 PTC meetings and I said oh yes, every meeting and I think this is wonderful. We like to provide a forum 39 for engagement with the public and definitely want to hear your input on this topic, which is very 40 important to the community. So with that, ok, ok. 41 42 And I was just reminded by Commissioner Alcheck that if anybody came into the room after we 43 introduced our ethical rules about conflict of interest we’re trying to confine the focus in this first part of 44 the discussion on the Citywide Ordinance and then after Commissioner Rosenblum who lives Downtown 45 leaves the room then we can turn to the Downtown issues on the final topic. So with that we’re going to 46 give each speaker three minutes. If you happen to be here as a representative of a group that hopefully 47 is indicated on your card and we’ll give you more time as noted on the card. So Commissioner 48 Rosenblum has given me the first speaker, it’s going to be Malcolm Beasley and to queue up you’ll be 49 followed by Mary Dimet, if I’ve got that right, but welcome. 50 51 Malcolm Beasley: Thank you. Members of the PTC I appreciate the opportunity to address you this 52 evening regarding the proposed citywide ordinance and the Downtown RPP resolution. My name is Mac 53 Beasley and I’m a 40 year resident of Downtown North. I’ve studied the report submitted by staff that 54 you are considering and I have some observations that I’d like to share with you. There are many 55 moving parts in adopting a workable RPP program and it’s easy to get lost in the details essential though 56 4 they may be. It’s therefore helpful to be clear on the bigger picture. In that spirit I offer two strongly 1 felt suggestions. 2 3 I present one, that demand for parking is a moving target. It’s only going to get worse with the new 4 construction already approved in the pipeline and the increased employee density being introduced into 5 existing buildings. Therefore, it is essential to compare quantitatively any proposed approaches to 6 increased supply, better yet the aggregate of all such approaches against the demand projected forward 7 in time. The approaches presented in the report so far deal only with the problem as it exists today. I’m 8 not suggesting that staff doesn’t understand the issue I’m raising. It is at best a first step. The reality is 9 that parking will surely get worse and we must openly face up to that reality if we are to deal with it in a 10 firm way. Therefore, I urge you to insist that going forward staff be instructed to make dynamic 11 projections to the degree that it’s possible to do so. 12 13 Two, excessive parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods is inconsistent with the Comprehensive 14 Plan. You know that and it is stated in the Comprehensive Plan “protect residential areas from parking 15 impacts of nearby business districts.” That’s from, quoted from the report. I firmly believe as many in 16 this room know that this goal cannot be honored in a fair transparent way without some metric to gage 17 intrusion. Such a metric might also serve as a criterion that would qualify a neighborhood to seek an 18 RPP. According to the staff report developing such a criterion is one of the essential components of the 19 Ordinance. According to my reading of the staff report the stakeholder group came to the consensus 20 that the 20 percent nonresident parking is reasonable, but that is for the Council to decide and if they 21 don’t in my frank opinion they are not meeting their responsibilities as the stewards of the 22 Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to take the position that the Ordinance should introduce a quantitative 23 i.e. measurable acceptable level of intrusion even if it cannot be met in the short term. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Mary Dimet to be followed by Mark Nanevicz. 26 27 Mary Dimet: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 28 29 Chair Michael: Consider it done. The next speaker is Mark Nanevicz to be followed by (interrupted) 30 31 Mark Nanevicz: [Speaking off microphone – unintelligible]. 32 33 Chair Michael: So noted. That’s Mark Nanevicz. So… 34 35 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So next is Norman Bermmer. 36 37 Chair Michael: Mr. Bermmer? Item 3? Three minutes. 38 39 Norman Bermmer: I probably should have checked four as well, but I’ll keep my remarks general. 40 41 Chair Michael: You can please come back and speak again if you’d like. 42 43 Mr. Bermmer: I think I can cover it here. So I would urge the Commission to recommend adoption of the 44 RPP Ordinance and the other associated actions. I agree with the previous speaker that there should be 45 a quantitative standard in the Ordinance, 20 percent sounds like it’s a reasonable amount. In other 46 words no more than 20 percent of the available parking spaces in any given neighborhood should be 47 dedicated to nonresident parking otherwise you’re going to just fill up the area with parking and that will 48 defeat the purpose of the program. 49 50 The other thing from the standpoint of a Crescent Park resident, which I am, I think some folks are 51 concerned that if you enact a district it will then just spread the problem out and that’s why the provision 52 in the ordinance that allows adjacent blocks to opt in is very important. So I just wanted to stress that’s 53 an important aspect of the overall system. Thank you. 54 55 Chair Michael: Thank you. And then the next speaker is Doria Summa on Item 3. 56 5 1 Doria Summa: Good evening Chair, Commissioners, and welcome new Commissioners. I’m Doria 2 Summa, I’m a resident of College Terrace and I wanted to just talk to you a little bit after a long struggle 3 permit parking was implemented in September of 2009 in College Terrace. It’s been very successful ever 4 since and the Ordinance allows for I’ll read you part of it besides residential parking this is who it allows 5 to park “a residential parking permit may be issued for any vehicle owned, leased, or any person who is 6 employed by or a representative of a neighborhood serving establishment located within the particular 7 residential permit parking area. Each employee or representative of a neighborhood serving 8 establishment will be allowed to obtain one permit for each vehicle they own or lease subject to the 9 following criteria which shall be used to establish the eligibility of a neighborhood serving establishment 10 and the maximum number of permits.” And I think it’s important to know that neighborhood serving 11 establishment is defined as the following: “Neighborhood serving establishment means all libraries, 12 schools, daycare centers, and nonprofit public service organizations.” And of course in addition to that 13 there’s two hour parking for everybody for short term parking whether they are business people or 14 residents. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Thank you. I’d like the minutes to reflect that Commissioner Tanaka is now here and in 17 attendance. The next speaker is Richard Brand for Item 3 to be followed by Judy Beasler. 18 19 Richard Brand: Good evening Commissioners and welcome to the new, two new Commissioners. I think 20 you’ve got a good, good staff support here and I think it’s going to be a good session. My name is 21 Richard Brand, I live at 281 Addison. I was one of the 11 stakeholder members of the staff’s RPP 22 Commission. And I want to first of all offer kudos to the staff work that did Jessica Sullivan did an 23 outstanding job in the midst of a lot of controversy and although we didn’t come to blows she managed 24 to keep things under control and I think what you’ve seen in her report again we have two items here 25 and I’ll talk later about the local one that affects my area in Professorville, but I think that the PTC owes 26 them a real kudos for the work they did and Director Gitelman came in at the last meeting because she 27 was no longer opted out because of legal issues. I think Jim Keene who’s not here did a good job and I 28 think all of us felt the same way we actually offer them a round of applause. So first of all I want to say 29 that. 30 31 Secondly this is a Citywide Ordinance is proposed here in this Item 3 and I have family, my daughter, 32 son-in-law and family live down on Martin in Crescent Park. I can park anywhere when I go see them. I 33 mean the curbs are empty. It’s just not like where I live in Professorville and Downtown North so I can 34 understand how some residents will say why are we doing this? It really is a local issue and this is not 35 unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this same thing and I think other residents need to understand 36 that. The nice thing and the good thing about this is that not everybody has to sign up, but we need to 37 have a framework to make this work and I think what we’ve got here is a good framework. So I support 38 this Ordinance, again I worked on it. 39 40 And I also support on the third slide that Ms. Sullivan proposed. It’s a three legged stool. Not only do 41 we need a permit process, we need additional parking management ways to solve the problem and make 42 everybody happy. And so I urge this Commission to really work on that. So I think that maybe our two 43 Council Members are going to Austin for their conference. Maybe they ought to, we ought to focus them 44 to go in and talk about parking because this is not unique to Palo Alto. Other cities have this problem 45 and other cities have solved it and I think our staff is working on that and again I appreciate the work 46 that we did and I support the staff. Thank you and I hope you do too. 47 48 Chair Michael: So thank you very much and we certainly do support the staff. Judy Beasler is the next 49 speaker to be followed by Tommy Derrids. 50 51 Judy Beasler: Hello, I would like to thank you also for considering this problem. I’m an absolute novice at 52 this and I’m late to the notion of the permit process, but I’m learning quickly that you put lots of thought 53 into that. I’m here with the notice of one of the Downtown area people so I think quite possibly this isn’t 54 my time to speak, but I could speak to it citywide on one issue and that is I’m a local realtor and there 55 are instances when people there’s no place to park to visit or show properties of the local homeowners 56 6 when they’re moving. Oh, I moved a bit. Is that better? Ok. So that situation for me personally my 1 experience is definitely no parking around Palo Alto for that kind of activity, which is short term, it’s not a 2 long term park, but you can’t get near a space. 3 4 Chair Michael: Thank you. Next speaker is Tommy Derrids. Now is this on Item 3? You’ve indicated 5 Downtown or do you want to… are you going to talk about the citywide? Ok, good. And to be followed 6 by Linda Anderson. 7 8 Tommy Derrids: I may need some lenience from your Chairperson in terms of time. I would like all the 9 people who are here from Evergreen Park and Ventura who are supportive all this to stand rather than 10 come up here and talk for a long time. So (interrupted) 11 12 Chair Michael: If you’re here on behalf of a large group you can have more than three minutes if 13 [unintelligible] that’s our rules. 14 15 Mr. Derrids: Ok, I appreciate that, but I, I don’t want to be here till midnight and you don’t want to be 16 here till midnight so [unintelligible] try to push it through as rapidly as I can. So I want to start by 17 adding on to what Richard said. I think he understated things. This process for this thing coming 18 together has been coordinated, pushed, directed like herding a group of cats Jessica Sullivan moved 19 through this thing in a way that many of us thought she would not be able to do. She’s had conflicts 20 within the Planning Department, conflicts within people in town; it cannot be overstated what her 21 contribution is to what’s in front of you tonight. So it’s important that we say it. 22 23 So it’s been a long time getting here. We’ve been in front of the Council a number of times around a lot 24 of issues so I’m glad to be standing here supporting this Ordinance with a modification. I want to 25 present something to you that I think needs to be added to it, but it’s really quite a simple question that’s 26 before you. Is there any intrusion in the Downtown area? If you’ve got two eyes and ears you can really 27 rapidly tell that there is an intrusion problem and as others have alluded per the Comp Plan, 28 Comprehensive Plan it’s time to bring relief to our neighbors Downtown. Evergreen Park over there by 29 College Terrace who already has their plan we’re extremely supportive of something happening 30 Downtown because we know we are next in line. With what’s happening in California Avenue, with 31 what’s already happened on El Camino, I live at 390 Leland in one of Palo Alto’s old historical houses a 32 block off El Camino and I go out and do volunteer work at 7:00 in the morning and when I return there 33 are no parking spaces for me to put my truck back after I’ve gone out to do the work to come back at 34 8:30 and it’s just beginning. It’s undoubtedly going to get considerably worse for both Evergreen Park 35 and for the Ventura neighborhood. 36 37 So we want to see this Ordinance adopted, but we want an addition to it. We find the provision of 38 10.50.050, which is the initiation by neighborhood to be cumbersome, lengthy, difficult, and we want to 39 add an item .040 and when I finish I’ll distribute to you a copy of a proposal that we would like placed 40 into your recommendation to the Council. We had a good municipal lawyer who understands ordinances 41 and resolutions and law to draft this item for us. We want the Council to have additional authority; we 42 want the Council to have the ability to put an RPP in place. We want the Council to be able to evaluate 43 what Jessica and all the others have spent endless hours doing and streamline the process and make it 44 happen. There are people who will tell you that this whole parking thing is dark science. It’s only dark 45 science if you’re trying to keep from dealing with the problems that occur. There are people who tell you 46 we shouldn’t privatize the streets. Regulating what goes on on the streets has nothing to do with 47 privatizing streets; we do it all day every day with regulations that keep us all more healthy and more 48 safe. We are simply asking you to add to those additional regulations. So can I present these to you 49 Chair to distribute? 50 51 Chair Michael: Yes, please. Just hand it to staff in order… thank you. Thank you very much. 52 53 Mr. Derrids: By adding this item it simply provides for the Council to have a position to initiate a 54 residential parking program in any specific neighborhood when they see and detail the whole thing. So 55 I’ve concluded with that saying please adopt the Ordinance, please include this addition into it. And I 56 7 failed to say at the beginning a lot of these people who stood up and said they were from Ventura 1 neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and so on a lot have family commitments and a lot of 2 people have got to get up and leave so please don’t be offended when these folks go. They came and 3 made their statement and folks are going to need to leave and it has nothing to do with their 4 commitment or their belief in what you’re doing here. So I’d be happy to answer any questions that 5 anybody has. 6 7 Chair Michael: Ok. So thank you very much and we certainly appreciate the big turnout from Evergreen 8 Park although we do try to discourage applause or booing. So the next speaker is Michael Hodos to be 9 followed by Elaine Uang on Item 3. 10 11 Michael Hodos: Commissioners my name’s Michael Hodos. I’ve lived in Professorville since 1978. That 12 better? Ok, thank you. And needless to say as several of my neighbors have iterated so, already the 13 situation has changed dramatically over the last 10 years specifically when the color zones were first put 14 in. That was the lighting of the fuse that led to the situation we have today not to mention the 15 densification of buildings Downtown and so on. There are really just two points that have not already 16 been covered more than once that I’d like to make. One is that this Ordinance needs a quality standard. 17 What is quality of life in the neighborhood? Right now our quality of life is nonexistent when it comes to 18 the impact that intrusive parking has. Some certain percentage of space should always be available for 19 guests, for service people to come to our homes, many of whom won’t come to our neighborhood 20 anymore because they refuse to carry their tools for two or three blocks, and emergencies. So the 21 Ordinance needs a quality standard that can be applied universally across the residential neighborhoods 22 in Palo Alto. Then there’s an objective way to decide when a neighborhood is in need of a RPP. 23 24 The second thing is that the administrative regulations, which have been pushed sort of down the pipe 25 somewhere are very, very important. How this is administered, how it’s implemented, what the rules are 26 both for the Planning Department, for the residents, for changes that need to be made needs to be 27 spelled out well before this becomes a final regulation. And to say that that’s something we’re going to 28 cover after Phase 1 is done I don’t think is appropriate otherwise the residents have no idea what’s 29 coming down the pipe until it gets here. 30 31 The third thing is I urge each of you if you haven’t already done it to walk our neighborhoods. Take an 32 afternoon and walk around Downtown North and just see what the parking is like. Come down to 33 Professorville and Downtown South and see how it’s spreading. Now it’s already onto Lincoln. When we 34 started counting cars every month a year or two ago Addison wasn’t even parked up. Now it’s starting to 35 fill up Lincoln and it’s going to continue because of houses that or influx from buildings that is just in the 36 pipeline. So if those three things can be made to happen with this Ordinance it would be a huge 37 improvement over what we have seen so far. Thank you. 38 39 Chair Michael: Thank you for your comments. So Elaine Vang [Note-Chair Michael said Wong] is the next 40 speaker to be followed by Wynne Furth. 41 42 Elaine Vang: Good evening, thank you again for your attention to this. Welcome to the new 43 Commissioners. I want to echo Mac Beasley, Michael Hodos, others; I was part of the RPP stakeholder 44 group. Paid a lot of attention to some of these details and want to echo their sentiments that in the 45 Ordinance a standard be placed or a goal for the program to achieve. I think there are many, you’ve 46 heard some examples here tonight, I might offer one more. Donald Shoup, the author of The High Cost 47 of Free Parking, which you may all be very familiar with, this is the epic tome and the brick of what free 48 parking does to an area has a Goldilocks principle. And the Goldilocks principle is about getting parking 49 just right. And his just right, this is his just right standard is to allow 15 percent of any street face, any 50 street face to be made available at any time and that is the goal of most parking policies. Now I think it’s 51 up to us and to you and Council and staff to determine what the right number is for Palo Alto, but it is 52 important that we do try to set a standard and that goal that we try to achieve. It’s important to grease 53 the wheels of the system as you’ve all, we’ve heard from other people. We need to really enable anyone 54 whether it’s the residents, their support folks, their contractors, the realtors who are trying to show the 55 8 properties, the commuters to be able to find some way to accommodate themselves on our streets at any 1 time. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Michael: Thank you. Wynne Furth to be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 4 5 Wynne Furth: Thank you. My name’s Wynne Furth I live Downtown on Everett Avenue and thanks to the 6 staff for reasonably accommodating my injured back with a nice chair and thanks to you for taking this 7 on. I wanted to echo Tommy Derrids [Note-she also said Derrick] in saying it’s important that the 8 Council retain the power to do what it did last January and start these things directly. It’s not just a 9 matter of headcount because the impact of parking shortages varies from person to person. Can you 10 walk three blocks? Last month I couldn’t. This became really obvious to me. Do you have off street 11 parking? Do you have a nanny? Do people have to come to your house? Do you have friends over? It’s 12 not just a matter of counting heads, sometimes it’s a matter of thinking about future problems and so the 13 Council needs that flexibility. 14 15 I’d like to as always echo everything Elaine has to say. These programs are crucial if any of these other 16 things are going to work. As long as we have free parking in our neighborhoods nothing else is going to 17 go. I think administrative regulations can be very useful, but they shouldn’t be adopted without a public 18 comment period first. And I think too much is being pushed to them in terms of quantitative, in terms of 19 important standards. I do agree that quantitative standards are essential and I think they probably 20 should be in resolutions because they vary from neighborhood to neighborhood and I support 85 percent 21 maximum parking saturation and you know sometimes people say well of course nobody can park near 22 your house, you live by the theatre, you live by good restaurants. Nobody can park near a good 23 restaurant, but that’s not true. It’s like saying you can’t live in Los Angeles (LA) without the kind of smog 24 we had in the Fifties. And we don’t have that kind of smog anymore because we regulated it. The 25 difference is this is much simpler to deal with. Thank you. 26 27 Chair Michael: And thank you. Neilson Buchannan is the next speaker and that’s all on Item 3. 28 29 Neilson Buchannan: Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant. I have devoted an enormous amount of time to the 30 resolution and I have devoted virtually nothing to the Ordinance. Once the clarification was made at the 31 stake level, stakeholder level, all my attention went to the details that you’ll hear about later tonight. I 32 devoted my leadership to warning a few other neighborhoods that this was very important and I think 33 that’s one of the reasons that Ventura and Evergreen Park are reasonably informed about their future 34 and the need to assert themselves for protection of their neighborhood quality. I think Tommy is got his 35 finger on the pulse of what needs to be done. I reflect back to City Council meeting with Jim Keene and 36 when this first came up and he was putting the Ordinance into context. And I detected more or as much 37 of a defensive move from Jim saying oh my God, once this gets out every neighborhood’s going to want 38 it and there’ll be a land rush for protection. I think he was right. It’s seldom do we hear that kind of 39 forthrightness, but I agree with him and I think there needs to be a nimbleness in this Ordinance. My 40 neighborhood is actually getting under protection. We’ll hammer out something eventually, but there are 41 other neighborhoods who by and large are not aware of the issues that we know so well from the 42 Downtown core or the California Avenue core, Midtown, any, any neighborhood adjacent to El Camino 43 Real needs to have nimbleness in this Ordinance to protect them. 44 45 One quick thing on the administrative regulations, I don’t know the first thing about the structure and the 46 real teeth into the administrative regulations or guidelines. I am skeptical that we have to really get 47 those penned out as soon as possible in the midst of this next Phase 1 and 2 and not waiver from that. 48 I’m not convinced that administrative regulations have much teeth to them as such. Something has to be 49 built in for appeal and oversight by the City Council. The City Manager by definition is recused from 50 anything in Downtown North or University South so the administrative regulations we have no appeal to 51 the City Manager. The Planning Director is judge and jury as it’s currently written and I don’t know how 52 to do that. Molly and others can help satisfy that need on my part. One last thing on the beautiful work 53 that Jessica’s done. I just want to point out that the business registry wasn’t, I didn’t see it at least on all 54 the nice things that need to be happening parallel to this. So don’t forget the business registry. 55 56 9 Chair Michael: Ok, so thank you very much members of the public speaking on the Citywide Ordinance 1 and for your ability to keep these two issues separate so we can remain in compliance. And it appears 2 that there’s a tremendous recognition of the quality of the staff work particularly Jessica Sullivan and 3 others so that’s really tremendous. So thank you so much for that. 4 5 I wonder before we come back to the Commission I know that you all have been taking notes and a 6 number of these comments seem to be very relevant. Is there any, anything that you want to sort of 7 help us focus on in terms of additional feedback that would be useful or do you have answers to any of 8 the questions that were raised? 9 10 Ms. Sullivan: I just do have one comment. I know a number of folks had concern about the 11 administrative regulations and when they’d be developed. I mean our intent was to develop those as 12 soon as possible during Phase 1 of the program. So this is something that would be completed early on 13 in the development not sort of at a to be determined later date. So I just wanted to respond to that. 14 15 Hillary Gitelman, Director: Thank you Chair Michael if I can chime in with one comment, Hillary Gitelman 16 the Planning Director, I just wanted to respond to the one suggestion about an added section giving the 17 City Council the authority to establish districts and I just point out we believe that authority is granted by 18 10.50.030 and the addition of the addition… and maybe Cara Silver can review this as well, but I just 19 think I appreciate the sentiment of the suggestion and I feel like it’s already covered in this Ordinance. 20 I’d be happy to answer any questions about that as we move forward. 21 22 Chair Michael: You know just as a request when we get the packets if they could get indexed so that we 23 could actually turn to the particular sections faster, we… it’s hard to actually find where oh, I see. 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, that’s packet Page 77 it looks like is where the pertinent sections are. 26 27 Chair Michael: So what you’re suggesting is that the language of the Council may designate an area as a 28 RPP based upon certain criteria gives them that authority? 29 30 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct. That 030 really says the Council can do that, 050 is really about how a 31 neighborhood would initiate the process, but I don’t think there’s any need to have another section about 32 the Council’s procedures because 030 gives the Council that authority. 33 34 Chair Michael: So I wonder I don’t think it’s a good idea for ordinance drafting to happen from the dais, 35 but one question that I might just feed back to staff is on the interaction between Section 030 and 050 36 would it be helpful to insert the word such as at the beginning of 050 “alternatively” just to make clear 37 that the one doesn’t preempt or supersede the other? Because I think that was a confusion that I had in 38 looking at it and it seems to be something that would address the concern of the Evergreen Park 39 speaker. 40 41 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Chair Michael we were just talking offline and maybe we should caucus and get 42 back to you with a response to that question. 43 44 Chair Michael: Ok. Just so we will stay tuned. Ok, Commissioner Downing you had a question? 45 46 Commissioner Downing: Yeah just a real quick question for my own clarity and I think for the clarity of 47 the folks in the audience as well. So I mean depending on which way you go if you’re going through the 48 process via the neighborhood bringing an issue or the Council deciding to go down this path for a 49 particular neighborhood at that do either of those, both of those, neither of those have a requirement 50 about how many people in that neighborhood have to agree to this or how many people even have to be 51 asked about that? 52 53 Ms. Sullivan: So that number would be outlined in the administrative regulations. 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Ok, thank you. 56 10 1 Chair Michael: Ok. So we were still going through the possibility that staff might have wanted to respond 2 to any points made by the public before we come back to the Commission and you responded to two 3 important issues. Where there other issues where you wanted to help us focus on? 4 5 Ms. Gitelman: I think those were the two principal issues the timing of the administrative regulations and 6 the suggested change to the Ordinance. Apologize if one fell off my list, maybe the Commission can pick 7 up anything we didn’t get, we didn’t catch. 8 9 Chair Michael: Ok, and so what we’re looking for this evening is a recommendation from the PTC with 10 respect to Council with respect to adoption of the Ordinance? Ok. So let’s open it up to comments from 11 the Commission now. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum. 12 13 Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum: So I also want to echo everyone’s thanks especially to Jessica Sullivan and 14 to everyone who came out to speak. There’s obviously a lot of passion about this issue and it’s hard for 15 me to stay away from my own neighborhood because a lot of this starts there, but I will refrain from 16 that. 17 18 In general I do this this is a big deal. I think it is kind of a transfer of a public asset into semi-private use 19 and therefore it does have to meet a pretty high standard. And I was actually shocked at this first survey 20 results. I thought it was going to be a runaway yes, please give me protective parking in my 21 neighborhood and I was shocked the results were as split as they were. And so to me that there’s a bit 22 of there’s a bit of cognitive dissonance where something that costs the City so much to regulate and 23 transfer for the private use of some may not have overwhelming support. Now having said that I 24 recognize there is a quality of life issue and the Goldilocks principle I think is a really good one, which is 25 there should be some spaces available. I don’t think the goal is to have empty streets. I think the goal is 26 to have some spaces available. And I do think that staff has put forward a wise recommendation to start 27 with a first process I’m saying in general not necessarily about the specific area, but in general to start 28 with a Phase 1 to basically see what happens under a certain experiment to be able to regulate to that 29 Goldilocks principle. Because I think otherwise you start with just Phase 2 I don’t think there’s any going 30 back. I think it’s very hard to take things away, but easy to add, easier to add additional benefits. 31 32 The other piece that does concern me is cost. I think you always run into problems with subsidized stuff. 33 You get overuse. The reason why we have more people parking in our neighborhoods than we want is 34 because it’s free. And in fact the Downtown parking garages are I think underpriced too. If it costs us 35 $60,000 to build a parking space and we’re renting them per year for $466 and therefore it takes 130 36 years to pay off that’s subsidized and that’s why they’re overflowed. So I do think that cost is something 37 that I hope Council will take up. I think whenever you have a dramatically subsidized good it gets 38 overused, but I recognize the quality of life issue we want to be able to park near our houses and I think 39 that’s very important, but we should also if we’re being, having this good be transferred to us I think we 40 should be willing to pay for that and as a City I think we should be willing to accept that parking as a 41 subsidy is not necessarily where we want to put our City’s funds. 42 43 Otherwise I think the Ordinance is something that the Council should support, but as part of a very 44 strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and the other recommendations that staff 45 has put forward. I think it’s part of a three legged stool. I hope I see as many people in the audience 46 when TDM and other things are on the docket and equally valid support because I think it’s all part and 47 parcel the same thing. So thank you. 48 49 Chair Michael: So on this topic, which I think is pretty important we can consider having two rounds, but 50 who would like to go next? Commissioner Gardias. 51 52 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. A comment I’d like to make actually may be of interest 53 of Director Gitelman so sorry for just… So looking at the, at the paragraph that we discussed before 54 10.50.050 it talks about prioritization of application. I think that there is a certain consequence of 55 prioritizing permits this way. If we don’t have it in writing, if we don’t establish certain algorithms how 56 11 the permits are being awarded then we give ourselves more work and then we will not be able to 1 automate it in the future and I think the goal should be just to automate it as soon as possible and put it 2 in the some applications. But then also there is another item that’s maybe more important that we are 3 exposing ourselves and it may become a risk item, maybe not as significant because monetary aspects 4 are not that big, but then there may be some controversy that some employees or residents get awarded 5 with the permits others were not and that may create a risk. So for this reason I would suggest to 6 change this paragraph to a quantitative algorithm that would specify, would spell out very clearly who 7 gets the permits at what sequence. 8 9 Ms. Gitelman: Thank you Commissioner. Just to clarify this section of the Ordinance is about prioritizing 10 requests for formation of districts, not for permits themselves. The thinking was we have limited staff 11 resources as we’ve demonstrated through the course of this year it takes a lot of time and energy to 12 gather stakeholders and develop a plan to implement even one district. And so if we were to receive 13 applications from many neighborhoods at one time we would have to prioritize because we don’t have 14 the resources to do it all at once. And so this section is about that process of prioritizing neighborhood 15 districts, not about actually prioritizing who gets permits. That would be worked out in the development 16 of a resolution specific to the neighborhood. 17 18 Commissioner Gardias: So thank you for clarification. So just going back to the essence, right, because I 19 was just speaking about prioritizing of the permits themselves, will there, will this be put in writing and 20 be available to all the residents so it’s understood clearly how the permits are being awarded? 21 22 Ms. Gitelman: We will talk about that in the context of the resolution, our next agenda item for 23 Downtown and you’ll have to tell us whether you think it’s been dealt with effectively in that context. 24 There’s an opportunity just inherent in this Ordinance for each district to set up their own way of 25 prioritizing and determining the number of permits to employees for example and intentional, and that’s 26 intentional. The Ordinance is very flexible because we know that different neighborhoods are different in 27 terms of their characteristics and their goals. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, as long, as long this process may be clearly, be clear and transparent to 30 those that would be applying for those permits that of course would be the desired result. So thank you 31 for the clarification. 32 33 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. We’re just going to do two rounds so you can use it however you 34 want. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: So in no particular order I also want to I guess congratulate Miss Sullivan, Ms. 37 Sullivan on her role. I remember your first meeting here and I remember thinking at the time oh my 38 God, Jaime just threw you under the bus. Like you have the hardest job and you’re new and no one’s 39 going to like… I mean I just remember thinking that the mountain was tall. And I also remember my first 40 meeting with residents of Downtown North and Mr. Buchannan organized very close to the beginning of 41 my participation on this Commission and I, I think you know this, I’ve been a very vocal supporter of 42 instituting parking programs that will alleviate the kind of concerns that this Ordinance is, intends to deal 43 with. 44 45 I couldn’t agree with the speaker more, this is not dark science. They are not practicing dark science in 46 Noe Valley where I used to live where I had a permit to park in front of my house, I mean in fact it was I 47 had a permit and it was still impossible to park in front of my house, but at least I could find it close by 48 and I don’t buy this privatization argument. It’s restrictions on parking are, they’re common. You can’t 49 park in front of a fire hydrant so that the people who live near the fire hydrant when they have a fire 50 won’t lose their homes so the Fire Department can access the water. We restrict parking in very localized 51 areas for very specific purposes for the benefit of people who live very close to those restrictions and I 52 very much appreciate the hard work that you guys have done. 53 54 My main concern with the Ordinance is this notion of determining the boundary and I mention that 55 because I know some of you have suggested that we incorporate some sort of City Council fast track 56 12 option. I don’t blame you for making that suggestion because you’ve basically gone through this 1 incredibly arduous process. It’s taken over a year to, over maybe potentially more than two years to get 2 to where you are today and the notion of having to repeat that process is, is unappealing, but the reason 3 why I think that this, that that these are linked this idea of boundary and this fast track concept. This 4 process should be evaluated and should encourage a community wide engagement when the RPP or 5 whatever you want to call it for Crescent Park was initiated it bypassed this Board, it bypassed this 6 Commission, and it bypassed a number of what I would call typical processes in Palo Alto and excuse me, 7 I’m going to take a little longer, and as a result the boundary issue wasn’t really addressed and one block 8 decided to move their problem to their neighbor block, and the neighbor block then had to deal with it. 9 10 And so my comment to staff tonight and to my fellow Commissioners is that I think we need to address 11 this notion of boundary in the Citywide Ordinance. How big, I would actually make it specific. I would 12 say that if a community let’s say a community comes or residents come together to suggest that they 13 want a parking permit program between A and B street then the boundary should actually be increased 14 by a factor of no less than a third of a mile or a quarter of a mile. Because there’s an issue here that if 15 the boundary is too small and they succeed to go through this process, which it looks like the first time it 16 really gets public opportunity for engagement is when it comes before the Planning Commission, which 17 would be September of that calendar year, which I read to mean nine months potentially after it’s 18 brought forward there’s a it’s Page 78 it says “Staff shall bring the proposed RPP to the PTC no later than 19 September of the calendar year in which the consideration began.” Which means in a theory it could be 20 nine months before a public commission has an opportunity to invite the public to participate and that’s a 21 really long time for the community that’s not inside the boundary, but next door to it to not participate in 22 the design of this program. And so I know that we notice people within 500 feet, but there’s a bigger 23 picture here. 24 25 I understood that there was a vote initially and then the boundaries changed a little bit and then the vote 26 result changed a little bit with the Downtown and I’m using that as an example. I’m not talking about 27 that item, but as an example of boundary makes a big difference. And who we let decide where that 28 boundary or what will apply in that boundary makes a different. I want to add just one last thing 29 (interrupted) 30 31 Chair Michael: We’ll give you a second round. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, fine I’ll go in the second round I’ll, I’ll address the fast track issue a little 34 separately. 35 36 Chair Michael: Ok. 37 38 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I could just respond to that question? I just want to clarify the processes 39 that this sets forth gives the PTC a role very early in the process. Once the applications are received 40 those applications that meet the criteria are brought to the Commission for prioritization. And the 41 Commission is going to weigh where the parking issue, parking problems are most severe and therefore 42 where resources should be expended in the upcoming year to design a program with boundaries and 43 rules about how many permits would be issued and all the rest. So the Commission has an opportunity 44 at that very early stage to offer their opinions on characteristics of the district and the scope of the 45 problem. And although it is true that after that prioritization happens is when the hard work of working 46 with the stakeholders to define the district and the boundaries will happen and then it comes back to the 47 Commission after that staff and community engagement effort has concluded later in the year. 48 49 Chair Michael: That’s in Section E on Page 78? 50 51 Ms. Gitelman: Yes. 52 53 Chair Michael: Ok. Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] Rosenblum is going to have to leave the 54 meeting to go on a business trip and so this conflict of interest is now resolved. So we can talk about 55 anything. 56 13 1 Ms. Gitelman: And Chair Michael if I could get back to the point that we started this discussion about the 2 Ordinance on the suggestion that was handed forward about initiation by City Council, we’ve been talking 3 offline and I think I still believe that this is probably unnecessary because the City Council can do what 4 they want. I mean they can direct us to work on a parking district anywhere they want to at any time, 5 but if there’s a desire to put an alternate or to recognize that in the context of the Ordinance I think 6 Cara’s come up with a way that we could, we could utilize this suggested language at least in part. We 7 might not be able to do specific drafting here tonight, but if the Commission is interested in 8 recommending something that gets to this goal that accomplishes this goal I think we would be prepared 9 to work on that. 10 11 Chair Michael: So if we were to put that in the form of a Motion how would you like that expressed? 12 13 Ms. Silver: I think it would be just simply to direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 14 Ordinance that would also provide for a City Council initiated RPP application. And I think what in 15 conferring with Planning staff I think that Planning staff would also suggest that both City Council 16 initiated and resident petition initiated petitions or applications then be subject to the same prioritization 17 that is in the Ordinance right now and that the Planning Commission then review all of the applications 18 whether they are initiated by the Council or by the petition and prioritize those applications for 19 processing. 20 21 Chair Michael: So we will rely on you for interpretation of the Ordinance. Ok. Coming back to the 22 Commission, Commissioner Downing. 23 24 Commissioner Downing: So I really appreciate everyone coming out and speaking. I know it’s a really big 25 deal to come out here and to spend your time doing this and that sitting here for such long periods is 26 hard and it’s difficult so I thank you all and I really appreciate hearing all these voices. I myself live in 27 Ventura. I’m very aware of the overflow parking we’re experiencing already and that’s before we’ve 28 really even built out the projects that are going to happen on Page Mill or Park. We are already 29 experiencing some of that so I can definitely see why my community thinks that they’re probably next in 30 line and I’m glad they’re here to voice their concerns. 31 32 I agree with having an RPP Ordinance. I think this is a good direction for us to go in. I think that as 33 others have said this needs to go in hand with the other two things we’re doing to also work on the 34 parking problem. I mean to that end I think that one of the things that I would like to get clarity on for 35 example is what are we doing to make it easier to get permits? Because right now I’m aware that it’s a 36 thing where you have to go to City Hall and you have to actually show up and you actually have to pick 37 something up physically. That’s a little bit of an onerous process. And then I don’t think we have a very 38 good way of tracking who is actually using those permits, but how often are they using them, right? I 39 mean we kind of just keep increasing the number of permits that we give based on how empty we see 40 the garages being, but it would be nice to not have to guess. It would be nice to have a way of actually 41 knowing this employee no longer works here, this employee has changed jobs or they decided they’re 42 going to use the Caltrain, right? This is all kind of data that we should have and it would be nice to have 43 instead of just trying to guess the perfect number of parking permits to give out because I think that’s a 44 really hard job to do. So as we’re pushing people into permits I would like that to be as least painful as 45 possible for everybody involved so I would like to see us put energy into fixing the technological end of 46 that and making that a lot easier to do. 47 48 I would also say that besides the quality of life issues that we face with not having enough parking I 49 think one of the issue, some of the issues we have to acknowledge is that when people are circling 50 around for parking it’s not good for the environment, right? That’s millions of miles that Americans drive 51 just trying to circle the block finding parking. This program is good for the environment and it’s good for 52 safety because when you’re driving around looking for parking you’re not paying attention to the kid on 53 the bike, right? So I think this program is good for a lot of different reasons and I’ll make a little bit of a 54 controversial comment in saying that I actually think that the permit parking needs to be more expensive 55 for the street than it is for the garage because I think that one of our goals should be getting people into 56 14 those garages and into our lots and off our streets. And I think that to really make that incentive work it 1 has to be a less palatable option than the garage. So that’s one of those things that maybe not now, but 2 I’d like to see happen. 3 4 And lastly if you don’t mind? Thanks. Lastly I do want to talk about standards. I think it’s pretty fair for 5 the community to say that until these administrative regulations are drafted we don’t really know how 6 hard it’s going to be to go through this process again. We don’t really know what we have to show in 7 order to qualify for this process. that’s I think that’s a pretty, pretty fair criticism to make and I mean to 8 that end I actually would really like to see a benchmark that goes into this Ordinance. I like the 9 Goldilocks principle. I like the idea that if you can show that your streets have less than, less than 15 10 percent free parking that gets you to the top of the list, right? I think that that would give us a little bit 11 of transparency to how we make our decisions and how we prioritize which neighborhoods we’re going to 12 work on first. I would like it to be the neighborhoods that have the biggest problem in terms of not 13 having enough parking, not necessarily the most number of people who can show up and complain about 14 it at Council. So thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: So yeah I too would like to thank all the stakeholders for coming out. I know that 19 this has been a long and hard process and I appreciate everyone not just taking the time tonight, but 20 throughout the whole process. So thank you and of course staff. 21 22 So myself I’ve actually been through a couple of these. I’ve been through the College Terrace RPP 23 program. It was also long and hard or equally as frustrating. I was also on the first residential permit 24 parking I guess committee way back when for Downtown although it didn’t quite result in much of 25 anything, but so I’ve, I feel your pain. 26 27 I guess a couple of comments. First, College Terrace while not perfect it’s certainly had its issues I guess 28 what I’m for me it is overall a successful program. It’s something which I think if you were to talk with 29 the average College Terrace resident they would be happy with what happened. And I guess one thing I 30 didn’t see in the report and I think that would be actually good to have is kind of the comparison. I know 31 there are comparisons made to College Terrace here and there, but it’s not like a table. It might have 32 been nice to actually have a table where ok this is what happened at College Terrace, and not to say that 33 College Terrace the best solution is identical should be the template for everything, but I think by doing 34 that it would be good to learn from what happened because not everything went well, right? 35 36 I think there are some things that were like for instance I think early on it looked like you guys did 37 extensive outreach and I’ve got to commend you on that, but even in College Terrace with the extensive 38 outreach like literally knocking on every single door and the Resident’s Association did a lot of work in 39 this regard even then you still had people who were like whoa, what’s going on? And so I mean I think 40 just those things those lessons like that which I think could be learned and so I think, I think and as we 41 do other permit parking programs I think it would also be good to learn from them and kind of see what 42 worked well, what didn’t work well and of course each circumstance will be a little bit different because 43 all different neighborhoods are different. But I think at least trying to not make the same kind of 44 mistakes that were made before I think would be a good, a good thing. 45 46 And for that matter I know this is probably maybe above and beyond what the staff is, has time 47 budgeted to do, but Palo Alto’s not the first City to have a RPP program. There’s many other cities that 48 have that. And I think besides comparing it with the programs that we actually do here in the City I think 49 it would also be good to compare it to programs of nearby cities. And so I think having a table like this 50 would be a good thing to have and it might be helpful as we do more of these, we learn more, learn 51 what works, what doesn’t work. I think there’s some things in Palo Alto are different than other cities. 52 So but I think that’s, that’s the other suggestion. I could do the rest later. We have two rounds so no 53 problem. 54 55 Chair Michael: Commissioner Fine. 56 15 1 Commissioner Fine: I also want to echo the other Commissioners and thank the staff and the public. It 2 seems like you guys did a lot of work all the different stakeholders to evidence a bunch of data that 3 shows an obvious quality of life issue and as one member from the public said if you just walk the streets 4 you can definitely see this in the midday. I want to echo Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice-Chair] 5 Rosenblum that I believe the Phase 1 is actually a nice way to kind of ground test some of these ideas, 6 but at the same time it does seem a little squishy and open ended at the moment. Some issues that 7 come to mind for me are how do you treat nonvoting households in College Terrace we actually did have 8 a bit of an issue with that where it wasn’t clear whether nonvoting households are a yes or a no for this 9 district. Also there was some mention of dispersal of employee parking. I think you have to treat that 10 very carefully. It gets back to these issues of circling and fairness as well to how you treat these 11 different employees who do get permits in Phase 1 or going forward. That’s all. Thank you very much. 12 13 Chair Michael: Ok, so couple comments. One is I wonder if in the section of the Ordinance which lays out 14 the purpose if it might be useful to clarify something about this question of privatization. And I apologize 15 if the stakeholder group and others have already thought through this clearly and arrived at a 16 noncontroversial understanding, but it seems to me that there may be an assumption that if you live 17 somewhere and there’s a curb in front of where you live that you are going to use that for your needs 18 and that’s associated with the property that you own, which is private property then I wonder if maybe 19 an introductory clause such as “Whereas there is no private property right for on street parking, RPP 20 districts, excreta,” but there’s something to me that just to clarify in Palo Alto is on street parking part of 21 the commons or is it a private property right? Is this are we taking away something by this program? It 22 seems to me that there are different assumptions depending on which if you live in different cities or you 23 live here if you live in a rural area, what is it that you’re entitled to as a property owner or let’s say you 24 live in a more densely developed neighborhood with apartments you may have a different assumption 25 versus if you live in an R-1 neighborhood with single family houses. So I wonder if in the purpose in the 26 preamble to this it would be useful to clarify and I don’t have the exact language, but and maybe this is 27 not helpful, but to me it seems like the rhinoceros on the table and it’s, it would be useful to sort of be 28 clear about that. 29 30 Then I think a number of the public speakers were strongly encouraging us to incorporate a metric and 31 this may be part of the administrative regulations, but I think also this might be reflected in some hopeful 32 comment in the purpose, you know preamble in the 10.50.010 that we’d like to have a metric. And the 33 metric may somehow lead us to ensuring the availability of a certain minimal amount of parking 34 availability for emergency guest service deliveries and so forth. But that, that principle seems to be 35 important to the community and without getting into we’ll do it in the regulations I think as a statement 36 of purpose it might be, might be helpful to clarify. 37 38 And then I think, let’s see… on the administration of districts on Page 79 in our packet the 10.50.070 one 39 of the questions I had is just this concept of the issuance of permits is this citywide, is this going to be 40 generally issued to an individual or in some cases the Downtown is it going to be issued to an employer 41 who can then distribute the permit among different employees or what have you? And I know that for 42 example with medical insurance that you can get through your employer or you can get direct as an 43 individual if you’re getting something from your employer it may be a deductible expense for the 44 business, but if it’s paid by the individual with after tax dollars in healthcare has led to some problems, 45 but it’s more expensive if you’re paying it as an individual with after tax dollars versus if it’s an employer 46 buying it, deducting it as a business expense and then getting it. So some of the issues here in terms of 47 if the individual has a taint of some sort then you have to pay off the old parking tickets or something or 48 but what if you’re issuing parking, the permits to employer? So it seems to me to be, would be helpful if 49 you have conceptual if you want to in the alternative issue it to the organization or the business instead 50 of the individual. 51 52 And let me stop there for the first round. I didn’t time myself, but it’s probably three minutes worth and 53 go to my colleagues. Commissioner Alcheck. 54 55 16 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok so maybe we can pull up the slide that shows the map? For those of you that 1 don’t have one that’s this big (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: Chair Michael if I can interject for a moment? I’m sorry to interrupt, but I think we’re all 4 itching to get to the main event of the evening, which is the resolution. Which involves a map, a very 5 specific district, very specific proposal for Downtown and I wonder whether we should try and conclude 6 our discussion on the Ordinance with a Motion and an action and then move on or whether you’re like to 7 initiate the public hearing on the resolution and table action on the Ordinance until after that public 8 hearing, but I feel like we’re straying from one to the other without a clear (interrupted) 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: To be clear I was going to use this as an example about the Ordinance as a 11 whole (interrupted) 12 13 Chair Michael: So we’re going to get to that, but I wanted to make sure that Commissioner Alcheck had a 14 chance to ask, to address his comments that I cut him off earlier. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: On the Ordinance. Ok. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I the reason why I want to highlight the map is just simply it’s a very 19 visual reminder of where the boundary is and I want to just reiterate this one more time maybe just for 20 the sake that City Council may read our minutes and contemplate this, which is to say that one of our 21 speakers tonight said the adjacent streets should be allowed to opt in, which they are is an important 22 component. I just want to reiterate that when the community on one side of Lincoln for example decides 23 to implement a parking program it will directly and dramatically affect the other side of Lincoln. And so I 24 don’t it should come as a surprise that everybody in this little green patch here will soon not be in green 25 after we do this. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it shouldn’t be done. 26 27 The point I’m trying to make is that when the, when the boundary is too small allowing an adjacent 28 street to opt in without asking the street adjacent to the adjacent street what they think about it is kind 29 of a problem because that street, let’s use this overnight parking as an example, I can assure you that 30 the problem that was attempting to be addressed by this overnight parking affected 10, maybe less than 31 10 percent of the streets that are colored here. Now every one of these colored streets is paying for 32 permitted parking and that whether or not you think it’s a burden or not is an important factor. But the 33 streets that are for example recommended area or currently approved area join the conversation after 34 the streets that initiated the program were approved and those streets that didn’t have the problem that 35 then needed to have the protection didn’t get to say, wait a minute City Council, wait a minute Planning 36 Commission, if you let this street move their problem to ours… it created a balance of power problem. 37 And that’s why I think City Council needs to be considerate of this idea of boundaries. 38 39 And then the second comment I want to make is about the I want to respond to the privatization idea. I 40 don’t think this is about privatization. I think that’s a little bit of a red herring. I think this is about 41 facilitating the appropriate use of the curb space and I can’t say this strongly enough, if you can’t find 42 parking in front of your home or near, reasonably near your home that’s a major problem the City Council 43 should address and they shouldn’t take a year and a half to do it. And I’m very much in support of us 44 kind of speeding this process through and I and before you go labeling me a residentialist let me be clear 45 that I think that this problem is going to get worse because we have stuff coming down the pipe and I 46 want, I sort of have a hope that we can encourage sort of greater reinvestment in some of our aging 47 buildings without as much opposition because we’ve maybe addressed one of the problems that that 48 reinvestment poses. And so if, if that is my sort of overarching hope and so I, I don’t want to sort of add 49 a provision in the beginning about whether this is privatization or not because I think this is about 50 facilitation and I just I think you’re giving credence to this notion that maybe there is something immoral 51 about the, the fact that someone should be able to park in front of their home, so. 52 53 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 54 55 MOTION 56 17 1 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I have a few quick comments and then I’d like to make a Motion. So, so I 2 guess the three quick comments that I have is first I know there’s a lot of metrics we’ve been talking 3 about metrics or criteria for getting into the program, but one of the metrics I think that’s important and I 4 know that the report touched on it a bit, but I think the metrics that’s also important is success metrics. 5 So what does success look like? And I think for each neighborhood it’s going to be different and so I 6 think that’s something that should be kind of set up ahead of time so as a program gets implemented 7 you can track against it and see like are we winning or losing here. 8 9 The second thing is and it’s something that my fellow Commissioner said and I think it’s actually really 10 true, but I think it does need to be cost neutral on a long term otherwise it’s not sustainable. So that’s, 11 that’s something that’s important. Third comment is the one that the Chair made, which is the 12 privatization question. I don’t have the answer to that, I don’t know I think that’s kind of a complex 13 question, but I think one thing to think about also is that most houses have some sort of curb cut in front 14 of their house and I think I forgot who, who [unintelligible] maybe Commissioner Alcheck, but by having 15 a curb cut in front of your house you’re in some ways reserving that spot for that house because that, 16 that driveway entrance is used for that house. So that’s, that’s kind of an interesting concept although 17 some houses don’t have that, but most, most do. 18 19 So my Motion is just quite simply that, that we recommend adoption of the ordinance by the City Council. 