HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-16 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 16, 2015
Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the
Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting.
1 March 16, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public may speak to agendized items; up to three minutes per speaker, to be
determined by the presiding officer. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this
agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council
Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not required to give
your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council, but it is very helpful.
TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings.
Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is
in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after
the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or
to adapt to the participation of the public. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest
arriving at the beginning of the meeting and remaining until the item is called.
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW
Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to
make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public
have spoken.
Call to Order
Special Orders of the Day 6:00-6:15 PM
1. Presentation of Proclamation to Exchange Students from Tsuchiura,
Japan and Presentation of Matt Schlegel, Marathon Runner
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
City Manager Comments 6:15-6:25 PM
Oral Communications 6:25-6:40 PM
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of
Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
2 March 16, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Consent Calendar 6:40-6:45 PM
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.
2.Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to
Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and
Leachate Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting
Services and to Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the
Contract
3.Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Desing on Behalf of
Walnut Holding, LLC for a new 13,118 sf Single Family Home,
detached garage, and pool; and Associated Site Improvements on a
10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zone District
located at 820 Los Trancos Road. Environmental Assessment:
Mitigated Negative Declaration has Been Prepared
4.Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute
Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa
Clara Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation
by $500,000 Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of
$1,235,915 to Fund Water Conservation Rebate and Incentive
Programs and Adoption of a Related Budget Amendment Ordinance for
Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation in the Amount of $400,000
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
6:45-8:30 PM
5.Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing
Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure
8:30-9:45 PM
6.Review of the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design
Competition Process and Outcome, and Authorization to Proceed with
Contract Negotiations to Develop a Scope of Work and Cost for Basic
Design Services Necessary to Complete Joint California Environmental
Quality Act/National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Adobe
Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge
9:45-10:15 PM
7.Colleagues' Memo From Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt,
Schmid, and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City Engagement with
Neighborhoods
Attachment A Attachment B Attachment CAttachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Attachment H
Attachment I
WRA Updated Info
Moffat & Nichol Updated Info
3 March 16, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
Closed Session 10:15-11:00 PM
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
8. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: City Clerk
Authority: Government Code Section 54957 (b)
9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS, CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
Property: U.S. Post Office, 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 94301
Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami,
Joe Saccio, Hillary Gitelman, Aaron Aknin, Meg Monroe, Molly Stump,
Cara Silver
Negotiating Parties: City of Palo Alto and United States Post Office
Under Negotiation: Purchase: Price and Terms of Payment
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 March 16, 2015
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE.
DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Finance Committee Meeting March 17, 2015
City/School Committee Meeting Cancellation
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings
Tentative Agenda
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
Utilities Resource Management Operating Policies and Plans
Public Letters to Council
SET 1 SET 2 SET 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PROCLAMATION
WELCOMING EXCHANGE STUDENTS AND CHAPERONES FROM TSUCHIURA CITY, IBARAKI, JAPAN WHEREAS, exchange programs within middle schools in the Sister City program are
the foundation of the Sister City program in order to promote international and
intercultural understanding amongst youth; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Palo Alto, California and Tsuchiura City, Ibaraki, Japan have worked together to involve their respective middle school students and their families
in educational and cultural exchanges that involve special programs; and
WHEREAS, the opportunity to host Tsuchiura students in Palo Alto and to send Palo
Alto students to Tsuchiura has proven to be a mutually beneficial relationship; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto thanks Tsuchiura City for their generosity and
hospitality aimed toward young people for the last 19 years.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council, hereby proclaim our heartfelt welcome and record of congratulations
to Mr. Etsuo Sato, Ms. Kimiko Kikuchi and their 16 students: Kanon Kurokawa, Yumiko
Ohnuma, Mizuho Kumei, Ryusei Terui, Hina Togo, Keisuke Katsumura, Miyu Utsugi,
Takumi Sato, Naoka Sato, Ryo Takahashi, Akane Sakamoto, Shuma Nemoto, Runa
Hirase, Syunya Tanaka, Mami Ozeki, and Yuko Taki.
Presented: March 16, 2015
__________________________
Karen Holman
Mayor
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5496)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Landfill Gas and Leachate Monitoring Contract
Title: Approval of a Contract with SCS Field Services in an Amount Not to
Exceed $139,060 for the First Year to Provide Landfill Gas and Leachate
Control Systems Maintenance, Monitoring, and Reporting Services and to
Exercise the Option of a Second and Third Year of the Contract
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1. Approve, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute, the
attached Professional Services contract with SCS Field Services(Attachment
A) in an amount not to exceed $139,060, for landfill gas and leachate
control systems maintenance, monitoring and reporting services, including
$126,418 for basic services and $12,642 for additional services; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise the option to extend
the contract for the second and third year terms, in accordance with the
contract terms, provided that the proposed increase cost of the contract
extension does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose area,
published by the United States Department of labor Services.