20 21 Chair Michael: Just to clarify there was a suggestion from Senior Deputy Attorney Cara Silver, I always 22 forget your title so I apologize, that we also direct the City Attorney to propose amendments to the 23 ordinance to permit the City Council to initiate an RPP application. Would your Motion include that 24 (interrupted) 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: It does and I, I was kind of using shorthand, but yes please include that as well. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Chair Michael: Ok. Is there a second? Commissioner Gardias. Commissioner Tanaka would you like to 31 speak further to your Motion? 32 33 Commissioner Tanaka: I don’t think I need to, but I again like I said I appreciate everyone’s work on this. 34 I think it’s been long and hard and it’s good that we’re getting to this point. 35 36 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias want to speak to your second? 37 38 Commissioner Gardias: No I don’t want to add anything. I think it’s self-explanatory. I think there was a 39 tremendous amount of work put into this and I think it’s time just to put it in front of the Council and 40 move on to further discussions. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Michael: Questions or comments from other Members of the Commission? 43 44 Commissioner Downing: I’d still really like to see an actual standard go in here. I’d like it to be clear 45 when you qualify for an RPP zone so that everyone knows when they reach that it’s not a question, it’s 46 not up for debate, we know when there’s a problem. 47 48 Chair Michael: Ok. So just to that to the new Commissioners if you’ve closely observed the Council or 49 Commission in the past if there’s as Motion and you feel it’s important to propose either a friendly 50 amendment, which may be accepted by the maker of the Motion or the seconder of the Motion or an 51 unfriendly amendment, which requires a second in and of itself and sets up a whole [nother] discussion 52 that’s part of our Commission procedure. So what I’m getting is there’s no proposed amendment to that 53 Motion (interrupted) 54 55 Commissioner Downing: Can I propose that as an amendment? 56 18 1 Chair Michael: Ok, what amendment would you propose? 2 3 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 4 5 Commissioner Downing: I would propose an objective standard for qualification for an RPP zone. 6 7 Chair Michael: And specifically where in the? 8 9 Commissioner Downing: I think in reference to it makes in the prioritization of application section. 10 11 Chair Michael: And that’s Section? 12 13 Commissioner Downing: So it’s Page 78 10.50.5(c). 14 15 Chair Michael: C? Staff do you have a comment on the idea that the prioritization would have sort of a 16 metric in that section? 17 18 Ms. Gitelman: Well, if I can try to explain and maybe Jessica can help me how this has been 19 conceptualized that I mean the idea is that neighborhoods will request establishment of a district and 20 provide their own data or evidence that there’s some kind of problem that needs to be addressed. The 21 prioritization would happen based on that input and information and once the prioritization happened and 22 it was decided that staff should move forward to analyze and work with stakeholders on the design of a 23 district the boundaries and the standards that would be in the procedures or the characteristics of that 24 district it would all be worked out specific to that district with the stakeholders at the table. And so if, if 25 you wanted to insert a citywide quantitative standard that all RPP districts would have to meet you could 26 certainly do that in the ordinance. I guess I wouldn’t do it in the prioritization section. I would do it 27 somewhere else in maybe designation criteria, but (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Michael: Here’s a thought, this is maybe the Commission shall consider if you inserted applicable 30 parking standards or applicable parking metrics as part of the things that may be considered how would 31 that work? Would that be ok? Without saying what the standard and the metric is, but the notion is that 32 we would seek to utilize standards and metrics as something that we might consider. 33 34 Ms. Gitelman: So if you’re suggesting that we simply clarify that that will be done by the Commission on 35 a district by district basis I think we could work with that, but I hear that Commissioner Downing is 36 interested in establishing one numeric standard that would apply to all districts. And if that’s the case I 37 would really recommend doing that in the designation criteria section although I would say that we did 38 consider that over the last year in our work and we decided that it was just not practical because there 39 are neighborhoods that are different than other neighborhoods and we might want to have the flexibility 40 of establishing a district that doesn’t meet a certain quantitative standard that might be appropriate for 41 example in Downtown. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok so question for Commissioner Downing since there’s some sort of pushback on 44 amending prioritization of applications to include reference to a metric do you withdraw your Motion 45 [Note-amendment] or do you want to see if it attracts a second? 46 47 Commissioner Downing: I’d like to see if it can attract a second. I think that the point about street 48 annexation I think is a fair one because I think that anyone in an adjoining street could say I want to join 49 and soon enough the entire City is part of one zone. I don’t know how we would control that, how we 50 would say to someone yes you can or no you can’t if there’s no objective standard for whether or not 51 they should qualify. So I ask for a second. 52 53 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 FAILED 54 55 Chair Michael: Ok, ok is there a second? Seeing none so that it failed for lack of a second. 56 19 1 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment though. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok, so Commissioner Alcheck. 4 5 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to make a friendly amendment that a provision be added that all 8 current trial parking permit programs be required to follow this process as well. So I think, I think there 9 is a if you haven’t heard it in my comments tonight I think that this, the process that you’re setting up 10 here to bring forward public engagement in determination of the permit boundaries, prioritization, 11 number of permits received, that whole process I think should, should take place for the Crescent Park 12 Overnight Trial Program, which is currently in trial. I know they extended the trial, but I don’t think 13 they’ve done it with the same public involvement that we’re contemplating here. And so I’d like to add a 14 provision to this Ordinance that suggests that current trial programs be required to follow this process. 15 16 Ms. Silver: Through the Chair, I think that that particular issue is an important one. It really hasn’t been 17 agendized as that. I have some discomfort with moving forward with that without more outreach to the 18 affected communities. 19 20 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck does that? 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not specifically suggesting the Crescent Park Overnight Program, but I am 23 suggesting that programs that are not finalized. So I understand that we have parking permit programs 24 already in place in the City, but not all of them are trials and that’s if it’s, if you’re uncomfortable with it 25 then I’ll sort of stand down, but that’s sort of what I’m suggesting is that current trials be (interrupted) 26 27 Ms. Sullivan: So we have the only trial program we have currently is the Crescent Park Program and then 28 the College Terrace Program is the other RPP district that isn’t really a trial. So as far as tracking I think 29 the point you’re making is a good one. I’m concerned about well we’re sort of not to the resolution just 30 yet, but I think we’ll talk more about how we do intend to track permit sales and analytics for that 31 program. 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: Let me just interrupt you. I’m saying this because you’re going to have two 34 parking permit programs run into each other, ok? So I know we’re not talking about Crescent Park 35 tonight, but that boundary is going to hit this boundary in quick order. And the what you’re, what we’re 36 going to review next is a very different parking permit program and I’m just concerned that we’ll have 37 two processes, one that basically sidetracked this whole process that didn’t involve community 38 roundtables, that didn’t have oversight, and one that did. And there’s a significant population that will be 39 affected, so again I don’t want to get into the specifics of that parking permit I just want to suggest that 40 my Motion is that we include a provision that requires current trials to also follow this process and even if 41 there aren’t a second to that I hope that City Council considers that or staff considers it because I think 42 we’re going to see them collide and so. 43 44 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Tanaka do you accept the friendly amendment? 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: Was there a second? 47 48 Chair Michael: Well it’s a friendly amendment so it doesn’t require one so you can accept it or not. 49 50 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so in principle I like the idea. The only thing is it’s already in progress. So 51 does that mean we [roll] back? And… 52 53 Commissioner Alcheck: I guess I sort of envision [unintelligible – off mike] I guess my vision here is that 54 if there was some what are you calling it? Not, I wouldn’t call it prioritization section, but whatever 55 determination is made to determine the boundary the number of permits permitted, the number of guest 56 20 permits permitted, that whole process has not occurred for a significant parking permit program that is 1 going look at the map… it’s literally going to collide. And that’s my concern is that on one side of the 2 street you’re going to have somebody that has four permits and on the other side two. And that, that 3 seems like a problem unless the community that is in the two had a chance to participate in a discussion 4 like this community did. So that’s, that’s what I’m suggesting that this College Terrace is ahead of the 5 game, but we’re about to see a lot of different communities try to maybe participate in this and I think 6 uniformity is important. 7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I think the logic makes sense, but I’d like to get staff’s point of view on this. 9 10 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, if I can interject? Thank you. Just an observation, again we’re not yet even to the 11 main event of the evening which is the consideration of the resolution about Downtown and I think once 12 we get there we’ll be able to explain the idea of a six month trial to start the program in which I think we 13 would learn whether the consequences that Commissioner Alcheck is fearing are going to come to fruition 14 and whether they need to be addressed. So the stakeholder group has designed a process where we’re 15 going to test how this program is going to work and we’re going to be able to make adjustments as 16 needed. So I hope that that concern will be addressed in our subsequent conversation and again we 17 really don’t feel like this issue would be appropriate to include in the Ordinance that’s before the 18 Commission at this moment. 19 20 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REJECTED 21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’m going to decline then. 23 24 VOTE 25 26 Chair Michael: Ok. So is that ok? Ok. Ok. So I think we’re ready to take a vote of the Commission on 27 the Motion to approve the recommendation for Council to adopt the RPP district Ordinance with the 28 proviso with respect to the City Attorney proposing amendments to the Ordinance to permit the Council 29 to initiate an RPP program. All in favor? Any opposed? So the Motion passes unanimously with 30 Commissioner [Note-Acting Vice Chair] Rosenblum absent. 31 32 MOTION PASSED (6-0-1-0, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum absent) 33 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5305) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/1/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Downtown RPP Resolution Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution Establishing a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program in the Downtown Neighborhoods (Attachment D). Executive Summary At the City Council’s direction, City staff has worked with a group of stakeholders over the past nine months on (1) a framework by which individual neighborhoods can petition to become RPP District within the City of Palo Alto, and (2) a program design for the first proposed RPP District for the Downtown neighborhoods. The attached resolution details this program design. The citywide framework for RPP Districts would be established via adoption of a proposed ordinance (detailed in staff report 5304, heard this same evening), which outlines the general process for a neighborhood to become an RPP district. The ordinance also requires neighborhood-specific resolutions to establish RPP program characteristics for individual neighborhoods. The proposed Downtown resolution would establish an RPP program for implementation in the Downtown neighborhoods via a phased program that would allow issuance of permits to both residents and employees in the first six months, and would then begin to scale back employee permit sales as more parking options become available. In summary: Phase One: 6 Months  Residents will get permits for free  The City will sell unlimited permits to Downtown employees; low-wage employees will be eligible for reduced-cost permits.  The City will collect data on the number of employees purchasing permits as well as the resulting parking occupancy within the neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto Page 2  Both residents and employees with valid permits can park anywhere within the proposed District boundary.  All permits distributed within Phase 1 would expire at the end of the 6 month period. Phase Two: 12+ Months  The City may limit employee permit sales based on data collected in Phase 1.  The City will sell up to 4 permits per residential address; the first one will be free of charge.  Residents with valid permits would be allowed to park anywhere within the District, while permits for Downtown employees will be for designed blocks so as to disperse employee parking throughout the District area. In both phases, permits will not be sold to individuals who do not live or work Downtown, and non-permit holders would still be able to park for 2 hours in any one parking spot. Enforcement of the program would be from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday. The resolution can be found in Attachment D. If adopted by Council the Resolution would go into effect immediately after the effective date of the implementing ordinance. Background On January 27, 2014, in response to increasing concern that non-resident parking in residential neighborhoods was negatively impacting neighborhood quality of life, the City Council directed staff to develop both (1) a citywide ordinance establishing uniform procedures for establishment of RPP districts, and (2) an RPP program design for the first “priority” neighborhood. Although many neighborhoods have expressed concern about similar parking issues, staff identified the Downtown neighborhoods as being the most severely impacted, and convened a “Downtown RPP Stakeholder” group in early March to help create the design of an RPP program for that area. In addition, Staff began work on a citywide ordinance which would detail the process by which all individual neighborhoods could pursue parking restrictions (RPP programs) within their neighborhoods. In parallel, Staff has moved forward on a significant number of parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)-related initiatives, summarized in staff report 5304. Available Data on Parking Demand & Occupancy In order to provide a context for decision-making around parking and related programs in the Downtown areas, the City has been collecting data on parking occupancy within the Downtown neighborhoods since 2011. Data shows that especially during the noon hour, many of the residential blocks adjacent to the Downtown core are becoming more and more saturated with cars. Attachment A shows the city-collected occupancy data from September 2014; during the hours from 12-2, much of the areas in and around Downtown are at least 86% occupied, with many blocks exceeding their capacity for parking (more cars are parking on the street than the street should ideally fit). While the city has good data about the number of vehicles parked on the streets at different hours, there is little data bout who is parking on the streets – residents, employees of Downtown, Caltrain parkers or Stanford parkers. Staff has calculated that the City of Palo Alto Page 3 displacement of vehicles within the neighborhood (e.g. the number of vehicles parked at midnight subtracted from the number of vehicles at noon) is estimated to be 1,700 – 1,900 vehicles, but this number includes some number of Downtown employees, some number of non-Downtown employees (e.g. Caltrain or Stanford parkers) and potentially some number of residents as well. In addition to the off-street parking studies, Staff has attempted to increase occupancies within the Downtown garages over the past year by raising the permit caps at Downtown garages (i.e. selling more and more permits). Since the beginning of 2014, Staff has made the following increases to permit caps at the four main Downtown garages: 1. Lot R: 230 permits to 330 permits (total permit spaces available = 134) 2. Lot S: 855 to 665 (total permit spaces available = 307) 3. Lot CC: 820 to 875 (total permit spaces available = 519) 4. Lot CW: 725 to 750 (total permit spaces available = 388) Nonetheless, at certain times of the day and year, the garages are still underutilized as parking in the neighborhoods is a close, free alternative. At other, peak times, many of the garages and lots are 90%-95% occupied. Attachment A also includes off-street occupancies for Downtown garages and lots from May 2014 – October 2014. Members of the community have expressed concerns that development activity continues to increase the unmet parking demand in the central core. (It is important to note, however, that the majority of the increased demand experienced in the last few years has been associated with the intensive use of existing buildings, rather than construction and occupancy of new spaces.) The Stakeholder Process The objective of an RPP program is to preserve neighborhood quality of life by ensuring adequate parking for residents. In some neighborhoods of the City, existing businesses and employees rely on street parking to supplement parking lots and garages. As this is especially the case with Downtown neighborhoods, the process for establishing an RPP District in the Downtown area included significant input of the business and employee constituents as well as residents. The Downtown Stakeholder Committee was comprised of 6 residents and 5 business owners and land owners of Downtown Palo Alto; the names of the stakeholders are listed in Attachment B. Beginning in March, the Downtown stakeholder group was originally slated to meet five times; however, due to the complexity of the program issues and varied opinions within the group, the number of meetings increased to nine. The meeting schedule, agendas and outcomes are listed in Figure 1. Figure 1: Meeting Schedule for Downtown RPP Stakeholder Group City of Palo Alto Page 4 Meeting Date Agenda Outcome Meeting #1 (March 20) Meeting Guidelines and Introductions; “RPP Issues” List Development Group created list of all of the program design elements that would need to be considered for the Downtown RPP, and came to agreement on conduct. Meet #2 (April 17) Recap and Refinement of all Issues into “Policy Questions”; Draft Policy Review Group was divided into subcommittees and assigned elements of the RPP program to design; Group also reviewed Boundaries of the District, Hours of Enforcement and Transferability of Permits. Meeting #3 (May 22) Review of Draft Policies Group came to consensus on an idea of allocating a certain percentage of spots within the Downtown neighborhoods to employees (20% of the available spots). Meeting #4 (June 19) Staff Feedback and Ordinance Update Staff provided feedback on the draft design, presented some draft alternative proposals, and presented Draft Ordinance; an alternative proposal for a “Trial” program to collect data received consensus. Meeting #5 (July 17) RPP Survey Review and Program design discussion, Continued Group provided input on survey design; Staff explained that the survey would be used to obtain a vote on (1) whether or not residents supported an RPP program, and (2) whether or not residents favored an allocation of employee parking within the Downtown neighborhoods, which was the group’s favored approach. Meeting #6 (July 31) Review survey and parking program updates Staff provided an overview of updates on parking programs, and group provided feedback City of Palo Alto Page 5 on survey. Meeting #7 (August 21) Review structure of Ordinance and parking program updates Staff provided an overview of updates on parking programs and structure of ordinance and resolution. Meeting #8 (September 17) Review schedule, group progress and draft Resolution Staff provided updates on all parking programs and RFPs, and reviewed the draft resolution with the Stakeholders. Stakeholders voted in favor of the idea of reduced-income permits for employees and pricing standard employee permits on par with Downtown garages. Meeting #9 (October 23) Review final resolution and ordinance Staff reviewed the survey results to date and discussed amending the proposed District boundary based on the survey results. Source: Department of Planning & Community Environment, November 17, 2014 The group’s recommendations led to the development of both the citywide ordinance and Downtown Resolution. Detailed meeting notes for all nine meetings have been provided in Attachment B. Summary of Key Issues Initially staff had proposed to create a citywide ordinance that would serve as an umbrella document for resolutions specific to any neighborhood that would address the particular characteristics of an RPP program for that neighborhood. Preliminary feedback from the stakeholders on the draft ordinance suggested that it was too complex, and also that different neighborhoods might have unique circumstances that didn’t lend themselves well to uniform, citywide criteria. For this reason Staff has suggested simplifying the framework into the following three components: 1. A simplified citywide ordinance, which establishes the criteria about how a neighborhood proposes to become an RPP District; 2. A neighborhood-specific resolution, which outlines the characteristics of a particular neighborhood program, including cost of permits, number of permits issued, hours of enforcement, program boundaries, etc. and; 3. Administrative regulations (to be developed after adoption of the citywide ordinance), which would outline criteria for the required response rate for RPP implementation, City of Palo Alto Page 6 requirements for how occupancy surveys and petitions are conducted, and other detailed criteria and procedures. The specifics of the proposed resolution are discussed in this staff report, while a discussion of the ordinance and administrative regulations are found in staff report 5304. Summary of Proposed Downtown RPP Program and Resolution Over the eight months of meetings, the stakeholder group discussed all aspects of a potential RPP District in the Downtown neighborhoods. Topics included the boundaries of the district, what level of enforcement should be implemented, how many permits should be available to residents, how many permits should be made available to employees, the “opt‐in” process for streets within the district, hours of enforcement, and how much permits should cost. The group also deliberated on how the program might evolve over time, and discussed various other parking initiatives. The most polarizing issue for the group was how to handle employee permit sales within the Downtown District. Resident stakeholders felt that the level of employee parking within the neighborhoods had become untenable, while business leaders, although understanding of the resident point of view, were concerned that employees still needed somewhere to park. Despite many differences of opinion within the group, the stakeholders were able to come to agreement on many of the program’s characteristics, including a phased implementation program in which phase one is used to collect data and fine tune characteristics of future phases. The proposed Downtown RPP program is summarized and discussed in detail below. Phase One: 6 Months  During the 6-month first phase of the program, the City will allow unlimited permit sales to Downtown employees, and collect data on the number of employees purchasing permits as well as the resulting parking occupancy within the neighborhoods.  The City will not allow permit purchase for individuals who do not live or work Downtown.  Both residents and employees with valid permits can park anywhere within the proposed District boundary during this phase.  Residents will get permits for free during this phase.  Low-income employees can purchase employee permits for $50 for the 6-month period, while the standard employee permit would be equivalent to the cost of a Downtown garage permit ($233 for the 6 months).  All permits sold within Phase 1 would expire at the end of the 6 month period.  Hours of enforcement would be from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, and only permit holders would be allowed to park for more than two hours during these hours. Phase Two: 12+ Months  The City will monitor and make changes to the program design based on data collected in Phase 1, including limiting employee permit sales if necessary. City of Palo Alto Page 7  The City will sell up to 4 permits per residential address, with the first one at no cost and additional permits at $50 each.  Permits for Downtown employees will be dedicated to specific blocks during Phase 2, in order to disperse employee parking throughout the District area. Residents with valid permits would be allowed to park anywhere within the District.  Low-income employees can purchase employee permits for $100 annually, while the standard employee permit would be equivalent to the cost of a Downtown garage permit ($466 annually).  As parking supplies in the Downtown core increase and commuters shift to other modes of transportation, the City would sell fewer permits to Downtown employees. The proposed program allows the City to be flexible in managing permit sales and responsive to occupancy conditions in the neighborhoods while additional parking supply and transportation solutions are being developed. Details of the discussions which led to this program design are provided below. Recommendations from the Stakeholders on Downtown Program Design 1. Phased Approach: The recommendation for a phased program approach came from a number of stakeholders who felt that the City did not possess adequate data about who was parking in the neighborhoods to be able to fairly and adequately limit employee permit sales at the outset of the program. Many stakeholders shared a concern that there were a number of motorists parking within Downtown who did not live or work within the Downtown; e.g. Caltrain or Stanford parkers, and felt that a phased approach would eliminate these parkers while giving the City valuable information about how many employees remained and would need to be accommodated, either through access to RPP permits, Downtown garage and lot permits, or other modes of transit. Those who opposed the phased approach felt that it would not give enough immediate relief to the neighborhoods. The idea of a “trial” permit program where residents and employees received free permits received a level of consent within the group (the original vote was 9: Yea, 1: No and 1: Abstain). Three stakeholders subsequently withdrew their support for this approach, but ultimately the majority of the group felt that the merits of some kind of phased approach outweighed the potential downsides as long as immediate improvement in the neighborhoods could be achieved. (2) Boundaries of the Downtown RPP District: The stakeholder group proposed originally that the District boundaries for the Downtown RPP District should run from Palo Alto Avenue to the north, Alma to the west, Embarcadero to the south and Guinda Avenue to the east. However, based on survey results gauging resident interest in an RPP program, Staff recommends modifying the proposed District boundary so that areas south of Lincoln Avenue and East of Bryant Street are not initially included in the program, as resident support in this area was much less than it was in areas close to Downtown. Only the 300-400 blocks of Lincoln Avenue will be included in the revised boundary (as suggested by the Planning and Transportation Commission), because the City of Palo Alto Page 8 500, 600 and 700 block were overwhelmingly not in favor of the program based on the survey results. (3) Number of permits for residents and cost: The stakeholder’s overall recommendation was that all participants, both employees and residents, should have “skin in the game” and pay for permits. The City recommended charging $50 annually per permit in the resident survey, but received an overwhelming response that residents did not feel they should pay for permits. In response, the City modified the recommendation so that residents would not need to pay for permits during Phase 1 and that during Phase 2, they could receive one permit for free and purchase up to 3 additional permits at $50 each. (4) Method of permit sales: The group agreed that permits should be made available online. The City released an RFP for third-party hosting of online permit sales to support the RPP District and is in the process of evaluating the proposals. (5) Level of support from residents: The group discussed what level of resident support for an RPP program should be required by the City for a neighborhood to become an RPP District. Many of the residents felt that the threshold of support for a program should be just over 50% (50% + 1); while some others in the group felt that the threshold of support should be 55%. All agreed that 70% (a super majority) was too high and would make it too difficult to get an RPP program passed. The group also suggested not having a minimum response rate to an RPP vote. The City of Menlo Park, Berkeley and San Francisco all reference a 51% vote for a District to be considered by Council, while other cities, like Santa Monica, require 66% support from at least 50% of the households on the block. The level of support required in Palo Alto districts will be set forth in the administrative guidelines for the program. (6) Transferability of permits: The group was strongly in favor of the idea that employee permits should be transferable within a business, and residential permits should be transferable within a household to help accommodate guests. Staff is concerned about increase of permit fraud when a permit is not tied to a specific vehicle; however, at the direction of the Planning Commission, Staff will be working with the online permit sales vendor and enforcement vendor to determine permit options which would allow employee permits to be transferable. (7) Other types of permits: The group recommended that residents be able to purchase an annual guest permit, which could be used by a nanny or other service worker, as well as one-time visitor permits, to accommodate overnight guests or events. It was also suggested by some businesses that there be a “guest employee” permit which could be purchased for visitors to an office. The current proposal allows residents to purchase up to 2 annual guest permits per household and up to 50 visitor permits per year. City of Palo Alto Page 9 (8) The cost of the employee permits: The group came to consensus on the idea that pricing levels should be introduced into employee permit costs to provide for lower income workers. Staff reached out to a number of local businesses and determined that the provision of an annual permit at a cost of $100 would be feasible for many of their hourly employees. Staff is investigating specific household or individual income ranges suggested by the state to determine an appropriate income-based permit solution; the “low-income” wage level would be defined prior to the implementation of Phase 1 and codified in administrative regulations. The group voted in favor of recommending that the “professional”-level employee permit be kept at or above the price of the garage employee permit to encourage these employees to park in the garages rather than the neighborhoods. However, the group was split on whether or not to charge employees during Phase 1: the 6 residents voted in favor of charging employees during Phase 1 and Phase 2, while 4 business leaders (100% of those present) voted that permits should be free for employees during Phase 1. (9) Hours of Enforcement: 74% of the respondents to the RPP survey felt that the hours of enforcement should be 8:00am – 5:00pm in all areas, and Staff recommends moving forward with these hours, which can be modified in certain areas if necessary. Another issue which was discussed amongst the stakeholder group but did not receive consensus was about allowing a two hour restriction for motorists without permits. Some within the group felt that two hour parking should be an absolute restriction within the District (e.g. a person should only be able to park for two hours within the entire District without a permit), while others felt that not allowing motorists to move their cars to another spot in the District after two hours was too restrictive. Staff recommends that at least initially, parking without a permit should be allowed for 2 hours in any one space, at which point a car would need to be moved. If this design results in motorists moving cars from spot to spot during Phase 1, staff can make a modification to the program in Phase 2. (10) Designation of Employee Spots within the District: An early proposal which received some level of consensus from the group was the idea that “employee” spots be physically designated within the neighborhoods in order to better disperse employee parking away from Downtown. Staff had concerns about the data collection and outreach process required for such a designation but recognized the need to evenly disperse employee parking throughout the District. Although employees can park anywhere within the District during Phase 1, during Phase 2 employee parking would be regulated by allocating employee permits to a block face or some other method of evenly distributing employee permits. (11) Prioritization of Permit Sales during Phase 2: The group discussed the idea that during Phase 2, it might be possible for there to be a “waiting list” for employee permits, similar to the waiting list at lots and garages. Staff proposed within the resolution that if this was the case, the Planning Director could give priority to lower-wage employees. City of Palo Alto Page 10 The Planning and Transportation Commission indicated their desire to be involved in the prioritization discussion, and this section of the resolution has been revised to reflect this change and to reference an applicable State law. The Downtown RPP Survey City staff distributed a survey to residents of the proposed RPP District (approximately 4591 households) on August 18th. In addition to providing an FAQ and link to a website where more complete information could be found on the development of the RPP program and other parking programs, the survey asked three main questions: (1) Whether or not the resident supported the idea of an RPP program; (2) Whether the resident favored a program where employees were given specific spots in which to park within the neighborhoods (which referred to the Stakeholder’s preferred approach, where it was recommended that the City should designate no more than 20% of the parking spots within the District for employees), and (3) What the hours of enforcement of the District should be. A copy of the survey has been provided in Attachment C. As of November 3, 738 households within the Palo Alto Downtown area have responded to the survey in favor of an RPP program, while 728 households have responded against the program (responding to question #1). There was not strong support for the idea of designating “Employee” spots on neighborhood streets (question #2); many were concerned that they would not be able to park in these spots during the day, and didn’t want those spots in front of their houses. Other written feedback from more than 140 households that opposed the program was that residents did not feel that they should have to pay for permits. In response to question #3, most respondents favored 8:00am – 5:00pm enforcement hours. The City recommends releasing another survey during Phase 1 of the program to confirm resident support of a Downtown RPP, as the initial survey was designed to solicit feedback on the design of a potential program as well as to gauge general support of a program. Planning and Transportation Commission Feedback On November 12, 2014, the PTC reviewed the draft resolution and directed Staff to make some minor edits, which included cleaning up some inconsistent language, clarifying transferability of permits for employees, language on prioritization and edits to the proposed boundary. Staff’s updates to the resolution are provided in tracked changes to Attachment D. The edits include clarifying the phased approach of the proposed program , providing clarity that employee permits are intended to be transferable, requiring the Planning Director to confer with the PTC prior to setting the initial employee permit caps for Phase 2 of the program, and including the 300 and 400 block of Lincoln within the proposed boundary for Phase 1. Additional comments from Downtown residents and business leaders have been provided in Attachment G. RPP Program Implementation The City has released two RFPs in support of a potential Downtown RPP program; one, a solicitation for online permit sales, and two, a solicitation for contract enforcement of the City of Palo Alto Page 11 Downtown District. Bids for these contracts have been received and staff is in the process of evaluating the vendor proposals. Additionally, the City has gathered information on existing signage within the proposed RPP District area to determine potential permit sign locations for the program. Attachment E shows a timeline of a projected implementation for a Downtown RPP; if contracts are awarded in December and January, enforcement of a new RPP District could occur as early as April of 2015. Staff will benefit from continued participation and assistance from interested stakeholders throughout the implementation and first phase of the program. Resource Impacts The implementation of an RPP program Downtown has both capital and operating expenses, including staff time, enforcement costs, online permit sales vendor, signage and other administrative costs. During Phase 1, there will be no revenue expected from resident permits, which will be offered for free, and costs will be higher than for the program in subsequent years, because of the one-time expenditures associated with signage installation and the follow-up survey creation and distribution. Figure 2 shows estimated costs for the program including one-time costs and expected ongoing costs Figure 2: Estimated Downtown RPP Gross Costs Expenses One-Time Costs Ongoing Costs Notes Installation of Signage $250,000 $10,000 Costs estimated by City staff for signage fabrication and installation, prior to Phase 1 Contract Enforcement N/A Between $200,000 and $500,000 per year Based on bids received from enforcement contractors Online Permit Sales Startup Costs and Hosting Between $66,000 and $327,000 for the first year $40,000 to $200,000 per year Based on bids received for online permit sales, including customer service and permit distribution Expected Staff Costs N/A Approximately $120,000 annually Includes costs associated with staff time from Transportation, Revenue Collections and Police Department. Staff cost estimates are based on preliminary estimates and will be refined further. Other Administrative Costs $30,000 $15,000 Kiosk for lobby to purchase permits, City of Palo Alto Page 12 printing, marketing costs, survey during Phase 1, community meeting supplies TOTAL Between $346,000 and $607,000 in start-up costs $380,000- $845,000 annually Will depend on vendor selection The Planned Community (PC) project at 101 Lytton provided $250,000 for establishment of neighborhood preservation projects. Because no other funding has been set aside for this purpose, Staff is proposing to use these funds for one-time capital signage expenses as outlined above in order to mitigate the impact to the City’s General Fund. Staff will return to Council in January or February with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the signage contract. Revenues associated with the program will depend on resident and employee permit sales as well as the cost of permits and citation revenue. It is difficult to estimate what these revenues will be; however, it is expected that at least for the first 6 to 12 months the revenues will be minimal. Figure 3 shows estimated revenues associated with the program during Phase 2 with example values for number of permits sold and citation revenues. Figure 3: Estimated Downtown RPP Gross Revenues (Phase 2) Expenses # of Permits Sold Cost per Permit Total Notes Resident Permit Sales 9,000 $50 $225,000 Assumes that after the first six months, each household receives one permit free and pays for 1 permit, per proposal Low Wage Employee Permit Sales 200 $100 $20,000 Assumes 200 low- wage permit sales; conservative estimate Standard Employee Permit Sales 100 $466 $46,600 Assumes 100 standard employee permits are sold Guest Permits 4,500 $50 $225,000 Assumes each household purchases 1 guest permit Citation Revenue $30,000 Estimate only TOTAL $516,600 Estimated revenues only Total revenues will depend on number of permits sold, cost of permits and citation revenues. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Staff will return to Council with recommendations for the contracts for online permit sales and contract enforcement, which will require Budget Amendment Ordinances (BAOs). Staff will also return to Council requesting creation of a CIP for the start-up costs associated with RPP programs, accompanied by a BAO to move the $250,000 from 101 Lytton to the new RPP CIP. Policy Implications The implementation of a Downtown RPP District would require creation of a new City-wide ordinance allowing neighborhood-specific resolutions, and is consistent with the three-pronged approach Staff have presented to optimize parking within the Downtown core. It is also consistent with the following comprehensive plan goals: 1. Goal T-8, Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto 2. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts Environmental Review Adoption of a citywide ordinace and a resolution establishing an RPP district in downtown Palo Alto are both exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. Attachments:  Attachment A: Occupancy Studies (PDF)  Attachment B: Stakeholder Meeting Notes and Contacts (PDF)  Attachment C: Survey (PDF)  Attachment D: RESO for Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Districts (PDF)  Attachment E: Timeline (PDF)  Attachment F: Planning and Transportation Commission Draft Excerpt Minutes of November 12, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment G: Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment H: Documents received from Neilson Buchanan, November 24, 2014 (PDF)  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 3/12/2014 Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 0 134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 72 94% 120 90%10AM 0% 91 68%10AM 256 87% 289 73% Noon 77 100% 134 100%Noon 0% 117 87%Noon 269 91% 322 82% 4PM 73 95% 141 105%4PM 0% 108 81%4PM 211 72% 340 86% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 0%0%10AM 102 55% 290 56%10AM 41 53%0% Noon 138 69% 314 81%Noon 174 93% 350 67%Noon 50 65%0% 4PM 73 36% 343 88%4PM 177 95% 415 80%4PM 53 69%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 10 53 63 78 0 78 68 0 68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 5 50% 24 45%10AM 25 32%0%10AM 15 22%0% Noon 7 70% 35 66%Noon 76 97%0%Noon 66 97%0% 4PM 0%0%4PM 77 99%0%4PM 64 94%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 46 0 46 90 0 90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 25 100% 24 89%10AM 30 65%0%10AM 56 62%0% Noon 25 100% 27 100%Noon 45 98%0%Noon 60 67%0% 4PM 23 92% 8 30%4PM 31 67%0%4PM 47 52%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 86 0 86 51 0 51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 7 47% 38 93%10AM 34 40%0%10AM 23 45%0% Noon 11 73% 39 95%Noon 56 65%0%Noon 51 100%0% 4PM 4 27% 36 88%4PM 62 72%0%4PM 50 98%0% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 0 48 0 36 36 0 34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 34 71%0%10AM 0% 12 33%10AM n/a 0% 30 88% Noon 48 100%0%Noon 0% 23 64%Noon n/a 0% 26 76% 4PM 48 100%0%4PM 0% 22 61%4PM n/a 0% 25 74% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 0 5353 28 2452 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 10AM 0% 32 60%10AM 19 68% 10 42% Noon 0% 34 64%Noon 27 96% 11 46% 4PM 0% 30 57%4PM 21 75% 8 33% Lot C Period Period Lot R Period Wednesday, 3/12/14Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Lot Q Lot S/L Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Period CW CC Period Lot B Period Lot O Emerson High Period 800 High Lot A Emerson Lytton Period Lot H Period Period Lot F Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, 3/12/14 Period Period Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X‐ Sheraton Period Period Lot T Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Lot K Period Wednesday, 3/12/14 Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 17 22% 70 52%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 48 36%8 am ‐ 10 am 82 28% 151 38% Noon ‐ 2 pm 76 99% 145 108%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 115 86%Noon ‐ 2 pm 292 99% 308 78% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 77 100% 126 94%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 67 50%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 297 101% 177 45% Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 12% 20 15%Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 NA 18 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am 12 4% 18 5% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 51 25% 191 49%8 am ‐ 10 am 182 97% 117 23%8 am ‐ 10 am 27 43%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 182 91% 292 75%Noon ‐ 2 pm 186 99% 365 70%Noon ‐ 2 pm 55 87%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 156 78% 80 21%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 174 93% 349 67%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 63 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 27 13% 15 4%Midnight ‐ 2 am 22 12% 77 15%Midnight ‐ 2 am 15 24%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 11 44% 6 22%8 am ‐ 10 am 16 21%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 7 10%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 25 100% 26 96%Noon ‐ 2 pm 68 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 58 85%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 25 100% 22 81%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 78 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 51 75%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 20% 2 7%Midnight ‐ 2 am 17 22%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 11 16%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 2 13% 26 63%8 am ‐ 10 am 5 11%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 31 34%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 8 53% 39 95%Noon ‐ 2 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 63 70%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 14 93% 21 51%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 45 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 86 96%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 2 5%Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 4 4%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 24 50%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 24 28%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 11 22%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 46 96%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 67 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 47 92%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 84 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 51 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 21%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 4 5%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 18%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NANANA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 25 47%8 am ‐ 10 am 0 NANANA 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 25 74% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 37 70%Noon ‐ 2 pm 15 NA NA NA Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 32 94% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 25 47%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 14 NA NA NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 19 56% Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 7 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am 1 NA NA NA Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 3 9% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 1 4% 4 17% Noon ‐ 2 pm 27 96% 14 58% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 26 93% 20 83% Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 2 8% Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Note: Valet parking at this location; cars were being double‐parked. Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot C Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period WC Period Lot S/L Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 CC Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot B Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot HLot F Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot M Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot T Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot K Period Wed/Thur, 4/02‐4/03, 2014 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 4/25, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 33 43% 89 66%8 am ‐ 10 am N/A NA 48 36%8 am ‐ 10 am 169 44% 151 49% Noon ‐ 2 pm 69 90% 99 74%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 115 86%Noon ‐ 2 pm 174 46% 308 100% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 75 97% 76 57%4 pm ‐ 6 pm N/A NA 67 50%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 302 79% 177 58% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 41 20% 289 74%8 am ‐ 10 am 146 78% 124 24%8 am ‐ 10 am 12 19%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 90 45% 321 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 175 94% 287 55%Noon ‐ 2 pm 45 71%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 105 52% 360 93%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 180 96% 239 46%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 39 62%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 18 72% 10 37%8 am ‐ 10 am 45 58%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 44 65%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 24 96% 27 100%Noon ‐ 2 pm 66 85%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 42 62%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 24 96% 24 89%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 78 100%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 61 90%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 10 67% 28 68%8 am ‐ 10 am 42 91%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 67 74%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 13 87% 32 78%Noon ‐ 2 pm 34 74%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 69 77%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 14 93% 36 88%4 pm ‐ 6 pm 35 76%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 85 94%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 13%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 68 79%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 34 67%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 41 85%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 80 93%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 39 76%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 39 81%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 78 91%‐NA 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 17 33%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA36NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 23 43%8 am ‐ 10 am N/A NA 23 64%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 21 62% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 26 49%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 27 75%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 24 71% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm ‐NA 24 45%4 pm ‐ 6 pm N/A NA 14 39%4 pm ‐ 6 pm ‐NA 26 76% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 22 79% 18 75% Noon ‐ 2 pm 18 64% 19 79% 4 pm ‐ 6 pm 15 54% 20 83% Period Friday, April 25 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Friday, April 25Friday, April 25 Lot C Period Lot S/L Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Period WC CC Friday, April 25 Friday, April 25 Lot B Period Friday, April 25 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Period Friday, April 25 Lot H Period Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Lot F Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Friday, April 25 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Friday, April 25 Period Friday, April 25 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Friday, April 25 Lot T Period Friday, April 25 Lot K Period Friday, April 25 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 294 394 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 34 44% 55 41%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 43 32%8 am ‐ 10 am 103 35% 131 33% Noon ‐ 2 pm 78 101% 137 102%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 109 81%Noon ‐ 2 pm 311 106% 291 74% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 79 103% 126 94%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 63 47%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 304 103% 162 41% Midnight ‐ 2 am 8 10% 14 10%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 11 8%Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 3% 16 4% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 103 51% 182 47%8 am ‐ 10 am 42 22% 312 60%8 am ‐ 10 am 19 30%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 169 84% 362 93%Noon ‐ 2 pm 184 98% 442 85%Noon ‐ 2 pm 62 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 164 82% 106 27%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 185 99% 396 76%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 60 95%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 27 13% 22 6%Midnight ‐ 2 am 28 15% 86 17%Midnight ‐ 2 am 9 14%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 24% 3 11%8 am ‐ 10 am 8 10%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 6 9%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 24 96% 26 96%Noon ‐ 2 pm 74 95%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 67 99%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 25 100% 27 100%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 78 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 68 100%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 20% 6 22%Midnight ‐ 2 am 18 23%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 17 25%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 2 13% 16 39%8 am ‐ 10 am 8 17%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 35 39%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 13 87% 34 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 43 93%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 66 73%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 13 87% 12 29%7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 104%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 83 92%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 1 7% 2 5%Midnight ‐ 2 am 2 4%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 10 11%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 29 60%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 23 27%‐NA 8 am ‐ 10 am 10 20%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 47 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 84 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 50 98%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 100%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 81 94%‐NA 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 48 94%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 12 25%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 3 3%‐NA Midnight ‐ 2 am 5 10%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 ‐34 34 0 31 31 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 29 55%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 13 38%8 am ‐ 10 am ‐NA 7 23% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 29 55%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 28 82%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 22 71% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 33 62%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 25 74%7 pm ‐ 9 pm ‐NA 15 48% Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 7 13%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 1 3%Midnight ‐ 2 am ‐NA 3 10% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8 am ‐ 10 am 7 25% 4 17% Noon ‐ 2 pm 20 71% 12 50% 7 pm ‐ 9 pm 19 68% 19 79% Midnight ‐ 2 am 0 0% 1 4% Note: Lot X was observed to have a total of 31 spaces. Lot X Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Note: Valet parking at this location; cars were being double‐parked. Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot C Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period WC Period Lot S/L Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 CC Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot B Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot HLot F Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman Bryant Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot T Lot K Period Wed/Thu, 6/18‐6/19, 2014 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 7/15, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 68 88% 128 96%9 am ‐ 11 am N/A NA 106 79%9 am ‐ 11 am 127 33% 240 78% Noon ‐ 2 pm 76 99% 133 99%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 113 84%Noon ‐ 2 pm 260 68% 277 90% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 72 94% 115 86%3 pm ‐ 5 pm N/A NA 107 80%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 187 49% 259 84% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 187 519 706 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 47 23% 224 58%9 am ‐ 11 am 63 34% 304 59%9 am ‐ 11 am 56 89%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 171 85% 339 87%Noon ‐ 2 pm 138 74% 375 72%Noon ‐ 2 pm 55 87%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 115 57% 333 86%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 116 62% 386 74%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 55 87%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 17 68% 12 44%9 am ‐ 11 am 21 27%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 19 28%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 22 88% 24 89%Noon ‐ 2 pm 68 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 58 85%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 21 84% 12 44%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 55 71%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 37 54%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 15 41 56 46 ‐46 90 ‐90 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 3 20% 36 88%9 am ‐ 11 am 14 30%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 38 42%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 12 80% 34 83%Noon ‐ 2 pm 38 83%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 65 72%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 3 20% 33 80%3 pm ‐ 5 pm 13 28%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 44 49%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 48 ‐48 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 40 83%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 23 27%‐NA 9 am ‐ 11 am 26 51%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 46 96%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 70 81%‐NA Noon ‐ 2 pm 39 76%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 47 98%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 61 71%‐NA 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 43 84%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA36NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am ‐NA 29 55%9 am ‐ 11 am N/A NA 12 33%9 am ‐ 11 am ‐NA 17 50% Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 31 58%Noon ‐ 2 pm N/A NA 14 39%Noon ‐ 2 pm ‐NA 31 91% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm ‐NA 25 47%3 pm ‐ 5 pm N/A NA 14 39%3 pm ‐ 5 pm ‐NA 28 82% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 9 am ‐ 11 am 10 36% 5 21% Noon ‐ 2 pm 25 89% 11 46% 3 pm ‐ 5 pm 16 57% 9 38% Lot R Lot K Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot T Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Lot F Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Lot H Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Tuesday, July 15 Tuesday, July 15 Lot B Period Lot S/L Tuesday, July 15 Period Tuesday, July 15 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Tuesday, July 15Tuesday, July 15 Lot C Period Tuesday, July 15 Period WC CC Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 8/12, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 64 83% 96 72%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 75 56%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 108 28% 179 58% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 59 77% 126 94%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 108 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 222 58% 282 92% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 67 87% 105 78%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 102 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 184 48% 259 84% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 39 19% 205 53%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 29 16% 281 55%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 49 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 138 69% 346 89%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 157 86% 360 71%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 52 83%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 97 48% 355 91%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 149 81% 347 68%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 56 89%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 11 44% 14 52%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 16 21%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 16 24%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 20 80% 22 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 60 77%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 61 90%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 23 92% 18 67%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 38 49%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 45 66%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 42 54 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 2 17% 28 67%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 19 21%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 6 50% 34 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 31 67%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 41 45%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 3 25% 32 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 25 54%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 41 45%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 33 72%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 22 26%‐NA 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 21 41%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 47 102%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 75 87%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 37 73%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 46 100%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 67 78%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 40 78%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 28 53%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 18 58%8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 7 21% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 35 66%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 27 87%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 26 76% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 31 58%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 23 74%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 27 79% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 8:30 am ‐ 10:30 am 10 36% 3 13% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 22 79% 15 63% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 13 46% 13 54% Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Tuesday, August 12Tuesday, August 12 Lot C Period Tuesday, August 12 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Tuesday, August 12 Tuesday, August 12 Lot B Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Tuesday, August 12 Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot HLot F Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Tuesday, August 12 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot T Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot K Period Tuesday, August 12 Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 9/10, 2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 60 78% 123 92%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 93 69%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 90 24% 242 79% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 70 91% 160 119%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 120 90%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 286 75% 319 104% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 69 90% 112 84%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 112 84%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 181 48% 299 97% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 46 23% 173 45%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 40 22% 307 60%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 49 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 148 74% 253 65%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 158 86% 432 85%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 51 81%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 105 52% 241 62%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 114 62% 432 85%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 52 83%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 32% 20 74%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 37 47%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 11 16%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 24 96% 18 67%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 58%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 64 94%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 19 76% 14 52%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 50 64%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 35 51%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 42 54 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 5 42% 35 83%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 28 31%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 11 92% 34 81%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 42 91%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 63 69%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 50% 35 83%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 16 35%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 57 63%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 42 91%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 19 22%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 37 73%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 77 90%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 44 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 69 80%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 28 55%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 21 40%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 17 55%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 19 56% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 29 55%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 30 88% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 25 47%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 27 79% Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 29% 10 42% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 24 86% 17 71% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 12 43% 15 63% Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Wednesday, September 10Wednesday, September 10 Lot C Period Wednesday, September 10 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Lot B Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot HLot F Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot T Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot K Period Wednesday, September 10 ~8 Kias with days  passes for media  event Lot R Downtown Parking Structure Capacity Use Trends ‐ Hourly and Permit Parking Spaces  Off‐Street Parking Occupancy ‐ 10/30/2014 Lot Q Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 77 134 211 ‐134 134 381 307 688 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 45 58% 101 75%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 45 34%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 145 38% 189 62% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 69 90% 140 104%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 120 90%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 242 64% 258 84% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 60 78% 95 71%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 102 76%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 250 66% 273 89% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 201 388 589 183 509 692 63 ‐63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 150 75% 295 76%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 180 98% 389 76%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 45 71%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 135 67% 355 91%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 145 79% 425 83%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 78%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 120 60% 290 75%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 135 74% 409 80%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 42 67%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 25 27 52 78 ‐78 68 ‐68 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 32% 22 81%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 38 49%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 21%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 25 100% 20 74%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 49 63%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 65 96%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 16 64% 25 93%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 52 67%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 39 57%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 12 43 55 46 ‐46 91 ‐91 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 7 58% 39 91%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 14 30%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 30 33%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 11 92% 38 88%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 60 66%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 50% 39 91%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 11 24%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 58 64%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 46 ‐46 86 ‐86 51 ‐51 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 41 89%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 20 23%‐NA 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 40 78%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 45 98%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 72 84%‐NA Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 48 94%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 42 91%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 70 81%‐NA 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 32 63%‐NA Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 05353 NA31NA ‐34 34 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 20 38%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am N/A NA 16 52%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am ‐NA 18 53% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 27 51%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm N/A NA 17 55%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm ‐NA 28 82% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 18 34%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm N/A NA 19 61%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm ‐NA 26 76% Hourly Permit Total Hourly Permit Total 28 24 52 10 53 63 Hourly % Permit %Hourly % Permit % 9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 9 32% 8 33%9:00 am ‐ 10:30 am 8 80% 43 81% Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 22 79% 15 63%Noon ‐ 2:00 pm 9 90% 40 75% 3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 10 36% 14 58%3:00 pm ‐ 5:00 pm 6 60% 47 89% Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Lot O Emerson High Wednesday, September 10Wednesday, September 10 Lot C Period Wednesday, September 10 Period WC CC Period Lot S/L Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Lot B Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot A Emerson Lytton Wednesday, September 10 Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot HLot F Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot P High HamiltonLot D Hamilton Waverley Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot N ‐ Emerson Ramona Lot E ‐ Gilman BryantLot X ‐ Sheraton Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Wednesday, September 10 Period Lot G‐ Emerson Ramona Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot T Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot K Period Wednesday, September 10 Lot R 800 High Period Wednesday, September 10      1  Downtown Palo Alto RPP District Stakeholder Group  March 2014    Composition and Selection of RPP District Stakeholder Group:  The RPP District Stakeholder Group is intended to be broadly representative of Downtown Resident and  Business interests. Resident stakeholders are from Downtown North, Crescent Park, Professorville and  Downtown South. Business Stakeholders include landlord, property owner, business owner and business  employee constituents.   Stakeholders: Business Interest   Chop Keenan, Land Owner, Keenan Land Company   Simon Cintz, Property Owner, Cintz Commercial Properties, LP   Sue Nightingale, Business Owner, Watercourse Way   Rob George, District Manager, Philz Coffee   Gloria Arteaga, Employee, Palantir     Stakeholders: Residential Interest   Neilson Buchanan, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)   Michael Hodos, 944 Bryant (Professorville)   Richard Brand, 281 Addison (Professorville)   Elaine Uang, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)   John Guislin, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)   Gabrielle Layton, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Facilitators:    Ben Strumwasser, Circlepoint   Emily Marsh, Circlepoint  City Staff:   Aaron Aknin, Assistant Planning Director   Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager    Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting #1 – Summary Notes Date: March 20, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Council Conference Room, First Floor City Hall, 250 Hamilton Street  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Gloria Arteaga Employee, Palantir Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Company  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Aaron Aknin Assistant Planning Director, City of Palo Alto  Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Eric Hassett Hassett Hardware David Mackenzie Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce  Barbara Ayer Channing House Georgie Gleim Gleim the Jeweler –540 University  Roxy Rapp Rapp Development Chase Rapp Rapp Development Paul Machado Resident (Evergreen Park) Charlene Gibson Resident (Palo Alto) Wynne Furth Resident (Downtown North)   *Names highlighted in gray indicate RPP Stakeholders; other attendees include members of the public  and City Staff.  Meeting Goals:  1. Provide an overview of current parking issues in Palo Alto and the Residential Preferential  Parking (RPP) program development process;  2. Develop an agreed‐upon framework for identifying shared parking issues and collaborating on a  mutually beneficial RPP program.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Meeting Goals   Goals are for this meeting only. Staff will abide by Nov. 15 deadline to get draft RPP approach  and ordinance to City Council.  b. Rules of Engagement   Brown Act: Stakeholders who meet with outside neighborhood groups and organizations should  refrain from arriving at RPP‐related decisions and debrief other stakeholders at next meeting,  following the spirit rather than the letter of the Brown Act. Amy will update meeting guidelines  accordingly.   Facilitator will provide time for public comment at the beginning of the next meeting pending  the release of specific agenda items. Whether public comment will be held before/after the  following meeting is TBD by stakeholder group.  c. Palo Alto RPP Stakeholder Group Desired Outcomes   Create a fair, balanced, and realistic solution that is respectful to neighbors, employees, and  customers and that is delivered within the agreed upon timeline.   Provide a model for other communities, not only in terms of results, but also in terms of the  group’s collaborative process.  d. Parking Context in Palo Alto (see PowerPoint presentation)   Palo Alto is a hub between Silicon Valley and mid‐Peninsula facing densification, a high number  of jobs per housing unit, and 38% projected growth of jobs in Santa Clara County.    City Staff are using the “Three‐Legged Stool” metaphor to describe three programs being  developed in parallel: Parking Supply, Transportation Demand Management, and RPP (Parking  Management).  e.  Key Issues to Be Addressed in Development of RPP    Thoughtfully correct a supply/demand parking imbalance that’s trending negatively, and re‐ inject quality of life while addressing employees’ needs.   Maintain the vitality of the business community.  f. RPP Process – Schedule and Overview   Staff are developing the RPP Citywide Ordinance in parallel with this Downtown Program,  allowing them to create RPPs in other districts (reciprocal relationship). Council needs to  approve/ratify the Ordinance, and will also likely see the Downtown resolution as well (unless  the group decides otherwise).   Stakeholders expressed concern that unless Councilmember(s) are attending these RPP  meetings, there is a high chance of program failure at the Council level.   Aaron: The conflict of interest issue is the most difficult restriction on Council participation  (living or owning property downtown). Aaron will investigate Councilmember participation as  observers.   Facilitators will provide a tentative schedule for the remainder of the meetings.  g. Identification of Key Parking‐Related Issues to be addressed (Summary)   Supply: for customers, employees (before/during RPP); two‐hour spaces; pipeline projects   Enforcement Options: frequency; budget/costs; strategies   Parking Time: limits; zones   Implementation: simple, phased, safe; coordinated outreach   Permit Sales: non‐resident parking in residential; decal type; transferable   Costs: pricing incentives; affordability for service employees; costs to employers; TDM area   Definition of District: geographic/demographic; zone inefficiency   Data Collection: impact tracking; iterate on usage assessment; reliable data/benchmarks   Parallel Programs: garage vacancy technology; meters; revenue‐generating permits; Urban Lane   Other: utilize off‐street resources; eliminate free parking in residential neighborhoods   (Note: See Appendix for full list.)  h. Public Comment   Public comment reinforced importance of transferable permits, getting buy‐in from Council, and  the Urban Lane parking garage (residents who want to support Urban Lane should speak at  related council meetings or send letters of support).  i. April Meeting Agenda (4/17 – Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room, 1:00pm – 3:30pm)   Review schedule/outline for the rest of meetings.   Agree upon decision‐making process for group.   Review and prioritize issues identified.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Update meeting guidelines to  reflect “Spirit of Brown Act”  Amy 3/30/2014  Prepare agenda for Meeting #2 and  build in time for public comment at  beginning of next meeting  ‐  decision on public comment times  Amy 3/30/2014  Investigate Councilmember  participation  Aaron 3/30/2014  Create draft schedule for remaining  meetings  Team 3/30/2014  Upload Meeting #1 materials to  City’s website  Jessica 3/25/2014    Prepare and distribute summary of  Meeting #1  Ben/Jessica 3/26/2014  Determine decision‐making  mechanism for group to use for  recommendation to Commission  and Council  Ben/group (Options)  4/17/2014 (Meeting #2)       Appendix: Identification of Key Parking‐Related Issues (Group Exercise) Note: items noted with asterisks (*) are additions that were submitted after Thursday’s meeting.   Supply  a. Supply of spaces for customers  b. Supply  c. Where will employees park when we have RPP  d. Parking demand for pipeline projects  e. I have concern two hour spaces around the business will be used solely by employees  f. Prevent the “move your car every 2 hours” game – SOFA   Enforcement Options  a. Enforcement frequency and budget/costs  b. Enforcement cost & strategies  c. Management of the parking in neighborhoods after 5pm and on weekends on certain  streets and avenues closest to the commercial cores.  Currently a current problem in  terms of noise, litter, urination, alcohol related exuberance issues*   Parking Time Limits  a. Time limit zones  b. Parking space time limitations   Implementation  a. Stanford parking details (don’t reinvent the wheel)  b. Compensation for homes with no driveways  c. Clarity/easy to understand rules, good/coordinated outreach for implementation  d. Timetable for implementation, phase in/phase out  e. Trial period after implementation – metrics, length  f. Website for permit purchasing and enforcement payment  g. Staged RPP  h. Compensation for homes with no driveways  i. Ease of enforcement – uniform, easy to read or scan stickers/hangers  j. Pricing that is tiered and tied to TDM measures – incentives to reduce driving and  parking demand  k. Availability of satellite parking including back and forth shuttle service  l. Make sure employees have parking solutions at the same time as you launch RPP  m. Make permits easy, intuitive to purchase and access  n. Occam’s razor – simplest solution  o. Safety issues  p. Traffic impact in the unlikely event that permit parking ordinance allows/encourages  unlimited short term parking on residential streets*  q. Ground rules between the city, assessment district and residents.  Who can  change/manipulate the number/ratios of existing short‐term (2&3 hour parking),  permit(all‐day), handicapped, loading zone spaces.  There are forces who want more all‐  day parking and this could force more short term parking into the residential  neighborhoods*  r. Striping*   Permit Sales  a. Number of permits, commercial vs. residential  b. % (number) of parking allocated to employees in residential areas  c. Amount (%) of non‐resident parking in residential neighborhoods  d. Permit type – hangtag decal, decal, location‐ specific?  e. Permits to fit part‐time/less than 8 hour shifts  f. Multiple vehicles to get to work if car breaks down (transferable permit—currently tied  to vehicle)  g. Inability to transfer  h. Transferable permits  i. Permit ease of purchase  j. Long wait list  k. Permits for multi‐resident facilities apartment houses, condos, etc. both with and  without adequate onsite parking*  l. Permits for care facilities (e.g. extended care facility at Bryant & Channing, Channing  House, etc.)  both with and without adequate onsite parking*  m. Long term service permits for things like contractors for major home improvement jobs  (this was mentioned in September at one of the outreach mtgs). Sometimes 2+ trades  need to show up*  n. Contractor permits at low cost if any.  Contractor permits should be issued with address  noted and with time limits to prevent black market use.*   Costs  a. Permit costs  b. Pricing incentives  c. Affordability of permits for service employees  d. Permit costs  e. Reduce costs of permits  f. Costs for hourly vs. salaried workers  g. TDM area and costs  h. Cost of permits to employers and businesses   Definition of District  a. Zone Inefficiency (inefficiency increases w/ number of zones)  b. Are there residential zones and how would they be determined  c. Opt in for additional neighborhoods  d. What is geographically/demographically an RPP District   Data Collection/Occupancy  a. Need tracking information of impact before/after  b. Do we have reliable data on the number of cars, businesses, residents to determine  balance?  c. How to quantify “success”  d. Details of College Terrace program and benchmarks if any  e. What is obligation to serve Caltrain outbound & Stanford student/employee vehicles  f. Acceptable level of parking density in res neighborhoods  g. How do we measure success – survey residents and businesses?  h. Collect data to assess usage and pricing, iterate on this info to refine the program  i. Peak loads by day by hour  j. Number of downtown employees?   Parallel Programs  a. Garage vacancy locational tech (parking guidance systems)  b. Permits to be revenue‐generating (to fund TDM/TMA)  c. Parking meters  d. Urban Lane   Other  a. Parking in close proximity to where you work  b. Better utilization of existing off‐street resources  c. As long as there is free parking in the residential neighborhoods, other strategies are  doomed to fail  d. What is the definition of “preferential”?  e. Close inexpensive parking lot, increase demand  Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 2 – Summary Notes Date: April 17, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Community Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan* Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Aaron Aknin Assistant Planning Director, City of Palo Alto  Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Art Kramer Resident, 1116 Forest Avenue  Geoff Ball Resident, 315 Bryant Street Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster John Reed Resident of Los Altos, 586 Orange  Russ Cohen Palo Alto Business and Professional Association John Morris Resident, 395 Leland Avenue Peter Shambora Resident, 1565 Castilleja Mel Matsumoto Resident, 850 Webster Tommy Derrick Resident, 390 Leland  Wynne Furth Resident, 216 Everett *Names shown in gray reflect RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Develop an agreed‐upon methodology for decision‐making.  2. Confirm policies that will be the focus of the ordinance.  3. Identify and come to resolution on initial “low‐hanging fruit” policies.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of  Goals and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Mention of two underused garages Bryant (S) and Cowper Webster (CW) with approximately  400 total empty spaces (at 2pm). Request to investigate Evergreen Park (experiencing parking  scarcity due in part to proximity to Caltrain and appears in greater need than Crescent Park).  o Group agreed that meeting Public Comment period will occur at beginning and end of  next meetings. Circlepoint to schedule into future agendas accordingly.  c. Review of RPP Program Process   Draft RPP Downtown Program and Citywide Ordinance should be ready after June meeting for  Planning Commission Review in August. All are “advisory” to Council, even Planning  Commission’s recommendations to Council. Bulk of stakeholder work anticipated for May‐June  timeframe.   Sub‐committees will be formed to tackle four to six policy areas outside of the formal  Stakeholder Group meetings. Recognition that subcommittees may encounter  interdependencies between issue areas during their work outside of meetings.  d. Update on City Council Participation Status   Due to (1) having only four unconflicted Councilmembers and (2) specific direction from Council  to create a group that was independent of Council oversight, staff recommends nominating 1‐2  representatives from the Stakeholder Group to attend and present at Council meetings (which  are open to the public), or have all stakeholders group members individually attend and speak  as they so choose.   Regarding presentations to Council regarding the formation of the RPP District, Stakeholders  might have multiple recommendations and request neutral Staff representation. Staff will  present to Council and will document majority opinions from Stakeholders as well as any  alternative opinions, synthesizing recommendations from the Stakeholder group. Stakeholders  are encouraged to attend Council meetings to provide independent perspective on process and  results.  e. Stakeholder Group Decision‐Making Process    Group will seek greatest level of consensus for each policy that is developed for the Downtown  District; if there is no consensus, staff will document number of stakeholders favoring all  approaches and make the final recommendation.   Commentary reinforced importance of coming to consensus in these meetings.  f. Review and Identification of Policies   Staff reviewed policy questions derived from last meeting’s stakeholder‐developed issues list.   Supply: Comments reinforced that there may be certain neighborhoods that need more  protection and that allocation questions are predicated on knowing inventory and occupancy  data as well as projected demand.  o Data needed on how many spaces available, number of houses, etc. City to provide  data on occupancy and inventory. Stakeholder sub‐committees to investigate and  incorporate in their dialogues and recommendations.   Implementation: Discussion suggested need for ongoing evaluation metrics in addition to  success metrics, inclusion of TDM metrics (out of scope of Downtown RPP program), and  marketing plan.  o What are the metrics for ongoing evaluation and refinement of the Downtown RPP  program? City to incorporate question.  o How will the program be promoted to public? City to incorporate question.   Permit Sales: Comments questioned how to define visitors, provided data point of very few  waiting lists at garages.  o How will the program handle guests and visitors? City to incorporate question.   Costs: Any program cost changes will be factored into annual City review of municipal fees.   Defining the District: Palo Alto Weekly map is generally used for defining neighborhoods, but  there is no exact demarcation for these neighborhoods.   Occupancy: Discussion that occupancy be tabled and combined with metrics for success; City to  update question.   Predicate Actions: RPP Program is not required to be cost‐neutral, but surplus of revenue is  unlikely.  o What is the process of adjusting the program/changing RPP parameters in response to  success from other City programs? City to incorporate question.   Other: Safety is a major issue for business people and employees. Low fines/citation fees may  impede implementation.  o Data needed from PAPD on safety (specifically, success of escort programs and  similar); additionally, more data needed on citations and enforcement. Stakeholder  sub‐committees to investigate and incorporate in their dialogues and  recommendations.  g. Establish Draft Policies for “Low‐Hanging Fruit”    City selected four policies that constituted low‐hanging fruit for the group to discuss and achieve  consensus on with regards to policy recommendation.  1. Downtown District boundary (Policy No. 6a): Group jointly marked up City‐provided basemap to  show initial program boundaries/eligibility (streets that will receive surveys). Group expressed  recognition that some locations may “opt out.” Stakeholder‐recommended boundary included  at the end of the notes.  2. Transferability of permits for employees (Policy No. 4b): Group expressed consensus that  transferability should be allowed. Need additional research on how to manage and reduce  counterfeits/resale (recognized as separate issue).  3. Transferability of permits for residents (Policy No. 4f): Group expressed consensus that  transferability should be allowed. Separate permit for visitors. Noted that transferability may  encourage street parking if cost of permit is low enough.  4. Hours of enforcement (Policy No. 6a): Group expressed consensus on 9:00 am to 7:00 pm,  pending more data, with 2 hours free without a permit. Perhaps different hours for different  neighborhoods.  5. Data needed on impacts to service workers, restaurants, businesses. Stakeholder sub‐ committees to investigate and incorporate in their dialogues and recommendations.  h. Review of Homework Assignments   Stakeholders were assigned to sub‐committees and picked policy questions to discuss and come  to consensus to as homework.  o Homework is due to Jessica by May 15. (See table below for assignments.)  i. Members of the Public Comment   Concern about the far‐reaching ramifications of these decisions. Request to anticipate the  questions/actions of the people who will be impacted and to consider both intended and  unintended consequences.    Homework Assignments Group Assignment Group #1  Gabrielle Layton (R), Gloria  Arteaga (B), Neilson Buchanan (R)   1a. How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for residents of  the RPP District?   2b. What is the expected level of enforcement? Daily? Weekly? Multiple  times per week?   3f. Level of support for survey (what should percentage of support be?)   4d. How will permits be addressed for care facilities?   4e. How will permits be addressed for service workers and contractors?   9a. Safety issues (Not addressed directly – but the design of the district  should address this indirectly)  Group #2  Simon Cintz (B), Richard Brand  (R), Michael Hodos (R)   1c. How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for  employees and residents across the district?   1d. Will the amount of spaces allocated to employees be reduced over  time?   3b. How will the ordinance address permits for residents with different  on‐site parking opportunities (e.g. homes that have no driveways)?   4c. How will permits be addressed for multi‐resident facilities?   5a. How much do permits cost for residents and for workers? 8a. What  do the permit costs cover?   7a. What is the target level of occupancy? *This question was bundled  into 3d (“Metrics for success”).  Group #3  Rob George (B), John Guislin (R),  Sue Nightingale (B)   3a. How will the need for employee permits be quantified and how will  they be allocated?   3c. How will the permits be made available (e.g. website, in person?)   3e. What does the signage and striping look like for the District?   3g. What are the follow up actions if a street originally opts out and  then changes their mind?   4a. Will the permits be hangtag or decal? What will they look like?   8a. What do the permit costs cover? *This question was bundled into 5a  (“How much do permits cost?”).  Group #4  Elaine Uang (R), Chop Keenan (B)   1b. How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown  employees?   3d. Will there be a trial period of the district? If so, what are the metrics  that confirm whether the RPP program is successful? 7a. What is the  target level of occupancy?   5b. How will permit costs address the income disparity between  workers of different income levels?   6b. Are there specific zones within the District where only certain  residents or employees can park‐ e.g., what are the restrictions of each  zone?   8b. Parking Supply Measures (e.g. parking garage technology, etc.)  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Prepare agenda for Meeting #3  and build in public comment  period at beginning and end  City/Circlepoint 5/15/2014  Provide available parking data on  RPP website, including but not  limited to parking inventory data,  parking occupancy data and other  stakeholder‐submitted data  City 5/2/2014  Incorporate additional marked  questions to policy list and create  draft policies for stakeholder  review  City 5/22/2014  Prepare recommended solutions  for assigned questions and send  to Jessica  Sub‐Committees 5/15/2014  Next Meeting Date: May 22, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Es cob Churchill Avenue enue ColeridgeAvenue oad Homer Avenue La n e 8W es t Medical F ound ation Way La n e 7 W e st La n e 7 Eas t Emb arcaderoRoad Encina A v enue UrbanLane WellsA v e nue ForestAvenue High Str e e t Emerso n Str eetChanningAvenue Alm a Str eet AlmaS t reet Palo Al to A ElCam in o Rea l venue Mit chell Lane HawthorneAvenue EverettAvenue LyttonAvenue Lane15E High Str e et Alm a Str eet Br y ant St re et Lane 6 E Lane1 1W Lane 21 High Str eet Gilman St reet HamiltonAvenue UniversityAvenue BryantCourt Lane30 Flore nceS tre et Kiplin gStreet Tas so Stre e t Cow pe r S tr e e t RuthvenAvenue Hawthorne Avenue Lane 33 Palo Alto Av enue Everett Avenue Poe Street Wa verle y S tr eet Ta ss o S tre et Co wp erStre et Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e Webster Street Everett Court LyttonAvenue Byr on Str eet FultonStre et Middlefi eld Road Churchill Avenue Melville Avenue ColeridgeAvenue Waverle y Street Br y a nt Stre et Eme rsonStreet Kellogg Avenue KingsleyAvenue La ne A West La ne B West La n eB Eas t La n e DW es t Lan e 59 Eas t Whitman Court Kellogg Avenue Embarc aderoRoad KingsleyAvenue LincolnAvenue Addison Avenue Lincoln Avenue ForestAvenue Do wn ingL ane Homer Avenue Lan eD East Lane3 9 La ne 56 Hamilton Avenue WebsterS treet Waverle y Street Kip lin g Street Bryant Street Ra mon a Stre e t AddisonAvenue Scott Street ByronStreet Palo HaleS treet SenecaStreet Lytton Avenue Gu indaStreet P a lo AltoAvenue Fulton Stre et Mid dlefie ld R oad ForestAvenue WebsterS treet KelloggAvenue Mid dlefie ld R oad ByronS treet WebsterS treet Cow pe r S tree t Ta s so S tr eet Cow per S tr e e t AddisonAvenue LincolnAvenue Boyce A venue Forest Avenue HamiltonAvenue Homer Avenue Guind a S tr e e t Mi d dlefie ld R oadChanningAvenue AltoAvenue Chaucer S tree t UniversityAvenue C h anni n g A ven u e Addison A venue Linco ln Aven u e R e g e n t P l Gu indaStreet LincolnAvenue Fult onStreet Melville Avenue ByronS treetKingsleyAvenue Melville Avenue H F orest A v enue Forest C t S o m e rset Pl Fife A ve nue Coleridge Avenue CowperS treet Mid dlefie ld Road WebsterS treet Kirb K ent Pl ace M artin A ve nu H arriet S tre et WilsonStreet CedarStreet H ar ker A ve nu e G re en w oo d A ve n ue H utchinson A venue C H opki n s A v enu e Embarcad W alte W a lnu t Drive Ne we P a rkin s on A v en uePineStreet Ramo naS treet Addison Avenue Channing A venue Waverle yStreet PaulsenLn C o m m u nity L an e Lane1 5E Eme rsonS treet Lane 20WLane20 E University Avenue CalT r ain R OW Eme rsonS treet Waverle yStreet Kip lin g Street BryantStreet Ramo naS treet Lane 12 W Lane5E hePlace Everett Avenue HomerAvenue PaloAlt o Avenue C o m m u n i ty L a n e G re en w o od A ve n ue H ar ker Aven u e P a r k in s on Av en u e By ron St re et Emer son S tr ee t Alma S tre e t AlmaStree t HawthorneAvenue LyttonAvenue The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to {CopyrightYear} City of Palo Alto This map is a product of theCity of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'180'360' DRAFT RPP Downtown DistrictCITYOFPALO A LTOINCORPORATE D CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL16 1894 jsulliv, 2014-04-14 10:18:56, RPP District Boundary Draft (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\jsulliv.mdb) Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 3 – Summary Notes Date: May 22, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Gloria Arteaga Employee, Palantir Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Ben Strumwasser Facilitator, Circlepoint Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Channing House Geoff Ball Resident, DTN Alice Frayne Resident Russ Cohen Palo Alto Downtown Professionals Association Paul Machado Resident, Evergreen Park Mel Matsumoto Channing House Tommy Derrick Resident, Evergreen Park Steve Levy Resident, DTS Barbara Gross Manager, Garden Court Hotel  DM Griffin Resident, Downtown North Charlene G Resident *Names in gray represent RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Vet Sub‐Committees’ proposed policy recommendations.  2. Come to resolution on as many policies as possible – target at minimum half of outstanding  policies.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Tom Fehrenbach Introduction   Tom referred to his written goals and objectives on the City website and expressed that he is  interested not only in raising business revenues but in maintaining Palo Alto’s quality of life to  attract residents.  o Group expressed concern about turnover of City staff and continuity of staff institutional  knowledge. City responded that Jessica will be largely responsible for delivering the  stakeholder’s group recommendations to Council, and Tom will support those efforts.  Jessica and Tom will report to those Councilmembers who are not conflicted out of the RPP  discussion and Jessica, as Parking Manager, is the main point of contact for Parking and  Transportation Demand Management‐related efforts.  o Stakeholder expressed concern that the distinction between “residents” and “businesses”  would set the stage for group polarization. City responded that these categories were used  to create a balanced stakeholder group but can be removed if they are inappropriately  designated.  c. Members of the Public Comment   Supporting opinion from a dual resident/hotel businessperson that labels can pigeonhole  complex opinions.   Comment that Channing House, as 24/7 facility, has special needs. Afternoon shifts from 3pm to  7pm would increase permit requirements by an estimated 20% even though physical space  demands remain consistent with morning shift needs.   Comment that any impact to the success quotient of business community will have direct  impacts to residential community.  d. City Presentation on Other Activities and Data   Jessica presented on ongoing TDM activities (e.g. valet program, pricing in garages, wayfinding)  and RPP schedule of implementation: implementation begins January 2015, full enforcement  likely March 2015.   Group commented that RPP implementation will be disruptive and requested that City work  with underutilized business parking lots on High and Emerson Streets during interim period.   Discussion on community survey, which could potentially have multiple functions. (e.g. to   inform residents of implementation details and establish support and then have subsequent  efforts include an official opt‐in mechanism.) Due to concern that uninvested neighbors will not  support the Program, Group requested that demand data/Downtown Cap Study (DCAP) data be  included to show the impact of taking no action. Group was in favor of a strong outreach effort  on top of the two anticipated Planning Commission meetings and the upcoming Planning  Commission meeting (Wednesday, May 28, 6:00 p.m., City Hall) to present on Phase I of DCAP.  City Response: Survey process and outreach strategy will be a topic of focus for the next  meeting.   During review of April policies, Group rescinded support for including areas south of  Embarcadero (agreeing that Embarcadero should be RPP District’s southern boundary) and re‐ opened the issue of hours of enforcement for further discussion.  e. Policy Discussions by Category  Policies in red were rejected by the Group. The Group focused on the Supply category, which had  proposals that covered the number of employee and resident permits, as well as the allocation  strategy for those permits and, potentially, spaces within the boundary of the RPP District area. The  Supply category included all of section 1 questions, 3a and 6b. The proposals listed were the work of  the RPP stakeholder sub‐committees.   1a: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for residents of the RPP district?  o For a housing unit with no onsite parking option, through no fault of owner or renter, one  free permit should be provided. Yea: 0, Nay: 9, Abstain: 0. Though Group felt these residents  should not be penalized, Group was in favor of having all residents having “skin in the game”  by paying for permits, and applying for exemptions if necessary.  o For all other residents, a maximum of two residential parking permits should be made  available at a minimal price. Additional permits with a reasonable upper limit should be  made available at a higher cost. Yea: 9, Nay: 0, Abstain: 0. Group conceded that the total  number of available permits could be discussed later.  o All permits should be tied to a residence (residential unit/mailing address). Yea: 8, Nay: 0,  Abstain: 1.   1b: How many spaces will be allocated, or permits sold, for downtown employees?  o Option 1 – Flat Rate Model. 1 space per commuter and 1 space per household. Gather data  on usage for street parking needs. Six month test, one year review. Revisit supply question  with data on usage. Yea: 0, Nay: 7, Abstain: 2.   o Option 2 – Market Based Solution. Sell unlimited permits (no cap). Do not physically allocate  spaces for individual uses. However, allocate zones within the RPP Boundary; offer 3‐4  tiered street pricing options, the closer to downtown the zone, the more expensive. Pricing  for furthest spots affordable for those with limited means. Yea: 1, Nay: 6, Abstain: 2. Group  mentioned some cases where number of permits sold exceeded allocation, which worked  because it was successfully incentivizing TDM measures. Also, this scheme aims to  “temporally stack” parking supply (i.e., the same space that serves as employee parking  during the day may serve as resident parking at night, which ensures greatest utilization of  the resource). However, Group did not agree in principal on the sale of unlimited permits as  proposed (citing “supply creates its own demand”). Group instead agreed on allocation  scheme discussed in 1c.   1c: How will the ordinance address the distribution of spaces for employees and residents?  o A percentage of the available spaces will be designated for downtown workers on a block‐ face‐by‐block‐face basis (during enforcement hours).  Such designated spaces will be curb‐ marked and striped in a consistent manner that promotes safety and ensures easy access to  residents’ homes. Availability: 1st come, 1st served. Yeas: 8, Nay: 0, Abstain: 1. The opposing  opinion to this proposal was that the City did not have adequate data to develop an  appropriate percentage of spots for employee designation, and that it would be difficult to  make adjustments to this percentage after the fact.   o Accommodations should be made for school employees & parent volunteers as well as retail  service businesses that have unique customer parking needs (e.g. auto shops). Yea: 6, Nay:  2, Abstain: 1.  o Single stage implementation proposal – a specific percentage of spaces to be made available  to workers, equally distributed through district. Resident parking data indicates 20% is  adequate. Yea: 6, Nay: 2, Abstain: 1. Group understands that this implementation strategy,  like all programs, will be reviewed and “tweaked” if necessary.  o Sequenced implementation proposal – assess actual employee need prior to determining  percentage and distribution via one of the following options: (a) Two staged (sequenced)  RPP: all downtown employees register/receive permits, then determine percentage &  distribution strategy. (b) Less desirable alternative: 40‐50% (guesstimate) initial downtown  employee allocation, then adjust down as required by actual count. In all cases safe and  reasonable walking distances. May result in unequal distribution. Per City Council Motion,  Item #6: “Minimize disruption when RPP is implemented.” This recommendation is an  alternative to “Single stage implementation proposal” and was rejected based on that  recommendation’s success. Group agreed with the spirit of this proposal but was wary of its  “gameability” (i.e. an inflated number of people park on assessment day and data is still  inaccurate).   1d: Will the amount of spaces allocated to employees be reduced over time?  o Yes, but only if additional capacity that becomes available via new garages/lots, garage valet  parking, various TDM options being considered, etc. is not reasonably utilized. Any  reduction in downtown employee permits should be based on objective data. Yea: 8, Nay:  0, Abstain: 1.   3a: How will the need for employee permits be quantified and how will they be allocated?  o Each block has three possible parking types: all day resident, all day commercial, 2 hr  anyone – no reparking in same zone/district on same day. Commercial permits quantity is  set at 20% of spaces. This recommendation is functionally equivalent to previously decided  question 1c, and group therefore did not vote.  o City must make additional parking spaces available for workers employed on January 2015.  Yea: 8, Nay: 1, Abstain: 0. Group expanded this recommendation from “service workers” to  general “workers.”  o E.g. 2‐6 spaces, 1 Commercial permit. 7‐11 spaces, 2 Commercial permits. 12‐16 spaces, 2  Commercial permits. 17+ spaces, 4 Commercial permits. Permits made available first come,  first served. No reserved/guaranteed space. Group did not vote on these ancillary details.   6b: Are there specific zones within the District where only certain residents or employees can  park? Zone restrictions?  o Need zones – some low on‐street parking to home ratios (i.e. Ramona). For market‐ based solution, zones could be determined based on average demand of street face, but  residents & commuters would both be allowed to park along entire street. Keep it  simple & equitable, exclusive privatization or commercialization of spaces is a slippery  slope. Group discussed but did not come to consensus within time limit.  f. Members of the Public Comment – N/A    Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Synthesize and format results of  discussion  City 5/30/2014  Review results of discussion Stakeholder Group 6/6/2014  Note and (if desired) attend  upcoming PTC meetings (5/28,  5/29, 6/11)  Stakeholder Group 5/27/2014  Prepare Draft Ordinance for  Stakeholder Input  City 6/19/2014  Next Meeting Date: June 19, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm  Location: Westin Hotel, 675 El Camino Real  Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 4 – Summary Notes [DRAFT] Date: June 19, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm Location: Sheraton Hotel, 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto Attendees: Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North) Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North) John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park) Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville) Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South) Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville) Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Amy Huang Circlepoint Several Members of Public Meeting Goals: 1. Review Supply discussion and Staff/PTC input. 2. Provide Stakeholder feedback on Draft City‐wide Ordinance. 3. Review City‐wide Survey Process. Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda b. Members of the Public Comment • Comment from Evergreen Park resident that requirements imposed by Draft Ordinance on residents are disheartening; it seems very difficult to create an RPP District, but very easy to terminate one. c. Supply Discussion (Continued) and Staff Draft Proposal • Jessica summarized the Supply discussion as a debate concerning two main issues (allocating and regulating through physical spots vs. regulating through sales instead, and implementing staged RPP vs. single‐phase RPP). • Jessica presented Staff/PTC concern that physical allocation would entail 9‐12 months of community outreach work and investigation into implementation details (e.g. number of spots). o Group expressed concern with the 9‐12 month timeline. Staff considered 9‐12 months necessary to message neighbors and hold community meetings, even after Council approval. Stakeholders did not feel that 9‐12 months was an accurate estimation and believed that, in relation to the original January‐March 2015 implementation timeline, the moving goalpost was concerning. However, Stakeholders also considered that given deteriorating quality of life, residents might move quickly to approve the proposal. • Given the up‐front work to implement a physical allocation solution, Jessica proposed a compromise program that would not preclude eventual physical allocation, but would allow Staff to collect data and iterate (as detailed below). o Staff Draft Proposal: Directly adjacent to current 2‐hour Blue Zone (Downtown Core/SOFA), add Green/Red/Orange zones to cover the highly occupied areas. In these zones, restrict permit sales to non‐resident employees to 20% of available spots, to start, and price permits on par with garages. Surrounding the colored zones, add a Gray Zone where permit sales are unrestricted (priced lower than garages). Use flexible signage plans to move zones back and forth. Immediately begin occupancy studies. o Benefits as proposed by Staff: Meaningful occupancy studies (City has legal barriers to other methods of surveying), meaningfully adjustable permit sales, flexibility in management, possibility of physical allocation at a later point. Reduction of demand from non‐resident parkers (Caltrain, Stanford, PAMF). • Group discussed details of the Staff Draft Proposal. o Pricing: Stakeholders expressed that City should not make on‐street parking cheaper than garages, encouraging people to park on the street. The possibility of group‐based exemptions or time‐based exceptions for service employees was raised. Stakeholder mentioned that competitive pricing would be key for his employees. o Varied density within zones: Group discussed the marketability of the proposal to residents, saying it could be a hard sell for people in the Colored Zones, as they would see no change for 6‐9 months while the City collected data. Additionally, Zones would be polarized, as the blocks closest to Downtown would be the worst impacted. Residents would have different experiences depending on which side of the street they were on. o Los Gatos: Group discussed the preferential permit program in Los Gatos, which was implemented quickly. There is free all‐day parking for employees in garages, but also more space (due to the conversion of their railroad right‐of‐way into parking). Stakeholder expressed that Los Gatos was not comparable due to the shutdown of entire Historic District. o Zone size: Stakeholders felt that the adjustable size of the zone would protect employees and that if zones were small enough, the City could obtain the necessary data without significantly impacting residents. o Supply: Group refocused discussion on supply, in light of incoming economic growth and conversion of lots like Bridge Bank to office use. Stakeholders agreed on importance of raising the issue of supply (Urban Lane, Lot G, etc.) with neighbors, Staff, Council, and other politicians. As demand growth is relatively contained by constraints on new development, Group agreed RPP proposal should incentivize Council to push supply initiatives forward. o Lean proposal: Group agreed that the proposal, though adverse to some, would have an overall benefit, incentivizing residents to support the next iteration of the program. Stakeholder voiced concern that demand would be redistributed elsewhere. Group agreed that recommendation to Council should be viable in a short time, though there was some discussion on whether the recommendation should entail a robust combination of solutions and mitigations, or merely be as simple as possible to launch. o Timelines and Council support: Jessica confirmed that the timeframe for community outreach under this proposal would be from July through September, targeting August for consensus, and outreach required would be much lighter than for physical allocation. Short‐ term permits (1 month or 3 months) would allow the program to be implemented for a number of months or up to a year. Staff and Group discussed making time for Group to form additional contextual recommendations to Council. • Group discussed, formed, and voted on a revised approach to the proposal allowing the City to collect data while still eliminating poachers. o Group’s Revised Proposal: As soon as possible, implement a one‐time issuance of cost‐free RPP permits to people who can prove that they live or work in the greater Downtown area, allowing them to park anywhere in the greater Downtown area. Color‐code the permits based on area of residence or business (basic zoning to indicate where the resident/employee is from). Institute some expiration date for the permits, suggestion 120 days after issue. Support additional supply options and protect district parking assets. o Benefits: As compared with original proposal, retain meaningful occupancy studies, flexibility, etc., and reduction of demand from non‐resident parkers. Added benefits of: minimal visible impact to residents. “Foot in the door” with Council and residents/employees. Expiration dates (plus possible conversion to “true” RPP permits at a later date) and the explicit supply‐related amendment should incentivize supply measures. o Group voted as follows: Yeas: 9, Nays: 1, Abstain: 1. Dissenting opinion was that proposal does not address core issue of supply strongly enough. o Other concerns were regarding enforcement and data collection costs, incentivization of non‐renewal of existing permits (though same issue exists today). d. Overview of Draft Ordinance • Jessica presented the overview of the RPP Program, comprising the Draft Ordinance and Resolution. The Draft Ordinance consists of the process by which neighborhoods can petition to become RPP Districts, the survey process by which a District opts in or out, and the enforcement strategy for Districts (likely via private contractor). It is intended to be a standard petition process, but one that can flex for each District. The Resolution is specific to each District, consisting of the design, hours, number of permits, number of spots allocated, boundaries/zones, and permit sales/costs, and is developed through stakeholder and community input for each District. o Stakeholder asked whether Ordinance was necessary, since College Terrace implemented RPP without one. Jessica to look into this and follow up. o Group was concerned that some items (e.g. enforcement) that were discussed in Sub‐ Committees are now listed under the Ordinance and are therefore outside of the Stakeholders’ purview. This item to be resolved when Policy discussion continues. • Jessica presented the first component of the Draft Ordinance: the petition process for neighborhoods to become RPP Districts. Group offered specific input. o Petition process summary:  Resident proposal: residents apply using resident‐collected data by June 30 (end of fiscal year).  Staff review criteria: • Non‐resident vehicles do substantially interfere with resident ability to park • Interference occurs daily/weekly, is a constant source of parking impact • Non‐resident vehicles are a source of noise/traffic hazards/pollution/devaluation of property • Alternative mitigation strategies have been attempted  Community outreach and internal review: • Parking occupancy studies • At least 2 community outreach meetings with residents • Stakeholders for smaller neighborhoods (2‐3 meetings max) • Draft resolution and postal survey to validate resident support, 50% response rate required, 70% support from collected responses • PTC/Council review • Evaluation/monitoring o Group agreed that the District formation process seemed onerous, but the Districts themselves easy to dissolve. o Definition of District: Group was concerned that Ordinance is missing technical criteria on who gets to define a District, how large it should be, and how to define a block/block face. Group was in favor of adding criterion for a minimum number of blocks. Stakeholder suggested using pre‐determined districts; City responded that this was not in the scope of city‐wide Ordinance. o Percentage of support: Group was in favor of reducing percentage of support from 70% to 50%+1 (as was used at College Terrace), indicating that 70% is a higher bar than is asked for in City elections. Group and City agreed to remove the criterion for minimum percentage of surveys returned. Stakeholder voiced concern about outreach to neighborhoods adjacent to RPP Districts. o Noise/pollution/hazard: Group and City agreed to remove the criterion for validated noise/traffic hazard impacts, citing that most residents would not have the resources to perform such a study. o Qualification of “substantial interference”: Stakeholder expressed that “substantial interference” should be qualified in such a way that residents can easily determine whether they qualify. Staff responded that qualifying percentages depend on the area, and City should reserve right to review. o Application review: Stakeholders suggested that Councilmembers be involved earlier than currently listed, e.g. in the PTC meetings. e. Members of the Public Comment • Request for City to provide microphones so public can better hear Stakeholder Group’s conversation. • Comment from Crescent Park resident that Draft Ordinance is extremely complicated, and process should be reduced to objective observation of daytime occupancy over a contiguous number of blocks. Votes and surveys should be eliminated in favor of allowing opt‐in for currently unaffected adjacent blocks and opt‐out. • Comment to thank Staff and Stakeholders. Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date Investigate whether Ordinance is necessary, since College Terrace was implemented without one City 7/10/2014 Investigate and draft terms of expiration/conversion for “RPP Light” permits City 7/10/2014 Create plan to present Meeting No. 3 allocation proposal (“RPP Full”) to Council City 7/10/2014 Resolve issue of whether enforcement falls under Resolution (Stakeholder purview) or Ordinance (not Stakeholder purview) City 7/17/2014 Coordinate Parking Strategy workshop to discuss larger TDM, TMA and additional strategies City 7/17/2014 Provide public registry data on how many people are working downtown City Mid‐2015 Next Meeting Date: July 17, 2014, 1:00 – 4:00 pm Location: TBD Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 5 – Summary Notes Date: July 17, 2014, 1:00 – 3:30 pm  Location: Cubberley Community Center, 4000 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Amy Huang Circlepoint Kelsey Kawaguchi Parking Intern, City of Palo Alto  Yuki Matsuura City Auditor, City of Palo Alto  Russ Cohen Palo Alto Downtown Professionals Association Tommy Derrick Resident Paul Machado Resident, Evergreen Park Mel Matsumoto Channing House *Members in gray are RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Review program timeline.  2. Respond to current “supply” proposal.  3. Design survey to be distributed to Downtown neighborhoods.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Comment from resident that internal conflicts are sabotaging the group’s interests. Resident  stressed urgency of original motion to have functional parking system by January 2.   Evergreen Park resident noted that northern Evergreen Park is full and provided map of  southern Evergreen Park occupancy. (View map on RPP website.)  c. Brief TDM/Parking Update   Jessica provided overview of her role and level of responsibility.   Jessica summarized TDM measures going before Council in next 1‐2 months: Zipcar contract  award, TMA consultant selection, garage tech implementation plan and policy changes, RFPs for  contracted enforcement and online permit sales, public‐private partnership proposals for mixing  other uses with parking, valet program expansion to Civic Center garage.  o Remote lot on Embarcadero is an action item at next Council meeting; Stakeholders  encouraged to attend to provide their support for the satellite parking.  o Stakeholders inquired about online permit sales. Staff responded that end goal is to have  permits available via third‐party interface. Enforcement methods will tie in, and permits will  be transferable.  o Stakeholder commented that existing empty garages need to be utilized.  o Stakeholder commented that though valet program increases utilization, it does not support  service workers who are uncomfortable using valet parking.  d. Summary of Ordinance Feedback and Input   Purpose of Ordinance is to create parity in how the various RPP districts are developed (College  Terrace will become part of Ordinance). Ordinance allows for provision of private enforcement,  but level of enforcement may be set in the Resolution.   Staff requests concrete feedback on how to simplify process, given the requirements of going  to PTC, going to Council, and performing occupancy studies. Comments allowed through  October/November.  o Stakeholder expressed that districts need to be smaller to be impactful; Staff responded  that this issue is in the purview of the Resolution, not the Ordinance.   Staff revisited issue of minimum level of support (percent of surveys received that are in favor).  Stakeholders voted as follows: 50+1% – 5 votes. 55% – 2 votes. 65% – 1 vote. 70% – 0 votes.   Staff raised issue of minimum level of participation (percent of surveys distributed that are  returned). Stakeholders voted as follows: No threshold – 7 votes. Require 50% threshold – 1  vote.   Outreach: Draft Ordinance will be distributed this week to Chamber of Commerce mailing list,  neighborhood leaders, PAMF, and other venues. Stakeholders are requested to circulate the  Ordinance and suggest any additional audiences.   Timeline:  o September 10: Present RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 17: Present Ordinance (first reading) and seek approval on RPP  Program/Resolution at Council.  o December: Present Ordinance (second reading) at Council.  o Implementation can begin in November, especially if “contingent approval” measures  succeed.  o Staff will target sending survey at beginning of August for an open response period of 4  weeks and convene a community meeting before going to Council.  e. Summary of Progress on Program Design – Current Proposals   Staff summarized that Group has expressed some level of consent on three (3) proposals:  1. Allocating spots within district (~20%) for employee parking. This proposal cannot be  implemented by January and, as discussed at previous meetings, would require public  outreach to confirm the placement of the spots.   2. Regulations (limitation) of employee permit sales for identified zones nearer to the  commercial core and unlimited permit sales outside of the zones (closer to the  perimeter of the boundary). This proposal seeks to spread out the parking impact over a  larger area and provide relief to the areas which are closest to the commercial core. This  proposal can be implemented starting in January.  3. Trial program where color‐coded permits are distributed at minimal cost for employees  and residents (data collection exercise). This proposal can be implemented starting in  January.   Staff Input on Proposal 3 (which was discussed at last meeting): Staff disagrees with minimal  fee: pricing mechanism needs to begin regulating where people park. Lower‐income workers  should be considered, e.g. for designated lots/garages. Maximum 2 residential permits per  household. Employee permits to be made available to all valid employees of Downtown and  phased out as more supply is introduced.   Stakeholders expressed importance of defining pricing structure. Stakeholder commented on  urgency of supply issue and questioned necessity of community survey. Some stakeholder  rescinded support for data collection proposal discussed at previous meeting.   Costs:  o Staff quoted parking consultant’s recommendation to have tiered permits durations  (monthly, daily) for wage workers. Stakeholder agrees. Staff confirms RPP Program may be  subsidized from General Fund since permit revenues likely cannot cover the costs of the  program.  o Stakeholders discussed different permits for professional vs. hourly/service workers, as  those two groups will have different use cases in terms of purchasing power and occupancy  over time. Stakeholder suggested basing permit price on general business use (e.g. retail,  restaurant). Stakeholders agreed $100‐200 annually was in the right range for service  workers. Stakeholder suggested requiring business owners to purchase a number of permits  equal to some percent of their employee count to begin generating revenue for City and to  force the supply issue. Staff was uncomfortable with such a requirement due to City’s desire  to encourage people to drive less.  o Staff confirmed that tiered permit durations do not necessarily increase enforcement cost  (via License Plate Recognition technology where multiple license plates can be associated  with a registered permit).  o Stakeholders discussed and suggested the permit costs as follows:  Duration Professional Hourly (Low‐ Wage)  Residential  Daily $17.50 (current cost – not RPP permit)  Monthly $40 $10   Quarterly $176 $30   Annual $466 $100  (transferable)  $30‐$50    f. Downtown RPP District Survey Design   Purpose of survey is to gather feedback on design of RPP Program (community input on top of  Group input) and verify percentage of support to the various programs being discussed. Survey  will be short (one page, approximately 10 questions), and Staff will target 1 returned survey per  household.   Audience: Stakeholders suggested that every address in the District (residences and businesses)  should receive the survey, and responses should be coded or otherwise distinguished by  neighborhood. Stakeholder urged Staff to allow residents to take survey online, especially if an  online survey is already being created and distributed to businesses.   Background information: Stakeholders suggested including personal appeal in first line (“Your  residence is being considered for RPP…”), “three‐legged stool” graphic, FAQs that set context  (explain current parking costs, notify that increased enforcement will increase permit costs,  establish the urgency of approving the program), URL for more information, Stakeholder contact  details (Stakeholders to opt‐in). Jessica requests stakeholders sent draft survey question text  to her by next week.   Questions:  o Do you support the creation of an RPP District in your neighborhood? (last question)   Yes   Yes, if…   No, because…  o Brief explanation of percentage of spots allocation proposal (proposal number 1). Check all  that apply:   No, no allocation   Yes, I’m OK with specifically‐allocated spots on my street ( “up to X%”)   Yes, I’m OK with random allocation on my street   Yes, I’m OK with one spot in front of my house  o <Enforcement – days of the week.> Check all that apply:   Monday – Friday   Saturday   Sunday  o <Enforcement – hours of the day.> Check all that apply:   8 a.m. – 5 p.m.   Additional morning hours   Additional evening hours   Other (please explain)  o How many permits would you require for your household/business?  o What is a fair/reasonable price? (Include background info on employee pricing structure.)   <= 30, <= 50, <= 80   Specify a range   Specify a number  o Stakeholder suggested additional questions for business‐specific survey:   How far are you willing to walk?   How many permits do you need?   Would it be relevant to your company to have hourly or low‐wage permits?   Would it be relevant to your company to have transferable permits or shared permits?  g. Members of the Public Comment   Mel Matsumoto commented that Channing House will have to educate residents and offered  the use of Channing House auditorium (capacity 130) for any meetings.   Russ Cohen suggested doing the survey by phone and additionally commented that $466 for an  annual permit is difficult for people to pay up front. Mr. Cohen suggested offering the option to  pay in installments, ensuring that the installments come out to less than $17.50 per day.   Tommy Derrick urged Stakeholder Group to simplify Program to have only resident and business  permits, and to restrict anyone but business owners from buying business permits. Mr. Derrick  suggested that employees of business who do not subsidize permits will go elsewhere and  recommended using an electronic hangtag‐based system for transferable permits.   Stakeholder commented that time limits of the supply proposals need to be defined so  Stakeholders can provide useful information to neighbors.   Stakeholder commented that current supply proposals are not equitable for different  geographic locations.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Coordinate Community Outreach  Meeting  City 9/15/2014  Provide public registry data on  how many people are working  downtown  City Mid‐2015  Send draft text for any desired  survey questions  Stakeholder Group 7/25/2014  Suggest any additional audiences  for outreach and circulate Draft  Ordinance among own circles  Stakeholder Group 7/25/2014  Provide feedback on simplifying  RPP creation process for  Ordinance  Stakeholder Group 10/31/2014  Next Meeting All attendees supported having an additional 2‐hour meeting to take straw votes on remaining policies.  Date: Thursday, July 31, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. (tentative)   Location: TBD     Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 6 – Summary Notes Date: July 31, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster, #524 Rob Lipshutz Resident, 970 Palo Alto Avenue  Alice Frayne Resident, 850 Webster, #303 Fred Kohler Resident, 315 Homer Avenue, #201  Paul Machado Resident, 363 Stanford Avenue  Kuo‐Jung Chang Resident, 315 Homer Avenue, #201  Barbara Wallace Resident, 356 Lincoln Avenue  Peter Hertzmann Resident, 445 Homer Avenue  Russ Cohen Downtown Business and Professional Association *Names in gray denote RPP Stakeholders.  Meeting Goals:  1. Review survey(s).  2. Review timeline for survey distribution and other milestones.  3. Continue Program design discussion (policy questions, continued).  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals  and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Question from Paul Machado, Evergreen Park resident, on how RPP Program will address  pipeline projects that are under‐parked (sometimes because of exemptions) and the impacts to  businesses.  c. Survey Review and Schedule  Review of Schedule   Because proposed RPP Program (designating spots on street) requires additional input from the  residents, Staff wants to use the community survey to obtain feedback on the design of the  program before going to PTC for the final recommendation. Therefore, Staff has added a final  meeting with PTC in November in addition to September’s first review meeting. Council’s first  reading of Ordinance will be in late November. Second reading of Ordinance and Contract  Awards will happen in December.   Staff plans to send survey out by mid‐August, with responses returned in 4‐6 weeks, and will  send the survey twice to constituents who do not respond the first time.   Stakeholder asked about signage fabrication and installation timeline. Jessica clarified that signs  can be erected in 60‐90 days and confirmed work is expected to be complete in June 2015.   Jessica confirmed that Staff’s tentative colored zones proposal (“Regulation of permit sales in  key zones around the core and unregulated permits elsewhere”) does not supersede the  Group’s proposal, and also that Staff is not including this proposal in the survey because of its  complexity. Jessica reiterated advisory nature of Stakeholder Group to Council.   Group discussed scheduling additional meetings. Group decided on an additional 1‐hour check‐ in meeting in September and an additional 2‐hour meeting in October to discuss survey results.  Staff confirmed meeting materials would be sent out in advance of these meetings.   Revised timeline (updates are underlined):  o September 10: Present update on RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 12: Present final RPP Program/Resolution at PTC.  o November 17: Present Ordinance (first reading) and seek approval on RPP  Program/Resolution at Council.  o December: Present Ordinance (second reading) and Contract Awards for RPP online permit  sales and contract enforcement at Council.  Review of Technology Recommendations    Jessica provided an update on the parking consultant’s technology recommendations. Jessica  requested Stakeholder support on all or a subset of these recommendations when they are  presented to Council on August 18. The recommendations include:  o Branding program/standardized signage, including variable message signs for parking  guidance systems  o Enhanced City parking website  o Parking app (can tie in with parking guidance systems)  o Online permit sales  o Revised time limits in garages (data elsewhere showed garages were not being used for the  full 3 hours)  o More permit pricing options  o Elimination of color zones  o Implementation of off‐street paid parking (refers to the installation of infrastructure  necessary to begin charging in public lots/garages)  o Enhanced parking enforcement   Stakeholder suggested that parking app include private parking facilities (e.g. bank parking).   Staff clarified that the order of recommendations is not based on priority. Staff is asking for  specific direction on the implementation of Parking Guidance Systems and Access and Revenue  Controls. On‐street paid parking is mentioned but not explicitly recommended.   Stakeholder asked about how these recommendations impact the transferability of employee  parking permits. Staff confirmed that the off‐street paid parking technology would facilitate  permit management. These and additional details will be discussed once Council reviews and  approves these high‐level recommendations.   Stakeholders expressed concern over the lack of a replacement for the color zones, the  formation of recommendations to Council without constituent buy‐in, the lack of mention of on‐ street paid parking (meters priced to incentivize permits), and the lack of response to medium‐ term parking issues (6‐10 hour parkers in the neighborhoods).   Report will be publicly available beginning August 13. Jessica will send consultant  recommendation subsection to Group.  Review of Survey   Staff will outreach directly to businesses for feedback on RPP Program via e‐newsletter to  Chamber and Business Associations, summarizing discussion to date; website tool to collect  comments; and direct outreach to Middlefield businesses.   Stakeholders gave feedback on survey in round robin format. Issues raised include:  o Survey methodology should be strict.  o Staff should track responses by address block or zone.  o Meaningful analysis will be difficult if turnout is low.  o Survey is difficult to understand; simplified language or bullets would be easier to read.  o Email distribution is more effective than paper mailing.   o Proposal as described on survey penalizes residents rather than problem parkers.  o Survey leaves too many open questions to express support or opposition.  o Price should be listed as a range, e.g. $30‐50.  o Map is misleading and should differentiate between business district and Downtown Core  developments that are north of Forest.  o Stakeholders were unclear on current proposal’s impacts to unlimited 2‐hour parking. Group  discussed and recommended adding 2‐hour parking in the sense of a “one‐time shot within  the zone” to the description. Staff do not support this proposal and maintain that the only  way to implement this strategy is with the inclusion of zones within the RPP District, but two  hour parking should be clarified within the survey and FAQ.  o Stakeholder commented that residents might not understand the impacts of different hours  of enforcement to businesses. Group discussed having multiple (3) options for hours of  enforcement, or removing the question. Group had previously arrived at consensus on  enforcement hours of “9:00 am to 7:00 am, pending more data, with 2 hours free without a  permit. Perhaps different hours for different neighborhoods.”  o Group discussed efforts to educate recipients before they receive the survey and reduce  survey bias. Staff noted that additional outreach efforts would impede the strict timeline.  Group recommended including the e‐newsletter content and a fact sheet/FAQ with the  survey.  o Stakeholder discussed whether survey would be used as a “ballot” to determine whether  the district is formed. Staff clarified that the survey is meant to obtain feedback and will not  have the exact definition of the Program on it. Stakeholder recommended adding a link to  the website feedback tool on the survey to collect comments.  d. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin suggested that the survey have three questions: (1) Is it difficult for you, your  friends, family, visitors, and service providers to park? Y/N. (2) Has it become more difficult since  2001? Y/N. (3) Would you favor some form of RPP if a permit cost you $40/year? Y/N.   Rob Lipshutz, resident on Palo Alto Avenue below Seneca, asked whether boundary of district  ended at Seneca or Guinda. Staff clarified Guinda and will update map.   Peter Hertzmann asked whether normal users of off‐street parking could obtain free temporary  permits if their driveway were blocked (e.g. by church activities).   Russ Cohen made the following comments: (1) The survey should ask whether residents would  accept having a space/signage in front of their house, as the visual blight issue defeated other  RPP programs. (2) A response rate of greater than 1% is considered good. (3) A phone survey  would be quicker, since the City has phone numbers but not email addresses, and would provide  additional data above a mailed survey, such as why a resident is not interested, or that they  don’t understand. (4) Mr. Cohen is concerned about the impacts of eliminating the color zones  without adding another regulatory mechanism. (5) If parking meters are not brought up in  discussion now, there will be no viable movement on the issue. (6) Mr. Cohen suggested  targeted business outreach to restaurants and medical offices specifically.   A College Terrace resident suggested that the survey add the question, “Would you support a  program under the template already established at College Terrace?” She noted that the block‐ to‐block vote was onerous for College Terrace and requested that visitor parking be protected.   Mary, Board member at a Condominium Association on Guinda, made the following comments:  (1) She was concerned about the response rate and necessity of personal education of  residents. (2) She noted that there were not enough spaces for everyone, not to mention  visitors and service workers who might come for intervals greater than 2 hours.   Stakeholder reinforced importance of highlighting supply with Council. Staff presentation on  supply, the TMA contractor award, and satellite parking improvements are to be discussed at a  Council meeting on August 11. Staff requests that Stakeholders express their support to  Council.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Provide feedback on simplifying  RPP creation process for  Ordinance  Stakeholder Group 10/31/2014  Distribute updated survey and  post online feedback form.  City 8/15/2014  Draft resolution language  City 10/15/2014  Support Staff technology  recommendations at Council  meeting on August 18  Stakeholder Group 8/18/2014  Send parking consultant  technology recommendations to  Stakeholder Group  City 8/18/2014  Next Meeting Date: Thursday, August 21, 1:00 – 3:00   Location: Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room       Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 7 – Summary Notes Date: August 21, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Fireside Room, Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Cara Silver Senior Assistant City Attorney, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster, #524 Tommy Derrick Resident Barbara Gross Manager, Garden Court Hotel  David McKenzie Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce  Russ Cohen Downtown Business and Professional Association   Meeting Goals:  1. Review timeline and program updates.  2. Legal update and discussion.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda  b. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin discussed the deterioration of quality of life and referenced the Comprehensive  Plan’s aim to preserve the character of the city. Mr. Baldwin was concerned that the City’s  efforts do not address the projected growth in parking demand from new jobs. He requested  that the survey ask “Do you favor an effort to reduce the number of cars parked downtown”  rather than “Do you support this program,” referring to something not well‐defined.  c. Program Updates   Parking Management: Staff felt that Monday’s Council meeting was successful and focused on  moving forward permit policy and pricing solutions.     Zipcar: Will launch August 28 with 10 cars within the Downtown Commercial core. Use case is  employees who drive to work because they need to run errands during the day.  o Stakeholder asked what the measurable effect on demand would be. Staff responded that  the contract allows the City to add more cars if the trial run is successful.   Transportation Management Association (TMA): Non‐profit TMA is intended to manage  alternative transportation programs and funding around downtown and ultimately throughout  Palo Alto and even neighboring cities. Consultant will engage Stakeholder Group and others to  create a Steering Committee. Goal is 30% reduction in single‐occupancy vehicle trips after three  years. Vision is for City to have staff on Steering Committee and have TMA run parking  programs.  o Stakeholder asked whether scope of work included multiple commercial centers, e.g.  California Avenue and Stanford Research Park. City responded that TMA consultant has  asked Stanford to be included in the Steering Committee and is at liberty to engage other  centers in order to meet aggressive goal.  o Stakeholders discussed viability of TMA efforts. Stakeholder voiced that limiting geographic  scope to the parking assessment district or the area defined by Downtown CAP study would  not grasp the totality of the problem. Staff reiterated that the consultant group was charged  with a reduction in single‐occupant vehicle traffic, and if this meant engaging other  commercial centers, they were free to do so.   Satellite Parking: Council has agreed to initiate environmental review and design for up to 132  spaces on Embarcadero east of 101 at Faber Place.  o Stakeholder was concerned about the displacement of parkers in the current lot while the  garage is being constructed.  o Stakeholder referenced his misunderstanding the status of the proposed lot as a temporary  solution vs. a permitted solution, and mentioned that Council worries about Embarcadero  shuttle impacts. Stakeholders discussed ongoing need to educate Council on supply  measures and other proposed solutions and to be vocal by attending Council meetings.   Garage Technology and Wayfinding:   o Council supports implementing technology to maximize utilization and support paid parking.  RFP will include parking guidance systems (showing available hourly and permit spots, both  at garage entrance and at key locations), revenue and access controls (e.g. pay gate),  methods of payment (e.g. standalone pay stations,  meters, mobile payment). RFP is  targeted to go out by end of year for mid‐late 2015 implementation.  o Additional RFP for improved branding and wayfinding signage is being released now, for  mid‐2015 implementation.  o RFP for permit procurement website (RPP sales and website design) will go out in about 1  month.  o Stakeholder raised policy issue that guidance systems for nearby permit spots would  theoretically remove block‐specific permit restrictions and asked which entity would make  this policy decision. Staff will deliberate with the parking committee but believed that  Council would have the final ruling on this.     o Stakeholder asked if these initiatives were specific to garages and lots. Staff confirmed the  desire to perform the same analysis on streets.  o Staff presented the VIMOC Parking Occupancy Technology Pilot Program at King Plaza,  which can gather information on average parking duration/turnover for an individual  parking spot, and discussed the plan to expand the program to Ramona. Stakeholders were  appreciative of the program and supported its expansion into the downtown and residential  areas.   Displacement: Stakeholders discussed the message being circulated in print media that “there  will be commuters who no longer have a place to park” and question of whether the RPP  program would displace workers.  o Stakeholder commented that recent discussions have been more favorable to residents and  will not lead to an equitable solution for business employees.  o Stakeholders referenced previous Group discussions about accommodating employees from  day one of RPP and believed this message was not being heard by media.  o Stakeholder commented that the goal of the program is to reduce commercial parking  intrusion into neighborhoods, which is being balanced by reduced permit costs to workers.  o Stakeholders discussed advanced notice to businesses. Stakeholder expressed that the TDM  programs are contributing to a comprehensive solution and asked if better buffer time  between permit purchase availability and implementation would aid businesses.  o Staff confirmed there was no prior agreement to displace any parkers. Stakeholder  commented that the movement will be more of a “shifted burden” than displacement,  especially considering TDM programs. Stakeholders generally agreed that they are ready to  prepare for and participate in significant change, but that change needs to be adequately  defined.  d. Legal Update   Cara Silver presented on the preferential parking stipulations in CA state law.  o As a charter city, Palo Alto can typically adopt its own laws even if in conflict with state laws;  however, Palo Alto is restricted to following state law in the area of parking regulations. CA  Vehicle Code states that cities can implement preferential parking ordinances to give  preferential treatment to “residents and merchants” but does not define merchants, so it’s  unclear whether e.g. office workers are included in that definition.  o Exception: Cities can issue permits to groups other than residents and merchants if the  issuance of those permits will not “adversely affect” the parking situation.  o Cara encouraged the Group to identify key users/groups that would not be accommodated  through other parking alternatives; there could be flexibility under the exception to issue  permits to those discrete groups. Staff intention is to be able to provide permits to those  subgroups immediately.  o Stakeholder commented about impacts on retail employees, who are not “merchants.”   Cara described Staff’s proposal for the setup of the ordinance.  o Ordinance (general framework for implementing districts city‐wide) will be limited to key  pieces:     Designation criteria (items to prove in order to establish the program)   Permit types (residential, merchant, other pending defined subgroups)   Exemptions (emergency vehicles, school events, etc.)   Fines and enforcement   Procedure to dissolve program  o Regulations (more detailed administrative guidelines), which are codified via administrative  bulletin, could include:   Response rates   Occupancy study requirements   Proof of residency  o Resolution (for implementation of individual neighborhood districts):   Identification of affected blocks   Hours of operation  o Kara confirmed permit fees live in the fee schedule, a separate document. If fees are  different for different zones, that could be added to the Resolution.  o Staff will distribute the draft ordinance at the end of August.  e. Survey Discussion   Staff confirmed that there would be no community meetings and requested direct feedback via  the feedback form on the RPP website.  f. Resolution Review   Group reviewed District boundaries.   Group discussed space allocation for residents: up to 2 per household, except for multi‐family  dwelling units (note: ~4,500 households * 2 permits = 9,000 permits for 5,400 street spaces).  o Stakeholders commented that permit prices should keep people parking in their driveways if  possible and to be cautious of the driveway rental market.   Group discussed space allocation for employees: permits would be assigned to a block face, or  spaces could ultimately be striped at an appropriate percentage (suggested 20%).  o Group discussed the ideal percentage, with some saying that 20% would not be enough, and  others saying it would be too much and not defensible to residents/Council. Stakeholders  suggested having a concrete number for the upper bound, but tying it to a time limit (e.g. six  months).   g. Members of the Public Comment   Former planner suggested having stricter development standards to stem the incoming pipeline  of projects and intensification of uses.   Tommy Derrick suggested ignoring the “red herring” of “displacement” outcry and moving the  program forward with 20% allocation due to the urgency of taking action.   Russ Cohen recommended ensuring adequate process behind the Council’s ability to “enact an  emergency program” to reduce reflexive reactions to strong lobbying. He also requested that  the Group take a pledge not to lobby Councilmembers, speak with the media, etc. unless under  the auspices of the Group, due to such communication’s undermining the Group’s larger  motives.     Mary Dimmett (sp?) requested that the City/Group continue to push supply forward for the sake  of people with mobility challenges. She requested clarification on the extent of the survey  question phrase “anywhere in the neighborhood” and on hours of enforcement. She supported  the idea of making additional permits for multiple cars more expensive, and expressed concern  about the usage of the satellite parking lot during crowded commute hours at  101/Embarcadero.   David McKenzie requested that the City/Group provide more messaging about the changes  under the RPP program by the end of the month.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Provide public registry data on  how many people are working  downtown  City Mid‐2015  Distribute draft ordinance City 8/31/2014  Distribute draft resolution City Mid‐September  Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 17, 1:00 – 3:00   Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto     Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 8 – Summary Notes Date: September 17, 2014   Location: The Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Ave, Palo Alto   Attendees:  Name* Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Company  Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Tom Fehrenbach Economic Development Manager, City of Palo Alto Kelsey Kawaguchi Transportation Intern, City of Palo Alto  Mark Nanericz Resident, 288 Waverley Darryl Fenwick  Resident, 204 Ramona Paul Machado Resident, 363 Stanford Tommy Derrick Resident, 390 Leland Greta Purcell Resident, 860 Forest Joe Baldwin Resident, 850 Webster,#524 Steve Levy Resident, 365 Forest Mary Dimit Resident, 784 University   *Names highlighted in gray indicate RPP Stakeholders; other attendees include members of the public  and City Staff.  Meeting Goals:  1. Provide parking program updates.  2. Review Stakeholder input on draft resolution.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Meeting Goals  b. Members of Public Comment   Steve Levy discussed the pricing of permits for residents, believing the permits should be free to  residents, but only for the first few years. He recommends reconsidering “permit trading” down  the line. Mr. Levy was concerned that some residents have paid for parking spaces near  home/complexes and now residents will be getting street parking privileges for free.    Resident Greta Purcell was concerned the RPP boundary does not extend far enough to the East  of the Downtown Commercial core. She believes the proposed the boundary should extend as  far to the East as it does to the South of the Commercial core.    Darryl Fenwick discussed the issue of displacing commuters, who consequently will be forced to  park elsewhere. Mr. Fenwick was concerned the solution does not address the large number of  commuter vehicles and residents should be more tolerant of the vehicles.   Resident Mary Dimit discussed the varying parking situations that may exist for multifamily  units, which she feels should be given a closer look. Ms. Dimit believes the program needs  flexibility after implementation.     Joe Baldwin was concerned that Phase 1 of implementation may be counterproductive to the  goals of RPP and wanted numbers to be included in the resolution, not in the administrative  regulations. Mr. Baldwin believes allocated spaces are needed for a successful program and  institutional residential areas need special accommodation i.e. Channing House. He suggested  the possibility of clustering employee spaces near Channing House.  c. Parking Program Update   Zipcar: 10 spots within the Downtown Commercial core. The program has seen 10%‐30%  utilization within the first two weeks since the program launch.  o Stakeholder asked about marketing for the program and the target utilization rate. Staff  responded that target outreach is planned and the target usage rate is 35%, which is  seen in other cities around the peninsula.    Transportation Management Association (TMA): Interviews for the steering committee are  being conducted. TMA will be able to provide a forum for larger transportation and parking  discussions.   o Stakeholder asked about how California Avenue will fit into the program. Staff  responded that it is unknown at this early point in the process.  o Stakeholder asked who chairs the TMA. Staff responded that the consultant is  interviewing City recommended‐individuals for the steering committee.  o Stakeholder inquired the geographical boundaries of the TMA. Staff responded that  outreach to larger players in the community will help determine the boundaries, but at  the present time no boundaries are set as the program is still in early stages.    Satellite Parking Analysis: The concept designs for the program are targeted to be available by  the end November.   Parking Technology and Wayfinding: The Wayfinding and signage RFP is expected to be posted  in September with the Garage Technology following in October. The design process is targeted  to begin in early 2015.   o Stakeholder understood the benefit of the programs to visitors and short term parkers  and wanted clarification regarding whether the revenue and access control systems will  allow permit transferability between garages.    o Stakeholder asked whether all garages would have the parking wayfinding and  technology added to them. Staff responded that there is funding for two garages with  the ability to increase to four garages depending on pricing.   Transferability of Permits  o Stakeholders sought clarification regarding transferability of permits. Staff replied that  permits may not be sold to a business; instead they may be sold to an employee and  transferred within a business. Details regarding transferability of permits will be  discussed again in January/ February.  Staff responded that the details have not been  finalized but that the implementation of revenue and access controls will potentially  facilitate the introduction of a “business lot” permit which would allow employees  within a business to be associated with a pool of permits for that business. The business  could be charged for non‐permit‐holding employee garage use. However, this concept is  distinct from “permit transferability”, which implies that one employee could give their  permit to someone else if they left the company.    Parking Occupancy Technology: Additional sensors have been added on Ramona; the City is  trying out different kind of sensors including ones with LED indicator lights.    General Stakeholder Comments  o Stakeholder indicated that transferability of permits between employees and garages  would be an important issue for businesses.  o Stakeholder wanted the permit process to be easy and cheap for hourly workers.  o Stakeholders emphasized the importance of selling permits for valid for small  increments of time such as a month or a day.  o Stakeholder brought attention to increased possibility of black market sales for permits  with the increased difficulty parking  d. Draft Resolution Overview    Draft Resolution possesses seven sections.   o Section 1 establishes that the criteria for a RPP program outlined in the Ordinance have  been met.  o Section 2 defines the parameters of the trial period. The trial period will have two  phases. Phase 1 will be six months and Phase 2 will run for at least twelve months. The  standard commuter employee permit is suggested to be sold for $300/year while low  wage employees will qualify for permits priced at $100/year. During Phase 1 residents  will receive up to two free permits. During Phase 2 residents may receive one free  permit with each additional permit increasing in price.   o Stakeholder mentioned a referencing error in the resolution that needs to be addressed;  Staff will address.  o Section 3 establishes the district boundaries for the program. Staff indicated that the  recommendation for the boundary would potentially depend on survey results.  o Section 4 defines that program’s hours of enforcement will be 8 AM to 5 PM Monday  through Friday, and parking will be limited to two hours within the neighborhoods after  which a non‐permit holder would need to move their car to another space. Staff  emphasized the need to at least initially allow re‐parking within the District as the area  was too large to restrict parking to a single two hour stay.  o Section 5 outlines the criteria for purchasing permits and the quantity of permits that  may be distributed to residents and employees.   o Section 6 outlines the pricing system of permits.    Stakeholder Discussion  o Stakeholders discussed pricing of the permits for the program. There was concern that  the price for a standard employee permit in the neighborhood was too low and should  be at least equal to permits for the parking garages in downtown.   o Stakeholder reasoned that all permits should be free during Phase 1 to collect data to  find out who is parking in the neighborhoods and where they are coming from. Also  agreed the prices need to be chosen carefully.  o Stakeholder believed pricing of permits should play a role during Phase 1 to reduce  “shock to system” and as a mechanism to change behavior. Stakeholder wanted  resident permits to be free for the first two cars and control the supply through a pricing  mechanism, rather than limiting the availability of permits to residents.  o Stakeholder was concerned that the lower price for the permits in the neighborhood  would discourage employees from parking in the garages in downtown. Suggested to  make it a criterion that permits for the neighborhood would not be sold until the  downtown garages meet a threshold of 90%.  o The group discussed the improvements to the parking situation during the trial period.  One stakeholder believed Phase 1 of the trail should provide substantial relief to the  residents, and was concerned that selling “unlimited” employee commuter permits  might compromise this. Others felt the trial period would bring incremental relief,  preventing Caltrain commuters from parking in the neighborhoods during Phase 1 and  Phase 2 would bring additional improvements.   o Stakeholder feels there isn’t an appropriate database to gather information and believes  the current solution leaves room for the system to be gamed.   o Stakeholder believes Phase 2 process should be flexible and address the possible  situation where the garages start emptying due to increased employees parking in the  neighborhood. Stakeholder suggested the standard commuter employee permit be  equal to the price of a permit for the downtown garages. Staff responded with  suggestion of making sure garages are full before selling commuter permits for the  neighborhood.  o Staff raised issue of classifying permit qualification based on type of service provided or  by income level.  o Stakeholder addressed the current parking habits of employees. Stakeholder pointed  out that SOFA employees tend not to park in the downtown garages because they are  too far away. A Stakeholders survey of employees  showed approximately 15% of  employees were paying $5/day to park in the Caltrain lot, another portion parking south  of Emerson/Addison, and the majority re‐parking their car every two hours. Stakeholder  wants to support the program and encourage employees to participate.  o Stakeholders discussed the topic of increasing parking supply and parking efforts to  increase supply. It was suggested that residents should support the project to increase  parking supply, i.e. Urban Lane, because they are the ones who vote on issues.   o Stakeholder believes that the cost of increasing parking supply should be shared by  residents and businesses.   Straw Votes:  o Staff revisited the issue of selling employee permits based on income vs. type of service  provided. Stakeholders voted as follow: Income‐6 votes in favor. Type of retail providing  service‐ 2 votes in favor. Abstain‐ 2 votes.  o Staff returned to the permit pricing issue asking stakeholders if the price of the standard  professional commuter RPP permits should be equal or greater the cost in the garages.  Stakeholders voted as follows: Yes‐ 8 votes. No‐ 2 votes. Abstain‐ 0 votes.    Additional Stakeholder Comments  o Stakeholders presented the following key points regarding Phase 1 from a discussion  among the stakeholders held prior to the meeting:   Phase 1 issues:   Commuters should pay for residential street parking.   All permits for commuters must be priced at not less than the permit  price for city garages and city lots.   Residential street parking permits must be available for purchase online.   Residential street parking permits must be available for purchase in one  month increments to accommodate hourly workers.   The following Phase 1 related issues should be addressed prior to implementing  Phase 1 to improve utilization of existing city parking facilities:   City garage and City lot parking permits should no longer be garage or  lot specific.   Sufficient additional City garage and City lot parking permits should be  issued to reduce waiting lists and to ensure that the permit spaces in  the garages and lots are at least 95% full during peak periods.  e. Members of Public Comment   Steve Levy felt that City staff should change the parking incentive so that street parking would  be $500 and garages would be $250. Levy also requested that Staff make clear to everyone  where the money from the program will go.    Tommy Derrick urged the group to take another look at the council mandate to decrease the  number of parkers in the neighborhood and emphasized that a trial period is not needed.   Mark Nanericz indicated that many residents may not want to support increases in parking  supply after previous incident where they were promised RPP after the garages were built. His  position is that new developments should deal with their own parking problem.   Paul Machado stated the businesses should also support the residents in advocating for  increased parking supply.   Darryl Fenwick advised the need reasonable expectations and approach. He believes it is not  reasonable to implement the program right away without having a solution for the commuter  parkers. Mr. Fenwick felt that City Council needs to vote to increase parking supply in addition  to moving programs such as RPP forward.  Action Items Item Responsible Party Due Date  Finalize Survey Results and Geo‐ coding effort, and present  recommendation to PTC and  Council  City 10/23/14    Next Meeting Date: Thursday October 23, 1:00 – 3:00 Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto    Palo Alto Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) Program Meeting No. 9 – Summary Notes Date: October 23, 2014, 1:00 – 3:00 pm  Location: Museum of American Heritage, 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto  Attendees:  Name Representation Neilson Buchanan Resident, 155 Bryant (Downtown North)  Elaine Uang Resident, 321 Kipling (Downtown North)  John Guislin Resident, 225 Middlefield (Crescent Park)  Michael Hodos Resident, 944 Bryant (Professorville)  Simon Cintz Property owner, Cintz Commercial Properties LP Brett Somers Employee, Palantir Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Gabrielle Layton Resident, 365 Lincoln (Downtown South)  Richard Brand Resident, 281 Addison (Professorville)  Susan Nightingale Business owner, Watercourse Way  Rob George District manager, Philz Coffee  Chop Keenan Land owner, Keenan Land Hillary Gitelman Planning Department Director, City of Palo Alto Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager, City of Palo Alto  Amy Huang Circlepoint Mel Matsumoto Channing House Mary Dimit Resident Wendy Silvani TMA Consultant Tommy Derrick Resident Russ Cohen Palo Alto BID   Meeting Goals:  1. Review survey results and Resolution.  2. Review boundary of district for recommendation to Council.  3. Discuss implementation plan for District.  4. Stakeholder recommendation for community outreach.  Review of Meeting/Meeting Agenda a. Review of Goals and Agenda, Opening Comments   Hillary stressed that the period between now and December 1st is a critical time for the group to  reduce misinformation and outreach to their networks in advance of the Council meeting.  b. Members of the Public Comment   Joe Baldwin requested that the City and Group quantify two cornerstone metrics for PTC and  Council: (1) the increasing parking supply deficit (1,566 according to an outdated staff report; he  requested an updated number due to numerous under‐parked projects in the development    pipeline), and (2) the underutilization of existing lots and garages (current data already  available). He commented that new developments should be required to provide parking to  counterbalance generated demand.   Mel Matsumoto stated that Channing House’s single most important concern is the ability of  night shift employees to walk to work safely and over short distances.   Russ Cohen requested that RPP be not the first TDM tactic to be implemented, but the last, after  the success of the others is evaluated.  c. Survey Results / Resolution   The survey was distributed to about 4,500 households with a 32% response rate, with current  resident approval about evenly split. About 150‐200 employees completed the online feedback  form.   Residents disapproved of demarcating spots on their blocks. Staff will move forward with a  different recommendation to distribute spots through the District.  o Stakeholders discussed equitable distribution of spots. Staff intend to distribute permits per  block face(s) to facilitate detailed data collection (comparable to Santa Cruz RPP), but noted  the recommendation will depend on the enforcement vendor’s constraints.  o Stakeholders expressed concerns about the desirability of permits for block faces closest to  Downtown. Stakeholder rescinded support of permit transferability on the basis that  permits might privatize a street for a specific company.  o Staff confirmed that the allocation recommendation must be finalized before the resolution  goes to council (i.e. for Phase I), even if not applicable until Phase II.   There was little support for RPP south of Lincoln and east of Bryant (a less impacted area). Staff  propose moving the RPP boundary to exclude this area.  o Stakeholder commented that the District must be of sufficient size to prevent people from  simply parking on the edges of the non‐RPP area.  o Stakeholder reported that Kellogg residents are willing to take their chances on an unlikely  parking influx in their neighborhood due to their distance from Downtown.   Residents were concerned about paying for permits.  o Stakeholder asked whether employers would be able to purchase large blocks of permits  during Phase II. Staff will use Phase I data to inform this decision.  o Group discussed permit pricing and whether to charge for permits during Phase I (as agreed  in Meeting No. 8). Stakeholders in favor argued that: Phase I pricing is necessary to move  the dial on behavior; the first six months should not be used to collect data that already  exist; the root cause of the overflow issues and significant capacity in garages/lots is that  people who have parking aren’t using it. Stakeholders against argued that: charging  employees during Phase I will skew the data as people park on District outskirts and move  their cars; this makes it difficult to analyze behavior by geography; the goal of Phase I is to  collect not money but data; charging will push people into the garages, but overflow will still  exist.  o Group re‐voted on whether to charge for Phase I permits ($50/6 mos. for low‐income  workers, $233/6 mos. for professional workers): Yea: 6, Nay: 4, Abstain: 0.     Staff reviewed the changes to the Resolution following the input from Meeting No. 8.   Group discussed statement in Resolution Section 5: “Planning Director shall give priority to low‐ wage workers if demand for commuter parking exceeds supply.”  o Stakeholder was in favor of reduced prices, but not priority.  o Stakeholders recounted that residents had been concerned about retail businesses and had  agreed to support low‐income workers in terms of pricing and access. Stakeholders felt that  residents would not support a program that favored high‐income workers.  o Stakeholder commented that low‐income workers would churn often and still be “in front”  of professional workers, reducing the City’s ability to later support program enforcement.  o Stakeholder requested some mix of policies to ensure spaces would not be “bought up.”  d. Implementation Plan and Project Schedule   Staff reviewed implementation plan, targeting April 2015 for program launch.  e. Communications and Outreach   Staff requested Group input on how to better prepare for and encourage constituents to attend  the November PTC meeting.  o Stakeholders commented that using Phase I/”RPP Light” as an educational period would be  the best way to get traction. Stakeholder recommended building flexibility into the  Resolution so that contentious elements are not hard‐wired.  o Stakeholders recommended a clear, concise bullet‐point document and suggested changes  to the “Why RPP?” document provided at the meeting (condense further; add context about  TDM measures; replace annual fee with 6 month fee; add some timeline information; notice  finalized document to residences).  o Stakeholders liked the idea of channeling people to a town hall where Jessica would attend.  o Stakeholder suggested that the PTC/Council presentation reference or footnote the  contentious issues, as well as add information about the costs vs. revenues.   Group discussed continued stakeholder involvement/outreach during late 2014 and into 2015.  Stakeholders agreed meeting intentions and desired outcomes should be clear (advisory vs.  decision‐making vs. simply informational). Stakeholders were generally in favor of informational  email updates and decision‐making full meetings only if necessary.   Stakeholder requested Staff make the administrative guidelines available as soon as possible  and offer flexibility in Resolution around weekends and after‐hours enforcement.   Staff requested Stakeholders send neighbors’ questions, to be compiled into a FAQ.   Stakeholder reminded Group to reiterate the argument for supply during outreach.  f. Members of the Public Comment   Russ Cohen commented that if City is subsidizing parts of the program, then the timeline for free  permitting needs to be a consideration when developing program financials.   Tommy Derrick commented that the current timeline is short of the original goal of January 1  and urged Staff to revise to launch by mid‐ to late February. He added that the program should  include a resolution regarding 75‐80% of spaces for residents for effectiveness.     Mary Dimit agreed with charging for employees in Phase I. She was in favor of giving priority to  low‐income workers to ensure equitable distribution. She also supported flexibility in tailoring  some blocks for either varied hours or percentage of allocation (e.g. for schools).   Stakeholder commented that there is precedent for a supply increase of even 1,000 spaces.   Stakeholder requested more comprehensive reports on under‐parked garages.  August 15, 2014 Dear Resident, The City of Palo Alto is considering a new Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) District in and around the neighborhoods close to Downtown Palo Alto. Your home is located within the proposed Downtown RPP District. The Palo Alto City Council will evaluate a proposal for the Downtown RPP Program later this fall, and City Staff are asking for your input on the program through the attached survey. Your participation in this survey is crucial for City Council and City Staff to gain feedback on the design of this program and how it may impact you as a resident. The following information is attached for your reference: • RPP Frequently Asked Questions • RPP Survey • Preliminary Program Boundaries • Self-addressed envelope Please return the survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope no later than September 8, 2014. If you have additional questions or need help understanding the survey, please contact Jessica Sullivan at Jessica.Sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org. Please note that the city will only accept one (1) returned survey per household address. Sincerely, Jessica Sullivan Parking Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Frequently Asked Questions 1. What is RPP, and why am I getting information about it? RPP stands for “Residential Preferential Parking.” It refers to a program that regulates parking within residential areas. Usually the program is implemented because there is a non-resident source of parking within the neighborhood which makes it difficult for residents to find parking near their own homes. You are receiving information about RPP because there is an RPP program being considered for your neighborhood, and the City would like to solicit your input on the program and its characteristics. 2. What would it mean for me to have RPP in my neighborhood? It would mean that you would need to purchase a permit to park in the public street for longer than two (2) hours during the hours of enforcement of the RPP District. 3. What are the hours of enforcement? It is currently suggested that the RPP hours of enforcement would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mon- day through Friday. If you think that the hours should be different, there is a survey response where you can indicate this. 4. What about the employees who are parking in my neighborhood? Will permits be available to them? While there are many programs being developed to add more employee parking Downtown, the RPP program would at least initially still sell permits to employees. However, these permits would cost more than resident permits, and over time their numbers would be decreased as the parking options increase in the Downtown area. 5. What about people who don’t live or work in Downtown? Can they buy permits? All streets within the District will still provide two hour parking with or without a permit. However, people who park in the neighborhoods who are neither residents nor Downtown/South of Forest (SOFA) employees would not be able to purchase permits. 6. How much would the employee permits cost? The exact cost of employee RPP permits has not been determined; however, ranges have been suggested up to $466 annually, which is the current cost of permits within the Downtown garages. 7. What about my guests and visitors? If they visit me during the hours of enforcement, would they get a ticket? Anyone can park in the neighborhood for up to two hours. The program would also allow you to receive a certain number of visitor permits which would be valid for one day. You could also receive annual guest permits, although the exact number has not been determined. Permits for construc- tion activity would also be available. 8. What is the survey asking me to do? The survey requests your input on two basic questions. The first is whether you support an RPP program in your neighborhood, given these characteristics. The second asks you how the employee permits should be distributed. A group of residents and business leaders has suggested that a limited number of “Employee” parking spots could be physically allocated on the neighbor- hood streets. During the enforcement hours, employees with permits could park in these spots, while residents could not (although at night, any resident could park there). The survey asks if you support employee parking in specific spaces, or whether you would prefer to allow employees with valid permits to park anywhere in the neighborhood. 9. How will my responses be used and what is the timeline? During the months of September and October, City Staff will be compiling your responses and developing the final design of the program, which will be presented to City Council in November for implementation beginning in January of 2015. 10. Whom do I contact if I have more questions? Please contact the city’s parking manager, Jessica Sullivan, at 650.329.2453 or Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org • The City is considering implementing an RPP program to regulate non-resident parking in neighborhoods adjacent to Downtown. • A map of the proposed Downtown RPP has been provided on the back of this survey. • Until additional parking can be provided, the RPP program will allow employees of downtown businesses as well as residents to purchase permits. • Permits would not be available to parkers who do not live or work in Downtown. • The cost of resident permits for a trial period would be $50 annually. Employee permits would cost more, although the price has not been established. Additional parking updates and program information can be viewed at www.cityofpaloalto.org/DowntownRPP. You may also leave additional comments on this page. 1. As a resident, are you supportive of this program? Yes No 2. Do you think employees should be required to park in designated spaces on each block? Yes, there should be a few designated spaces for employees on each block. No, employees with valid permits should be able to park anywhere within the neighborhood. 3. What do you think the hours of enforcement should be? Regular business hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Extended hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Extended hours: M-F, 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. Additional comments: ReSiDentiAl PReFeRentiAl PARking (RPP) SuRveY Please return this page of the survey in the self-addressed stamped envelope no later than September 8, 2014. University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o S t Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o yc e A ve A d dison A ve Linc oln A ve Fife A ve C h an ni n g Ave Pa rki nso n A v e H o p k ins A ve Melville A ve Harriet St P a l o A lt o A v e Al ma S t Al ma St Embarc a d e r o Rd El Camino Real Preliminary Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWNCOMMERCIALDISTRICT Proposed Downtown RPP District* Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound- ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented. *Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the RPP District. Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan. Fig. 1 PReliminARY Downtown RPP DiStRiCt Map is approximate ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District Under Chapter 10.50 of the Municipal Code R E C I T A L S A. California Vehicle Code Section 22507 authorizes the establishment, by city council action, of permit parking programs in residential neighborhoods for residents and other categories of parkers. B. A stakeholders’ group comprised of Downtown residents and business interests met 9 times and made its recommendations to the City on (1) the provisions of a master ordinance establishing city-wide procedures for Residential Preferential Parking Districts (RPP Districts) and (2) the particular program rules to be applied to the Downtown RPP District. C. On June 11, 2014, and September 10, 2014 and November 12, 2014, the Planning and Transportation Commission held public hearings to consider the proposed master ordinance and the proposed Downtown Neighborhood preferential parking programs. D. On ___________, 2014 the Council adopted Ordinance No. ________, adding Chapter 10.50 to Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Municipal Code. This Chapter establishes the city-wide procedures for RPP Districts in the city. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES, as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The criteria set forth in Section 10.50.030 for designating a Residential Preferential Permit Zone have been met as follows: (1) That non-resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on-street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non-resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non-resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. 1 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. Duration and Trial Period. The Trial Period for the Downtown RPP District shall be divided into two phases. 1. Phase 1: The first phase shall start from the date that the both installation of signage is complete and enforcement of the District has begun, and last for a period of 6 months. Resident permits will be distributed pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. During the first phase the City shall also issue permits to Employees pursuant to the criteria listed under Section 5.C of this Resolution. All permits shall expire at the end of the trial period. The City will collect parking occupancy data on all blocks within the Downtown RPP District to determine how many Employee Permits (both low-wage and professional) should be sold during the subsequent phase of the program. During Phase 1, both Employee and Resident permits will be valid anywhere within the boundaries of the RPP District. During this phase the City may issue a survey to elicit qualitative and quantitative feedback on the program. 2. Phase 2: The second phase of the trial period shall follow Phase 1 and last for at least 12 months. The City will make permits for Phase 2 available prior to the initiation of Phase 2. During the second phase the City will regulate the number of Employee Permits issued based on parking occupancy data collected in the first phase. It is expected this distribution of permits will be iterative and adjusted during the course of Phase two. 3. The RPP District shall remain in force until the City Council takes action to extend, modify, or rescind. The City Council shall consider whether to make the RPP Districts and its their parking programs permanent, modify the Districts and/or their parking regulations, or terminate them no later than December 31, 2016. SECTION 3. District Established. Pursuant to Chapter 10.50, the Downtown Residential Preferred Parking District is hereby established. The boundaries of the Downtown RPP District are shown on Exhibit A attached to this resolution and made a part of it. [Note: Initial boundaries of RPP District may be adjusted based on RPP survey results]. Blocks that are directly adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Downtown RPP District may become subject to the regulations of the Downtown RPP District in the future if the council approves a resident petition for annexation as provided in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 10.50.080. SECTION 4. Hours and Days of Enforcement. In both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the parking regulations shall be in effect Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. During the regulated days and hours of enforcement, no person shall park in the same on- street parking space within the Downtown RPP for more than two continuous hours without a valid permit. A vehicle lawfully displaying an Employee Parking Permit or a 2 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED Resident Parking Permit shall be exempt from the two-hour limit. Other vehicles exempt from the parking regulations are contained in Chapter 10.50. Outside of these enforcement hours, any motor vehicle may park in the Downtown RPP, subject to other applicable parking regulations. SECTION 5. Residential Parking Permits. A. Duration. With the exception of the 6-month trial period, both Employee and residential permits shall be made available on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis and may be renewed if the applicant continues to be eligible to receive a permit. One-day visitor permits for residents will also be available during both Phases 1 and 2. B. Purchase of Permits. Requirements and eligibility for purchase of permits for both residents and Employees shall be listed in the Administrative Regulations. C. Permit Sales a. Phase 1. i. Each residential address within the Downtown RPP District may receive up to two 6-month permits at no cost. ii. Guest and Visitor permits may be sold at the costs listed in section 6B and 6C. iii. Permit costs will be pro-rated for the 6 month period (e.g. half of the annual fee). iv. All Employees may purchase permits pursuant to the costs listed in Section 6D, pro-rated for 6 months. b. Phase 2. i. Resident Permits. 1. Residential Permits. Each residential address may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6A. 2. Daily Visitor Permits. Each residential address may purchase up to 50 Daily Visitor Parking Permits annually. These permits may be in the form of “scratcher” hang tags, an on-line issuance system, or such other form as the city may decide. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. 3. Annual Guest Permits: Each residential address may purchase up to two (2) annual guest permits, which are 3 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED transferable within a household. The permit shall clearly indicate the address to which it was issued and the date for which it is valid. ii. Employee Permits. The City may issue Employee Parking Permits for use by employees working in the area as specified in Exhibit A. Employee Permits shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Commuting Only. Employee Parking Permits are for the exclusive use by employees working for businesses within the proposed District boundaries while commuting to work and may be transferrable between employees within a specific business. 2. Limit of Sales. The Director will limit Employee permit sales according to a threshold listed in the Administrative Regulations, and give priority to low-wage workers. Employees may purchase permits at the costs listed in Section 6D. 3. Reduced Allocation. After Phase 1, the Director may reduce the allocation of Employee Parking over time as additional parking and transportation options become available. D. Signage and Allocation of Spaces. During Phase 2 of the Trial Period, the City shall regulate which on-street parking spaces shall be dedicated to Employee Parking by selecting one of the following methods: 1. Employee Parking Permit spaces shall be clearly signed and marked as such by the City; 2. Employee Parking Permits shall be assigned by block/blocks; or 3. Other reasonable method designed to distribute Employee Parking throughout the Downtown District and to avoid undue parking saturation in one neighborhood at the expense of others. E. Permit Priority. During Phase 1, the Director shall consult with the Planning and Transportation Commission and determine the maximum number of Employee permits to be issued during Phase 2, such that the issuance of Employee Permits does not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the District in accordance with Section 22507 (b) of the Vehicle Code. with the goal of effective utilization of Employee spaces without issuing so many permits that excessive traffic from Employees searching for spaces results. The Director shall give permit priority to lower wage earners. [Note: City will define lower wage earner in Regulations.] 4 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 6. Cost of Residential and Residential Visitor Parking Permits. During the Initial Trial Period the cost of Parking Permits shall be: A. Resident Permit: a. Phase 1: Residents shall receive up to two permits per residential address at no cost. b. For Phase 2, the prices are as follows: First permit $0/year; second permit $50/year; third permit $50/year; fourth permit $50/year. No more than four parking permits will be sold per residential address in either phase. B. Annual Guest Permit – A residential address may purchase up to two Annual Guest Permits at $50/year ($25 each for Phase 1). C. Visitor Daily Permit -- $5/each D. Employee Permits a. Standard Permit --$466/year ($233/6 months) b. Reduced Rate for income qualifying employees -- $100/year ($50/6 months) SECTION 7. CEQA. This ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and Section 15301 in that this proposed ordinance will have a minor impact on existing facilities. SECTION 8. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of Ordinance No. [insert], Amending Title 10 (Vehicles and Traffic) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 10.50 (Residential Preferential Parking Districts) and Section 10.04.086 (Parking Enforcement Contractor).immediately upon its passage. Enforcement shall commence, pursuant to Chapter 10.50 and the California Vehicle Code, when signage is posted. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: 5 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 ATTACHMENT D NOT YET APPROVED __________________________ __________________________ Interim City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _______________________ ____________________ Sr. Assistant City Attorney City Manager APPROVED: _____________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment Exhibit A - Downtown Residential Preferential Parking Districts Boundaries 6 141016 jb 0131252B Rev. November 17, 2014 University Ave Lytton Ave Everett Ave Fu l t o n S t Gu i n d a S t Gu i n d a S t Se n e c a S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d By r o n S t By r o n S t Wa v e r l y S t Wa v e r l y S t Ta s s o S t Ta s s o S t Fl o r e n c e By r o n S t We b s t e r S t Co w p e r S t Co w p e r S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Fu l t o n S t Mi d d l e f i e l d R d We b s t e r S t Br y a n t S t Br y a n t S t Ra m o n a S t Em e r s o n S t Hi g h S t Ki p l i n g Ki p l i n g Hawthorne Ave Ruthven Ave Poe St Hamilton Ave Forest Ave Forest Ave Homer Ave Channing Ave Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Kingsley Ave Melville AveMelville Ave Kellogg AveKellogg Ave Churchill Ave Coleridge Ave B o yc e A ve A d dison A ve Linc oln A ve Fife A ve C h an ni n g Ave Pa rki nso n A v e H o p k ins A ve Melville A ve Harriet St P a l o A lt o A v e Al ma S t Al ma St Embarc a d e r o Rd El Camino Real Preliminary Downtown RPP District N SOFA DOWNTOWNCOMMERCIALDISTRICT Proposed Downtown RPP District* Figure 1 illustrates the Downtown RPP District as currently proposed. Residents living within the bound- ary would need to purchase Parking Permits to park on the streets for more than two hours during the hours of the permit enforcement if the program is implemented. *Downtown Business District and the SOFA Business District (shown on the map) are not included in the RPP District. Existing 2-hour parking will not be altered as part of the RPP District plan. Fig. 1 PReliminARY Downtown RPP DiStRiCt Map is approximate December 1: Council Meeting and Public Hearing, 1st Reading of RPP Ordinance • Council Review will review proposed ordinance and resolution Early December: Proposal Review and Union Meetings •Staff will review proposals for onliine permit sales and contract enforcement •Staff will meet and confer with unions for RPP enforcement and online permit sales contracts December 15: 2nd Reading of RPP Ordinance January 2015: Program Launch • Contract Awards for online permit sales vendor and RPP enforcement • Online  permit sales vendor will begin work on website and permit sales interface; training of  revenue collections Staff •Enforcement contractor begins training and mobilization of parking ambassadors •City notices  residents that program has been approved; provides info on permit costs and sales •City notices  Chamber and Downtown businesses details of the program; also notices Stanford,  Caltrain, PAMF, T+C •City completes work orders for sign installation in Downtown February 2015 •City begins sign installation throughout Downtown neighborhoods •City works with online permit sales vendor to determine methodology for tracking of permit sales •CIty determines types of permits and enforcement technology • Contract award for attendant valet programs March 2015 • Online Permit Sales and Parking Website launch; begin selling of RPP permits to employees • Attendant Valet Programs launched at other Downtown garages •Notice to residents that permits are available and enforcement will begin • Community Meeting to answer resident questions • Completion of signage installation in Downtown neighborhoods April 2015: Phase 1 Begins •City begins enforcement of Phase  1 •City begins to track data on number of permits sold         Downtown RPP Milestones and Schedule   11/18/2014  1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 November 12, 2014 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Downtown RPP Resolution Recommendation to Council: The Commission will be asked to7 recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution implementing the downtown district RPP. In order to8 expedite the implementation of a RPP in the downtown area, the area currently most impacted by non-9 residential parking demand, the City has proceeded with these two initiatives on a parallel course. Items10 3 and 4 are related. The items have been agendized separately to permit conflicted Commissioners to11 recuse themselves from area specific discussions in accordance with State Conflict of Interest law. For12 more information contact Jessica Sullivan at Jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org13 14 Chair Michael: Alright. So we can come back to order and proceed with Item Number 4 and calling on15 Jessica Sullivan to introduce the topic of the Downtown parking ordinance [Note-Resolution].16 17 Jessica Sullivan, Parking Manager: Thank you Chair Michael. So the agenda here is I’m going to give a18 little bit of background on some of the parallel, parallel data that we’ve been collecting on parking in the19 Downtown because I think it speaks to some of the choices and decisions we’ve made in this Resolution.20 We’re going to go through a little bit about the stakeholder process that you’ve already heard a little bit21 about, discuss the kind of main points of the Resolution and then also give some background on the22 survey that we conducted as part of the Downtown district development process.23 24 So again the Downtown Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) as we talked about with the Ordinance is25 really part of an integrated parking strategy for the Downtown. Our parking supply initiatives,26 Transportation Demand Management (TDM), especially crucial Downtown as we have so much, so many27 parking concerns and traffic concerns in that particular area. So one of the things that I wanted to just28 kind of show graphically I know there’s a lot of information in the staff report, but as we’ve been29 developing this program for the last nine months we’ve also been tracking occupancy of the Downtown30 lots and garages and I just wanted to plot some of the information that we collected especially from our31 garages showing the, their occupancy at sort of the noon or peak hour. The average occupancy based32 on the sort of accepted industry standard for parking garages is 85 percent, which is basically it’s mostly33 full, but you can still find a spot. And so that’s really if there’s some sort of good target for us that is,34 that is a decent one to look at. So the red line that’s plotted there shows the 85 percent as you can see35 our four garages are not too far off from that mark. Lot R is consistently high above that. Lot R is the36 garage where we have our valet program implemented. So we do see higher occupancy levels there.37 and even at Civic Center and at Cowper/Webster we do have some, some months where the garages38 have been dipping below that mark, but overall we’re not too far off from that, from that ballpark39 number. But I also want to point out that this graph shows you the sort of result we’ve been steadily40 increasing the permit sales cap at these garages for the last seven or eight months. And so you don’t41 see a corresponding sort of the more permits we sell the more the garages are full and we suspect one42 reason for that is really because people have had other places to park such as the neighborhoods.43 44 So if we look at the occupancies for the neighborhoods that we’ve been tracking now for a few years45 typically the pattern is pretty much the same. On the left you have basically the midnight hour so the46 green, the green streets show that you have basically 50, 50 percent or less parking occupancy. So half47 of the spots on the street are open. The yellow is between 50 percent and 70 or sorry, it’s actually 5048 percent and 85 percent and then the red is 85 percent and higher. And you do have some blocks, which49 you can see on the right hand side this is the noon hour so you see especially near the Downtown core50 you’re going to see blocks that are at least 85 and sometimes more than 100 percent occupied. I mean51 there’s more cars on the block than can reasonably fit on the block. This is the same pattern we’ve seen52 over the last few years and it appears, it appears that the red blocks are sort of growing. We have53 estimated that that number probably represents something like 1,600 to 1,900 vehicles that are parking54 in the Downtown area. And again this is on top of the occupancy that we see in the parking lots.55 ATTACHMENT F 2 1 So as you’ve heard developing the Downtown Resolution has been a very lengthy and involved process 2 and because our businesses Downtown are such an important part of the community and because they 3 are obviously stakeholders in the parking issue the committee that we led had six residents and five 4 business leaders and I’m going to sort of condense 9 months of meetings into one slide here, but I mean 5 the reality is we really did have consensus on a lot of different topics related to this permit parking 6 program. And so I know that we’re going to talk a lot tonight about some of our differences and some 7 things that we want to change, but I guess I just want to take the two minutes to sort of emphasize 8 there’s a lot of things that this committee agreed on and that we got a lot of feedback from the 9 community on who also agreed. 10 11 So those topics I’ve listed here ultimately there was an understanding that at least initially we really do 12 have to sell permits to employees. And I think that that may seem like a given, given all the discussion 13 that we’ve had over the last few months, but the reality is many RPP programs do not sell permits to 14 employees. So that’s, that’s something that we all agreed on. We agreed on the proposed boundaries of 15 the district and we’ll talk a little bit more about that later, but there was pretty much unanimous 16 agreement on what that should look like within the group. There was general agreement and I won’t say 17 this is 100 percent agreement, but that a phased approach to implementing this program would have a 18 lot of benefits and one of them was that a sort of less stringent Phase 1 would help identify how many 19 people parking in the neighborhoods were the Stanford or Caltrain type parker meaning they don’t, they 20 don’t actually live or work Downtown, but they are parking Downtown and adding to the parking 21 challenge. 22 23 Another thing that all the group agreed on was that we really do need to make permit sales easier and 24 that they should be sold online. And so I’ll talk a little bit about that. There was also a theme of 25 supporting a lower wage/hourly worker within the group, meaning that we recognize that these workers 26 that work at our restaurants and our businesses Downtown really do add tremendously to the vitality of 27 Downtown and we want to give them options. Some people making minimum wage do have a hard time 28 affording the cost of parking in the Downtown garages. And then generally there was agreement on the 29 hours of enforcement of the district being 8:00 to 5:00. There are some, some differences of opinion on 30 that, but that came out also in the resident survey that we conducted. 31 32 So the program that ultimately the committee sort of has a sort of level of consensus on is a phased 33 approach, but I’m just kind of go through the program and I’ll try to call out areas where there is sort of 34 differing senses of opinions in the group, but generally as I said there was a lot of consensus around 35 most of these things. So the Phase 1 as we’ve discussed is a six month phase and basically the idea here 36 is that we’re sort of testing the program, make tweaks as needed, and then use that information to sort 37 of more appropriately design the Phase 2 program. So during Phase 1 we’re not issuing permits to 38 people who don’t live or work Downtown and actually that’s true in Phase 2. I don’t think we have a, 39 we’re not proposing at any point that we sell permits to people who don’t live or work Downtown. And 40 when I say Downtown I mean within the boundaries of the district that we’ll show you. 41 42 Residents are given free permits during Phase 1 and they can have as many permits as they like although 43 the permits would need to be tied to a specific vehicle that’s registered at the resident address. And so 44 these, these details about how permits are sold and who is eligible for permits are something that we 45 want to include in the administrative regulations. I know that seems a little bit like the catch all for just 46 things that we haven’t done yet, but this really is the intention that things like if you apply for a permit 47 and you’re a resident what sort of articles do you need to provide to prove that you’re a resident? Things 48 like that they don’t belong in the Resolution. 49 50 We’re proposing that employees may purchase permits at $233 for the six months for a standard 51 commuter permit. This is the same price as the Downtown garages. So there was support within the 52 committee of the idea of if we’re going to charge for these employee permits they should be at least as 53 expensive as the garages otherwise people will just keep parking in the neighborhood. And then the $50 54 cost is proposed for the six month permit for a low wage employee, the idea being that $100 when we 55 3 polled the business, business workers Downtown they felt $100 was a sort of a fee that they could live 1 with. 2 3 During this phase the City is going to collect data on the number of employees who are purchasing 4 permits and also the resulting occupancies Downtown. So as part of this process as I mentioned will be 5 engaging a vendor that sells the permits online. This vendor is going to have a database of all the 6 permits and we’re going to track them. I think in some ways more thoroughly than we do currently, but 7 the information about who were, who is buying the permits and ultimately what occupancy results in the 8 neighborhoods at that point is going to be very critical for us to develop the recommendation on how we 9 limit the permit sales in the Phase 2 of the program. 10 11 During the first phase all the resident and all of the employee/commuter permits would be eligible 12 anywhere within the district. So meaning if you bought a permit as an employee it doesn’t matter where 13 you park, you can park anywhere. During this phase we’re proposing that we would issue a follow up 14 survey to the residents because we expect that during this phase we’ll have a much better sense of what 15 the impact of the program is and that we’re still saying that parking for two hours is allowed anywhere 16 within the district even if you don’t have a permit. So that’s Phase 1 and all permits issued in Phase 1 17 will expire at the end of Phase 1. 18 19 Phase 2 is basically suggested at being 12 months or longer if the program is not rescinded. During 20 Phase 1 we are essentially determining an employee permit cap for Phase 2. So the idea is that we don’t 21 know right now what that cap should be. There is many within the stakeholder group who felt that 20 22 percent employee allocation of permits if you will is the appropriate number, but the proposal is that we 23 use the Phase 1 to determine how many employee permits we should actually be selling. During Phase 2 24 resident permits will be free for the first permit and then cost $50 each for additional permits up to a 25 maximum of four per household. And there’s also guest and visitor permits that would be available as 26 well. We do put something here about the idea of wanting to develop a business pool permit so that 27 businesses rather than just employees can purchase permits. We think this is very important. We’ve 28 heard a lot of feedback from the business community this is very important. So our goal is to have that 29 option available not just in Phase 1 or sorry, not just in Phase 2 but also in Phase 1. And then the main 30 difference with Phase 2 though is that in addition to regulating the employee permit sales by limiting 31 however many we sell the employee permits are also going to be assigned to a specific area or a block 32 face. So one of the proposals within the group that had a lot of support was this idea of designating 33 specific employee spots within the neighborhood to employees and to employees only; you’ll see that 34 that idea did not get majority support when we surveyed the residents within the area, but the idea of 35 distributing employee permits throughout the district was very important. 36 37 Also mentioned in the Resolution we have a note about the district annexation, which we’ve also talked 38 about in the Ordinance. That basically blocks that are adjacent to a RPP district, which is pushed forward 39 will be able to annex themselves into the district by a petition process similar to how the Crescent Park 40 and College Terrace programs worked. And then the hours of enforcement are proposed at 8:00 to 5:00, 41 two hour parking is permitted without a permit, and currently the way the Ordinance is written two hour 42 parking means that you can park for two hours and you can actually move your car to another two hour 43 spot. It’s not a two hour absolute minimum or sorry, maximum within that area as we felt that that 44 might be too restrictive. 45 46 So some background on the survey which we distributed to kind of come up with some of these 47 recommendations; as many of you know we distributed a survey to the approximately 4,500 households 48 within the boundaries that you see on the screen. And the boundary was originally proposed by the 49 stakeholder group to reach to Palo Alto Avenue east to Guinda and south to Embarcadero and west to 50 Alma. As you can see what we did was we mapped the survey responses by geographic area because 51 we felt that not only the sort of total number of responses was important, but also what people were 52 saying in different parts of the Downtown. And as you can see the results more or less reflect the, the 53 sort of pattern that’s set by the occupancy studies where are people parking a lot and where are they not 54 parking as much. We did get about a 33 percent response rate to the survey and amazingly based on 55 that geographic area the votes in favor of a program and against a program were about a tie. At last 56 4 count it was 738 yes votes, 728 no votes, which is a very small margin. But one of the survey in addition 1 to asking about whether a program was desired the survey also asked people about the design of a 2 program, specifically how they felt about having employee spots actually allocated on the street as well 3 as the hours of enforcement. 4 5 Some of the comments we got on the survey suggested that residents pay $50 per each permit. We got 6 major feedback from a lot of the residents that they felt that they shouldn’t have to pay for permits, 7 which helped us develop the recommendation that residents would get one permit for free and then pay 8 for subsequent permits. The results did not support marking employee spots on the street. We had 9 about 41 percent of the respondents saying that they did want that option and the rest were very 10 concerned about this idea of employee spots for various reasons. Most of the respondents supported an 11 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. hours of enforcement recommendation. 12 13 And then also looking at the geographic responses mapped we noticed that really south of Lincoln 14 Avenue and east of Bryant there was very little support for the program compared to the numbers that 15 we were seeing above that area. And so in our recommendation we say we’re going to recommend that 16 for Phase 1 we don’t include the area where most of the people were not supportive of the program. 17 And this was so the revised boundary is what you can see here, which has the boundary stopping at 18 Lincoln Avenue and then going to Embarcadero kind of making a notch at Bryant. This is pretty 19 consistent with the occupancy study and our, our thinking is if we make this a boundary during the Phase 20 1 program we may keep the boundary that way or it may turn out that in fact cars spill over into the area 21 below that and we may have to reevaluate during Phase 2. 22 23 As far as program implementation goes there are a number of vendors that we would need to bring 24 onboard to make the program feasible. One of them is the online permit sales. As we’ve discussed we’re 25 currently reviewing proposals for a vendor who would sell the permits online. Actually completely third 26 party hosted website that would basically act in conjunction with our Revenue Collections Office here at 27 City Hall. It would be possible to purchase the permit at City Hall as well as purchase the permit online. 28 We’re also proposing that in addition to the online permit sales we kind of upgrade our parking website 29 and provide more comprehensive parking information in a consolidated location. Contract enforcement is 30 another Request for Proposal (RFP) that we’re going to be reviewing. We’ve solicited some firms that do 31 private parking enforcement. And then the signage installation project, which if the program is approved 32 would begin in January we expect, we expect will take at least 60 to 90 days to install signage within the 33 proposed area. 34 35 So if the vendors are brought on board in January and we take 60 to 90 days to get them ramped up and 36 for training to start we expect that we’d be able to start selling permits by March with the idea of 37 beginning enforcement sometime in April. We are working on calculating the projected cost of the 38 program based on information from the vendors and also staff costs associated with it, but right now the 39 program is estimated to cost for the first year including the startup cost probably $500,000 to $700,000 40 in the first year. So that concludes my presentation and we recommend adoption of the Downtown RPP 41 Resolution to City Council. Thank you. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok, let’s open it up to the public. We’ve got 11 cards if I’m counting correctly more or less 44 and if you’re here on behalf of a group and you need more time please let me know and I’ll, I’ll adjust 45 that. So the first card in the stack is Nancy Adler and I’ll start you off with three minutes. Is Nancy still 46 here? Ok, so she’s gone home. And then we have John Guislin and then next will be Simon Cintz. And 47 do three minutes. Thanks. 48 49 John Guislin: [JR] Commissioners thank you for this opportunity to speak, my name is John Guislin and I 50 served on the stakeholder group for approximately nine months and I want to echo everyone else’s 51 comments about what a great job staff and in particular Jessica Sullivan did managing the group. I had, 52 would not have predicted the success we achieved after the first meeting with the way it started, but we 53 finished up quite strongly and as Jessica said we agreed on many components. 54 55 5 However, I wanted to talk to you about two things that I think are problems with the staff 1 recommendation tonight and the first being having been talked about a bit already the administrative 2 guidelines are not yet developed. And that’s where the rubber meets the road or perhaps the curb in this 3 case is in those guidelines because if we don’t know what the level of parking intrusion is or how many 4 permits are allowed it, we don’t know [policies for] the program might be. And no matter how patient 5 and intelligent and careful and fair our Director of Planning is, I don’t want to give one person the right to 6 determine that number for the citizens of Palo Alto. So I would like that process to be open and involve 7 the public with some check and balance in it. 8 9 Secondly, there was a survey that Jessica just talked about and I have to say when this came up they 10 were going to survey the residents everyone was for this survey. When we, when we then got into some 11 of the details we, we learned in my opinion that the staff had no experience or expertise developing 12 surveys. Many of us wrote letters to City staff about saying there was a lack of expertise in survey 13 design and interpretation. The response we got was we do surveys all the time. That may be true, but it 14 doesn’t mean we do them well. My neighbors when they got the survey and it wasn’t an easy thing to 15 do, but they got the survey and they said the City asked me if I want to pay for parking in front of my 16 house, are they crazy? It was people didn’t take the time to read the three pages of the survey or the 17 questions weren’t worded in a way to encourage them to do so. I’m not a survey expert, but I would say 18 that the survey that we used was not optimal and I hope that the City will invest in survey expertise to 19 engage citizens in the community in the future. 20 21 And finally I hope that you will take this opportunity to show the staff that we did appreciate it and I also 22 want to say that I learned a great deal and I actually made some friends in the business community. 23 People from across the aisle are now friends of mine because I understand their position a lot better than 24 I did going in. Thank you. 25 26 Chair Michael: Thank you and then Simon Cintz to be followed by Wayne, Wynne Furth. 27 28 Simon Cintz: Hi, my name is Simon Cintz. My family has two small commercial properties in the South of 29 Forest Avenue (SOFA) area which we’ve owned since the 1950’s. I am also one of the business 30 representatives in the Downtown stakeholders group. I’m here tonight to speak only for myself. I do not 31 pretend to speak for others. 32 33 Chair Michael: Oops, sorry. 34 35 Mr. Cintz: Ok, well that was a very short presentation. Ok, moving on here I do want to echo the 36 comments, compliments to Jessica and staff. I also want to not forget Tommy. He was important in our 37 meetings and I’d like to also make sure that I recognize the fellow stakeholders who I think worked very 38 hard in a very cooperative fashion and we produced a lot. I mean I think this is a major accomplishment 39 where we are right now, ok? 40 41 First I fully support RPP in the Downtown. The residents have a legitimate grievance and RPP is the best 42 way to solve the problem given the current situation. I also support both the Citywide Ordinance and the 43 Downtown Resolution with some simple changes that I think will actually make RPP work better for both 44 Downtown residents and employees. Tonight I wish to address only one of these changes and that is 45 making Phase 1 parking free for employees. I support the Phase 2 employee pricing plan. Downtown 46 RPP has to work for both residents and businesses. Palo Alto faces a challenge that no other Bay Area 47 RPP district confronts. We need to figure out a way to successfully park an estimated 1,000 cars, 48 employee cars or more on residential streets. I’ll repeat that. We have to park 1,000 cars or more on 49 residential streets. If it wasn’t for that fact RPP would be much more simpler in this town. This is a 50 major challenge. Understanding how many employees and who they are is one of the major data 51 collection challenges in Phase 1. To get accurate data we want to encourage both residents and 52 employees to participate. Making permits free to both of these groups is the best way to encourage 53 participation and to be able to collect data that will help us design the best RPP program. 54 55 6 Let’s be realistic about human nature, no one in this room can control the behavior of where 1,000 1 individual employees will choose to park on day one of RPP, of day one of Phase 1. By forcing them to 2 pay for a temporary program that expires in six months a significant number will decide that there are 3 better free alternatives in the short term. They can park just outside the boundaries of the district 4 creating problems for adjacent neighborhoods or they can move their cars every two hours, which goes 5 on a lot Downtown right now, getting to be a lot worse, and create problems for, even more problems for 6 customers because they don’t have permits we have no way of counting or tracking them. Poor data will 7 produce a poor RPP program. The argument that free parking during Phase 1 will entice people to leave 8 the City garages is nonsense. Right now parking is free for the neighborhoods yet people who are 9 currently in garages choose to pay for their parking. The convenience is worth the expense. They will 10 not give up their current space in a garage just to get six months free parking in the neighborhood and 11 then have to get back on a wait list to get into the garage. Please give the many employees who 12 currently pay for parking credit for doing the intelligent and responsible thing. Let’s encourage 13 participation and playing by the rules so we can get good data. The best way to do this is to make Phase 14 1 free for both residents and employees. Thank you. 15 16 Chair Michael: And thank you very much. Wynne Furth is the next speaker to be followed by Mark 17 Nanevicz. 18 19 Wynne Furth: Good evening, Judy Beasler has faded and asked if she could cede her time to me. 20 21 Chair Michael: Ok. 22 23 Ms. Furth: So I could deliver her message which is not only do we have commuters, we have pizza 24 delivery trucks parked in front of our houses waiting for calls to deliver pizza. The Commission discussed 25 the issue of privatization is thinking about this issue and for me the phrase that I find most helpful is 26 thinking about a tragedy of the commons. And until we resolve this there’s too many sheep. Until we 27 solve that we’re not going to get the kind of cohesion that leads to successful reinvestment in our 28 commercial Downtown, which is vital to us all as well. 29 30 You just had recommended adoption of an Ordinance which says that residential permit parking districts 31 are to restore and enhance the quality of life in residential neighborhoods and to accommodate 32 nonresidential parking to the extent that’s consistent with that goal and a lot of the standards that you all 33 were talking about as missing from the Ordinance I think really belong in the Resolution. And the most 34 important one is a quantitative standard to guide staff when it makes decisions on for example how many 35 commercial permits to issue. Listening to my colleagues I suspect that parking saturation should not 36 exceed 85 percent on any block would be a nice simple one. If you look at the Resolution right now and 37 ask what standards guide the staff particularly since we’re dealing with this lack of knowledge of what 38 might be an administrative regulations it says that the Director shall determine number of permits and 39 making sure they don’t issue so many that excessive traffic from employees searching for spaces results. 40 That’s not an ok standard for improving the quality of residential life. I’m looking at Section 5 of the 41 existing Ordinance. So the first recommendation I’d recommend that you add at least an 85 percent 42 maximum parking saturation per block provision to that Section 5 so that there would be that strong 43 guide. There is some other language, but I don’t think it’s enough to get us where we want to go. 44 45 Secondly, this step, this program is designed so that things don’t get better right away. I agree with the 46 earlier comment. I wouldn’t have said yes on that survey about do you want to pay for parking when 47 there was no indication there would be any parking available anyway, but the resident stakeholders 48 advocated for a program where everything got better from day one or at least generally got better within 49 the first few weeks for residents. This will not necessarily get any better in Phase 1 and I understand 50 why the stakeholders, residential stakeholders agreed to that it’s because it’s a complicated interactive 51 process and there’s a difficult transition involved. So I support that Phase 1/Phase 2 notion, but the City 52 needs to be prepared for the fact that there are going to be a lot of upset people who aren’t as residents 53 seeing any benefit and be prepared to do the outreach and so on and so forth that will make it work well 54 for people. 55 56 7 Thirdly, we talk about nonresidential permits and the regulation of the movement of cars on streets is 1 preempted by the State of California and then they give some of that power back to cities including the 2 power to regulate parking. And the Vehicle Code says that you could issue permits to residents and 3 merchants. And if you want to issue permits to anybody else you have to be able to show that it doesn’t 4 adversely affect the residents or the merchants and I don’t think you can make that case. So when 5 you’re thinking about where these permits are going to go I think they need to be limited to residents 6 and merchants. We can have disagreements about what a merchant is, but I’m pretty sure a merchant is 7 somebody who sells a good or service to somebody who comes in as a customer and it could be a 8 theatre experience, it could be getting your nails done, it could be stationary, it could be a meal, but I’m 9 pretty sure it’s not doesn’t include people who code for programs that are not going to be sold primarily 10 to people who walk in to buy them or to property management firms. 11 12 And finally I would ask you to give the staff more power in Phase 2 to address the problems that arise in 13 Phase 1 by having the ability to where necessary restricting two hour parking and maybe even any non-14 permit nonresidential permit parking because neither Phase 1 or Phase 2 is going to address the parking 15 crisis on my block because I am fortunate and I live close to Downtown. I have no driveway because my 16 little infill higher density project, it’s a bunch of looks like a bunch of townhouses, it’s actually single 17 family detached units with zero lot line adjustments was deliberately designed with no driveways because 18 it makes for a better pedestrian experience, right? There’s no breaks in the sidewalk. It’s a great place 19 to walk, it’s a great place to push a stroller, but there’s no extra parking. And shift workers leave 20 between 3:00 and 4:00 and then a new crew comes in. So after 3:00 between 3:00 and 3:30 I can 21 usually find a parking place on my block. After that the evening shift comes in including ironically the 22 valet parking crews. 23 24 Chair Michael; I’m going to call time on you. 25 26 Ms. Furth: Sure. So please give them more power so they can address that in Phase 2. Thank 27 (interrupted) 28 29 Chair Michael: Ok. Thank you. Mark Nanevicz to be followed by Mary Dimet. 30 31 Mark Nanevicz: Ok, the first issue I wanted to talk about was brought up by Eric Rosenblum regarding 32 the whole concept of privatization of the streets. And I couldn’t disagree any more with him. And the 33 way I see it right now a lot of my neighbors and friends do is that right now it is privatized. It is 34 privatized. If you took a neighborhood and said we are going to allow anyone to park on the streets and 35 then you took some say eight men who owned properties next to it and said, and they said we’re going 36 to dump 1,000 cars every day onto those public streets so that no one has the opportunity to possibly 37 use them what is that? Is that private or is it public? There’s only eight or 10 guys that are making use 38 of all of the street parking. In the meantime the thousands of residents and everyone else who would 39 like the opportunity to utilize those streets has no opportunity at all. 40 41 This is not a matter of privatization this is a matter of regulation. This is a matter of making it fair to 42 everybody else in the City to have the opportunity to use these streets and it’s been posed over and over 43 again as oh, the residents just want to take the streets back for themselves so they can park directly in 44 front of their house. I don’t know how long it’s been, at least two decades since I’ve been able to 45 possibly park in front of my house and I bought my house 25 years ago. When I bought it, yes you 46 could. And we’re not asking to be able to park directly in front of our house, but we’d like the 47 opportunity to be able to park within the block of our house and still be able to utilize the streets if we 48 have a carpenter or a cleaner or a maid or a babysitter or a teacher or anyone else come and visit and be 49 able to use those streets. So I really have a huge problem with this whole proposition of in any way 50 saying we’re privatizing these streets. They are privatized right now. 51 52 Secondly, the cost of the program [unintelligible] saying it’s going to cost a close to a million dollars or so 53 for the first year. The price of the parking permits is way undervalued. If you look at the per square foot 54 cost of commercial rents in San Francisco versus Palo Alto they are almost identical and yet in San 55 Francisco you have to pay $20 a day or $1000, $2,000 a year to be able to park there and here we’re 56 8 asking for a fraction of that. It doesn’t make any sense. We should get realistic with the prices that 1 we’re charging these people to be able to park here. 2 3 Secondly the or thirdly, the two hour parking and people are saying oh, we’re just going to have sleeper 4 cars where people park for two hours and have to go out and move their car again, we need to zone that 5 so that the when someone parks for two hours that’s it for the day be it the north side or the south side 6 of the business district we have to make sure that after they park there for their two hours that’s it, it’s 7 over with otherwise this is not going to work at all. It’s just going to free up a bunch more parking for 8 everyone to come along in the business community and use up all the parking. 9 10 Just one, just one more thing. Well I’m against the first the Phase 1. We know what the problem is. We 11 need to address it. We need to start this right now. I don’t think adding a phase, Phase 1 is going to 12 make anybody in the neighborhood happy because I don’t think anything will get any better through it. 13 Thank you. 14 15 Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Mary Dimet to be followed by Linda Anderson. 16 17 Mary Dimet: Hi, good evening, I’m Mary Dimet at 784 University Avenue just east of Middlefield in 18 Crescent Park. And I had a few comments about the Resolution and also regarding multi-family, which is 19 both townhomes and apartments and condos which in the Downtown area is definitely a factor. I just 20 wanted to say to start this out I came to preface it with I’m the type of person that would naturally or 21 usually be against this because I want to reduce car trips. I was hired to work the City of Palo Alto to 22 manage the Energy Efficiency Office. I bought a place Downtown so I could walk to work and then in 23 future jobs I took Caltrain to either San Francisco or the bus to Oakland. So I’ve never commuted by car. 24 Our family only has one car. But that said I’ve been here long enough that I’ve seen all the development 25 that’s been happening Downtown and the increased density, the additional building and not just of the 26 buildings themselves in the commercial, but also now in the residential area there is increased density. 27 28 We live as I said in a condo complex and where before we had one or two people living our kids were the 29 first kids that were ever born there we now have families with several kids. We have young professionals 30 having two and three people in smaller places and then we have the downsizers too that are usually two 31 people. And for the multi-family what I wanted to mention is the target market usually who is living in 32 multi-family there as I said the young families and the old people are ones that are more and more 33 making up the occupants, the residents of these units and they have, they’re people who have trouble 34 either getting, they’re the ones as someone mentioned that has babysitters and that that need to get 35 access, but they’re also harder for having had two young kids a year and a half apart to carry all your 36 paraphernalia and get up to the house when you have to park far away. You when you’ve got older 37 people there that are now having trouble walking far especially if they have to carry groceries and as the 38 greying of America and Palo Alto continues that will be more of a factor. 39 40 Also the other two aspects of multi-family are that one, there’s insufficient onsite parking and there aren’t 41 driveways for the multi-family and then the other factor is that as I mentioned there’s a lot of multi-42 family they tend to be zoned in the same area so if you’re 8 or 10 houses on a block that’s one thing, but 43 if you I will just finish my comment, if you’re we have 28 units. We can’t park on University. Next to us 44 is a multi-family and on the other side is a multi-family and there’s just no parking even without the 45 employees. Thank you very much and thank you Jessica, Neilson Buchannan, and all the other 46 stakeholders and also the Commissioners for putting all your hours in volunteering. 47 48 Chair Michael: Thank you. So Linda Anderson to be followed by Michael Hodos. Is Linda still here? Ok, 49 Michael Hodos to be followed by Kelli Tomlison. 50 51 Michael Hodos: Thank you, Michael Hodos, 944 Bryant between Addison and Channing. Two disparate 52 issues related to the Resolution; one is that this whole issue of allowing unlimited parking in the two hour 53 zone by basically moving your car, why bother? Right now at least people are required to move their car 54 from one color zone to another. Having someone have to move their car a few inches to allow it to park 55 there for two more hours you might as well just open up the whole area. It makes no sense whatsoever. 56 9 1 The second thing is I thought it would be helpful since you’ve heard the survey criticized to hear a 2 specific example of why so many people were confused by it and why the responses were not what all of 3 us expected, which was that there would be a widespread support for the for resident permit parking. 4 Just to give you one example, by the way within the first day this hit mailboxes I had 11 inquiries from 5 my neighbors asking me what I, what it meant because I was one they knew I was one of the 6 stakeholders involved in that in the stakeholder effort. The and this shows why it’s so fatally flawed and 7 why some of the data may not be particularly valid when it comes to establishing the boundaries of the 8 RPP area. Question Number 2 says, “Do you think employees should be required to park in designated 9 spaces on each block? Yes and [then or] there should be a few designated spaces for employees at each 10 block. No, employees with valid permits should be able to park anywhere within the neighborhood.” 11 There’s all kinds of ways of interpreting those three statements. If instead of saying “Do you think 12 employees should be required to park in the designated space on each block” it had said your let’s see… 13 it should have said, well one other point before I go on is that this was just a survey. A survey is a 14 collection of opinions. Literally no one I spoke to realized that they were voting for what would happen 15 with RPP in their neighborhood. If that specifically had been spelled out and if this question had been 16 made clearer “Are you in favor of having residential permit parking in your neighborhood or not, yes or 17 no, up or down then the responses might have been quite different. 18 19 So just to amplify what my fellow stakeholder said, whatever goes out again as a survey should actually 20 be a vote. It should be very, very clear to the residents that they are voting to decide whether they want 21 residential permit parking in their neighborhood or on their street because that’s not at all what this 22 information communicated to them. Not that the intent wasn’t good, just that it didn’t, wasn’t fulfilled. 23 Thank you. 24 25 Chair Michael: Thank you. Kelli Tomlison to be followed by Susan Nightingale. Is [unitelligble]. 26 27 Kelli Tomlison: Hi. 28 29 Chair Michael: Sorry. 30 31 Ms. Tomlinson: I’m Kelli Tomlison and I live on the 400 block of Lincoln. First thank you to everyone 32 specifically Jessica, she’s been incredibly personable and responsive in this matter. First I just want to 33 speak specifically on behalf of the residents of the 400 block of Lincoln and they’ve given me the power 34 to speak on their behalf. There are only eight houses on our block and I know that Council and Jessica I 35 think heard from most everyone via e-mail today. We are right on the boarder of or the boundary of the 36 Resolution and it’s actually a little bit vague and unclear to us if we’re included or not. We were included 37 in the initial proposal and now the boundary has been drawn along our street and in some interpretations 38 it seems that we’re included and in other interpretations it seems that we’re not included. So we’re 39 definitely looking for specificity on that. 40 41 I can say that absolutely the 300 and 400 block have been very much impacted by the parking for years 42 and we are stakeholders in this process and it makes no sense to us whatsoever that we would not be 43 included in the first phase of this trial. We are already impacted and were we to continue to be right on 44 the boarder and not included in Phase 1 it just seems ridiculous to us as residents and it’s very clear to us 45 that we would be impacted immediately because we’re already impacted by the parking. So we’re 46 looking for clarity on the boundary and very much the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln want to be included 47 in the Resolution. 48 49 And then I would just reiterate what has been said before that in regards to the survey I think the survey 50 with all due respect was flawed and not clear. It was, it was certainly not put out to the residents as a 51 vote, a yes or no vote on a parking program. It was a survey soliciting input and it was very difficult to 52 distinguish on some of the questions what you were even looking for in terms of a response if you were 53 for a parking program or not. And I know in speaking directly to my neighbors that some of them didn’t 54 even turn it in because they didn’t quite understand it. I think that’s it. Thank you very much. 55 56 10 Chair Michael: Thank you. Can staff respond to the question on the clarity of the boundary is that 1 something you want to just pick up now or? 2 3 Ms. Sullivan: So in the information that we have showing the, I’m going to show the survey results the 4 statistics at the bottom showing the 65 yes, 138 no that includes Lincoln Avenue meaning that most 5 people on Lincoln Avenue did not vote in favor of this program. I’ve heard a lot of comments from the 6 300 and 400 block, which are the two blocks sort of closest to the Bryant Street that they are very much 7 in favor and that’s what the results indicate. So I think that that’s a discussion that we should have as to 8 whether we decide to include Lincoln despite the fact that the other blocks are not, not supportive by a 9 wide margin of a program. 10 11 Chair Michael: So does that mean they are in or out? 12 13 Ms. Sullivan: So right now they’re out. 14 15 Chair Michael: Ok. Next speaker is Susan Nightingale to be followed by Richard Brand. 16 17 Susan Nightingale: My name is Susan Nightingale and I’m one of the owners of Watercourse Way, a 18 business in Palo Alto for 34 years now. I want to thank of course thank Jessica. She’s been extremely 19 helpful throughout the whole process and I was part of the stakeholder group, one of the few businesses 20 that was represented. And I it was a really important experience for me as a business owner to go 21 through that process. At first it was very polarized group and I think we really came to some 22 understandings, which is reflected in the final RPP Ordinance the fact that they came from, the residents 23 came from really I’d say vilifying business and employees to understanding that our employees do have 24 to have a place to park and low wage workers it is an issue for service businesses in Palo Alto. It may 25 seem like a small amount to pay, but it’s a very large amount if you’re not making much money. 26 27 So let’s see, so I completely support RPP. I think it’s important that we have restrictions about where 28 employees can park. I fully support TDM, but I also hope that Palo Alto will consider the whole supply 29 issue. People that are now parking in the neighborhoods are going to need some place to park and it 30 seems that the Council, I don’t know if you all are part of this philosophy too, but they seem to have the 31 philosophy that parking supply is not important or that TDM is going to solve all the problems. And I 32 don’t, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. I think it’s important, but all the other parts should be 33 considered. 34 35 Transferability is really essential. I bought five permits in the Cowper/Webster garage for my employees 36 for five of my managers and the next day one of them quit and moved to the East Coast. I lost that one. 37 Then three of them decided that they weren’t going to be using their car, their particular cars anymore so 38 it was a complete failure for me and I was very happy to buy the permits, but transferability is really 39 important. So I guess I can’t [unintelligible] other things, but anyway thank you very much. 40 41 Chair Michael: Thank you very much as well. Richard Brand to be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 42 43 Richard Brand: Yeah, good evening again and I want to thank the Commissioners I think in the earlier 44 item discussion you’re very enlightened about some of the activities here and it delved into the 45 Resolution because the Ordinance is the outer ring of this whole thing. So I think that was well done. I 46 urge you to support the staff proposal here for the Resolution and a couple things I want to talk about 47 again I think it’s important to realize that 7 of the 11 stakeholders were here tonight one which, Mr. 48 Cintz, doesn’t live in town and has to drive a long way. So I think that was really a good overview what 49 you’re hearing is a lot of good feedback on the activity. 50 51 A couple of items I have to say I wrote a letter to the Commission about this, the 51 percent buy in 52 number I think that’s critical. We discussed that extensively in the stakeholder meeting. The reason that 53 number is low is because of education. It’s important and a lot of people don’t understand this until they 54 get into it and realize that they can’t have their kids or their people park in front of their house when this 55 thing grows out and I think one of the later speakers will show you the circles and arrows and 8 by 10’s 56 11 about the red. This thing is growing as we well know. As to fees absolutely got to have a fee to get 1 people to pay whether it’s a low cost, low wage employee fee because if they don’t buy a permit for the 2 nonresidents they’re just going to park here and in fact could game the system. So we’ve got to have 3 some fee as some previous speakers have said the fees are reasonable, much less expensive than when I 4 worked in San Francisco so I think the fees are critical in order for the thing to work. 5 6 Phase 1 is not going to help my area at all, in fact I have employees coming in from out of town where I 7 live at 6:30 a.m. and fill up my street and in fact we had an injury with a young child on a bicycle on 8 Monday with his father because people can’t see to park. The streets are parked up by 7:30 or eight 9 o’clock in the morning. We all know we need permit parking, but we’ve got to somehow control this 10 thing. Phase 1 lets everybody park close to where they work, obviously they work near the Downtown 11 region. That’s a compromise we made, I’ll live with it, but we’ve got to have a Phase 2 that distributes 12 those people parking and that’s got to be done and I’m willing to work with the staff on that. 13 14 Finally I think what else? I guess that’s probably about it. You’ve heard from many people and again, I 15 ask you to support this, this recommendation. I think it’s very sound and well done. Thank you. 16 17 Chair Michael: Thank you. Neilson Buchannan to be followed by Gab Layton. Oh, and this says Neilson 18 on behalf of Gab Layton. Are you (interrupted) 19 20 Neilson Buchannan: Yes, Gab is ceded her three minutes to me. 21 22 Chair Michael: So how much time do you need Neilson? 23 24 Mr. Buchannan: Hopefully not more than six, five or six minutes. 25 26 Chair Michael: We’ll give you six minutes. 27 28 Mr. Buchannan: I want to jump forward to August of next year and let me make a prediction of what 29 we’re going to be facing. The way I count empty spaces and the way I count cars assuming there’s no 30 extra demand between now and August I do agree there’s 1,600 nonresident cars parked on residential 31 streets today. And that’s what Eric [unintelligible] came up with over a year ago and put into the public. 32 If anybody would like to challenge our numbers and no one has. So here what happens with that 1,600 33 cars? I am hopeful that there are 200 or 300 Caltrain commuters and Stanford people and God knows 34 who so you could take, knock off a little bit for that elimination that will happen pretty quickly. I am 35 hopeful that the empty spaces in garages plus valet parking would take another 400 cars. So we’re still 36 stuck in the order of 1,000 cars to distribute somehow on the neighborhood streets and that’s assuming 37 that demand is static. So when you take a look at what load that is, that is a pretty big load on the 2,600 38 possible places to park. 39 40 I think I’m going to get into real trouble in my own neighborhood because I’m going to say what I think 41 the best solution will be in August for Downtown North. I would hope that the City does not ask to park 42 more than 600 cars in the 1,500 parking places that are available. There’s 1,513 actually available. 43 That’s about what? A 40 percent load. I am convinced that we, my neighbors and the nannies and all 44 that take up demand for about 40 percent. So we’re already at 80 and I personally think that it’s really 45 inappropriate to suggest to neighborhoods that our parking standard is that of a commercial parking lot 46 of 85 percent. Plus we’re having the two hour load so I really think we need to be thinking about in our 47 neighborhood and I wouldn’t ask any other neighborhood to take this load, but I think we need to talk 48 about 80 percent: 40, 40, and 20 to make a viable neighborhood for Downtown North. And that’s a 49 jammed neighborhood and maybe that is our historical fate. 50 51 I can only speak for myself and I’ll tell you there’s a lot of resistance about [unintelligible] talking about 52 starting with 40 percent concession for nonresident parking, but I frankly don’t see any way that we can 53 do that unless we want to bring Downtown commerce to a halt and that was one of the things I agreed 54 to from the very one, day one that we would not bring Downtown commerce to a halt. I did not agree to 55 keep the garages with empty capacity. I did not agree that that would be the situation forever, but I 56 12 think if we have to start at 40 percent there is a way to work that down over time as TDM facts get on 1 the table, other things where we can begin to mitigate the demand, but none of those mitigation 2 programs are well funded and by definition they are slow to get started. There is a huge front end 3 investment before you get the return on investment in the environment of a diverse Downtown like we 4 are. We don’t have large employers like an office park or Stanford. So that’s the way I see it going and I 5 wish it were better and if I get fired as the chief vehicle counter because of what I just said within my 6 neighborhood it would relieve me of a lot of pain, but I think that’s where we’re headed. I hope that to 7 my, to the south of Forest that those neighborhoods never have to take that kind of a nonresident 8 parking load. 9 10 Let me say a couple of things. One, I don’t agree that the City staff cannot multiplex on multiple parking 11 programs at one time. That is inconsistent with other ways the city ramps up their programs. If you go 12 in the Development Office there’s plenty of staffing there to take the torrent of applicants that are 13 coming in commercial and housing. If you need a plan checked the outside people come in and do plow, 14 plan checks. There is no reason that the Planning staff can’t flex for whatever the neighborhoods need. 15 You’ve got Tommy Fehrenbach is the ombudsman for business. There’s no ombudsman on staff for the 16 neighborhoods. And parking is just one thing, what about spillover traffic and all that? Hillary and 17 Jessica have come light years in a very small time frame, but it is inconsistent with other ways that the 18 City staff accommodates development that when there’s a huge run on development projects staff flexes. 19 If there is a huge run on parking permits staff should flex. 20 21 So anyway that’s the way I’m looking at it. That’s the best offer I can make. It’s not my role to even 22 make an offer. I’m just making a forecast about what we’re going to learn after we spend this time. The 23 two hour intrusion unlimited two hour parking has got to be controlled in Phase 2. The parking 24 structures have to be substantially full when Phase 2 starts. Whatever the nuances are of parking and 25 policy and permits and who makes what decisions that has to be completely resolved before Phase 2 26 starts. 27 28 Recently let me just finish, I counted the cars on the fifth and sixth floor of the Webster/Cowper garage 29 fairly frequently. The peak load on the top floor has been four. One day on the fifth and sixth floors 30 there were a total of 13 cars. So something is really wrong about the issuance of parking permits if 31 there’s this kind of demand in the neighborhoods, why aren’t the garages full? Thank you. 32 33 Chair Michael: Thank you Neilson. Elaine Vang [Note-Chair Michael said Wong] followed by John Martin 34 who appears to be our last speaker. 35 36 Elaine Vang: Long night, I’ll try to make this brief. I think a lot of you have said this and you’re right, we 37 need to regulate this. The right incentives, the right conditions can affect good change and behavior. I 38 mean 16 months ago plastic bags were a commonality, a common place thing in all the grocery stores 39 and we’ve since regulated that and that’s a whole new sea change of behavior. Everybody brings their 40 bags. So I think we’re I hope we do this, do this move in the right direction and I hope that cost isn’t a 41 deterrent. There has been some cost numbers, but we have a fantastic opportunity with RPP plus a 42 Transportation Management Association (TMA) or a whole series of TDM programs and we just 43 conservatively think and I think there’s been an estimate of 1,850 cars in the neighborhoods right now. 44 We said if you took the TMA goal of reducing car trips 30 percent that’s 540 cars. And at $60,000 a 45 parking space that’s $32.4 million of parking garages saved right there not to mention all the cars we 46 take out of the system and all the greenhouse gas emissions that we save. 47 48 And I’ll just make one more point on priorities I think this is Page 67 of the staff report and the 49 Resolution Page 4 there’s a list of categories of workers I think that we that we offer, the Resolution 50 offers priority to. I think there may be one category that we may also want to think about in terms of 51 their plight there’s a segment of workers who work outside of the parking assessment district who are 52 not eligible to park in the Downtown garages. And what do we do about them? I would hope that and I 53 also would hope that the RPP in moving forward would also allow us to shift the folks who do park in the 54 in, who park in the neighborhoods and should be parking in the parking assessment district I hope that 55 that helps us improve our utilization there. Thanks. 56 13 1 Chair Michael: Thank you. John Martin. Is John Martin [unintelligible]. 2 3 John Martin: John Martin, 467 Lincoln; again my thanks to the staff and the Commission for your hard 4 work. My point is simple and it amplifies that of our first speaker tonight. I would urge you to amend 5 the boundaries to include the 300 and 400 block of Lincoln. You will find overwhelming support for 6 inclusion in the, in the district and I would encourage you to include us. Thank you. 7 8 Chair Michael: Thank you. Let’s see, so we’re going to come back to the Commission for questions and 9 comments. I’m personally hoping for about a five minute break. Can we do that and then I guess I’m 10 the Chair. So let’s take a short break and then reconvene quickly. 11 12 The Commission took a break 13 14 Chair Michael: And get back to work. We’re going to close the public hearing and come back to the 15 Commission and I’m seeing that Commissioner Alcheck would like to lead off. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, how the crowd has dwindled. Alright so I’m just going to start by saying 18 (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Michael; Hold on just a sec. I’m going to give you like five minutes maybe, maybe that’s enough 21 for one round. 22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s fine. I’ll be really, stay with me. Let me start by saying I will support this 24 Motion as is. That being said I would support some changes as well. I would have supported a three 25 hour time limit as opposed to two hours without a permit. That said I assume that if it wasn’t an issue 26 among the stakeholders they’ve thought it though and if they don’t feel strongly about it then that’s fine. 27 And I’ll add that I would have been more supportive of lengthening that time limit if ultimately you 28 couldn’t re-park in the area. and I’m not thinking of employees here, I’m thinking of residents who have 29 a friend over for a few hours and if your friend has to leave prematurely it just two hours seem tight, but 30 if you can move your car that’s fine. 31 32 I feel pretty confident in predicting that the nos of this secondary boundary will become either original 33 yeses or reluctant yeses within minutes after this program is implemented and I’m not sure why we 34 wouldn’t encourage their inclusion. I think that’s going to be a mistake so I would support their 35 inclusion. And if for some reason we didn’t support their inclusion then I would support their opportunity 36 to buy a permit so at least they could park across the street. Because that, they’re going to need one 37 because they’ll be able to park a few blocks away. 38 39 I’ll say this I think the 33 percent response rate is too low. If it’s apathy there’s not much we can do 40 about it and in this case I wouldn’t let it stop me from supporting the proposal, but I do believe that 41 often residents fail to involve themselves in local politics until they have a problem they need addressed 42 and rarely do we see involvement from residents who are content with the status quo. I’m not going to 43 suggest that that’s why the response rate is so low; I just wish that we had a greater response rate. 44 Some people have suggested that the survey was complicated or confusing. Maybe that was it. I just 45 I’m particularly not happy with that result because I just feel like we’re not adequately judging the [thing 46 here], but that being said I think the stakeholder group has been tremendously involved and it’s not, it’s 47 not a small thing and they’re not uneducated about the issue. They’re, they’re like the foremost experts. 48 They’re our stakeholder group could probably travel. You guys should think about it actually. You may 49 want to sign gigs up and just go from little local urban centers and sell your, sell your trade at this point. 50 51 I share the concern that our speaker mentioned regarding the initial costs for employees and the likely 52 result it will create. You may remember that I suggested in our last meeting on the topic that I would 53 support a trial that was cost free and I did that in an effort to suggest that we should make this 54 appealing. We shouldn’t like scare people off right away from this solution because they’re like screw it, I 55 don’t want to pay anything, I’m not paying anything now. And so that was why I suggested it should be 56 14 cost free for residents to encourage their participation and I’m not entirely sure we should have a 1 different price for employees at this time either, but I will say this that I believe that once we’ve 2 determined that this is a great solution or this is a solution worth implementing the cost should be 3 substantial. It won’t make sense if employees can buy a permit on the street for $400 and a permit in a 4 garage for $2,000. I don’t know what the garage permit costs, but you get my point. It should be more 5 expensive to park on the street than it is in the garage. We should be encouraging the garage 6 substantially and in fact anybody that is like I still want to park on the street that should be a financial 7 hurdle. 8 9 And I agree with this notion of transferability. Employees should be able to purchase them if they work 10 for a business Downtown, but the business owner should have some control over the transfer in the 11 event that he’s got employees working on different days and he’s got employees that maybe go on 12 maternity leave or quit. He shouldn’t lose that, that permit. I think that’s also the case for residents. I 13 want to add that I am in favor of a way for someone who doesn’t own a car registered to his address to 14 obtain a permit. Believe it or not I actually don’t own a vehicle and, but I do drive one and that is 15 facilitated by the fact that I drive a company car. I am not alone in this City. And I also think that 16 certain people like when I lived in San Francisco I used Zipcar once to go to IKEA and I picked something 17 up and I brought it home and if I couldn’t have parked my car in front of my house for more than two 18 hours I wouldn’t have been able to use the Zipcar and that’s another example of sort of being able to use 19 something despite the fact that I didn’t own a vehicle. I think there are bigger issues there. Somebody 20 suggested to me that you could have an affidavit where you company said this is the car and that 21 registered user is and [unintelligible] there should be a way for a person who has a company car to be 22 able to get a permit. 23 24 I also just want to say one last thing. My wife often says perfect is the enemy of good. And I think she 25 says that because she tries [unintelligible] I’m a little bit of a perfectionist. I try to make things perfect 26 instead of just implementing them. And one other thing I mentioned this to some of our staff tonight, 27 the best part about local government is that it’s accessible and we should be quick to try things and we 28 should be quick to tweak them and this I know it’s taken a really long time and it’s a complicated issue, 29 but I am in support of trying these things three months down the road if staff realizes something’s not 30 working try tweak it. Let’s not think that we have to have United States Congressional support for this, 31 this should be, we should be, we should be that kind of local government that is, that is available and 32 quick. So that’s it. 33 34 Chair Michael: So I’d like to try something that would maybe help us get to a Motion and a vote as 35 quickly as possible because there’s a few things about this that I think might be improved slightly that 36 would facilitate getting a recommendation and let me just suggest that if to the extent that we’ve heard 37 something or we have thoughts regarding things that would justify our voting in favor of this Motion we 38 should be as specific as possible in terms of what we’d like to change. So with that on Page 1 of this, 39 which is Page 64, Recital C, you should reference that the Planning Commission met on November 12, 40 2014. Ok? On Page 2, Page 65 of our packet, Section 2 Sub 1 on the fifth line where it says “Shall issue 41 permits to employees” can we have that be change the “to” to “for” employees so if there should for the 42 benefit of employee via the employer and this gets to the question of transferability later on so change 43 “to” to “for.” 44 45 Then on Page 4 of the Resolution, Page 67 of the packet to make the employee permits consistent with 46 the resident permits in that you can have the permit in the form of a scratcher, not necessarily there’s a 47 anyway practicality issue of I think we discussed at the pre-Commission hearing with Jessica, but I think 48 you reference on Page 3 that the daily visitor permit could be a form of a scratcher. If you’re a 49 temporary employee or an employee that works two days a week having a scratcher type permit just like 50 if you were a resident so I just would propose that you add that in this section relating to employee 51 permits. And I would add one, two, three, four would be some language relative to transferability as 52 between employees or between vehicles because I think that comment was made by a number of people 53 including Commissioners and I think it’s a practical enhancement. 54 55 15 There was another issue that was actually I want to credit our former Vice-Chair Keller on permit priority 1 this is Section E on Page 4, 67 of the packet. After lower wage earners at the very end of that the 2 suggestion is that you might also give priority to employees of businesses that are outside the parking 3 assessment district, which reflects the fact that businesses that are within the parking assessment district 4 have, have are involved in that other system. But I would limit my wordsmithing to those things and I 5 think if anybody else has comments that they would like to see this Resolution crafted in a way that we 6 can support quickly then please be as specific as possible. So would someone like to go next? 7 Commissioner Gardias. 8 9 Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So I have a couple of comments from various areas. 10 So transferability of course yes, I support this. Two hours limit there were a couple of people from the 11 audience that were talk about this. I may offer a perspective from one small business owner that was 12 thinking that two hours being able to re-park to another area is a distraction during the working hours 13 because pretty much it just gives employees excuse to leave premises go re-park the car, come back 14 work for another hour and 45 minutes, leave for another 15 minutes and this way eight hours working 15 day then becomes seven hours working day. So [unintelligible] to their request of just limiting this to two 16 hours within the entire district I would support this limitation two hours within the whole district. 17 18 So we talk in, we talk about phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2 I support a Commissioner Alcheck’s suggestion 19 to make this Phase Number 1 free or at very nominal cost to the parties because we don’t have much of 20 the data. So we should think about the first phase as the data collection and then ground preparation for 21 the Phase Number 2. This would allow us to just to gather the data hopefully you could come back and 22 just present us with your, with the findings. I hope that the data that would be collected during this 23 registration process will be somehow linked to the data that is collected during the business registration 24 exercise so that we can just cross check the data just have a bigger picture about this. This would allow 25 us also to understand how the numbers would work. Some talk about 1,000 cars, some talk about 1,600 26 cars. We would like to have a walk through from the total capacity that this district has. How many cars 27 you would take out of the parking spaces because of this program, what categories specifically those cars 28 taken out would fall into, and where would they go to? So it would be like a mathematical walk through. 29 You start with the 1,600 cars just as an example, you would reduce it to 500 cars that would get a permit 30 so the difference of 1,100 cars must go somewhere, right? It’s not going to evaporate. So some of 31 those would be served probably with the transportation program, somebody mentioned 400. Some of 32 those would be Caltrain commuters, let’s say 100 and then there would be the difference of 500. Where 33 would this go? Maybe they would go to the garages. So we would like to see some a walkthrough 34 through the numbers that would allow us to understand how cars are being taken out and where do they 35 go? 36 37 In the on Page 65, Phase 2 (interrupted) 38 39 Chair Michael: Just a question. So on the, on the Phase 1 cost for employee that would come up on Page 40 5 in Section 6 sub D and you would make that language similar to how they structured the resident 41 permit so that it would be Phase 1 pricing, which would be either nothing or some nominal amount and 42 then you would go Phase 2 you’d go to the full amount? 43 44 Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct. That’s what I propose. 45 46 Chair Michael: So that would be the specific suggestion if it’s accepted at some point. 47 48 Commissioner Gardias: Yes, it’s based on this argument we don’t have enough data and there is lots of 49 there is arguments so be safe on our side we would just have this Phase 1 exploratory, [being] 50 exploratory phase where we would just put facts together. 51 52 Chair Michael: And then my other question is I think your next point was that there’s actually some, some 53 total limit on the amount of permits that would be issuable I think corresponds to the point that Neilson 54 Buchannan was making [that there] must be something for example 40 percent of the total if the total is 55 1,530 it would be some percentage of what’s totally available. In this resolution where would that go? 56 16 1 Commissioner Gardias: [Unintelligible] go to there as, to the Resolution. This would be an observation 2 that we would have during the assessment phase of Phase Number 1 (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: Ok, alright [unintelligible]. 5 6 Commissioner Gardias: It would be nice to have those numbers as a preliminary numbers and we always 7 ask you just to provide them to us because this is the forecast. So we typically would like to have the 8 forecast before an exercise than we can compare this forecast with the more scrutinized actual review, 9 but since we don’t have a forecast we would like to ask you to or at least I would like to ask you just to 10 give us numbers like this at some point of time in the preparation for stage Number 2 when we going to 11 assess stage Number 1. So this would not go to the Resolution, but what it would go to the Resolution 12 and then we talk about this before when we were discussing the Citywide Ordinance there we talk about 13 the permit priority and I think this is the point that I was making and Director Gitelman corrected me I 14 would like to make this point here that there should be an algorithm about how the permits are being 15 allocated and that is I already just talk about this, but let me remind you this is pretty much I see this as 16 a risk. If we don’t have the transparent black and white writing how those permits would be allocated we 17 not only just give ourselves more work we cannot automate this, but also it puts us to risk because some 18 parties may say well, we were not being given the permit on the fair basis. 19 20 So my recommendation would be to and I don’t have a specific language, but this specific Paragraph E 21 needs to be, needs to be revised to have precise language of the permits priority. And then some other 22 items were obvious to me and Lincoln Street blocks 300, 400 they wanted to include themselves so I 23 think we should just pretty much listen to what they ask us to do and just include them in this program 24 and we talk about transferability so thank you. 25 26 Chair Michael: Ok, who is next? Commissioner Fine. 27 28 Commissioner Fine: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will also be supporting the resolution as is and just have 29 a few comments and some questions. One I definitely want to support transferability of these permits I 30 think at the residential and business level is interesting. I was thinking about the costs and I think at 31 least in the trial period it should either be cost free or cost for both. I think you need that kind of 32 comparability between businesses and residents. There’s ups and downs to either one. If it’s free you 33 maybe get full data, you might be a little over parked, but you may also have evasion if people know this 34 is just a six month trial period. If you have costs for both you’re at least easing folks into the reality that 35 they’re going to be paying for parking, but you’ll at least see some equal demand and that it is an at, at 36 surface cost to folks both and businesses. The cost should absolutely encourage garage parking. That’s 37 a resource which we’re not fully using and it would be great to get cars in there rather than on the roads. 38 To Commissioner Alcheck’s point that has to do with the cost of parking and maybe we can look at some 39 comparables in the Bay Area and other areas. I know in the report you guys had mentioned Berkeley, 40 Santa Monica, it would be interesting to see what their costs are. 41 42 One comment from the public mentioned that it may not be appropriate to park residential areas at 85 43 percent and I was wondering at what levels and depending on the level of parking saturation how many 44 permits can we provide actually across the district? That would be an interesting analysis to see quickly. 45 And then the final issue for me was this limitation of two hours. Another colleague, Commissioner 46 mentioned maybe that we should just restrict it to two hours total. I was wondering if it’s worth looking 47 at maybe two sub districts. I know for me like there are definitely times I would come down here from 48 College Terrace during the parking hours and I might be here for more than two hours. I think for other 49 residents of the City it might be important to be able to be here for maybe it’s four hours, two hours on 50 one side of the Downtown district, two hours on another, but I think that also addresses the issue of 51 employers and employees not having to jump out every two hours and go, go move their car. I don’t 52 think that’s quite a feasible reality for most employees to leave their offices every two hours and re-park, 53 but if you provide them maybe two, two hour time limits that that might be feasible. Thank you. 54 55 Chair Michael: Commissioner Downing. 56 17 1 Commissioner Downing: So again I want to thank everyone for coming in (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Michael: Oops, sorry. 4 5 Commissioner Downing: And making comments and getting really detailed and specific about how these, 6 how these policies affect you personally. I really appreciate hearing that and I appreciate hearing the 7 specific stories so I’m glad for all the people who came out and talked. 8 9 I do, I do want to talk about the two hour limit limit. I definitely understand the frustration that the 10 community has with people just employees just moving their cars every two hours, but on the other hand 11 I do have to shed a little bit of a different perspective on this. So I don’t live in the Downtown area I live 12 in Cal Ave., but it happens all the time that I might come here in the morning to get breakfast, go to my 13 go back to home, go back to my office, come back here for lunch, right? So if it’s a two hour limit during 14 that time then it means that’s one fewer business that I and other people like me are not going to visit 15 and I think that’s I think it’s also an issue for retailers as well. Lots of people like coming Downtown, 16 they like having lunch and they like walking up and down University and checking out the little shops and 17 buying themselves a dress, right? Those are people that after two hours after their lunch are going to 18 leave and are not going to go shop. So I don’t necessarily, I don’t think the two hour limit is a very good 19 idea at least not unless you make the garages unrestricted time. It’s got to be one or the other such that 20 somewhere you have these people who can actually spend a lot of time in our business district and spend 21 money here. 22 23 I do want to talk about the people who are service workers who are coming here. They are directly 24 serving our community. They are our baristas, they are our waiters, waitresses, what have you. These 25 people come and they serve our community and we’re asking them for more money, right? They already 26 spend a lot by driving here from wherever it is that they’re coming from. They pay more for gas than the 27 higher income workers. I think that’s kind of a large ask. I’d like to see that number lowered especially 28 because the businesses that they work for are they are low, they are not high margin businesses. You 29 look at a software company they might be making 15 percent profits, 20 percent profits, you look at a 30 restaurant they’re making 3 percent profits, right? That’s a big deal. And for those smaller companies 31 it’s more likely that those employees are paying that out of pocket instead of having their employer pay 32 that. So I would just ask for some consideration around that. 33 34 And lastly as to the issue of transferability I like the idea of transferability, I don’t necessarily think it goes 35 further enough though because let’s say for an example I don’t have my job in Palo Alto anymore, I quit. 36 What’s my incentive to tell you I’m not using that permit anymore, right? If I don’t get my money back 37 from like prorated portion of the year that I’m not using it or I can’t sell it then why would I ever bother 38 telling you, right? So now you’ve got a, you’ve got some number of people who are not using their 39 permits and yet you’re proposing putting a cap as if they are all using their permits. So I think that’s 40 problematic. I’d really like to see to the extent that we have an online system that does parking permits 41 that there is an incentive in that system to go and trade them or to go sell them back. So I think that 42 would really help us measure how many people are actually here instead of trying to guess. 43 44 So that, those are my comments, I otherwise support the Resolution. These are just kind of a more 45 forward looking statements for Phase 2. 46 47 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so I’d like to ask some quick questions and then make a few comments and 50 then I’d like to make a Motion. So first question is one of the speakers I think the person’s not here 51 anymore asked about the legal question whether you can give permits to non-merchants and residents. 52 And can staff quickly, quickly answer that? 53 54 Ms. Silver: Yes, thank you. The Vehicle Code provision does specify that cities can issue sell permits to 55 merchants but it doesn’t contain a definition of merchant so (interrupted) 56 18 1 Commissioner Tanaka: So [unintelligible] a software company that sells nothing, doesn’t have a merchant 2 is still considered a merchant? 3 4 Ms. Silver: There’s no definition of merchant. And so it’s ambiguous. I think the sale of a service 5 probably could be construed as a merchant, but a software company is perhaps deferent. The Vehicle 6 Code also contains another section that allows cities to permit, to sell permits to other organizations and 7 so there is some flexibility there, but the City does need to find that the sale of permits to those groups 8 of people would not have a negative impact on residents and merchants. 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, great. And then what’s the definition of a car move? Like moving a car so 11 you know you can move the car does it have (interrupted) 12 13 Ms. Sullivan: I know what you mean. 14 15 Commissioner Tanaka: Someone said inches. Is that true? Can you just move it, roll an inch and you’re 16 done or? 17 18 Ms. Sullivan: No, you don’t have to, well you can only stay in the same spot for two hours and then you 19 have to move to a different spot (interrupted) 20 21 Commissioner Tanaka: But if you moved your car one foot is that? 22 23 Ms. Sullivan: No. I mean and you, no. 24 25 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, ok. Ok and then what’s the enforcement frequency? The planned 26 enforcement frequency? 27 28 Ms. Sullivan: So that’s something we’re going to be discussing with the enforcement contractor based on 29 their experience in similar size it’s also going to depend on the technology that we use to enforce the 30 program. 31 32 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, and then for Lincoln Avenue do you have a breakdown of that street itself in 33 terms of and what does that survey say? Is it reflective of what, what’s on the chart up there or is it 34 something different? 35 36 Ms. Sullivan: So the breakdown I mean I don’t have the exact percentages with me, but basically the 300 37 and 400 block, which are the closest to the left are in of the responses we received are about I think they 38 7, between 70 and 80 percent in favor and then if you but when you get to the 500 block it drop I mean 39 it’s it drops to 30, 20 percent in favor. 40 41 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so ok. Ok so maybe that block maybe and the other one. Ok. And then has 42 staff ever done you know we have this extensive graph that the residents have done in terms of counting 43 all the cars. Has staff done that too and how different are the numbers if at all? 44 45 Ms. Sullivan: Yeah, the occupancy maps that I showed earlier in the presentation are essentially our 46 version of that. We don’t color in the blocks the way the residents do because they use Excel and we use 47 engineering software. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: [Unintelligible] matches. 50 51 Ms. Sullivan: Yeah, it’s the same idea. 52 53 MOTION 54 55 19 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, good. Ok, so a quick, a few quick comments. So in regards to the survey in 1 College Terrace we did a lot of surveying to both the City did it and also the residents and there was 2 [always] survey flaws, but I would say the survey flaws probably were the same between both in this 3 area and with College Terrace. And so by the time this goes to Council it may be worthwhile to go dig up 4 those College Terrace survey results and the same flawed surveys because they’re both probably equally 5 flawed and see what the results were because I don’t remember it being this close at College Terrace, 6 but I could be wrong. So I guess I would be interested in seeing not for us but for the City Council for 7 that to be as part of the packet I think for City Council. And I think it would also be interesting to know 8 like the cost difference in terms of implementation because it struck me as high, right? Much higher than 9 College Terrace. I think College Terrace was 200K and this is like 600 to 700K. So I think that would be 10 useful for Council to have when they look at this. 11 12 And then in terms of I think the complication for having employee spots on the street is whose, whose 13 house do you put the spot in front of, right? And so I that one’s a little bit, a puzzle to me and I think in 14 regards to the question of equity and trying to get good data I think there’s a big difference between 15 zero and one and what I mean by that is when something’s free that the market dynamics are entirely 16 different than if it’s $1 or $2 versus $50. So I think if we were trying to get good quality, which is why I 17 think the idea of having it free and making it freely available is to get good data I think it would be 18 important that we actually have [unintelligible] and at least charge some sort of nominal fee on the 19 residents’ side as well. And because if you don’t do that then you have these really weird free economics 20 that happen and so I think that’s, that’s important. 21 22 But with that said I agree with my fellow Commissioner that you don’t want to let perfect get in the way 23 of good and I think this is good. This is a good step forward and this is a trial, right? So it’s not etched 24 in stone. We could always improve it. And so I do support it and I want to approve it as is and I also 25 want to leave it open because I think there are some tweaks that we should be making so I want to 26 leave this also open that other members can make friendly or unfriendly amendments to this and so that 27 we could kind of get this going forward. So I would like to make a Motion that we recommend this 28 Ordinance [Note-Resolution] by City Council and that staff has the authority to kind of clean up some of 29 the language in the Ordinance [Note-Resolution]. 30 31 Chair Michael: Is there a second? 32 33 SECOND 34 35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck, second by Commissioner Alcheck and Commissioner Tanaka do 36 you want to speak any further to your Motion? 37 38 Commissioner Tanaka: No, I think I mean I’ll keep it brief, but basically I think a lot of work has been put 39 into this. It’s been very well thought out, while certainly not perfect it’s, it’s a trial. So we’ll learn from it 40 and we’ll make it better. 41 42 Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: I will make one comment, which is to say that I very much would support a 45 friendly amendment to include the grey territory that is not included. And if we don’t get that I would 46 just encourage staff to make this comment to City Council when it goes before them that triangle is going 47 to be begging you for it in minutes and it’s just going to be like a disaster for those people. And so even 48 if they didn’t want it overwhelmingly you’re implementing something right next to them that’s going to 49 impact them negatively. They may be reluctantly opposing the installation of the signs, but they are 50 going to appreciate them after a week. I just think it would be, I would support that friendly amendment 51 and I would encourage staff to make that case so. 52 53 Chair Michael: So Commissioner Tanaka do you accept the friendly amendment? 54 55 20 Commissioner Tanaka: Was that a friendly amendment or just suggesting someone to make the friendly 1 amendment? 2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: I was suggesting somebody make that friendly amendment because I know that 4 there’s other support for this (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Michael: Just go ahead and make it. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I would like to propose a friendly amendment that we include the entirety of 11 that grey portion, not just the 400 block for their sake. 12 13 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I’m not so quite convinced because I know if you see this kind of survey 14 results and if I mean it’s almost a two to one ratio here. I think there would be a lot of really upset 15 people. So I guess before I reject I would love to get other thoughts on it first. 16 17 Commissioner Downing: Yeah I agree, I mean (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Michael: Wait, Commissioner Downing. 20 21 Commissioner Downing: Sorry. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean we, we took great pains in order to get 22 community input. We asked everyone for their thoughts and opinions. I don’t want to be patronizing to 23 those thoughts and opinions even if we have reason to believe that they may change their mind. I think 24 we should respect what they told us they wanted and if they were wrong that’s ok they’ll come back and 25 they’ll ask us to change it. 26 27 Chair Michael: Commissioner Gardias. 28 29 Commissioner Gardias: So I’d like to make a friendly amendment to include 300 and 400 block of Lincoln 30 in this, that’s Number 1. Number 2 is that (interrupted) 31 32 Chair Michael: So this is a point of order. The, the topic we’re addressing is whether the entire grey area 33 is in or out and where are we on that I’m? 34 35 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 REJECTED 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: I’m to close it out I’m going to reject that for now. 38 39 Chair Michael: Ok, so now do you want to propose that the 300 and 400 block are in? 40 41 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 42 43 Commissioner Gardias: Yes. Ok, so I’d like to propose this (interrupted) 44 45 Chair Michael: Ok is there (interrupted) 46 47 Commissioner Gardias: 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln Avenue in this district. 48 49 Commissioner Tanaka: I forgot the exact number, but if that’s the one that staff said voted yes then I am 50 for that. Yes. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok. 53 54 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 ACCEPTED 55 56 21 Commissioner Alcheck: I accept that. 1 2 Chair Michael: Alright, that’s accepted. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I accept that too. Anything is better than nothing. 5 6 Chair Michael: Alright. 7 8 Commissioner Gardias: May I add some? 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Gardias: Just wanted to verify with Commissioner Tanaka because we spoke that first, first 13 phase would be at a nominal cost or free. Does your Motion include this or it was silent on this? If not 14 then I would like to make a friendly amendment just to clarify this. 15 16 Commissioner Tanaka: So I made a bunch of comments but I basically made a clean Motion mainly 17 because I wanted to get other friendly amendments on this. I personally think we should have a friendly 18 amendment to have at least a nominal charge as well as really have transferability, but I want to get 19 other Commissioners input to (interrupted) 20 21 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 22 23 Commissioner Gardias: Ok, so this way for this reason I would like to make a friendly amendment to 24 make this Phase Number 1 either free or for $1. 25 26 Chair Michael: Well, it should say that the language might reflect that it would be a nominal charge to 27 employees during the Phase 1 and if that’s and we won’t say what nominal is, we’ll let staff do that, but 28 Commissioners Tanaka and Alcheck is that language acceptable? 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I accept the clarified language from the Chair. 31 32 Chair Michael: Ok. 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: I thought that there is a charge for employees now? 35 36 Ms. Gitelman: That’s correct. 37 38 Commissioner Alcheck: And that there’s no charge for residents and what I was suggesting earlier was 39 that they, that there should be an equal charge whether it’s free or not. I don’t know if that’s what you 40 were suggesting, but I think right now currently employees pay. 41 42 Chair Michael: Well what we’re on now is the possibility that in Phase 1 that the employee payment 43 would be either nothing or nominal (interrupted) 44 45 Commissioner Alcheck: Oh, this is what you’re (interrupted) 46 47 Chair Michael: Yeah, just to get it started. 48 49 Commissioner Alcheck: I would accept that. 50 51 Chair Michael: Ok. That’s part of the Motion. That it? 52 53 Commissioner Gardias: There is one more. 54 55 Chair Michael: One more. 56 22 1 Ms. Gitelman: I’m sorry, so that was accepted as part of the Motion that instead of charging employees 2 what they would charge to park in garages they’re going to get nominal charge (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: In Phase 1 it would be a nominal charge to employees during the first phase. 5 Commissioner Tanaka. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Actually sorry, what I meant earlier was just that if employees are paying and 8 residents are not I think it creates kind of weird economics. So I think both should be paying. 9 10 Chair Michael: Well, but that’s not his point. 11 12 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 REJECTED 13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Oh, then I misunderstood. So yeah, so then I do not accept that. 15 16 Chair Michael: Ok. 17 18 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 19 20 Commissioner Gardias: And one more so I’d like to also make a friendly amendment that Section 5, 21 Paragraph E, permit priority would be clarified to provide specific verbiage or algorithm of the permit 22 priority for Phase 2. Not for Phase 1, for Phase 2. So what I’m proposing that this that staff would come 23 back to us before Phase 2 starts with the recommendation how to change this specific paragraph of 24 permit priority and we will discuss and then update this Ordinance [note-Resolution]. 25 26 Chair Michael: Is that acceptable to the maker of the Motion? 27 28 Commissioner Tanaka: So the proposal is that before we go to Phase 2 that it comes back before the 29 Commission. Is that correct? 30 31 Commissioner Gardias: That’s correct, this specific paragraph about permit priority. 32 33 Commissioner Tanaka: I accept that. 34 35 Chair Michael: Ok, Commissioner Alcheck. 36 37 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #4 ACCEPTED 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m going to accept it, but I just want to suggest that I am in favor of a more 40 streamlined process that doesn’t really require us to review the staff’s suggested changes. I sort of wish 41 we’d enable a more nimble sort of staff on this, but I will accept that. 42 43 Chair Michael: Ok. Has everybody the maker of the Motion and the seconder of the Motion said what you 44 want to say? Commissioner Tanaka. 45 46 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 47 48 Commissioner Tanaka: I would like to incorporate, make a friendly amendment to my own Motion, which 49 is that we have transferability. I think that’s an important feature to have. 50 51 Chair Michael: And that would be on Page 4, Section II add a (interrupted) 52 53 Commissioner Tanaka: You know I’m not sure exactly where to put it, but I think staff could probably 54 figure it out. 55 56 23 Chair Michael: Ok. Commissioner Alcheck? 1 2 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #5 ACCEPTED 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I support that. 5 6 Chair Michael: Ok. 7 8 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 9 10 Commissioner Tanaka: My last one is that there at least be a nominal charge for the residents as well. 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: Mr. Chair if I can interject on that? 13 14 Chair Michael: Yeah. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: Just to impart some of our experience on this survey which everyone has criticized. We 17 got a lot of handwritten notes and suggestions in the course of the survey and one of the overwhelming 18 areas of comment was from residents who thought that they really shouldn’t have to pay. And we 19 agreed in designing this program that at Phase 1 it would, it would not make sense to charge employees. 20 So we would recommend against that unless you wanted to go back to the design of the program that 21 was described in the survey that got so much, I mean that obviously resulted in not as much support as 22 we thought it would. 23 24 Chair Michael: Yeah, so Commissioner Tanaka I think you’ve made an excellent Motion and you’re hoping 25 for a clean Motion. Based on Commissioner, Director Gitelman’s response would you like to withdraw 26 that last addition? 27 28 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #6 WITHDRAWN 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: I’ll withdraw it because I don’t feel that strongly about it, but I do believe that 31 free gives you, doesn’t give you the best data. 32 33 Chair Michael: Ok. 34 35 Ms. Sullivan: Can I ask a question on the transferability friendly amendment? Is that refer to just 36 employee permits or for resident and employee permits? 37 38 Commissioner Tanaka: I was thinking mainly employee, but I guess that would make sense for both 39 because if residents move out should they still have the permit parking or not? But I haven’t thought 40 about that. I was thinking about employee at the time. 41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: I assume when you say transferability you mean that if for example we’re a 43 couple and we, we were a couple and both of us had cars and one day I parked one of our cars on the 44 street and one of our cars in the garage and another night I swapped I could transfer the permit to a 45 different vehicle that I still owned or that still belonged to me if you will. That’s what I mean by 46 transferability. I don’t mean like the next guy that moves in I hand it to him. I, is that what you mean? 47 48 Ms. Sullivan: Yes, that’s the distinction I wanted to make as well. 49 50 Commissioner Alcheck: So are you suggesting that without that it could only apply to one of your 51 vehicles? 52 53 Ms. Sullivan: I’m suggesting that there should be some way of making sure the permit is tied to a 54 residence rather than just sort of oh, look it’s a valid permit (interrupted) 55 56 24 Commissioner Alcheck: [Unintelligible] without the transferability it would be specific to a vehicle. 1 2 Ms. Sullivan: Specific to a vehicle, a license plate. Yes. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: I would support that it (interrupted) 5 6 Ms. Sullivan: Right, we don’t want to you know the more you make permits transferrable and not 7 associated with a license plate or vehicle the more I mean permit fraud is a pretty big thing, so we’re 8 trying to avoid that if we can. 9 10 Commissioner Alcheck: I would support being able to move it from instead of having to buy two permits 11 I’d rather buy one and have one car on the street that I could swap depending on who came home first, 12 but I’ll just say that I’d support that, but… 13 14 Chair Michael: Commissioner Downing. 15 16 Commissioner Downing: You know if we did support this order of transferability where I move out I don’t 17 need my permit anymore I give it to the next person can we have a transferability wherein there is also a 18 requirement to report the transfer so that if you find a permit but it doesn’t actually match something 19 that’s registered you still get a ticket? Is that really hard to do? 20 21 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I guess we’re a little concerned that we’re making this so elaborate and we’re going 22 to end up creating a market in these permits. People are going to get an extra permit and sell it and 23 we’re going to it’s going to be just get harder and harder to, to keep this… to get good data that we’re 24 going to get if we really know who has permits and who is using them. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s sort of different than what I was advocating. I’m not suggesting giving it 27 to somebody else. I’m suggesting putting it in one of my two vehicles, but I guess there’s it’s like a 28 version of a hang tag versus some sticker, right? So I would support that even if we can’t get a second 29 for it hopefully City Council will read our minutes and they’ll know that that was something that we talked 30 about. 31 32 Ms. Gitelman: Ok, so as it stands the Motion wants us to inject this idea of transferability for residents 33 and employees. Am I understanding? 34 35 Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka. 36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, so in terms of what I was thinking was mainly for the employees because I 38 think we have a really good consensus on transferability for employees. It makes a lot of sense. I think 39 in terms of the more advanced transferability of residents at this point I’d like to decline that unless we 40 have more of a I think consensus on this. 41 42 Ms. Gitelman: One thing we could do is insert something about transferability for employee permits and 43 commitment to analyze this further in Phase 1 for the on the residents side. So it wouldn’t be a given, 44 but we would give this some more thought. 45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: This was actually Commissioner Alcheck’s (interrupted) 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: That’s exactly the right way to go about this. 49 50 RESTATED MOTION ACCEPTED 51 52 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, I accept the new revision. 53 54 Chair Michael: I think we’re ready for a vote. Neilson Buchannan would you like to speak? 55 56 25 Mr. Buchannan: Please explain what you’re about to vote on because the sound system [unintelligible – 1 off microphone] I’m not sure where you are. 2 3 Chair Michael: Ok. So I’m going to actually call on Jessica to I mean you’ve been noting our Motion as it 4 goes through the various processes. What is it that you understand that we have put on the table? 5 6 Ms. Sullivan: So based on my understanding we’re recommending a Motion which includes a few friendly 7 amendments to passing the Resolution or recommendation of passing the Resolution so we will add the 8 300 and 400 block of Lincoln into the proposed boundary for Phase 1, we will clarify the language that 9 currently exists in the Resolution under the permit priority paragraph Section E (interrupted) 10 11 Ms. Gitelman: Saying that staff will come back to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) with 12 that priority rather than the Director determining the priorities. 13 14 Chair Michael: And also there will be priority to employees of businesses outside the parking assessment 15 district. 16 17 Ms. Sullivan: I don’t think that’s part of the Motion is it? I thought it was just clarify the language and 18 make a determination in Phase 1. 19 20 Chair Michael: So I hate it when we get into this kind of a convoluted process, but early on in the 21 discussion there was some comments made to a specific mistakes in the language. The Page 1 you 22 didn’t have the correct dates for the PTC meetings. You got that? This Phase 2 permits to employees, 23 permits for employees? 24 25 Ms. Gitelman: Got that. 26 27 Chair Michael: The availability of scratcher hang tags? 28 29 Ms. Gitelman: That was not included in the Motion to my understanding. 30 31 Chair Michael: Well that way my desire when I raised the point because I think it’s an important point. 32 33 Ms. Gitelman: Yeah, I understand that you made the comment, but when we got to making the Motion 34 Commissioner Tanaka made a Motion that supported the staff recommendation to recommend the 35 Resolution with the authority to staff to “clean up” and I took that to mean your… the date and the 36 recital and the change the “to” to “for.” I think inserting the idea of employee permits as scratchers is a 37 little more than a clean-up and that would require an amendment to that Motion. 38 39 Chair Michael: Well, I’m going to propose an amendment if that’s necessary because I think that just in 40 terms of the logistics of let’s say you’re a temporary employee and you have to park your car, walk eight 41 blocks to get the tag, walk eight blocks back and then you’ve got to then because you’re only working 42 one day a week rather than and I think if you had the scratcher permit you sort of avoid that logistical 43 nightmare. 44 45 Ms. Gitelman: Well I guess my question is if we have transferability of employee permits why would we 46 have a temporary employee that would need to get a scratcher permit? I understand on the 47 (interrupted) 48 49 Chair Michael: Because they might have to, they might have to (interrupted) 50 51 Ms. Gitelman: Residential side there are going to be guests (interrupted) 52 53 Chair Michael: But let’s say that the permit is actually at the office where he works, but he’s got to park 54 10 blocks away and walk there and then walk back to the car and put it on the dash and then I think a 55 26 scratcher option for employees as well as residents is perfectly reasonable and why is this not 1 acceptable? 2 3 Ms. Gitelman: I guess we weren’t thinking that we would be selling permits on a temporary basis to 4 employees. There’s going to be a limited pool of employee permits (interrupted) 5 6 Chair Michael: But not all employees are five days a week. 7 8 Ms. Gitelman: Ok. I’m, we’re happy to try and accommodate the request (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Michael: Maybe you can [unintelligible] (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Gitelman: [Unintelligible] a little more. 13 14 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #7 15 16 Chair Michael: Ok. Well, let me go through I would propose that under employee permits as an 17 amendment that we give the City the option [unintelligible] additionally [at any there] as a scratcher, 18 hang tag, or other format. Is there a second for that or is that acceptable to the maker of the Motion? 19 20 Commissioner Tanaka: I think because you make it as an option for the City to explore I think that makes 21 sense and it’s another [tool in the tool belt]. 22 23 Chair Michael: Ok so that’s in as an option. 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you suggesting (interrupted) 26 27 Ms. Gitelman: So… 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you suggesting that it’s recommended that the City look into it maybe for 30 Phase 2 or are you suggesting that it be an option right away? 31 32 Chair Michael: I don’t care if you need to investigate it further, but I think it should be an option at some 33 point. And to give full credit for the idea this came from former Vice-Chair Keller and I think it was a 34 good point. So that was my last sort of clean up. And I think so we, so the question from the public is 35 do we are we clear what, what we’re voting on? 36 37 Ms. Gitelman: If you wouldn’t mind Chair Michael let me see if I can go through it again. So the Motion 38 is to recommend that the City Council adopt the Resolution with the following changes: we would clean 39 up the recitals to have the appropriate date, we would clean up the paragraph that you pointed to earlier 40 and change the word “to” to the word “for,” we would include the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln, we 41 would include transferability of permits for employees and a commitment to analyze transferability for 42 residents in Phase 1, we would change the paragraph on prioritization to make it such that the staff 43 would return to the Planning Commission, PTC with the priorities, and we would ensure that there was an 44 option of hang tags, scratchers, or other format for employee permits. 45 46 Chair Michael: Simon. 47 48 Mr. Cintz: Commissioner Michael [Note-Chair] you had said the exact words that employees there would 49 be a nominal charge or nothing and that was not mentioned Hillary in your list it would be [unintelligible 50 – off microphone]. 51 52 Chair Michael: Ok, and that’s correct. 53 54 Ms. Gitelman: As I understood that amendment was made and was not accepted and is not included in 55 the Motion. 56 27 1 Commissioner Gardias: No, this was, which one? I mean we talk about several things but I made a 2 friendly motion to make Phase 1 free of charge (interrupted) 3 4 Chair Michael: Ok, so let’s just clean that up so to Commissioner Tanaka and Commissioner Alcheck was 5 that acceptable to you? [Unintelligible] getting into the other question. 6 7 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. So, so the question was or the Motion was to make it free or nominal for 8 employees during Phase 1. 9 10 Chair Michael: Yes. 11 12 Commissioner Tanaka: And I did not accept that, no. 13 14 Chair Michael: Ok. 15 16 Ms. Gitelman: So that is not included in the Motion. 17 18 VOTE 19 20 Chair Michael: Right. Alright, we’re ready for a vote. All in favor? Any opposed? No. it’s unanimous 21 with Commissioner Rosenblum absent [Note-recused]. So thank you to the survivors. Thank you to the 22 staff. 23 24 MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Acting Vice-Chair Rosenblum recused) 25 1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP From: B Q [mailto:quob@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,    Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS  Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry         Palo Alto City Council   250 Hamilton Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301    Dear Sirs,         November 19, 2014    I am contacting you about the recent proposed Parking Permits in Palo Alto.  Since 1978, I have  practiced at 850 Middlefield Road and have become alarmed at the lack of available parking on  the streets around our office due to the influx of apartment dwellers.      So let’s get to the point of where do I and my receptionist park?  First of all, our lot has sixteen  spots and these go to the patients, not us or our employees.  Secondly, I am a prosthodontist  who specializes in highly complex restorative cases which demand superb attention to detail.   Plus, I have one employee who does everything.  I cannot afford to have her run out and move  her car every two hours because this disruption to my practice could be catastrophic.  The  quality of my services would be diminished.      Consequently, if this permit system is instituted, I want special consideration given to my  situation due to the complexity of my practice.  Thank you.    Sincerely,    Gary B. Laine, DDS  1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP Permits   From: Eric Kwon [mailto:Eric@boyarskydmd.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:40 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Permits November 20, 2014 Dear Honorable City Council Members: Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Harvey Boyarsky DDS   1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: Dec 1 Council Meeting   From: Neilson Buchanan [mailto:cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 8:56 AM To: Council, City Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Sullivan, Jessica; Elaine Uang; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Richard Brand; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Norman H. Beamer; Paul Machado; Villareal, Joe; Chris Donlay; Elaine Meyer; Mary DimitSubject: Dec 1 Council Meeting There are only a few working days left before the Council addresses the permit parking ordinance and resolution. In order to make your time more productive, this morning I will deliver to the City Clerk updated background documents showing parked vehicle parking patterns. Please review these documents and keep them for further analysis during Phase 1. Neighborhood leaders throughout Palo Alto will be presenting parked vehicle trending data during the Phase 1/2 trials. (2015 and 2016) As soon as residents receive the Dec 1 council agenda and staff report, we will analyze the staff report and submit comments in writing as quickly as feasible. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday our comments may be delayed until Friday or on the weekend. I am submitting this data on behalf of residents in Ventura, Evergreen Park, Professorville, Mayfield, Crescent Park, Downtown North, and University South. Please note that Mayfield neighborhood is included with the Evergreen Park data is not broken out for easy analysis. Data does not include spillover potential in South Gate or a small section adjacent to Old Palo Alto Neighborhood's Bowden Park close to the Caltrain Station parking lot. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street 2 Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP Permits From: Eric Kwon [mailto:ekwondds@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:10 PM To: Council, City Subject: RPP Permits November 20, 2014 Dear Honorable City Council Members: Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Eric Kwon DDS 1 Betten, Zariah From:Dylan Field <dylan@figma.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Dylan Field and I'm the cofounder + CEO of a technology startup called Figma. I live / work in Downtown Palo Alto, and I'm writing to you tonight about your plan to give low wage workers priority when purchasing RPP permits. I have no issue whatsoever with giving low wage workers discounts on permits; in fact, I think it's a great idea to make permits more affordable. However, I do think it is unfair to give one set of workers purchasing priority over another set of workers. I believe over time this will unbalance the business ecosystem of Palo Alto away from the technology sector and encourage retail businesses. I hope you will consider giving everyone the same chance to obtain an RPP permit. Thank you for your time, Dylan Field 1 Betten, Zariah From:B Q <quob@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:RPP Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,    Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS  Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry   1 Betten, Zariah Subject:FW: RPP   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Roshan Emam [mailto:Office@dremam.com]   Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 10:35 AM  To: Council, City  Subject: RPP    From: office@dremam.com <mailto:quob@hotmail.com> To:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: RPP  Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:24:51 ‐0800  Honorable City Council Members:    Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create  problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My  practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents.    Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less  skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled  employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status.    It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my  employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a  competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve  my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents.    I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and  therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees  priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more  important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking  distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients.  If all  of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be  able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo  Alto.  Thank you,     Roshan Emam DDS           Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dear Sirs, Gary Laine, DDS <garylaine.dds@sbcglobal.net> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:35 AM Council, City Letter regarding Palo Alto parking permits Palo Alto City Council Parking Permit Letter.docx GUY OF PALO ALTO, CA CITY CLERK'S OP'Fll~E I ~ NOV 19 AM II: ~ & Attached is my letter in regards to the parking permit system. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 404!3 13. L~J DDS 850 Middlefield Road, Suite 2 Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)322-4750 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Sirs, November 19, 2014 I am contacting you about the recent proposed Parking Permits in Palo Alto. Since 1978, I have practiced at 850 Middlefield Road and have become alarmed at the lack of available parking on the streets around our office due to the influx of apartment dwellers. So let's get to the point of where do I and my receptionist park? First of all, our lot has sixteen -spots and these go to the patients, nqt us or our employees. Secondly, I am a prosthodontist who specializes in highly complex restorative cases which demand superb attention to detail. Plus, I have one employee who does everything. I cannot afford to have her run out and move her car every two hours because this disruption to my practice could be catastrophic. The quality of my services would be diminished. Consequently, if this permit system is instituted, I want special consideration given to my situation due to the complexity of my practice. Thank you. Sincerely, Gary B. Laine, DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Palo Alto City Council, Dylan Field <dylan@figma.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 8:31 PM Council, City RPP GUY Glf PALO ALT0. GA €lTY CtERK'S OFPI@E 14 NOV 19 AH 7: 41 My name is Dylan Field and I'm the cofounder + CEO of a technology startup called Figma. I live I work in Downtown Palo Alto, and I'm writing to you tonight about your plan to give low wage workers priority when purchasing RPP permits. I have no issue whatsoever with giving low wage workers discounts on permits; in fact, I think it's a greatidea to make permits more affordable. However, I do think it is unfair to give one set of workers purchasing priority over another set of workers. I believe over time this will unbalance the business ecosystem of Palo Alto away from the technology sector and encourage retail businesses. I hope you will consider giving everyone the same chance to obtain an RPP permit. Thank you for your time, Dylan Field Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: B Q <quob@hotmail.com> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:25 PM Council, City RPP Honorable City Council Members: C:I'TY OF PALO ALTO. CA CiTY CLERK'S Of:P'IGE I~ NOV 19 AH 7: ~~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Brian C. Quo, DDS, MS Peninsula Pediatric Dentistry Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear PA city council, CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA · PlTY CLERK'S @FflGE Margaret Lee <performance2010@icloud.com> I 4 NOV I g ~H 1: 41 Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:45 AM Council, City Parking!!!!! As a lifetime resident of PALO ALTO it is very disturbing to me the changes that we've seen in our city. A change that deeply concerns me and you don't seem to be addressing it is the parking problems were having. I thought this it was just a downtown problem not a midtown problem. But yesterday when I went to go to the shoe repair store,at 2 pm,on California Avenue I was shocked to find that that I could not find a place to park. Finally, I parked near the bottom of CA ave( my cobbler is near the top of CA ave) Discovering that lack of parking in the commercial cores is no longer limited to Univ Ave but has now come California Ave was a shock. Clearly the business commercial core needs its own parking solution . With the invasion of start ups and the incredible growth without seeming regard to traffic or parking, causes long time PaloAitans, like myself, to feel unheard and unwelcome in our city. Growth without long term planning and solutions to traffic congestion and parking is not the way Palo Alto used to function . Care for our future used to be a primary concern of our council... Thoughtful planning and approval of projects needs to be a brought back into focus .. Please, please look at what growth means to the quality of life we who live here desire. Growth is not always in the best interest of the many, although it lines the pockets of the few ..... . Sincerely yours, Margie Lee 500 Colorado Ave Palo alto, CA 94306 \ Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:45 PM Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Klein, Larry; Price, Gail (internal); Schmid, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen (internal) Gitelman, Hillary; Rodriguez, Jaime; Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; City Mgr CAUTION: RPP Employee Permit Transferability Permit Transferabiltiy -Staff Presentation to PTC 12Nov2014 -Slide 16.PDF Honorable City Council Members: I ask that you be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS when considering employee RPP permit transferability as a permanent part of the proposed Downtown RPP Resolution. The issue of whether or not employee RPP permits should be transferable is best left to the development of the Administrative Regulations as City Staff, residents, and businesses gain experience with how RPP really works during Phase Two ofthe trial program. It is PREMATURE at this time to make transferability a REQUIRED characteristic of the Downtown employee RPP program. I am one of the business representatives on the Downtown Stakeholders group. I bring this issue to your attention at this time because it was never properly debated by our group in it's currently proposed form. (See Note #3 below.) At the recent PTC meeting (Nov 12th), the Commissioners recommended that transferability of employee RPP permits be included in the Downtown Resolution, yet none of the Commissioners raised any of the potentially negative consequences of such an action. At that meeting, Staff did not proyide sufficient detail on how an employee RPP permit transferability program might work in practice. The potential danger of making RPP employee permits transferable is the following: Large areas of the downtown residential neighborhoods closest to the Downtown could be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for only a few Downtown businesses that have large numbers of employees. This will eventually damage the vitality of the Downtown business community that serves all of Palo Alto, especially the introduction of new small businesses. There are two key elements that when combined have the potential ofPERMANENTLY RESERVING neighborhood streets for the benefit of a limited number of Downtown businesses. Both of these elements appear on Slide #16 of Staffs presentation to the PTC on Nov 12 (See attached slide.): "* Business Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for employees that are transferable if employee leaves * Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area" (Bold underlining emphasis added by me.) Individually, each of these may be workable ideas, but when put together they potentially create a mixture that may result in long term damage to the Downtown business community. Here's how: 1. Available RPP employee permits will be "assigned to a specific area". Based on current estimates, there may be only 2 to 4 employee permits available on each residential blockface. Those employee permits will only be valid in that area and no other area of the Downtown. (See Note #1 below.). 2. Businesses will most likely purchase RPP permits on those blocks that are closest to their place of business. 3. Businesses needing many employee RPP permits are likely to to purchase large numbers of permits which will comprise areas that could take up dozens of mostly contiguous residential blocks because there are only a small number of permits that are assigned per each block. A large area of the residential neighborhoods will be reserved for "Company A"; another large area will be reserved for "Company B"; and so on. (See Note #2 below.) 4. WITH TRANFERABILITY, "if[an] employee leaves", these large areas will be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for each business as long as that business exists, possibly for decades. 5. WITHOUT TRANSFERABILITY, as employees leave, these spaces would become available to other businesses and the Downtown RPP district would eventually have a mix of permits available both near and far for all businesses, both new and old. Every healthy business community must encourage change. If large existing businesses are allowed to reserve many residential blocks nearest the Downtown for their own exclusive parking use for decades, this will make it very difficult for· new businesses to replace old businesses. (See Note #4 below.) As I personally read the proposed Downtown Resolution presented to the PTC on Nov 12, I see nothing in that resolution that explicitly prohibits "transferability" of employee permits. The Council should not add the REQUIREMENT of employee permit transferability to the Resolution. This issue should be left to the Administrative Regulations, as are most aspects of how employee permits will be issued. If the City Council now makes transferability a requirement written into the resolution, it will be painting itself into a comer with potentially disastrous outcomes for our Downtown business community in the long term. Just to be clear ... I am NOT AGAINST transferability of employee permits. I am only asking that the Council NOT REQUIRE transferability in the Resolution. It is wiser to simply allow City Staff, residents, and businesses the flexibility to decide this issue in the Administrative Regulations once we've gained experience with how RPP actually works in the neighborhoods. It may turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. At this time we just don't know. ********* Notes Referenced Above ************ Note #1: Assigning a permit to a specific area means that the permit holder may ONLY park in that area. This "area" most likely will be a specific block; e.g., a permit for the "900 block of Ramona" will only allow that employee to park on that block and on no other block. (Resident permit holders will be able to park anywhere in the district.) Resident stakeholders have frequently requested an upper limit of 20% of the spaces allocated for employees. This means that many areas may only allow a maximum of 2 -4 employee permits per blockface leaving the vast majority of street spaces for resident use. Note #2: Employee permit sales will be done online allowing computer processing of dozens of permit requests per minute. Since permits are "assigned by area", existing businesses will be motivated to "grab" those spaces nearest their place of business ASAP. Large businesses that requires many dozens of RPP permits will naturally attempt to get as many spaces as they require that are nearest their place of business. Since there may be only a few employee permits allocated per blockface, a company will likely be motivated to reserve areas that comprise many contiguous residential blocks to obtain the dozens of employee permits they require for their own business. In the future, only outlying areas furthest from the Downtown will be available for permit sales, thereby making it difficult for new businesses to locate in the downtown. Note #3: The Stakeholder group supported employee transferability for "curb marked" employee spaces on residential streets. Curb marked spaces allow for parking on a daily "first come, first serve" basis. Since all curb marked spaces are open to ALL employee permit holders each day, no one company can reserve a group of spaces for itself. At our last Stakeholder meeting (Oct 23), Staff announced that the resident survey did not support the stakeholder proposed "curb marked spaces" and that employee permits would instead be assigned to a "specific area". Since this was our last meeting of the year, our group understandably did not have time to properly debate the pros and cons ofhow transferability might work when permits are assigned by area as opposed to the stakeholder group supported "curb marked" system. The implications of employee permits being "assigned by area" has many implications that were not discussed in our Stakeholder group because the announcement that the resident survey rejected "curb marking" was made at our very last meeting. This last meeting required the presentation and discussion of many other new and important issues not giving us adequate time to debate issues in detail. Note #4: Every healthy business community must accommodate change. (I am NOT referring to growth, but simply to change ... one business leaving and another business replacing it.) By allowing large employers to permanently hold transferable permits that consume large swaths of the nearby residential streets, it only leaves the outlying areas as parking for newcomers to the Downtown. Overtime, this will stagnate the business community causing it to lose much of its current vitality. This will hurt all of Palo Alto. Permit transferability for employees is not simply an "added benefit" for some businesses. It has the potential for being a "game changer" for the long term health of the Downtown business community. Please proceed cautiously when considering making "employee permit transferability" a requirement in the Downtown RPP Resolution. Thank you, Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 . .• .. · Pool Pannits: Allow bus:inessaS. to pyrchasa permits for ernployeeSthat are transfe¥able ifemployee leaves • Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area ~+Q~ t;- ~ 7; k <?_ "'\ .· .-+ VOLK\ ff<Zf~vt~ -.{-~_~ ov--/\Lnr I 21 2_ Ol'i. 16 Carnahan; David From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mary Conway <exec@mpds.org> Monday, November 24, 2014 3:05 PM Council, City Palo Parking Situation PaloAitoParking.pdf CtTY OF PALO ALTO. CA GtTY CLERK'S OFFICE I~ NOV 24 PH 3: 21 Thanks so much for your consideration, I am acting on behalf of our membership that practice in Palo Alto. Happy Thanksgiving, Mary Mary Conway, Executive Director Mid-Peninsula Dental Society 220 Main Street, Ste 208A Los Altos, CA 94022 650-328-2242 650-331-0541 FAX "MovingForward, Together" Website-MPDS.ORG llPU.)mina ~:_vents Januai'Y 23•·d-lnfectiun Ctlntl'd/Uental V1·actice Act ~: 7/te ?1CP?)S ~ 0«/t ~in~ ad,~~' adWe ~ etMc ~ tlte leeattlt o& 0«/t ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ad,~~ MIQ .. J)ENINSULA DENTAL SOCIETY 22Q Main Street, Suite 20SA Los )Utos, CA ·94022 650/328,.2242 Fax 650/331 w0541 Subject: RPP Date: Friday, November 20,2014 Subject: RPP Honorable City Council Members: S.erving: Palo Alto Menlo Park Atherton Los Altos Mountain View Creating a higher priority status for "low wage11 employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 10 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages, Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage!' status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It m$:es no sense to give some of my employees priority and not :give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits< I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP pennits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. :However, I do not s:u,pport giving .some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP p~nnits. In the end, one.person's safety is.not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and Serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking .distance from my office, I Will.not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area pl)Ssible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Mid-Peninsula Dental Society LeeJ>anec President k:en S~hweiller - Vlc~·President Reza R,iahi Treasurer I Secret~ry Joyce dien,g .. Chtistilpher Joy Editors Carnahan, David · From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GITY OF PALO AliO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> I 4 NOV 24 AM II: II Monday, November 24, 2014 8:56AM Council, City Gitelman, Hillary; Sullivan, Jessica; Elaine Uang; Michael Hodos; Gabrielle Layton; John Guislin; Richard Brand; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Norman H. Beamer; Paul Machado; Villareal, Joe; Chris Donlay; Elaine Meyer; Mary Dimit Dec 1 Council Meeting There are only a few working days left before the Council addresses the permit . parking ordinance and resolution. In order to. make your time more productive, this morning I will deliver to the City Clerk updated background documents showing parked vehicle parking patterns. Please review these documents and keep them for further analysis during Phase 1. Neighborhood leaders throughout Palo Alto will be presenting parked vehicle trending data during the Phase 1/2 trials. (2015 and 2016) As soon as residents receive the Dec 1 council agenda and staff report, we will analyze the staff report and submit comments in writing as quickly as feasible. Due to the Thanksgiving holiday our comments may be delayed until Friday or on the weekend. I am submitting this data on behalf of residents in Ventura, Evergreen Park, Professorville, Mayfield, Crescent Park, Downtown North, and University South. Please note that Mayfield neighborhood is included with the Evergreen Park data is not broken out for easy analysis. Data does not include spillover potential in South Gate or a small section adjacent to Old Palo Alto Neighborhood's Bowden Park close to the Caltrain Station parking lot. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: From: office@dremam.com Roshan Emam <Office@dremam.com> Monday, November 24, 2014 10:35 AM Council, City RPP T o:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: RPP Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:24:51 -0800 Honorable City Council Members: CHY Of PALO ALTO. CA GI1'Y CLERK'S OFFIGE 14 NOV 2~ AM n: ffl Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 1 0 years. My practice is located at 882A Emerson Street. I serve a large number of Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. Some of my highly skilled employees will probably not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients. Many of my patients are Palo Alto residents. I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impos.sible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Roshan Emam DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council Members, Kathryn Jurosky <pulpfinley@gmail.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 10:17 PM Council, City RPP permits lt. NOV 2t. AH 1:35 I feel small healthcare offices (under 10 employees) serving Palo Alto residents should be exempt from parking permit mandates for their employees. Our dental office, located at the comer of University Avenue and Middlefield Road, has served the Palo Alto community for over 30 years. We already provide parking for our patients to minimize their impact on the nearby community. Many of our elderly patients appreciate the parking we provide. If these parking mandates are to be imposed, then perhaps small medical/dental office employees should have priority· for these permits. I strongly disagree with the tiered access and payment schemes under consideration for these permits because we cannot apply this equally across the 5 employees in our small business. Should an older employee who has been with our office for 17 years have to park further away that a younger less skilled employee at a lower pay scale? I don't think so. Palo Alto is becoming more inhospitable to small businesses, especially those that directly serve the communities healthcare needs. - Thank you, Kathryn J urosky · Board Certified Endodontist 500 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Reza Ria hi < reza@rezariahidds.com> Friday, November 21, 2014 5:37 AM Council, City Downtown RPP CITY OF PALO ALJ'Q,CA QIIX C! FBK'$ Q(ElffiE 14 NOV 24 AH 7: 35 Honorable City Council Members: I am voicing my concern regarding the manner of implementation of the Downtown RPP program. I am an Endodontist who has been in practice in the city of Palo Alto since 2008. I have been treating mostly Palo Alto residents during this period with the help of a highly skilled and trained staff. My dental team is comprised of front staff and assistants all of which are women and their safety is a top priority for me. As these employees are highly skilled in their respective positions their compensation rates are equal high. The present implementation scenario the Council is entertaining could mean some of my staff may have to walk across town to get to their parking spaces. This is highly concerning since we have extended work day hours most days as we frequently see emergency patients at the end of the day. My staff and I often leave when it's already dark. I am, and the Council should be very concerned about the safety of these healthcare workers to and from their vehicles so far from their workplace. As an employer it will become very difficult to retain the staff that I already have or attract the skilled employees I will need as my practice grows. It would not surprise me to see some smaller practices or businesses leaving Palo Alto if the RPP is implemented in such a way that employees can't have parking at a safe distance from their work. It is incomprehensible to me how we could give a group priority over other based on income. Is the safety of a group more important than the other based on how much money they make? Perhaps a better solution would be offering a lower rate to the lower income individuals is a sliding scale, while offering parking at a safe distance to work for everyone. As I've mentioned before healthcare providers have irregular work hours and we often don't leave until sundown. For the safety of all of us and our employees who are by vast majority female I join the other to ask the Council to offer permits close to workplace for everyone or at least consider an exemption for the healthcare workers. Reza Riahi DDS, MMSc Palo Alto Endodontic Center 85 0 Middlefield Road, Suite 4 Palo Alto, CA. 94301 Phone (650) 485-2514 Fax (650) 485-2511 Sincerely, 'Reza Riahi, DDS, MMSc Palo Alto Endodontic Center Carnahan, David .From: Sent: To: Subject: November 20,2014 Eric Kwon <Eric@boyarskydmd.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:40 PM Council, City RPP Permits Dear Honorable City Council Members: CHY Of Pt'\LO A~Hl. QA CITY CLERK'S OPFWE I~ NOV 20 PH 5: I~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo·Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore . should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Harvey Boyarsky DDS Carnahan, David from: Sent: To: 'Subject: November 20,2014 Eric Kwon <ekwondds@gmail.com> Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:10 PM Council, City RPP Permits Dear Honorable City Council Members: CITY Of PALO ALT~.GA CITY CLERK'S @Pf'ICE lt. NOV 20 fM t: t~ Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my dental practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for over 12 years. My practice is located at 888 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto and it is my privilege to serve many Palo Alto residents. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Some of my less skilled employees who earn a lower wage may qualify for "low wage" status. My other highly skilled employees will not qualify for "low wage" status. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients (many of whom reside in Palo Alto). I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety and convenience is not more important than another based on their wages. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide·care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to fmd an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Eric Kwon DDS Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: A. Lakha <azeemer@aol.com> Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:19 PM Council, City Palo Alto Parking Honorable City Council Members: CITY OF PALO Al,..TO. CA Ct"Y C! fRt<'S OEf'kE 14 NOV I ~ PH 5: 2 5 Creating a higher priority status for "low wage" employees to obtain Downtown RPP permits will create problems for employees in my Oral Surgery practice. I have been in practice in Palo Alto for almost 27 years. My practice is located at 720 Cowper Street has been in the same location since 1972. Our practice has been serving several generation of Palo Residents for over 40 years It is becoming increasingly difficult for small businesses like dental offices to attract qualified employees because they cannot afford to live in or near Palo Alto. Imposing a parking cost on these employees is an additional burden they cannot afford. Sirice 2000, an increasing number of dentists have relocated out of Palo Alto. Few of you may know that Palo Alto is Mecca for high quality dental care. Like many businesses in Palo Alto, my employees' earnings span a range of hourly wages. Because most of our employees are highly skilled and live an hour or further away from Palo Alto, I am afraid that costly parking permits will dissuade them from commuting to Palo Alto. We are having enough trouble attracting affordable and competent employees. It makes no sense to give some of my employees priority and not give others the same priority. All of my employees should have the same priority in receiving RPP permits. I value my employees and I pay them a competitive wage based on a variety of factors. Without their hard work, I would not be able to properly serve my patients I support charging "low wage" workers a reduced fee for their RPP permits because they earn less money and therefore should be offered a more affordable fee. However, I do not support giving some of my employees priority over others in my practice in obtaining RPP permits. In the end, one person's safety is not more important than an other based on how much they make. They should all be entitled to the same safe walking distance from my office or it will be impossible for me to provide care, retain staff and serve my patients. If all of my employees can't find parking that is a reasonable and safe walking distance from my office, I will not be able to serve my patients, and will ultimately have to find an office in another area possible outside of Palo Alto. Thank you, Azeem K Lakha, DMD Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 720 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E:hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Simon Cintz [mailto:simoncintz@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 4:45 PM To: Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Berman, Marc; Klein, Larry; Price, Gail (internal); Schmid, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Shepherd, Nancy (internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen (internal) Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; Rodriguez, Jaime; Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; City Mgr Subject: CAUTION: RPP Employee Permit Transferability Honorable City Council Members: I ask that you be EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS when considering employee RPP permit transferability as a permanent part of the proposed Downtown RPP Resolution. The issue of whether or not employee RPP permits should be transferable is best left to the development of the Administrative Regulations as City Staff, residents, and businesses gain experience with how RPP really works during Phase Two of the trial program. It is PREMATURE at this time to make transferability a REQUIRED characteristic of the Downtown employee RPP program. I am one of the business representatives on the Downtown Stakeholders group. I bring this issue to your attention at this time because it was never properly debated by our group in it's currently proposed form. (See Note #3 below.) At the recent PTC meeting (Nov 12th), the Commissioners recommended that transferability of employee RPP permits be included in the Downtown Resolution, yet none of the Commissioners raised any of the potentially negative consequences of such an action. At that meeting, Staff did not provide sufficient detail on how an employee RPP permit transferability program might work in practice. The potential danger of making RPP employee permits transferable is the following: Large areas of the downtown residential neighborhoods closest to the Downtown could be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for only a few Downtown businesses that have large numbers of employees. This will eventually damage the vitality of the Downtown business community that serves all of Palo Alto, especially the introduction of new small businesses. Page 1 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... There are two key elements that when combined have the potential of PERMANENTLY RESERVING neighborhood streets for the benefit of a limited number of Downtown businesses. Both of these elements appear on Slide #16 of Staff's presentation to the PTC on Nov 12 (See attached slide.): "* Business Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for employees that are transferable if employee leaves * Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area" (Bold underlining emphasis added by me.) Individually, each of these may be workable ideas, but when put together they potentially create a mixture that may result in long term damage to the Downtown business community. Here's how: 1. Available RPP employee permits will be "assigned to a specific area". Based on current estimates, there may be only 2 to 4 employee permits available on each residential blockface. Those employee permits will only be valid in that area and no other area of the Downtown. (See Note #1 below.). 2. Businesses will most likely purchase RPP permits on those blocks that are closest to their place of business. 3. Businesses needing many employee RPP permits are likely to to purchase large numbers of permits which will comprise areas that could take up dozens of mostly contiguous residential blocks because there are only a small number of permits that are assigned per each block. A large area of the residential neighborhoods will be reserved for "Company A"; another large area will be reserved for "Company B"; and so on. (See Note #2 below.) 4. WITH TRANFERABILITY, "if [an] employee leaves", these large areas will be PERMANENTLY RESERVED for each business as long as that business exists, possibly for decades. 5. WITHOUT TRANSFERABILITY, as employees leave, these spaces would become available to other businesses and the Downtown RPP district would eventually have a mix of permits available both near and far for all businesses, both new and old. Every healthy business community must encourage change. If large existing businesses are allowed to reserve many residential blocks nearest the Downtown for their own exclusive parking use for decades, this will make it very difficult for new businesses to replace old businesses. (See Note #4 below.) As I personally read the proposed Downtown Resolution presented to the PTC on Nov 12, I see nothing in that resolution that explicitly prohibits "transferability" of employee permits. The Council should not add the REQUIREMENT of employee permit transferability to the Resolution. This issue should be left to the Administrative Regulations, as are most aspects of how employee permits will be issued. If the City Council now makes transferability a requirement written into the resolution, it will be Page 2 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... painting itself into a corner with potentially disastrous outcomes for our Downtown business community in the long term. Just to be clear ... I am NOT AGAINST transferability of employee permits. I am only asking that the Council NOT REQUIRE transferability in the Resolution. It is wiser to simply allow City Staff, residents, and businesses the flexibility to decide this issue in the Administrative Regulations once we've gained experience with how RPP actually works in the neighborhoods. It may turn out to be a good thing or a bad thing. At this time we just don't know. ********* Notes Referenced Above ************ Note #1: Assigning a permit to a specific area means that the permit holder may ONLY park in that area. This "area" most likely will be a specific block; e.g., a permit for the "900 block of Ramona" will only allow that employee to park on that block and on no other block. (Resident permit holders will be able to park anywhere in the district.) Resident stakeholders have frequently requested an upper limit of 20% of the spaces allocated for employees. This means that many areas may only allow a maximum of 2 - 4 employee permits per blockface leaving the vast majority of street spaces for resident use. Note #2: Employee permit sales will be done online allowing computer processing of dozens of permit requests per minute. Since permits are "assigned by area", existing businesses will be motivated to "grab" those spaces nearest their place of business ASAP. Large businesses that requires many dozens of RPP permits will naturally attempt to get as many spaces as they require that are nearest their place of business. Since there may be only a few employee permits allocated per blockface, a company will likely be motivated to reserve areas that comprise many contiguous residential blocks to obtain the dozens of employee permits they require for their own business. In the future, only outlying areas furthest from the Downtown will be available for permit sales, thereby making it difficult for new businesses to locate in the downtown. Note #3: The Stakeholder group supported employee transferability for "curb marked" employee spaces on residential streets. Curb marked spaces allow for parking on a daily "first come, first serve" basis. Since all curb marked spaces are open to ALL employee permit holders each day, no one company can reserve a group of spaces for itself. At our last Stakeholder meeting (Oct 23), Staff announced that the resident survey did not support the stakeholder proposed "curb marked spaces" and that employee permits would instead be assigned to a "specific area". Since this was our last meeting of the year, our group understandably did not have time to properly debate the pros and cons of how transferability might work when permits are assigned by area as opposed to the stakeholder group supported "curb marked" system. The implications of employee permits being "assigned by area" has many implications that were not discussed in our Stakeholder group because the announcement that the resident survey rejected "curb marking" was made at our very last meeting. This last meeting required the presentation and discussion of many other new and important issues not giving us adequate time to debate issues in detail. Note #4: Every healthy business community must accommodate change. (I am NOT referring to growth, but simply to change ... one business leaving and another business Page 3 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... replacing it.) By allowing large employers to permanently hold transferable permits that consume large swaths of the nearby residential streets, it only leaves the outlying areas as parking for newcomers to the Downtown. Overtime, this will stagnate the business community causing it to lose much of its current vitality. This will hurt all of Palo Alto. Permit transferability for employees is not simply an "added benefit" for some businesses. It has the potential for being a "game changer" for the long term health of the Downtown business community. Please proceed cautiously when considering making "employee permit transferability" a requirement in the Downtown RPP Resolution. Thank you, Simon Cintz Cintz Commercial Properties, LP P.O. Box 1216 Palo Alto, CA 94302 831-247-2387 Page 4 of 4 11/26/2014file:///C:/Users/dtamale/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20... Downtown Resolution, cont. permit sales will be regulated during this Phase Two: 12 months + phase of the program in accordance with data gathered during Phase 1. Resident Permits: First permit, So/year, Second permit, $50/year, Third permit, S50/yeat Fourth permit, Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for emplovees that are transferable if gmplovee' '------------'+reaves " Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area !'iTY O I,,tlr:tij",i) ;id!,'i'{} T,E,^S*,,^s+"+ +-. Y Lot?. +--.Qrt() taru,a*.. -t-c o''-"'u-.- 1V'-- 12, 1 Ellner, Robin From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 08, 2014 8:26 AM To:Doug Greene Cc:jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org; Gitelman, Hillary; Planning Commission Subject:Re: all of those dates work for me. I blocked off all three days/time from 6- 8pm. I will bring handouts and 2-3 easels with large posters to show parking intrusion. Let me know what day/time is best and then you can publicize the meeting internally. Do you have sound system? Not vital but helpful. What is your estimate of lowest and highest number of resident who may turn out? The Nov 12 Planning Commission may stimulate interest when newspaper cover the first public reaction. I would like to review the permit program with you in advance so that you can give me some guidance. Phase 1 is very imperfect but probably has the greatest benefit for 101 since Caltrain vehicles are concentrated around your building. While writing this email I just thought of one new issue previously overlooked. Will the city include the train track side of Alma (from Everett to Palo Alto Avenue) in the permit parking district and thus allow only downtown workers and residents to park there. I strongly advise you to ask this question immediately to the two key staff persons. Here are their emails. Those 30+ spaces are crticial parking supply that should be included in parking space capacity for resident and downtown workers. The worst decision would be to dedicate all of those thirty spaces for 2 hour commercial parking and/or reserved solely for worker permit parking. 2 jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org jessica.sullvan@cityofpaloalto.org Hillary Gitelman hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Planning Commission planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Please be advised that there is and will be a perpetual battle for parking spaces. The critical element is that the city wants to sell unlimited number of parking permits and we resident want to restrict designated non-resident parking spaces to a fixed allocation equally distributed across our neighborhood. I personally hope (and pray) that the city will realize that no more than 500-600 parking spaces within DTN can be allocated to non- residents. The city can sell as many parking permits at any price, but they cannot use more than 40% of all spaces for commercial parking lot. We residents clearly need 40% of the spaces during the day for our own vehicles, repairmen, nannies, visitors, family, home remodel workers, etal. Our goal must reserve 20% simply to have vacant places to park when the 80% is taken. This good example of why I want to brief you so you can help me with some of the questions that will arise. This formula of 40-40-20 space planning is my own position and it could be adopted in Phase 2. Phase 1, for better or worse, allows the city to sell unlimited number of parking permits within our neighborhood. This is an imperfect, but reasonable way to initial the trial but only for 6 month commencing April 1. Finally I strongly advise your Board to develop a formal opinion and express a formal position at the Dec 1 City Council meeting At the Nov 12 Planning Commission you and your leaders may not feel fully informed and prepared. However, it is important for someone at 101 Alma to make a 2 minute statement during public comments. As a minimum it is critical, in my opinion, you all could state that residents in 100 units (150+ drivers) are negatively impacted by the current city 3 parking policy AND that you want the city council to commence a solution not later than April 1. Thanks for getting involved. This is a simple problem with very complex, 30 month solution...the details above are the simplest!!!! Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com From: Doug Greene <pacoa101@yahoo.com> To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 2:58 PM Subject: Re: My apologies for the phone tag the building has me jumping today. How would one of these dates work? 11/20, 11/24 or 11/25. I was thinking 6pm -7pm or 6:30pm - 7:30pm. Would any of those days work? Many thanks Doug From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> To: Doug Greene <pacoa101@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 1:48 PM Subject: I keep missing you on the phone. i will be on grandson shuttle duty 230- 500 and may not pick up cell phone immediately but will return your call. 4 Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Sent:Monday, November 10, 2014 6:04 PM To:Planning Commission; Harris Barton Subject:RRP for Lincoln Avenue Hi‐  We live at 334 Lincoln Avenue and strongly support the implementation of the RRP on our blocked.  We are inundated  with cars parked in front of our home on a daily basis during the work week, often until 7:00pm and are tired of having  to park around the corner.  The weekends are wide open.  We have heard rumors that you may not include  neighborhoods east of Bryant Street, which would be an absolute nightmare for us.  We voted in favor of the RRP, as did  our neighbors‐ please hear our voices and support our needs.  Harris and I are unable to make the planning meeting  tomorrow night, but wanted to make sure you knew where we stand.  Yes for parking permits!!!    Sincerely,  Megan and Harris Barton  1 Ellner, Robin From:layton, thomas <thomas@redjuice.com> Sent:Monday, November 10, 2014 8:04 PM To:Planning Commission Subject:RRP for 300 block of Lincoln Ave Hi Folks - We live at 365 Lincoln Ave. and support an RRP for our block. Please add us to the plan so that we can park on our own block! Thomas Layton 1 Ellner, Robin From:Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:42 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Fehrenbach, Thomas; Neilson Buchanan; Simon Cintz Subject:RPP Concerns Attachments:RPP Concerns.docx dear members, attached are some comments on the proposed city wide rpp ordinance and the greater downtown rpp. all the stakeholders have worked hard to get to this point, but without a couple of changes to the trial rpp we will end up with the same range war situation that occurred a couple of years ago with the professorville rpp which failed at the council. the two phase downtown rpp trial is a way forward to a robust downtown rpp without the jarring consequence of imposing restrictions day one, which is what will happen if you charge non residents $233 for the six month trial. anyway, thanks for your consideration of these comments, chop RPP Concerns Re: Ordinance and Resolution November 5, 2014 RPP is a critical element of a holistic downtown parking solution. Transportation Demand Management, zoning, parking supply, and parking technology, (meters, wayfinding, parking app), are all integral to a successful RPP and avoiding negative, unintended consequences ie: the toothpaste effect. I am supporting RPP Trials for Phase I and Phase II with the following caveats: 1. There is general agreement among all Stakeholders regarding the Phase I data collection except for charging employees for a parking permit. Free for residents, while charging non- residents ($233 for most and $50 for “low wage”) will skew Phase I data and be a total waste of time and money. All Phase I permits should be free. Permit tags need to be color coded by work or neighborhood location: who’s parking where? This phase eliminates non- district commuters ie: Cal Trans, Stanford, PAMF, T&C, and Paly, while at the same time getting empirical data on neighborhood on-street parking. We will then know what the addressable problem is in each neighborhood. 2. All workers should have equal permit priority. I strongly support the discounted permit pricing for “low wage” workers. Equal permit priority is favored by major employers such as Whole Foods and St. Mike’s Restaurant, among others. 3. I am in accord on Phase II with residents and staff, that permit allocation by neighborhood and count will be interative based on data from Phase I and Phase II however, setting maximum permits now is premature. 4. In every draft of the city wide RPP ordinance there was a provision for a postal survey vote to form the district. The provision provided for a 50% response rate and 70% support of the respondents. This provision has been eliminated in the last draft. Please re-insert the postal vote to occur after the Phase II trial, (section 10.05.050, paragraph (d)(2)). Staff did circulate a straw poll, but it didn’t have the benefit of the Phase I and II trials so that residents could make a decision based on their trial period experience. It simply asked if they favored an RPP but there was no resolution upon which to base their opinion. The straw poll was roughly 50-50 for and against even with gerrymandered district lines. 1 Ellner, Robin From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:11 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Chop Keenan (chopkeenan@yahoo.com) (chopkeenan@yahoo.com); Simon Cintz; Susan Nightingale; Rob George; Brett Somers (bsomers@palantir.com); Richard Brand; Neilson Buchanan; Gabrielle Layton; meh6467; Elaine Uang Subject:Comments on RPP Letter to the PTC from J. Guislin Chop Keenan generously shared his comments on the proposed RPP program so I am doing the same here, sending to all Stakeholders and PTC members. Phase 1 of RPP is a minimally acceptable step in the right direction. It is highly unlikely that it will improve the quality of life for residents nearest the downtown commercial core. Streets will still be parked at 80 -100% during the busiest times of day. Yes, it will eliminate some number of commuters from Stanford, PALY, etc. who will not have access to permits, but with demand for parking steadily increasing, any small benefit will be temporary. The most important criticism of the current the proposal is that far too many critical details are left to the yet-to- be-written Administrative Guidelines. As is often true, the devil is in the details and in this case the details are in the administrative guidelines. The most serious omission of detail is that the Director of Planning be allowed to set the acceptable rate of commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods. This is disrespectful to the citizens who have worked long hours to propose a threshold for commercial parking and undemocratic in granting too much power to an unelected official. The threshold for commercial parking intrusion must be set by our elected representatives in consultation with interested parties. With regard to Chop’s proposal that all permits be free during Phase 1 - When you make something free you are saying either that it is worthless or, if you are launching a new product or service, you are trying to build demand. In our case, we already have excessive demand for parking in the residential neighborhoods and have no new service to offer. To give commercial parkers the right to park there for free by permit is legitimizing what has become a serious degradation of neighborhood quality of life. Once you grant someone a free city permit to park, it is problematic to take it away and/or raise the price. In the case of residential parking, free makes no sense at all. 2 With regard to Chop's proposal to take priority permit access away from low wage workers – The citizens on the Stakeholder group were happy to make parking concessions to support our downtown retail environment. Among these concessions are both the pricing and priority access to permits for low wage workers. What most are not willing to do is to support the high-wage VC’s, large tech companies, law offices etc. whose workers can afford higher priced permits and whose companies have the resources to acquire or build parking capacity if they choose. Offering them permits that are a bargain based on their resources will not encourage them to create alternatives. With regard to Chop’s proposed hurdle of 70% support for permit parking – Today, elections are often won by razor thin margins. There is no valid justification for making the hurdle for permit parking higher than a simple majority. Sincerely, John Guislin 1 Ellner, Robin From:Richard Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:09 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Sullivan, Jessica; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:RPP Staff Proposal Dear Commissioners: While as one of the Stakeholders participating in the challenging meeting sessions chaired by Jessica Sullivan's I will be in attendance at your meeting Wednesday night, I am moved to send this pre-meeting comment. One of my RPP stakeholder colleagues, Mr. Keenan who lives in Woodside and not a resident, has sent you a note regarding his choices for the permit program. Let me tell you that most of we stakeholders, like Mr. Keenan, had RPP options that we wanted to see in the final Staff ordinance. But in the best elements of a consensus based group, in the end we all agreed that the outcome, while not what I wanted in full, was worth the effort. The record will show that Mr. Keenan earlier proposed to the Stakeholder group, his 3 items listed in his letter to you. They were fully considered by our committee but in the end, found lacking to support the charter put to us by the Council/Staff and were not supported by a positive vote of the Stakeholder group. Again, I made proposals to the Stakeholder committee that were not accepted, but I abide will abide by the consensus of the group as a part of a necessary process. Therefore I ask you to support the Stakeholder program put forth by the Staff and move it forward to the Council for final implementation. Richard C. Brand RPP Stakeholder and Palo Alto Citizen 1 Ellner, Robin From:Michelle Arden <michelle@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:36 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Residential Parking Program: Include Lincoln Ave. Dear Planning Commission, We live on the 400 block of Lincoln Ave and want to make sure that the new RPP includes Lincoln in its boundaries. Please include Lincoln Ave. Michelle Arden 405 Lincoln Ave. Michelle Arden michelle@arden.org Work: (650) 329-8440 Home: (650) 326-0962 1 Ellner, Robin From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:44 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:info for new commissioners Attachments:121116 Kicking The Can Editorial PA Weekly 001.pdf I should have known that the two new commissioners will be acting on RPP tonight, but I had erroneously assumed that the turnover of commissioners coincided with Council turnover in January. Here are 4 "critical path" time points to orient the new Commissioners.  Citizen Frustration and Appeal to Council for over 10 years  Summer/Fall 2012 Collapse of Professorville Permit Trial  November 16, 2012 "Kicking The Can" Opinion Piece in the PA Weekly is attached. Other newspaper coverage available upon request.  January 27, 2014 Council Direction to Staff to develop RPP (Noted in Staff Report)  April 1, 2015 Probable Start Date for RPP Phase 1 This morning the City Clerk directed me to take my documents to the Planning Dept. You will find documents for Commissioners in each of the 7 mailing tubes. I hope each of you have time to scan my late submission. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell 2 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Ellner, Robin From:Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:21 PM To:John Guislin Cc:Planning Commission; Sullivan, Jessica; Chop Keenan (chopkeenan@yahoo.com) (chopkeenan@yahoo.com); Simon Cintz; Susan Nightingale; Rob George; Brett Somers (bsomers@palantir.com); Richard Brand; Neilson Buchanan; meh6467; Elaine Uang Subject:Re: Comments on RPP Letter to the PTC from Gab Layton As a participant on the RPP stakeholder committee I wish to support John’s comments. I have always understood the point of the RPP was to a) to provide relief and improve the quality of life for the residential neighborhoods affected, and b) to create a system that effects change in commuting behavior to the betterment of the environment and congestion in the city of Palo Alto. At the same time there was general agreement amongst the stakeholders and in the broader community that the RPP should not be overly burdensome on the (men and women) retail/service workers who serve this community. With those objectives in mind, pricing of commuter permits is a non-negotiable part of phase 1. There are only two levers at our disposal to change commuter behavior - pricing and caps. Pricing is the phase 1 lever. Caps is phase 2. The proposed pricing works out at 40cents/day for hourly workers, and less than $2/day for salaried workers. It’s akin to asking people to pay 10cents a bag at the grocery. It’s a minimal hurdle to effect change in commuter behavior. Separately, priority for these permits should be given both in price and access to hourly workers. A vibrant retail and a range of services contribute greatly to our sense of community, and help create the Palo Alto identity. We need to reduce the retail to office turnover in this city, and one way to help is to give these businesses every chance to survive. I think it was clearly established in the very first RPP meeting that a level of 70% support was unprecedented and undemocratic. Respectfully, Gab Layton On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:10 PM, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> wrote: Letter to the PTC from J. Guislin Chop Keenan generously shared his comments on the proposed RPP program so I am doing the same here, sending to all Stakeholders and PTC members. 2 Phase 1 of RPP is a minimally acceptable step in the right direction. It is highly unlikely that it will improve the quality of life for residents nearest the downtown commercial core. Streets will still be parked at 80 -100% during the busiest times of day. Yes, it will eliminate some number of commuters from Stanford, PALY, etc. who will not have access to permits, but with demand for parking steadily increasing, any small benefit will be temporary. The most important criticism of the current the proposal is that far too many critical details are left to the yet-to- be-written Administrative Guidelines. As is often true, the devil is in the details and in this case the details are in the administrative guidelines. The most serious omission of detail is that the Director of Planning be allowed to set the acceptable rate of commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods. This is disrespectful to the citizens who have worked long hours to propose a threshold for commercial parking and undemocratic in granting too much power to an unelected official. The threshold for commercial parking intrusion must be set by our elected representatives in consultation with interested parties. With regard to Chop’s proposal that all permits be free during Phase 1 - When you make something free you are saying either that it is worthless or, if you are launching a new product or service, you are trying to build demand. In our case, we already have excessive demand for parking in the residential neighborhoods and have no new service to offer. To give commercial parkers the right to park there for free by permit is legitimizing what has become a serious degradation of neighborhood quality of life. Once you grant someone a free city permit to park, it is problematic to take it away and/or raise the price. In the case of residential parking, free makes no sense at all. With regard to Chop's proposal to take priority permit access away from low wage workers – The citizens on the Stakeholder group were happy to make parking concessions to support our downtown retail environment. Among these concessions are both the pricing and priority access to permits for low wage workers. What most are not willing to do is to support the high-wage VC’s, large tech companies, law offices etc. whose workers can afford higher priced permits and whose companies have the resources to acquire or build parking capacity if they choose. Offering them permits that are a bargain based on their resources will not encourage them to create alternatives. With regard to Chop’s proposed hurdle of 70% support for permit parking – Today, elections are often won by razor thin margins. There is no valid justification for making the hurdle for permit parking higher than a simple majority. Sincerely, 3 John Guislin 1 Ellner, Robin From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:35 PM To:Neilson Buchanan; Planning Commission Cc:Sallyann Rudd; Richard C. Brand; Elaine Uang; Gabrielle Layton; Michael Hodos; John Guislin; Wynne Furth; Tommy Derrick; Furman, Sheri; Paul Machado; Malcolm Beasley; Michael Griffin; Linda Anderson/Bert Page; D. Michael Griffin; Stump, Molly; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Re: Control of permit parking spaces located on city property Neilson, here are the comments I provided to staff on Monday.    1. There is some benefit to removing Stanford and Caltrain parkers, but that won't solve the whole problem.    2. Businesses located outside the parking assessment district are not eligible to obtain permits in the parking structures.   Therefore, they should be in the second priority for permits (behind residents, but ahead of businesses in the parking  assessment district).    3. If one goal is to support part‐time hourly workers, floating hanging tags does not accomplish this goal. Are you  expecting someone who works on Tuesdays and Fridays to park, walk to work to pick up a floating permit, walk back to  the car to place the permit, and then walk back to work.  