Background
State and federal regulations require that landfill operators provide effective
environmental control and monitoring systems to prevent the buildup and release
of landfill gas and leachate from the buried wastes. Specific landfill gas control
activities are listed in the landfill’s Title V “Air” Permit and in the Bay Area Air
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) Regulation 8, Rule 34. Leachate is
required to be controlled under the landfill’s Waste Discharge Requirements
issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as
by the California Code of Regulations, Title 27.
The environmental control systems maintenance, monitoring and reporting tasks
will continue to be required after the landfill closure for as long as the landfill will
continue producing methane and leachate (estimated for a minimum period of 30
years).
Discussion
The attached contract with SCS Field Services is to provide services for
maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for the landfill gas and leachate control
systems for the Palo Alto Landfill as required by state and federal regulations.
Leachate is the liquid that builds up inside the landfill.
Due to the nature and quantity of the work, outside resources from a contracting
firm are required. This work requires specialized instruments, tools, equipment
and trained personnel in order to meet the stringent requirements of the State
and local oversight agencies. City staff will provide administrative oversight of the
contract to ensure that these landfill control systems are maintained and
operated properly, efficiently, cost-effectively and in compliance with all laws and
regulations.
The work to be performed under this contract includes: 1) Performing routine
landfill gas collection and emission control system landfill gas maintenance,
monitoring and reporting; 2) Performing annual landfill flare stack emissions
sampling, analyses and reporting; 3) Compiling and preparing various landfill gas
reports and providing miscellaneous engineering support services as directed by
Staff; and 4) Performing non-routine maintenance and repairs as directed by
Staff.
Selection Process
A request for proposals (RFP) for the project was posted at City Hall and was
issued to four contractors. The solicitation period was 15 days. Three proposals
were received on February 3, 2015.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Proposal Description/Number Landfill Environmental Control Systems
Maintenance, Monitoring and Reporting/RFP
#157760
Proposed Length of Project 36 months
Number of Proposals Mailed 4 + RFP posted on 13 builder’s exchanges
Total Days to Respond to
Proposal
15
Pre-proposal Meeting Date N/A
Number of Proposals
Received:
3
Cost Range (Basic Services) $126,418 - $170,000
An evaluation committee, consisting of three staff members from the Public
Works Public Services Division, reviewed and evaluated the proposals. The
committee also ensured that the firms were responsive to the criteria identified in
the RFP.
The criteria used to select the recommended firm included:
Quality and completeness of proposal;
Quality, performance and effectiveness of the services to be provided;
Proposer’s experience, including experience of staff assigned to the work;
Cost to the City;
Proposer’s financial stability;
Proposer’s ability to perform the work within the time specified;
Firm’s prior record of performance with the City;
Proposer’s ability to provide future maintenance, repairs or services; and
Proposer’s compliance with laws, regulations and policies.
SCS Field Services was selected because of the quality and effectiveness of their
services, the experience of their field staff and their ability to provide future field
services. SCS Field Services cost of basic services ($126,418) was also lower than
the other 2 proposals ($138,000 and $170,000). SCS Field Services was rated
highest based on all of the criteria specified above.
Resource Impact
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Funding for the first year term of this contract is available in the FY 2015 Refuse
Fund operating budget. Subsequent contract years will be subject to City Council
approval of annual appropriations.
Policy Implications
This project does not represent any change to existing City policies.
Environmental Review
This work is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under
Class 1 categorical exemptions Article 19, Section 15301. This work involves
maintenance of existing facilities and involves no expansion of the existing use.
Attachments:
A - Professional Services C15157760 SCS Field Services Landfill Gas Monitoring (PDF)
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15157760
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND STERNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement is entered into on this 16th day of March, 2015, (“Agreement”)
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation
(“CITY”), STERNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. a
Virginia Corporation, located at 3900 Kilroy Airport Way, Ste. 100, Long Beach, CA 90806 ("CONSULTANT” or “SCS Field Services”).
RECITALS
The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to receive landfill gas and leachate control systems maintenance,
monitoring, and reporting services (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 2 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
performed under an authorized Task Order and the City may elect, but is not required, to
authorize work up to the maximum compensation amount set forth in Section 4.
SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through completion of the services in accordance with the Schedule of Performance attached as Exhibit “B” unless
terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.