And at the end of the shift (when it may be dark), walk to the  car to pick up the permit, walk back to work to drop it off, and then walk back to the car to leave?  Or to park near work  to pick up the permit and later to drop it off?  We need business daily scratchers for both part‐time employees that  businesses can buy for their employees and all‐day visitors (pre‐tax) rather than requiring part‐time employees to pay  for the permits after tax.    4. Permits should be applied for, even if residents initially pay nothing for the permits.  Business permits should cost  something from the start, particularly for businesses located in the parking assessment district.  The alternative to these  businesses parking outside the assessment district is to have these businesses pay for added parking within the district.   And if businesses within the assessment district have to pay, then why shouldn't businesses located outside the district  (who would have higher priority for being outside the district)?    Best regards,  Arthur (not in any official capacity)    ‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Experienced advisor to leading edge startups and accomplished expert witness on patent infringement cases.    Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303‐4507 tel +1(650)424‐0202, fax +1(650)424‐0424      On 2014‐11‐11 21:38, Neilson Buchanan wrote:  > Thanks, everybody, for the flood of advice today. I am getting closer   > to the root of the problem. In January we must urge the new mayor and   > City Council to convene a study session on commercial core parking   > policy, pricing and marketing.  >   > I now am making an educated guess that Chop and the independent   2 > organization known as Parking Assessment District have total fiscal   > control over bond payment schedules and permit pricing...this is based   > on district officers' interpretation of the bond covenants. Does   > anyone know who has fiduciary responsibility for the assessment   > district? I further assume this legal position has implicit support   > from the various mayors and city attorneys over the past years. The   > structure is legal and perhaps totally private enterprise.  >   > There is something more to discover about refinancing the bonds a few   > years ago...but this is mere speculation at this point.  >   > One of the top issues in 2015 will be city hall optics and what new   > parking policies the Council can negotiate in the light of day, ie in   > publicly open study session. If the City Council cannot guide   > marketing and pricing of all‐day parking spaces in the garages... then   > all this RPP stuff is simply BS.  >   > Neilson Buchanan  > 155 Bryant Street  > Palo Alto, CA 94301  >   > 650 329‐0484  > 650 537‐9611 cell  > cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com  >   > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  >  FROM: Sallyann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com>  >  TO: Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>  > CC: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Elaine Uang   > <elaine.uang@gmail.com>; Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>;   > Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>; John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>;   > Wynne Furth <wynne.furth@gmail.com>; Tommy Derrick <tommy@lynnde.com>;   > Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>; Paul Machado   > <plmachado@gmail.com>; Malcolm Beasley <beasley@stanford.edu>; Michael   > Griffin <jazzbuff@sbcglobal.net>; Linda Anderson/Bert Page   > <b‐l‐page@pacbell.net>  >  SENT: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 8:08 PM  >  SUBJECT: Re: Chop Keenan Opinion  >   > Lordy lordy.  >   > Chop seems to be coming at the issue as if the point of the RPP is to   > provide parking for downtown workers, whereas its supposed to move   > downtown workers out of the neighborhoods and into parking garages and   > alternative commute situations. Did I miss something?  >   > Awful lot of trouble just to eliminate Stanford/ Caltrain parkers,   > especially since we already know by their approximate geographic   > locations who these people are already.  >   > I would argue that making all phase I permits free is likely to have   > disastrous effects on the RPP, it will (a) allow downtown workers to   3 > continue to park where they are currently parking (b) create the   > expectation that downtown workers can continue to park in   > neighborhoods (c) delay the creation of alternative commute habits (d)   > contribute only data which is already known by car counts (e) delay   > implementation of a revenue stream from downtown parking, while   > creating costs. Can just see that slide coming up at a future   > discussion on this topic. What’s the point?  >   > I’m sceptical of his claims by Wholefoods and St. Michael’s Alley that   > they support one cost of all permits, since both are Chop’s tenants   > and likely to say whatever he wants them to say. Quite frankly I don’t   > care if low wage workers get cheaper permits, I thought this was to   > please the merchants. Ok then lets charge them all the max!  > I’ve always thought RPP is a blunt intstrument to solve low wage   > worker parking, because very few low wage workers work Monday ‐ Friday   > 9am ‐ 5pm, most of them are working early/ late shifts 8am ‐ 12pm, 3   > days a week etc etc it would be much more convenient for these workers   > if there was “pay to park” options for them in the downtown core.  > Can’t understand why city is so slow to implement this, instead they   > want to give these cheap but all‐day every‐day parking permits which   > is more than most of them require.  >   > Sally‐Ann Rudd  >   > On Nov 11, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Richard C. Brand <mmqos@earthlink.net>  > wrote:  >   >>   >   > I support none of his comments which are the same ones he made to the   > CAC and were rejected.  > Richard  >   > Sent from my iPhone  >   > On Nov 11, 2014, at 12:21 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>  > wrote:  >   >> Chop is clear about his opinion and caveats for the RPP. See   >> attachments. I appreciate his openness.  >>   >> I am asking each of the six resident stakeholders to let me know if   >> they would be supporting any of the following three issues raised by   >> Chop. I think we are or were unified in positions against the   >> recommendations Chop is making.  >>   >> If you have changed your position, please let me know at once. I am   >> totally opposed to all three suggestions.  >>   >> I understand why any developer requiring tenant parking in a   >> residential neighborhood would want these restrictions on our   >> fledgling RPP, but each suggestion independently assures that quality   4 >> of our neighborhoods continue to deteriorate. One of the most   >> promising provisions for Phase 1 is immediate quality improvement and   >> initiation of long‐term continuous quality improvement. We must make   >> our position clear to the Planning Commission and City Council.  >>   >> We strongly oppose Mr. Keenan's caveats  >>   >> * That unlimited number of Phase 1 non‐resident permits be issued on   >> a "no cost" basis.  >>   >> * That priorities of non‐resident permits in residential   >> neighborhoods be eliminated for lower income workers  >> * That thresholds be established requiring 50% response rate and 70%   >> positive support  >>   >> Any serious consideration and adoption whatsoever by the current   >> Planning Commissioners would assure complete failure of the 2‐year   >> RPP process proposed by City Staff.  >>   >> Neilson Buchanan  >> 155 Bryant Street  >> Palo Alto, CA 94301  >>   >> 650 329‐0484  >> 650 537‐9611 cell  >> cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com  >>   >> ‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐  >> FROM: Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com>  >> TO: "Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org"  >> <Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org>  >> CC: Jessica Sullivan <jessica.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org>; tommy   >> fehrenbach <thomas.fehrenbach@cityofpaloalto.org>; Neilson Buchanan   >> <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>; Simon Cintz <simoncintz@gmail.com>  >> SENT: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:42 AM  >> SUBJECT: RPP Concerns  >>   >> dear members, attached are some comments on the proposed city wide   >> rpp ordinance and the greater downtown rpp. all the stakeholders have   >> worked hard to get to this point, but without a couple of changes to   >> the trial rpp we will end up with the same range war situation that   >> occurred a couple of years ago with the professorville rpp which   >> failed at the council. the two phase downtown rpp trial is a way   >> forward to a robust downtown rpp without the jarring consequence of   >> imposing restrictions day one, which is what will happen if you   >> charge non residents $233 for the six month trial. anyway, thanks for   >> your consideration of these comments, chop  >   >> <RPP Concerns.docx>  >   >> <Chip Keenan RPP Concerns submitted to PTC Nov 11 2014.docx>  1 Ellner, Robin From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:57 AM To:Planning Commission Subject:Fwd: RPP Boundary Attachments:RPP Boundary FYI, here is a copy of a message I recently sent to Jessica Sullivan concerning the proposed RPP area boundary.  I hope  you find it useful.    Best regards,  Allen Akin  1 Ellner, Robin From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:48 AM To:Sullivan, Jessica Cc:Michelle Arden Subject:RPP Boundary Attachments:Fwd RRP Boundary Hi, Jessica.  As you can see from the attached messages, there's some discussion going on at the 300 and 400 blocks of  Lincoln Ave about the proposed boundary for the RPP area.    Personally, I'm more worried about traffic issues than parking.  However, I accept that the two are closely linked.    Tom DuBois and I have spent a good bit of time talking about priorities and measurement, and the two of us have also  been to see Jaime Rodriguez about our concerns.  I documented some of my early work from that period at  http://arden.org/traffic/ .    I mention all this because my traffic observations also show that parking density on the 300 and 400 blocks of Lincoln is  increasing rapidly.  The work by Eric Filseth and Neilson Buchanan strongly suggests that we can expect this to continue over the RPP  implementation period as downtown projects already in the pipeline are completed.  If RPP excludes those blocks, it's  certain that overflow from areas closer to downtown will immediately saturate them.  Therefore I don't think the  exclusion is viable.  At this point, downtown parking demands have grown so large that the only boundary that really  makes sense is Embarcadero; all the blocks north of it should have the opportunity to participate in RPP.    I realize this is Jaime's responsibility rather than yours, but the traffic implications of the exclusion are also daunting.   Lincoln already carries an average of 1400 cars a day, exceeding the levels at which the neighborhood traffic calming  program applies.  At my house, 405 Lincoln, 4200 cars a day currently pass through the intersection of Lincoln and  Waverley.  If the RPP area doesn't include it, I would expect traffic in the intersection to increase by several hundred cars per day, predominantly on Lincoln.  As far as I know there is no measurement program proposed to see what the traffic  effects of the RPP will be.  I'll make measurements occasionally, but results from Planning would be broader, better‐quality, and more acceptable  to policy makers.    Best regards,    Allen Akin  1 Ellner, Robin From:Michelle Arden <michelle@arden.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:37 AM To:akin@arden.org Subject:Fwd: RRP Boundary I forgot to tell you about this, but the Weekly said last week that they are considering stopping the RPP at Lincoln, and I agree that this would be suboptimal for us. I sent a note to the two email addresses below. Michelle Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 22:52:48 -0800 From: Kelli Tomlinson <k_tomlinson@me.com> Subject: Fwd: RRP Boundary To: Lois and Eddie Anderson <loisanderson43@gmail.com>, Steffan Tomlinson <steffan_c_tomlinson@yahoo.com>, Lynn Martin <lynnjohnmartin@gmail.com>, Nancy Huber <njh451@att.net>, Nancy Huber <njh451@comcast.net>, Ruth Letts <ruthlletts@yahoo.com>, "Dinda, Mahooya" <mahooya.dinda@intel.com>, "michelle@arden.org" <michelle@arden.org>, ardenaiken@arden.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68,1.0.28,0.0.0000 definitions=2014-11-12_04:2014-11-11,2014-11-12,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1408290000 definitions=main-1411120061 Dear 400 Block Lincoln Neighbors, I am forwarding a message chain that was sent through the 300 Block earlier today originated by Megan Barton. Gabrielle Layton (resident of 300 block) has been working on the parking issue for the last few years, which is culminating most likely in a Residential Parking Permit Program which will roll out for a six month trial come January. There is a Planning and Transportation Committee meeting tomorrow night and a City Council Meeting on December 1st where this will be discussed and open for public comment. The boundaries of the RPP are in flux at this point and it looks like our block (and the 300 block) may be drawn out of the pilot, just barely outside the border. Regardless of how you feel about an RPP, I think this outcome is the worst possible as I imagine our blocks will fill up immediately if we are not included and the pilot goes forward all around us. I know that we still seem to be one block removed from the higher density day time parking, but I don't expect this to last much longer with or without a program. Whatever your views, if you are so inclined, send an email to Jessica Sullivan who is working tirelessly on this program for the City: Jessica.Sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org and the Planning Commission: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org and/or come to the PTC Meeting tomorrow night. The ordinance is scheduled for 7:30 and the Resolution will be later, probably between 8 and 9pm. 2 Here is a link to the staff report on the issue which is quite detailed: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44671 Also, I have copied Mahooya above who just bought the house next door to Ruth and Jack. She and her husband have children at Addison and will move in post renovation. Could someone also send this to the Trinidads? I don't have their email addresses. Kind Regards, Kelli Begin forwarded message: From: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Subject: Fwd: RRP Boundary Date: November 11, 2014 at 8:00:03 AM PST To: Gabrielle Layton <strop@redjuice.com>, Kelli Tomlinson <k_tomlinson@me.com>, Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com> Megan Barton 415-309-4979 Please pardon any typos- Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Barbara Wallace <bdgw@pacbell.net> Date: November 10, 2014 at 11:47:49 PM PST To: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Cc: Michele Dulik <mdulik6@gmail.com>, Nicole Hawkins <nicpovey@gmail.com>, Carolyn Foss <carolynfoss@mac.com>, Caroline Flexer <cflexer@gmail.com>, Michael Flexer <michael.flexer@gmail.com > Subject: Re: RRP Boundary Thanks, Megan! Seems crazy for the 300 block of Lincoln to be excluded in phase 1. But I see that the RPP boundary map in the staff report to the Planning Commission indicates just that: "Does not include Lincoln Avenue or Bryant Street at boundary." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44671 A pretty definite statement from staff, seems to me, to be presented to PTC and City Council. So yes, Lincoln voices need to be heard if we want to be part of phase 1. Thanks for the alert. —Bardy On Nov 10, 2014, at 11:43 AM, MEGAN BARTON wrote: 3 I just emailed this woman, Jessica Sullivan, who is charged with making the RRP happen. She is very nice, but has the difficult job of trying to roll this out. The boundaries are a bit fluid right now and they have been discussing leaving the 300 block of Lincoln out ( everything east of Bryant Street to make it simple) for phase 1. I won’t email any more- except about the Dec 1st meeting. Please let me know if you want me to leave you off these emails. I will not be offended! Meg Begin forwarded message: From: MEGAN BARTON <megbarton@me.com> Date: November 10, 2014 at 11:36:57 AM PST Subject: RRP Boundary To: Jessica.Sullivan@CityofPaloAlto.org, Harris Barton <harris@bartonam.com> Hi Jessica, We live at 334 Lincoln Avenue, between Bryant and Waverley. I’ve heard that you are helping with the RRP boundaries. We want to make sure we are included in the first phase as we have heard that there may be some shifting of which streets are included in the initial rollout and that our block may be excluded. From our neighborhood discussions, I believe all of the homes on our block voted to be part of the RRP. Parking is close to impossible every weekday- we are ready to have our neighborhood back. Thank you for all your work on this. Sincerely, Megan and Harris Barton Michelle Arden michelle@arden.org Work: (650) 329-8440 Home: (650) 326-0962 Downtown Resolution, cont. permit sales will be regulated during this Phase Two: 12 months + phase of the program in accordance with data gathered during Phase 1. Resident Permits: First permit, So/year, Second permit, $50/year, Third permit, S50/yeat Fourth permit, Pool Permits: Allow businesses to purchase permits for emplovees that are transferable if gmplovee' '------------'+reaves " Employee permits would be assigned to a specific area !'iTY O I,,tlr:tij",i) ;id!,'i'{} T,E,^S*,,^s+"+ +-. Y Lot?. +--.Qrt() taru,a*.. -t-c o''-"'u-.- 1V'-- 12, 1 Tamale, Diana Subject:FW: Parking permits downtown   From: Lois Anderson [mailto:loisanderson43@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 9:22 AM To: Sullivan, Jessica Cc: Planning Commission Subject: Parking permits downtown Ms. Sullivan- I live on Waverley at the corner of Lincoln and see cars parked in front of my house on Waverley and around the corner in the 400 block of Lincoln, also in the 300 block of Lincoln towards Bryant, belonging to people who then ride their bikes or walk downtown, . The blocks south of Lincoln between High and Bryant are also filled with cars. Many are badly parked, blocking sidewalks and impeding the view at corners for oncoming traffic, especially at Alma and Lincoln on the southern corner. Please reconsider the boundaries to a less arbitrary line and extend to a landmark, so to speak, such as Embarcadero if you really want people to use parking facilities. Lincoln is a very busy thoroughfare that invites people to use it and the streets off it as well. As a side note, the 400 block of Lincoln also has the cars parked that belong to a Menlo Park resident who can't park in the street overnight in that town! Lois Anderson 1101 Waverley St 1 Ellner, Robin From:Karen White <kwhite.karenl@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, September 07, 2014 8:24 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; jennifer.sullivan@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Sept. 10th Planning Commission Agenda - Proposed Draft of RPP Ordinance Please include this email in the Commissioner's September 10 packet. Hon. Members of the Palo Alto Planning Commission: Regarding your RPP agenda item, I have several concerns regarding the language, as a resident and property owner for 23 years in the University South neighborhood. I am referring specifically to Attachment D, which starts on page 107 of the first set of attachments on this subject. As to the title of the subject, which Palo Alto City employee or elected official(s) made the decision to change the meaning of the acronym RPP from "Residential Permit Parking" to "Residential Preferential Parking"? First, this term is a misnomer in that all of the proposals before the Commission have included preferred parking in the designated impacted area for non-resident employees as well as residents. If those who oppose RPP wish to change the wording of RPP to some loaded term, why not just decide to call it "Residential Privileged Parking"? Please return to the phrase used by most other cities. Regarding the draft of the proposed Palo Alto City Ordinance concerning RPP, the first section, 10.50.030, does not establish RPP in Palo Alto. Perhaps City Council incumbents might say in the November election that they have adopted such a program, but this is only a vaguely worded set of criteria that must be met before the Council might take such action. Take a good look at this Rorschach of phrases: 10.50.030 RPP Designation Criteria The council may designate an area as a Residential Preferential Parking District based upon the following criteria: (1) That non‐resident vehicles do, or may, substantially interfere with the use of on‐street or alley parking spaces by neighborhood residents; (2) That the interference by the non‐resident vehicles occurs at regular and frequent intervals, either daily or weekly; (3) That the non‐resident vehicles parked in the area of the proposed district create traffic congestion, noise, or other disruption (including shortage of parking spaces for residents and their visitors) that disrupts neighborhood life; (4) Other alternative parking strategies are not feasible or practical. So, this is not an ordinaace for RPP, just one that allows, under freshman legal language, to perhaps, some day, vote for RPP. 2 However, the residents of the City should not fret if the City Council (freshly re-elected on the promise of an RPP) ends up turning it down - there is always the incredible language of the proposed Palo Alto City Ordinance. It goes on, but here is the meat of the draft of Palo Alto Ordinance 10.50.050: 10.50.050 Initiation by Neighborhood Petition Residents may request the formation of an RRP District in their neighborhood. The request shall be made, and considered, in the following manner: (a) Form of Application. (1) The director shall establish a standard form for the application for the formation of a new RPP District, as well as a list of submittal requirements for use by interested residents. These requirements shall include a narrative describing the nature and perceived source of non‐residential parking impact, as well as suggested district boundaries. The director shall also approve a standard form for use in demonstrating resident support for the application. (2) Residents shall initiate a request for establishment of an RPP District by neighborhood petition by completing the official application form. (3) Residents are encouraged to consult with the employers and employees thought to be the source of the parking impact as they develop their proposals. (b) Timing and Review of Applications. Each calendar year, the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall review all applications received prior to March 31st of that year to determine whether the RPP District criteria established in this Chapter are met. I am not sure if this language needs much explanation, other than that it would make it virtually impossible to petition an RPP zone if a few individuals on the staff of City Hall opposed RPP. Please reject this language and instruct the City staff to bring to the Palo Alto Planning Commissioners an Ordinace draft that creates RPP in the mapped area. Sincerely, Karen L White Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sallyann Rudd <sallyann_r@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:04 PM To:Elaine Uang Cc:AP; Neilson Buchanan; D. Michael Griffin; Malcolm Beasley; Eric Filseth; Planning Commission; Gabrielle Layton; Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary Subject:Re: Follow up to Nextdoor posts Yes! Why can’t I post pictures? The Weekly sent me a .pdf about their school board debate and I had to copy the information and type it in because I couldn’t just cut and paste the pdf. Sally-Ann On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> wrote: Alex, and All, I have a call scheduled tomorrow morning with Yeoh-Ping Koh, a Next Door product manager who lives in the Willows. I reached out to him because I had some thoughts about product features they could create to improve community outreach. Do any of you have suggestions for him too? Or would any of you like to speak with him directly? Elaine On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 12:45 PM, AP <apanelli@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Neilson, Thanks for the follow-up note, got it. I do think that the Nextdoor service has helped with civic engagement -- unfortunately, most of the initial posts are spurred by Post or Daily articles that often don't have enough space to fully describe and flesh out the issues. I used to give Gennady grief about this, but eventually I came to understand the limits placed on he and his peers by the editors and the realities of newspaper publishing. I actually gave Gennady a lot of praise for his very detailed history of the Maybell project...I wish that we could get something similar for Downtown parking/traffic problems. One of the things that you and I agreed on very early (back when I was still on the PTC) was the importance of measuring the problem...I've observed some tangible movement on this front from Jaime/Jessica, I hope that they are afforded the opportunity and resources to expand this effort, which can automate, process and synthesize complete information using sensors. Improving the quality of the data set I think will ultimately result in a better solution (and it will also force agreement from all parties on the actual numbers, rather than each group collecting its own data sets). I will reiterate, the RPP must be made a campaign issue if we really want any significant progress on implementation. AP 2 On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:30 PM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote: Alex, see page 8 of the December 2011 staff report. I personally think the RPP can will be kicked down the road again for at least 6-12 months. I havent made my mind up to accept this brutal reality, but it might be the most constructive way to reach a compromise RPP. Until impact of current and future parking intrusion is fully disclosed by City and Staff, our busy neighbors in the large permit district will not be informed and engaged. Thus far, City Staff and Council have avoided this disclosure and fumbled basic stewardship of their office. RPP wont be acceptable to most residents and voters until they understand the consequences of having no RPP protection. PS Thanks for staying engaged. Your perspective and experience on the Planning Commission is evident. I wonder if the massive increase of DTN Nextdoor postings is resulting in more informed citizens. What do you think? Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF  21ST CENTURY MATHEMATICS  LEGAL AND ILLOGICAL     425 + 429 = 98 – 41 ‐ 4 = 53 space deficit  240 + 248 ≠   45 or 60 – 3 or 4 = 41 or 57 space deficit  411 + 437= INCALCULABLE!     Properties located at 425 and 429 University Avenue properties will be merged into one new  building with 45 on‐site, subterranean parking spaces.  Normally 98 parking spaces would be  required, but in reality developer has actual requirement to provide 41 spaces.  Furthermore, in  this case the developer “offers” to build 4 additional spaces.  Bottom line: City exempts developer  from providing 53 parking spaces.  WHERE WILL THOSE TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS PARK?      240 and 248 Hamilton Avenue properties will be merged into one new building t with 3‐4 on‐site  parking places.  Parking requirements range from 45‐60 spaces resulting in parking space deficit of  41‐57 new parking spaces.  WHERE WILL THOSE TENANTS AND CUSTOMERS PARK?      411 and 437 refers to two properties to be developed on Lytton Avenue.  The parking space  equation is pending scientific research by Downtown North resident mathematicians and  physicists.    ***Full disclosure to fuzz up the math: It is impossible to predict the number of tenants who will actually occupy any Palo Alto  building.  Will a building prove “low occupancy” luxury offices for venture capitalists and lawyers?  Or will a building serve “high  occupancy”  laptop teams collaborating around work tables?  The Planning Department requires for one parking space per 250 sq ft  regardless of type of future tenant or their mode of travel to and from work. City of Palo Alto (ID # 2354) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 12/19/2011 December 19, 2011 Page 1 of 9 (ID # 2354) Summary Title: Downtown Parking Program Activities Title: Update on Downtown Parking Program Activities From:City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment This is an informational report and no Council action is required. Executive Summary This staff report provides an update to the City Council on the status of the Parking Program elements underway and planned for 2012 including a schedule of key milestones. The City began an analysis of the City’s Parking Program in Spring 2011 to identify strategies to help more efficiently manage the City’s parking infrastructure in the City’s Downtown and California Avenue parking assessment districts. Current efforts to date have been focused in the Downtown, including assessing the use of surface lots, parking garages, and on-street parking. Program elements in Downtown and outreach to the California Avenue Business District will continue into next year as outlined in this report with Council consideration of the Residential Permit Parking Program no later than July 2012. A Downtown Parking Community Group of business representatives and Professorville and other nearby residents will work collaboratively and in parallel with staff to access the impacts of parking on in downtown residential areas and to develop recommendations for the Residential Permit Parking Program. Background The City has two parking assessment districts, one in the Downtown (University Avenue) and one in the California Avenue area. Each district has developed unique strategies to manage its parking supply and demand, including the use of permit parking for employees within each district, designated parking spaces for permit holders, and hourly parking enforcement. The City is responsible for the oversight and development of parking management strategies. In addition, the Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association -Parking Committee (Downtown Parking Committee) and the California Avenue Business District (BACA) help guide the development of parking strategies with staff. Attachment A provides additional information on the City’s current parking management system, and roles of the PAD Downtown December 19, 2011 Page 2 of 9 (ID # 2354) Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business District in developing the City’s parking management program. Many residents of the Downtown District, Professorville neighborhood and nearby streets are affected by non-residential neighborhood traffic and parking and have voiced strong concerns to the City about parking overload in the neighborhoods. Visitor parking along the streets prevent residents from parking in proximity to their homes affecting neighborhood livability. Staff’s parking analysis supports the contention that these streets are heavily parked during weekday working hours, and believe that most of the overflow is coming from downtown or SOFA employees. The business community has also voiced strong concerns about the availability of on-street parking and maximizing the efficiency of parking resources to support the vitality of the downtown business district. An analysis of the City's parking management strategies began in April as part of the Transportation Work Plan for 2011. Staff held a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission in August 2011, a Study Session with Council in September 2011, and a series of meetings with the community to solicit input on parking strategies. Staff identified and began work on a number of enhancements, primarily focused on elements in the Downtown District, to make the City’s Parking Program more efficient, allow for improved enforcement, provide more accessibility to employees who rely on parking availability, preserve valuable on-street parking for patrons of each district, and to preserve the quality of life of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Discussion Since the City Council Study Session on September 12, 2011, staff has continued to advance a number of elements of the City’s Parking Program. An update on the development of the Residential Permit Parking Program, California Avenue Parking Program, current and planned parking management enhancements, and the schedule for developing the ongoing elements planned for 2012 are discussed below. Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program During the City Council Study Session on the parking management strategies held in September 2011 several Council members expressed interest in the formation of a Downtown Parking Community Group to help provide direct feedback to staff on proposed parking management strategies and to allow residents an opportunity to share their insight regarding the potential parking intrusion impacts to their quality of life directly to merchants. Staff initiated the formation of a Downtown Parking Community Group and has outreached to select residents to participate on a new group. The PAD Parking Committee has also expressed interest in participating in the new group and has identified representatives. The first meeting of the new Downtown Parking Community Group is scheduled for December 22, 2011. The timing of the new Downtown Parking Community Group aligns with the parking management work plan for the new year outlined in this report. December 19, 2011 Page 3 of 9 (ID # 2354) The Downtown Parking Community Group’s schedule of work will proceed in parallel to other parking management objectives and the purpose of the group is to: ·Monitor the effects of parking strategies developed and implemented by the City; ·Evaluate the reasons that people are not using existing parking; ·Outline options to pursue, including pilot RPP approaches; and ·Developing an RPP Policy that outlines participation requirements, fee structure, process, and how to treat various land use types other than single-family residential (multi-family, commercial, institutional). The Downtown Parking Community Group will be comprised of up to five members from the Downtown residential neighborhoods (self-appointed) and up to five members from the Parking Committee or other downtown businesses (appointed by Palo Alto Downtown and the Chamber of Commerce). Staff members from the Department of Planning and Community Environment, the Police Department, Administrative Services, and the Manager’s Office would participate as needed. Staff also expects that any program, if implemented, would be revenue- neutral to the City, as directed previously by Council. Staff will also seek input from other neighborhoods, particularly Downtown North, but the focus of this effort will be Professorville, since there is a strong core interest among residents there. At the initial meeting of the Downtown Parking Community Group a schedule for future meetings will be discussed. Staff expects that the group to meet three to four times and then staff will report to the Planning and Transportation Commission and present recommendations to the City Council no later than July 2012. Staff believes that the Downtown Parking Community Group can provide valuable insight to help build consensus within the community on projects before they are considered for policy implementation. California Avenue Parking Program The California Avenue Business District does not currently have a business committee similar to the Downtown Parking Committee, through which parking strategy and policy can be easily discussed. Staff believes that the newly formed Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) will be a valuable partner in helping to provide a forum for merchants to meet regularly on projects of interest and for staff to solicit insight and merchant perspective on proposed projects. Staff is working with the new BACA representatives to schedule regular meetings at which Parking Management Strategies can be discussed. Staff anticipates developing recommendations for California Avenue parking strategies in October 2012. Prior to the formation of BACA, staff conducted outreach to California Avenue area merchants in July to discuss potential parking management strategies for their consideration including wayfinding signage and permit distribution solutions. The input from merchants was extremely valuable and there was a strong interest in collecting more data to help make better informed December 19, 2011 Page 4 of 9 (ID # 2354) decisions. Since that initial meeting staff has collected additional parking occupancy and permit use data that will be shared upon the first BACA meeting in the year. Parking Program elements to be discussed with the California Avenue community will include: ·Parking Permit Management System, which will also cover California Avenue permits ·Parking Wayfinding Banners and Signs, similar to that proposed for Downtown ·Enhancing the number of spaces available off-street and in garages ·Limited day permit use distribution to minimize abuse and misuse with the current system ·Improved distinction between permit and visitor parking spaces to make most efficient and equitable use of each Parking Permit Management System Replacement The City completed a Request for Proposals process in November 2011 and selected Progressive Solutions to develop and implement its Parking Permit Management System for Palo Alto. Existing permit holders from Downtown will, in the first quarter of 2012, be asked to update their contact and Downtown employer information. Possession of a parking permit in Downtown is a benefit to the businesses located within the Parking Assessment District. The City has never validated the Downtown employment status of permit holders. Having accurate parking permit holder data as part of the new system implementation is absolutely critical in making the distribution of permits more efficient and ensures that additional parking strategies can be considered for discussion with stakeholders such as the PAD Parking Committee. The updated system is also just a necessary improvement independent of parking permit space usage to demonstrate effective parking management. Permit holders who cannot validate their downtown employer status will not be renewed at their renewal date. The City anticipates the new permit management system to be completed and implemented by Spring 2012. The new system will offer permit holders an online renewal option and potential permit holders will be able to register online. Currently, existing permit holders and potential permit holders may register for a Wait List for any two parking facilities. After the system implementation, Wait List registration will be limited to one facility only to help ensure more efficient distribution of permits. The new system will automatically notify persons on the Wait List of their permit availability. The new system will provide the City’s two Parking Assessment Districts to explore opportunities for new parking permit fee structures previously not feasible due to technology limitations. The PAD Parking Committee will be asked to consider several new parking permit distribution strategies in the spring 2012 so that new policy recommendations can then be considered by the City Council as part of the new Fee Schedule Program for 2012-13: ·Top Floor Only Permits:These permits can be offered at a discount to persons whom are not able to pay for a normal permit but restrict their parking to the top floor of a parking garage. December 19, 2011 Page 5 of 9 (ID # 2354) ·Employer Bank of Permits:These permits introduce an opportunity for permits to be registered to a business rather than an employee so that as the company grows its staff, new employees can immediately begin parking at permit facilities rather than having to wait for distribution off a Wait List. Larger employers in Downtown have already expressed an interested in this type of permit to accommodate growth and visitor needs. As gate control systems are introduced into parking facilities, Employer Bank of Permits also offer flexibility for multiple permits to be distributed but with limited access to accommodate business employee shift requirements. ·Fleet Vehicle Permits:Provide for employers with vehicle fleets that require overnight storage within a parking structure. ·Non District Permits:Proposed for distribution on a trial basis with the support of the Parking Assessment Districts, can provide access to selected parking structures to benefit employees in the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) district which has seen increased office use over the past several years. Employees in SOFA currently cannot obtain parking permits. ·Tiered Hourly Parking:Tiered pricing allows visitors to park in facilities beyond the 3-hour Free parking limit for a fee up to the maximum $16.00 per day fee. The rate structure for parking beginning in the 4th hour will require merchant and parking assessment district input. ·Tiered Permit Fee Cost:Permits are currently offered on a quarter or annual basis. Pricing for monthly permits will be introduced and considerations for the continuation of annual discounts discussed to ensure maximum distribution flexibility to new employees of the Parking Assessment Districts. December 19, 2011 Page 6 of 9 (ID # 2354) Way-Finding Signage to Parking Facilities On November 3, 2011, the Architectural Review Board reviewed and approved the design of new banners designed to highlight the location of Free Public Parking facilities at surface lots and parking garages, see Figure 3 –Downtown Parking Banner Sample. The Phase I deployment of the new parking banners will be installed in December 2011 and be placed on streetlights within the surface lots and adjacent to streetlights at parking garages. Staff estimates that approximately 50 banners will be installed as part of Phase 1 deployment. Phase 2 will include the installation of banner poles at locations where existing streetlights were not available or feasible for use as part of Phase I. Phase 2 will benefit facilities such as Ramona/University (Lot B) and the 801 High Street garages located beneath retail or residential structures. In the Spring of 2012, staff will return to the Architectural Review Board for their input on wayfinding signage to replace the existing industry standards “White P on Green Background” signs. The new signs will match the color and modern architecture of the new banners, laying the foundation for the development of new marketing materials to highlight parking facilities. For the California Avenue Business District, the use of similar banners and wayfinding signage will be proposed to merchants and members of the new Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) in January 2012. Daily Parking Permit Distribution Beginning in January 2012 the City will be replacing its existing paper Daily Permit forms sold to businesses or persons seeking daylong parking at on-or off-street facilities. During discussions with Community Service Officers (CSOs) who conduct parking enforcement in the City, the use of illegally fabricated paper Daily Permits was identified as a frequent occurrence. The new Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will allow for only one day use and easier validation by CSOs. This modification is being implemented immediately to help ensure that the City’s parking management program is managed efficiently. The new Coded Scratcher Daily Permits will be used for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. Within Downtown, two parking garages currently have Day Permit distribution machines that allow visitors to purchase a Day Permit on-site at a fee of $16 per day. The machines are currently located in the Bryant St Garage (Lots S/L) and the Cowper/Webster Garage (Lot CW). The distribution of additional Day Permit distribution machines has been discussed with the Figure 3Downtown ParkingBanner Sample December 19, 2011 Page 7 of 9 (ID # 2354) Parking Committee. Staff is recommending the deferral of additional machines until Pilot Gate Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structures are considered by the PAD Parking Committee because if gate control systems would provide the same function as the Day Permit distribution machines. As technology is researched it will be presented to the PAD Parking Committee for input prior to the distribution of Requests for Proposals from vendors. Pilot Gate Control and Hourly Parking Fee Structure The existing Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System provides for three- hour parking within Visitor parking spaces in garages. Staff will work with the Parking Community Group and the PAD Parking Committee to consider the installation of gate access controls to at least one parking garage next year, the Bryant Street Garage (Lot S/L). The gate controls will allow visitors to park beyond the existing three hour parking limit for a fee, beginning with the fourth hour and up to the daily parking rate of $16/day, allowing for longer stays within the downtown for shopping activities. The tiered hourly fee structure will also be included in the discussions with the Parking Committee and the PAD Parking Committee. Permit holders within garages with gate controls would gain entry through either a manual scan card or automatic card reader,depending upon a selected system vendor. Color-coded permit stickers affixed to vehicles will still be required initially to easily identify normal permit holders, new Top Floor Only permit holders, and to discourage permit holder use of Visitor parking spaces. A policy restricting permit holder parking in Visitor parking spaces will be required. Access gate controls also offer the benefit of estimating parking garage capacity to help develop and implement Parking Guidance System (PGS) Signage technology discussed below. Depending upon the final resolution of the various proposed parking fee structures with the Parking Committee in the Spring, proposals for the pilot access gate control projects will be solicited in the Summer for implementation of a pilot project in the Fall. A two-year pilot may be necessary to monitor and measure effects of the system. Parking Guidance System (PGS) Technology Development Staff is currently researching technology that will allow the City to monitor the time-use of both on-street and off-street parking spaces. Parking data collected by staff to-date has been focused on “occupancy” to determine the number of vehicles parked on the street or in off- street facilities during various times of the day. The City has no data or cost-effective method to determine how long vehicles are parked. Existing technology from companies such as Streetline networks (www.streetline.com) allow for the monitoring and distribution of parking space availability information to users of the system through smartphone applications. The City has investigated the use of such a system for Palo Alto, but the system requires a monthly fee for parking spaces monitored. Palo Alto does not currently charge a fee for on-street parking and allows time-limit free parking at off-street December 19, 2011 Page 8 of 9 (ID # 2354) facilities, making the use of such a system infeasible due to cost with no offsetting revenues. Staff is researching the development of its own monitoring infrastructure that is built on the National Transportation Communications for ITS Protocol (NTCIP), allowing for potential integration with separate traffic signal management system projects scheduled for the calendar year 2012. Parking Occupancy Monitoring Staff has completed the collection of parking occupancy data for both the Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts for the spring 2011 and fall 2011 seasons. Additional parking occupancy data for off-street parking facility in Downtown for the Holiday shopping season is being collected in December. Data collection on parking trends and driver behavior is critical as decisions on future parking strategies are developed. The City is committed to providing accurate data to the PAD Parking Committee, future BACA members, and City Council so that we can work in partnership with each other to manage our resources. Timeline A timeline for implementing the Parking Program update reflecting the various tasks above is provided in Table 1. below and included as Attachment B. Table 1. Parking Program Activities Schedule & Key Milestones ACTIVITY SCHEDULE City Council Study Session September 2011 Permit Management System September 2011 -February 2012 Fall Occupancy Data Collection #2 October 2011 Parking Banners October 2011 -January 2012 Winter Occupancy Data Collection #3 December 2011 Residential Permit Parking (Working Group)December 2011 -July 2012 Way Finding Signage January 2012 -April 2012 California Avenue Parking Strategies January 2012 -October 2012 Permit Fee Development February 2012 -September 2012 Downtown Community Meeting March 2012 Garage Access Controls Pilot April 2012 -October 2012 Parking Monitoring June 2012 -April 2013 City Council Considers Residential Permit Parking Program July 2012 Install Bike Parking and Corrals Ongoing Parking Technology Research & Development On-going December 19, 2011 Page 9 of 9 (ID # 2354) Resource Impacts The Parking Program Update 2012 effort is primarily funded through the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP PL-12000, Parking & Transportation Improvements) and Downtown Parking Assessment District funds. Moving forward into 2012, the same fund sources will be used to further advance new parking management strategies. As program enhancements are identified and approved for implementation within the California Avenue Business District, the California Avenue Assessment District may also be used to help fund improvements. Environmental Review The Parking Program Update 2012 outlined in this report does not at this point require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As individual parking program projects are approved for implementation, they will be evaluated for compliance with CEQA as necessary. Attachments: ·Attachment A (PDF) ·Attachment B: Parking Program Timeline 2012 (PDF) Prepared By:Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official Department Head:Curtis Williams, Director City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A Page 1 The following provides additional information on the City’s current parking management system, and roles of the PAD Downtown Parking Committee and the California Avenue Business District in developing the City’s parking management program. Palo Alto Downtown (PAD) Business and Professional Association –Parking Committee In the Downtown, the PAD Parking Committee guides the development of parking strategies with staff and helps to provide perspective regarding the performance and trends of the Downtown economic engine so that it can be taken into consideration during the development of policy. This collaboration with the PAD Parking Committee is on-going through monthly meetings to discuss varying types of concerns including on-street and off-street parking, public safety, etc. The Downtown Parking Committee was instrumental in the development of the existing Color Zone Parking Management System which was designed to prevent employee parking in the downtown area and to increase the supply o f convenient customer parking Employee parking is provided in the seven parking garages in and around Downtown and the twelve surface lot facilities at a fee of $135 per quarter or on an annual discount basis of $420 per year. Figure 1 and Table 1highlight the Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Parking Management System boundaries and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities, respectively. Business Association of California Avenue (BACA) The California Avenue Business District has recently reconstituted its business association, which will hopefully provide input on parking strategies in the coming year.Staff will be organizing monthly meeting with BACA starting next year to build a partnership similar to the PAD Parking Committee to allow an open communication forum for parking and other issues of interest to merchants on and along California Avenue. Figure 1 Downtown Palo Alto Color Zone Management System Attachment A Page 2 Table 1 Number of Parking Spaces in Downtown Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Letter Name Hourly Permit Total Q Alma/High (North)-134 134 O Emerson/High 78 -78 R Alma/High (South)77 134 211 A Emerson/Lytton 68 -68 S/L Bryant St 381 307 688 C Ramona/Lytton 18 32 50 WC Cowper/Webster 201 388 589 F Florence/Lytton 46 -46 CC City Hall 187 519 706 T Lytton/Kipling 25 25 50 B Ramona/University 63 -63 H Cowper/Hamilton 90 -90 800 High Street 10 53 63 D Hamilton/Waverly 86 -86 Totals:919 1,535 2,454 E Gilman/Bryant - 34 34 G Gilman/Waverly -53 53 P High/Hamilton 51 -51 K Lytton/Waverly 15 42 57 N Emerson/Ramona 48 -48 525 186 711 Within the California Avenue Business District, the Permit Management program does not include restrictions on where vehicles are permitted to park, with the exception of the Sherman Avenue & Ash Street surface parking lot,where 30 designated parking spaces exist. Vehicles with designated placards may park at all other sites within any parking space. The permit cost in the California Avenue Business District is $43 per quarter or may be purchased on an annual discount basis of $123 per year. Figure 2 and Table 2 highlight the California Avenue Business District Parking Facilities and Number of Parking Spaces in Off-Street Parking Facilities respectively. Figure 2 California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facility Locations Attachment A Page 3 Table 2 Number of Parking Spaces in California Avenue Off-Street Parking Facilities Garages Surface Lots LOT Name Hourly Permit Total LOT Name Hourly Permit Total 3 Cambridge West 183 183 1 Cambridge/Park 27 -27 5 Cambridge East 157 157 2 Cambridge/Birch 27 -27 Totals:340 340 4 Cambridge/Birch 89 89 6 Sherman/Park 154 -154 7 Sherman/Birch 161 161 8 Sherman/Ash 89 30 119 9 Birch/Cambridge 28 -28 575 30 605 Sep-11 Apr-13 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 2012 Parking Program Activities Permit Management System Residential Permit Parking (Working Group) Permit Fee Development Way Finding Signage Parking Monitoring Garage Access Controls Pilot Install Bike Parking and Corrals Sep-11 City Council Study Session Oct-11 Fall Occupancy Data Collection #2 Dec-11 Winter Occupancy Data Collection #3 Mar-12 Downtown Community Meeting Jun-12 City Council Considers Residential Permit Parking Program Parking Banners California Avenue Parking Strategies Parking Technology Research & Development Downtown Parking Committee meets Monthly with Staff WHO PROVIDES AND PAYS FOR PARKING? We have apparently arrived at a new time in Palo Alto’s planning, community development and design, a much more urban approach not based on traditional standards of responsibility or on infrastructure capacity. In the past throughout most parts of our country the standards for development included, NO, demanded that developments pay for the infrastructure and impacts they created. Not always perfect, zoning and land use codes tended to require fair contribution to street and other infrastructure improvements, adequate fire suppression capabilities and meeting community design standards. Fundamentally, they all required providing parking solutions (usually on‐site or collectively as part of a district) adequate to meet the expected needs of their employees, guests and customers. These mandated standards required parking for use by employees, clients and service needs; and helped ensure that the impact of such developments did not overflow and burden the community, their neighbors or other businesses. These requirements reinforced the idea that the rest of the community, neighboring uses or the public at large should not, would not, subsidize development projects, directly or indirectly. These zoning requirements implemented the suburban General Plans and other City Policies that helped define the character of a town, refining a mix of uses and protecting properties from the abuses that could be caused by another. These standards apply in the Stanford Research Park and throughout most of the town. However, at certain, generally lean, times downtown developers and property owners lobbied that only government “help” would provide a bridge to building. They lobbied that the development community should have development/redevelopment “incentives” and bonuses to help meet “loftier” goals of the community. City planners, Planning Commissions and City Council’s listened to the claims of the development community and gave out enormous incentives that made projects not only possible but outrageously lucrative to a small group of property owners. In a sense these “gifts and exceptions” were asking the broader community to subsidize new development by placing the burden on the uses and integrity of others, by placing a shadow tax on the rest of the community. I am most familiar with the issues in Palo Alto, California related to Parking. In the downtown and in certain other commercial districts the coin of the realm has become parking. A range of bonuses, exceptions and special rules were layered on to simple code requirements for parking removing the responsibility of owners to provide parking to support their ever‐increasing intensity of uses. These special provisions have created a significant parking deficit forcing an overflow of employee parking into surrounding neighborhoods. A perhaps unconscious conspiracy of the city staff and developers turned parking rules over to the property owners who quickly recognized that if they eliminated the parking needed to support their new buildings they could increase the size of the buildings and reap even greater profits, letting others pick up and subsidize the cost of parking. They created institutional corruption – by city code legal, but none‐the‐less corrupt. At this time the City of Palo Alto places the cost of building parking structures at over $60,000 per space. If this number is used a 10,000 square foot exemption saves 40 parking spaces (at the 1:250 ratio) or almost $2.5 million. At the same time the actual parking demand is increasing as more and more jobs are housed in existing and new buildings due to the nature of the high tech tasks and the escalating cost of office space in Palo Alto – estimated at $7 to $8 per square foot per month. Could owners and developers afford to pay for parking to support their projects? Of Course, but owners and developers have assumed these subsidies are theirs by right. Why forgo a good deal? Come to the table, assess yourselves and pay to not only provide the parking needed for new projects but assess yourself to make up for the deficit – you must be crazy. Why should we pay when we can convince city officials to allow the practice to continue and have staff continue to look at ways the rest of the community will pay even more for partial feel‐good solutions? The downtown commercial districts have parking, some private, some in “public lots and structures” but, who pays for this parking. If private, you would think the property owner does, but no, he passes on the costs to tenants, forcing all but a few to find parking elsewhere. In the public lots and structures the tenants, not the property owners, pay for the assessment district costs, less than 10 cents per square foot in addition to $7 rents plus insurance, maintenance, taxes etc covered by “triple net” rents. Employees can enter a lottery for the few spaces reserved for employees and if lucky, pay $400 a year for parking. In the end the developers and property owners avoid paying for virtually all parking related costs, except for the time spent lobbying officials where they still continue to complain about “their” costs. Can you imagine this taking place in the Stanford Industrial area where the City parking standards requires parking adequate for the uses? More parking in the form of new, efficient structures is definitely needed to address just the deficit. With over 3.5 million square feet of downtown development reported there should be the equivalent of 14,000 spaces at the 1:250 blended ratio promised when the assessment district was established. Today there is about half that amount including all private onsite, structures, lots and commercial on‐street options. Yes, there can be TDM options to reduce the need for building parking structures – public transit, ride‐sharing, valet parking in existing lots, satellite lots, more efficient, high tech approaches to existing facilities, etc. But, the bottom line still has to go back to the basic policy on parking, no matter the approach, that developers and property owners pick up the cost for their properties – not the adjoining neighborhoods, not the public‐at‐large, not the employees, not other nearby commercial uses. Ken Alsman May 25, 2014 Attachment H Palo Alto City Council established this second neighborhood permit parking program on August 13, 2013. This program was designed to improve neighborhood quality negatively impacted by noise and trash. The Council broadened the program on Oct 6, 2014 with boundaries noted above. The program will remain in trial status to September 2015. College Terrace is the beneficiary of Palo Alto’s first neighborhood permit parking program. It has been successful and stable for many years. The goal of this permit parking is to limit intrusion from Stanford University and spillover from commercial office buildings. It does accommodate some of the commercial parking issues arising from the commercial zones on El Camino Real. Source: Consent Calendar Oct 6, 2014 Council Meeting. For further information: Contact Neilson Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com