SECTION 3. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement and in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached to and
made a part of this Agreement. Any Services for which times for performance are not specified
in this Agreement shall be commenced and completed by CONSULTANT in a reasonably
prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and direction communicated to the CONSULTANT. CITY’s agreement to extend the term or the schedule for performance shall not preclude recovery of damages for delay if the extension is required due to the fault of
CONSULTANT.
SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred
Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Eighteen Dollars ($126,418.00). In the event
Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and
reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand and Sixty Dollars ($139,060.00). 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 3 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Services required by this Agreement and that the personnel have sufficient skill and experience
to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, its employees and
subconsultants, if permitted, have and shall maintain during the term of this Agreement all
licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services.
All of the services to be furnished by CONSULTANT under this agreement shall meet the
professional standard and quality that prevail among professionals in the same discipline and of
similar knowledge and skill engaged in related work throughout California under the same or similar circumstances.
SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of
and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders that
may affect in any manner the Project or the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services.
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 CONSULTANT. 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 CONSULTANT 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. Option A: No SubCONSULTANT: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 4 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
the work to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city
manager or designee.
Option B: Subcontracts Authorized: Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subconsultants may be used to complete the Services. The subconsultants authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are:
Frank’s Industrial Services, Inc.
Best Environmaental
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 Anton
Svorinich as the Northwest Region Manager to have supervisory responsibility for the
performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Arthur Jones as the project manager to
represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or
replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project
manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY
finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property.
The City’s project manager is Chuck Muir, Public Works Department, Environmental Services
Division, 3201 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:(650) 496-6979. 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 CONSULTANTs, 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 5 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
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 CONSULTANTs 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 CONSULTANTs under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is
caused in part by an Indemnified Party.
16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the
active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party.
16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall
not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any
covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance
or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term,
covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law.
SECTION 18. INSURANCE.
18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in
full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 6 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its CONSULTANTs, 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
CONSULTANTs of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will
obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY
concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the
insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of
the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides
less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for
ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing
Manager during the entire term of this Agreement.
18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification
provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss
caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired.
SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES.
19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior
written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will
immediately discontinue its performance of the Services.
19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but
only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY.
19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the
City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its CONSULTANTs, if
any, or given to CONSULTANT or its CONSULTANTs, if any, in connection with this
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 7 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY.
19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be
paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that
portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such
determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25.
19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY
will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES.
All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows:
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303
With a copy to the Purchasing Manager
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently
has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this
Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, CONSULTANTs 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
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 8 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act.
SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section
2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status,
familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it has read
and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to
Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment.
SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO
WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s Environmentally
Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department, incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of the City’s Zero Waste
Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second,
reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, Consultant shall comply
with the following zero waste requirements:
All printed materials provided by Consultant to City generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices,
reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a
minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise
approved by the City’s Project Manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post-
consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks.
Goods purchased by Consultant on behalf of the City shall be purchased in
accordance with the City’s Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and
packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Office.
Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Consultant, at no additional
cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Consultant shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. SECTION 24. NON-APPROPRIATION
24.1. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 9 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
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.
25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when
executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 10 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
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
STERNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK
EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION
EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Anton Svorinich
Vice President
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 11 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR
LANDFILL GAS AND LEACHATE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE, MONITORING AND REPORTING SERVICES Purpose of This Scope of Services:
The purpose of this Scope of Services is for a qualified and experienced firm, STERNS, CONRAD AND SCHMIDT CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., (CONSULTANT) to perform maintenance, monitoring and reporting services for the City of Palo Alto (CITY) Landfill’s
environmental control systems (landfill gas and leachate collection systems).
Background:
History and Phasing: CITY owns and operates an unlined, class III municipal solid waste
disposal site which is in the process of undergoing final closure, located at 2830 Embarcadero
Road in Palo Alto, California. The landfill occupies approximately 126 acres of the 1800-acre,
CITY owned Byxbee Park and Baylands parcel. The landfill is divided into phases, Phase I, Phase IIA, Phase IIB, and Phase IIC. Phase I comprises approximately 29 acres and was closed and developed into parkland in 1990. Phases IIA and IIB, comprising 23 and 24 acres
respectively, were closed in 1992 and 2000, and were open to the public in 2005. These closed
areas (Phase I, Phase IIA, and Phase IIB) comprise approximately 76 acres. Phase IIC,
approximately 51 acres, has been filled to capacity and is currently undergoing final closure. Phase IIC shall be fully closed by the end of calendar year 2015. After Phased IIC is closed, capped per regulations, and has park features installed, it shall become parkland open to the
public.
The environmental control systems within the landfill consist of a vertical landfill gas extraction system and a retrofitted vertical leachate extraction system.
Landfill Gas System: CITY gas collection system (LFG) consists of 109 vertical extraction
wells strategically located throughout the landfill. Most of the gas wells are spaced
approximately 200 feet apart, have been constructed with a 4 to 6-inch diameter schedule 40
PVC casings placed within 24-inch diameter boreholes and have an average depth of approximately 35 feet below the landfill surface. An HDPE piping network collects and
transmits gas from the extraction wells to a blower-flare facility located on Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant Property (PARWQCP) near the landfill northwest boundary.
Landfill gas is either combusted in the landfill flare or transferred to the Water Quality Control
Plant (RWQCP) incinerator where the landfill gas supplements the natural gas to incinerate sewage solids. The pipe network is above grade throughout the landfill facility with the
exception of the landfill’s closed sections, Phase I, IIA, IIB, and some areas of Phase IIC. In the
closed sections gas conveyance pipelines are buried within the final cover system, above the clay
cap within a thickened vegetative soil layer.
CITY is in the process of placing 24 leachate wells under vacuum and adding them to the landfill
gas collection system due to the detection of methane above regulatory limits inside and/or
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 12 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
outside some wells. The leachate wells shall have monitoring requirements similar to the gas
wells once they have been connected to the landfill gas collection system.
Leachate System: CITY Leachate Collection and Removal System (LCRS) consists of 24 vertical extraction wells. These wells are typically constructed with 6-inch diameter Schedule 80 PVC casings, and strategically distributed throughout the landfill. Well spacing averages
approximately 300 feet, with locations being selected based upon historic information and local
leachate levels at the time of installation. Each well has a dedicated pneumatic pump, and
compressed air is delivered to each well from a centrally located compressor via a network of welded HDPE piping. Leachate is collected from the wells and transported via the piping network to the CITY sanitary sewer main adjacent to the western boundary of the landfill.
As mentioned above, CITY is in the process of placing 24 leachate wells under vacuum and
adding them to the landfill gas collection system because several have been found to register methane concentrations above regulatory limits around the wellheads and components. Any monitoring required under the regulations of landfill gas wells would include those leachate
wells that have been hooked up to the landfill gas collection system.
Leachate elevations within the refuse mass is measured through a set of 17 vertical piezometers
equally spaced located within the landfill footprint. Condensate Collection: Gas condensate produced by the LFG collection system is collected in
traps and pumped into the facility’s LCRS via pneumatic submersible pumps. There are
currently eleven (11) condensate sumps located in Byxbee Park (Phase I), Phase IIA, Phase IIB
and Phase IIC, combined. Appendices Appendix 1 – Palo Alto Landfill Title V Permit
Appendix 2 – Permit To Operate
Appendix 3 – Change of Permit Condition Appendix 4 – Landfill Gas Wellhead Detail Appendix 5 – New Landfill Gas Wellhead Detail
General Requirements:
This scope of services includes: 1) Performing routine LFG collection and emission control system (including any leachate wells added to the LFG gas well system) maintenance,
monitoring and reporting; 2) Performing annual landfill flare stack emissions sampling, analyses
and reporting; 3) Compiling and preparing various LFG reports and provide miscellaneous
engineering support services; and 4) Performing non-routine maintenance and repairs.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Landfill’s Title V Air Permit (#A2721)(including any latest change of permit conditions), Regulation 8, Rule 34 of the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) regulations, including the newly adopted
regulations for Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, CCR Title 17,
§95460-95476, and the EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart HH) as well as all
pertinent plans and specifications relating to work associated with maintenance and operation of the site’s environmental control systems.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 13 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Agreement Extension or Reduction of Work - This agreement provides for a one-year agreement
with the option of extending the agreement annually for two additional years, provided that the
proposed increase cost of the contract extension does not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose area, published by the United States Department of labor Services. CITY reserves the right to modify or cancel the agreement based on CONSULTANT performance (as evaluated by CITY) and/or a
change in the appropriations level for this work in each fiscal year’s budget as adopted by the
CITY Council.
CITY shall negotiate extensions of the agreement with CONSULTANT on an annual basis. CITY does not expressly or by implication agree that the actual amount of work shall correspond
therewith, but reserves the right to increase, decrease or modify the amount of any class or
portion of the work or to omit portions of the work as may be deemed necessary or expedient by
CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide all necessary services, labor, tools, materials, equipment, vehicles,
and instrumentation for the routine scope of services under this agreement including, but not
limited to, fusion welder for joining high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe, monitoring
equipment for detecting LFG and any other equipment necessary to perform the routine scope of services contained herein. These items of equipment are considered necessary items for CONSULTANT, and separate charges for use of these items in the course of the routine work,
shall not be paid by CITY.
Fees shall be paid on a time and materials, unit cost and lump sum basis for services rendered under this scope of services in accordance with submitted rates. CONSULTANT shall not exceed the contract amount without written authorization from CITY. Reimbursable direct costs,
such as sub-CONSULTANTs and construction materials, shall be billed and paid at
CONSULTANT costs plus overhead/ profit markup of a maximum of ten percent (10%). Field
labor time for routine work under the scope of services shall be billed at the hourly rates specified in CONSULTANT fee schedule and shall be based only on time worked at the Palo Alto Landfill. No additional compensation for travel and mileage to or from the landfill shall be
billed. Overtime rates shall be applicable to appropriate situations such as emergency call-outs
or repairs requiring CONSULTANT services beyond normal working hours (7:00 am to 5:00 pm
Monday through Friday) or for maintenance and repair tasks when overtime has been authorized
by CITY. CONSULTANT shall provide appropriate documentation to support all invoices.
For work other than the routine services for the LFG collection system and the LCRS,
CONSULTANT shall, at CITY request, submit cost estimates for the requested tasks for CITY
approval. After performing the non-routine tasks, CONSULTANT billing for the tasks shall not
exceed the estimate by more than ten (10) percent without prior authorization of CITY. Work performed by CONSULTANT under this scope of service shall be subject to inspection
and testing by the CITY. Any work found to be defective or unsatisfactory shall be repaired or
replaced by CONSULTANT at CONSULTANT expense. All routine operation, maintenance or
monitoring work shall take place either aboveground or in buried shallow vaults (Less than three feet in depth). CITY shall provide all applicable permits for work under this agreement.
CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for the overall quality of the gas with regard to trace
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 14 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
components and shall not take “generator status” for any waste produced at the landfill deemed
hazardous.
Personnel job titles and required experience levels are listed below. This agreement requires that all field personnel have the following minimum qualifications:
Senior Technician (or equivalent)
Five (5) years experience performing work on LFG and LCRS systems;
Ability to tune and optimize the vacuum on the LFG collection system without supervision or close oversight;
Ability to detect and repair LFG system and LCRS leaks and diagnose potential failures
before they occur;
General understanding of landfill regulations relating to the LCRS and LFG systems; and
Ability and skill to make piping repairs weld HDPE pipe and install temporary
condensate sumps without supervision. All Senior Technicians (or equivalent) must be
trained and certified in HDPE fusion welding.
Technician (or equivalent)
Two (2) years experience performing work on LFG and LCRS systems;
Ability to detect and repair LFG system and LCRS leaks and diagnose potential failures before they occur;
General understanding of landfill regulations relating to the LCRS and LFG systems; and
Ability and skill to make piping repairs, weld HDPE pipe and install temporary condensate sumps with supervision. All Technicians (or equivalent) must be trained and
certified in HDPE fusion welding.
CITY may approve of field Technicians that do not have the minimal qualifications listed above
on a case-by-case basis, and only when: 1) the scope of the Technician’s work is specific to the Technician’s skill set; and 2) the Technician has proper oversight and supervision by
appropriately qualified personnel.
CITY shall endeavor to allow unrestricted site access for CONSULTANT personnel, equipment,
and materials for the completion of the work. However, CONSULTANT personnel shall be responsible for communication and coordination of the work with appropriate site CITY.
Work To Be Performed
Task 1 – Routine LFG System and Flare Maintenance, Well-Head Monitoring, and Surface Monitoring and Reporting
Bid Item Definition For Task 1:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 15 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
CONSULTANT shall provide a Senior Technician (or equivalent) with an experience and skill
level defined above, at the hourly rates specified in the Fee Schedule for the performance of
routine LFG system maintenance, well-head monitoring and surface monitoring and reporting.
CONSULTANT shall also provide on the bid schedule an estimate of the Manager/Supervisor/Office Support Staff time necessary to support this work.
A) Senior Technician (or equivalent) 613 hours onsite expected for year one of the contract. Much of this routine work for the final two years of this agreement is anticipated to be conducted
by CITY with the exception that CONSULTANT may continue surface monitoring, review and
compilation of gas well data and all reporting. Field Time Estimate breakdown for Task 1
during year 1 is expected to be:
One 8 hour day (onsite) per week for well and component adjustment and monitoring (416 hours per year);
One 16 hour event (onsite) per quarter for surface and component monitoring (64 hour
per year); and
Miscellaneous additional follow-up time for adjusting high-oxygen LFG and Leachate
wells (133 hours onsite per year).
B) Management/Supervisor/Office Support Staff to support Task 1.
General Scope of Services For Task 1
Unless otherwise specified by CITY, a date-specific schedule or a set day of the week schedule
shall be submitted by CONSULTANT for approval by CITY, and shall specify when the LFG
maintenance services are to be performed by CONSULTANT. Generally, for year one of this agreement Task 1 services shall include the following:
Inspection once per week of 109 LFG well-heads, up to 24 leachate well-heads
(connected to the gas collection system), 15 condensate sumps, flare station and other valves, fittings and components;
Monthly measurement of methane and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC),
oxygen concentration and pressure within each well-head (landfill gas wells and leachate
wells which are connected to the gas collection system) in accordance with Regulation 8, Rule 34, and Title 17, Section 95469. If the well head does not meet the standards of Regulation 8, Rule 34, Section 305, and Title 17, §95469, then CONSULTANT shall
document and make adjustments and repairs (if necessary) following Regulation 8, Rule
34, Section 414 scheduling requirements. It is anticipated that some follow up visits shall
be necessary by the Senior Technician for the purpose of monitoring and adjusting wells with high oxygen content. CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to CITY for
further repairs if necessary. CONSULTANT shall compile the wellhead information,
including all follow-up monitoring results and submit monthly reports to CITY, within 21
days from the end of each month. At CITY discretion, CONSULTANT shall train
CITY while completing the field work portion of this work. The monitoring requirements of the rule are located in §95469 and §95470. These requirements are listed
below:
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 16 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
i. Monthly wellhead monitoring and requirement to achieve negative pressure at all
wellheads, including corrective action/re-monitoring.
ii. Quarterly instantaneous surface emissions monitoring (SEM) at 25-foot spacing
with a 500 ppmv methane limit, including testing of cover penetrations, with corrective action/re-monitoring. iii. Quarterly leak testing of GCCS components not under vacuum at a 500 ppmv
methane limit, including corrective action/re-monitoring.
iv. Quarterly integrated surface sampling with a limit of 25 ppmv methane.
v. Continuous flow and temperature monitoring. vi. Quarterly monitoring of flare and Regional Water Quality Control Plant landfill gas piping and incinerator components which contain landfill gas and/or which
contain landfill gas under positive pressure.
In addition to the monthly well head monitoring, CONSULTANT shall monitor and compile records to support the LFG component quarterly leak monitoring requirements
of the BAAQMD’s Regulation 8, Rule 34, Section 501 and 503 and Title 17, §95460-
95476. Separate Quarterly Component Monitoring reports shall be submitted to CITY
within 21 days from the end of each quarter. At CITY discretion, CONSULTANT shall
train CITY while completing the field work portion of this work
Adjust/tune and optimize the vacuum on the individual wells in order to maximize
methane extraction while minimizing oxygen intrusion into the landfill; At CITY
discretion, CONSULTANT shall train CITY while completing the field work portion of this work
Quarterly measurement of methane and NMOC concentration on the landfill surface in
accordance with site surface monitoring plan and Regulation 8, Rule 34, Section 501 and 506 and including the newly adopted regulations for Surface Emissions Monitoring
(SEM), CCR Title 17, §95469 listed below:
i. Quarterly instantaneous surface emissions monitoring (SEM) at 25-foot spacing
with a 500 ppmv methane limit, including testing of cover penetrations, with
corrective action/re-monitoring. ii. Quarterly leak testing of GCCS components not under vacuum at a 500 ppmv methane limit, including corrective action/re-monitoring.
iii. Quarterly integrated surface sampling with a limit of 25 ppmv methane.
CONSULTANT shall establish a portable wind station or obtain measurements from the Palo Alto Airport to document compliance with meteorological conditions during the
monitoring events. A detailed written report summarizing the results of the monitoring
activities shall be provided to CITY within 21 days of the end of each quarter. A date-
specific schedule shall be developed by CONSULTANT and submitted for approval by CITY. At CITY discretion, CONSULTANT shall train CITY while completing the field work portion of this work.
Clearing flammable vegetation from collection lines and wells as needed;
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 17 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Weekly inspection of the flare station, including download of the data logger.
Document and collect all data including all startup, shutdown and malfunction
paperwork. This maintenance includes inspection and minor preventive maintenance and such as annual cleaning of the flame arrestor, ensuring all components are in good working order such as valves, data logger, pressure gauges, alarms, louver controls, flow
meters and blowers; Data to be collected, recorded, and stored in a computer or web data
base (with current security access provided to CITY) includes the following:
i.Date, time, and monitoring personnel. ii.Meteorological condition (i.e., wind velocity, barometric pressure ambient
temperature, weather conditions, etc.).
iii.Extraction blower operating inlet and outlet temperatures and pressures.
iv.Methane gas, oxygen gas, carbon dioxide and balance gas concentrations at flare
inlet or Regional Water Quality Control Plant Incinerator as required by the BAAQMD.
v.Flare exit gas temperature (only when flare operational).
vi.LFG flow rate to flare, or CITY incinerator.
vii.Flare combustion louver (only when flare is operational).
viii.Flow control valve positions. ix.Check pilot ignition system propane storage tank level.
x.LFG control system blowers, flame arresters, flares, control panel, well fields, and
condensate pump systems shall be observed for the following:
Accessibility.
Vandalism.
Malfunctions.
Leaks. xi.In the event CITY are not available to perform weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual
or other maintenance CONSULTANT shall assist in performing required or
recommended Operation and Maintenance requirements. O & M requirements
may include:
Weekly: record blower running hours and rotate the use of blowers;
Two months: change lubricant in blowers;
Three months: check ignitor gap, inspect ignitor wiring, check pilot,
check thermocouple voltage, check compressor and flare shutdown valves, check blowers, zero pressure on vacuum gauges, inspect & test
demister/clean if needed, check/test louvers, test pilot shutdown, test
flame fail shutdown, test low temperature shutdown, and document O
& M.
Annually: check for loose bolts, check configuration sheets for chart recorder against actual settings, and document O & M.
Once per quarter, hydrogen sulfide (H2S) shall be tested at the Flare Station inlet utilizing field Draeger test tubes as required by the Title V permit and the blowers, pumps (and electric motors) shall be lubricated in accordance with the manufacturer
specification:
i. Inspect flame arrester.
ii. Inspect burner heads.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 18 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
CONSULTANT shall obtain information from the RWQCP to prepare the necessary
reports.
Weekly minor repair of aged or damaged extraction system components;
Compile all data from the tasks listed above to be utilized by CONSULTANT in preparing the Title V Semi-annual reports (Task 3).
These tasks shall be performed with due care and diligence and in a workman-like manner, with
the goal to:
Maximize methane extraction while minimizing oxygen intrusion into the landfill;
Minimize the emissions of LFG to the atmosphere;
Detect and correct deficiencies, inefficiencies and failures in the LFG collection and emission control system; and
Identify leaks and potential leak risks as well as to repair the leak.
CONSULTANT shall provide one (1) copy of all field records generated during on-site service before leaving the site for the day.
Task 2 - Landfill Flare Stack Emission Sampling, Analytical Testing and Reporting
The flare source test shall be conducted by CONSULTANT on the Flare located at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in accordance with the Title V Major Facility Review Permit No. A2721, dated June 4, 2012, Condition 1028, Item Nos. 15 and 16 including determination of
flare destruction efficiency. Additionally, because the landfill is subject to the AB32 Landfill
Methane Rule (see Task 3), the flare must be tested annually to document compliance with
Rule’s 99% methane destruction requirement, as specified in Section §95471 of the Rule. Also, in accordance with Item No. 15 of the permit the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified by CONSULTANT at least 14 days in advance of the test and
compliance plan for the source test shall be submitted to the agency. A report summarizing the
results of the source test shall be submitted to CITY and BAAQMD within 45 days of
completion of the test.
Task 3 - Report Preparation and Engineering Services
CONSULTANT scope of services for Task 3 is outlined below and includes report preparation in
compliance with the Title V permit and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Rule 8-34, as listed below. A draft of each report shall be provided to CITY for review prior to submittal. The final reports shall incorporate CITY comments. The final reports and
certifications shall be signed by the responsible CITY official.
Title V Semi-Annual Monitoring Reports (Two Reports)
The Title V permit for the CITY includes a requirement for the preparation and submittal of
semi-annual monitoring reports associated with permit compliance. CONSULTANT shall
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 19 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
collect the required information for completion of these reports and prepare the reports on behalf
of CITY for submittal to the BAAQMD. City generated data and documentation for Title V
monitoring shall be provided to CONSULTANT in a timely and complete manner for inclusion
in the report, with the exception of information CONSULTANT collects and maintains in accordance with CONSULTANT scope of services under this agreement.
Semi-Annual Rule 8-34 NSPS Reports (Two Reports)
CONSULTANT shall prepare the semi-annual Rule 8-34 annual reports required by the BAAQMD. CONSULTANT shall collect the necessary data to complete this reports under Section 411 of Rule 8-34 and Part 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.757(f) of the New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart WWW). The reports shall be developed in the format prescribed by the BAAQMD.
The semi-annual reports shall contain the following information, as required: 1) Operating Records Required by Section 501:
a) All collection system downtime, including individual well shutdown times, length of time
for shutdown, and the reason for the shutdown. All periods greater than five (5) days when the collection system was not operating.
b) All emission control system downtime, length of time for shutdown, and the reason for
the shutdown. Description and duration of all periods when the control device was not
operating for greater than one (1) hour and the length of time that the device was not operating.
c) Continuous temperature records (data logger) for all operating flares and any enclosed
combustors with a listing of the dates/times when flare temperature went below limit
allowed in the Title V permit and any times when temperature gauge was off-line or not operational.
d) Monthly LFG flow meter readings.
e) Records of all quarterly LFG system component leak testing, including monitoring dates,
leak concentration by volume if in excess of 1,000 parts per million, by volume (ppmv), location of leak, date of discovery, the action taken to repair the leak, date of repair, date
of any required re-monitoring, and the re-monitored concentration in ppmv.
f) Annual waste acceptance rate and the current amount of waste in-place (to be provided
by CITY). Once the landfill closes this requirement shall not be required.
g) Records of the nature, location, amount, and date of deposition of non-degradable wastes,
for any landfill areas excluded from the collection system requirement as documented in
the Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS) Design Plan (to be provided by CITY).
Once the landfill closes this requirement shall not be required.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 20 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
h) Continuous gas flow rate records (data logger information) with a listing of the
dates/times when flow rate went above limit allowed in the Title V permit and any times
when the flow meter was off-line or not operational.
i) Records of all quarterly surface emissions monitoring, including monitoring dates, surface emission concentration by volume if in excess of 500 ppmv, location of
exceedance, date of discovery, the action taken to repair the exceedance, date of repair,
date of any required re-monitoring, and the re-monitored concentration in ppmv.
j) For monthly wellhead monitoring (temperature, vacuum, and oxygen or nitrogen content), records of all monitoring dates and any excesses of the limits stated in Section
8-34-305, Title 17, §95460-§95476, and below (or alternative limits approved in the Title
V Permit), including well identification number, the measured excess, the action taken to
repair the excess, and the date of repair, date of any required re-monitoring, and the re-monitored value.
Gas wells
i) A minimum of monthly recording of gauge pressure at all wellheads (all wells must
operate under negative pressure conditions). ii) Monthly monitoring of oxygen or nitrogen concentrations at all wellheads (oxygen must not exceed 5 percent or nitrogen over 20 percent).
iii) Monthly monitoring of temperatures at all wellheads (temperature shall not exceed 55C
(131F)). Leachate wells (connected to the GCCS)
i) A minimum of monthly recording of gauge pressure, oxygen content, methane content,
and temperature at each wellhead (the well(s) must be connected to vacuum if any
pressure is detected); iv) Monthly monitoring of oxygen concentrations at wellheads (oxygen must not exceed 15 percent by volume). If the oxygen concentration exceeds 15 percent by volume the
vacuum to the leachate well may be turned off;
v) Monthly monitoring of temperatures at all wellheads (temperature shall not exceed 55C
(131F)). If temperature exceeds 55C (131F) the vacuum to the leachate well may be turned off;
2) Calibration information for monitoring equipment used for the various monitoring activities
listed above (e.g., OVA, GEM-500 unit, flow meter, temperature, etc.).
3) Description and duration of all periods when the gas stream was diverted from the control
device through a bypass line to the WQCP incineration.
4) The date of installation and location of all wells or system expansions as the result of
monitoring exceedances during previous reporting period.
5) Data upon which the density of well and equipment sizing were based.
6) Gas generation rate estimates.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 21 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
7) Provisions for increasing LFG extraction capacity as gas generation increases.
8) The provisions for the control of LFG migration.
Semi-Annual Startup Shutdown and Malfunction Plan Reports (Two Reports)
The landfill is subject to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA, the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. In accordance with
NESHAPs requirements, a start-up, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan was prepared for the Palo Alto landfill. This SSM Plan documents the procedures for operating and maintaining the affected elements of the landfill gas collection and control system during startup shutdown and
malfunction. In addition to the requirements to prepare an SSM plan, CFR 40 contains
provisions requiring periodic SSM reports at a minimum semi-annual basis.
Annual Compliance Certification (One Report)
The Title V permit for the CITY also includes a requirement for the preparation and submittal of
an annual compliance certification. CONSULTANT shall collect the required information for
completion of a report to accompany this certification and prepare the report on behalf of CITY for submittal to the BAAQMD.
This scope of services assumes that any CITY provided documentation associated with any
compliance activities for Title V shall be provided to CONSULTANT in a timely and complete
manner for inclusion in the report for any items not already completed by CONSULTANT. AB32 – Landfill Methane Rule Annual Reporting (One Report)
CITY is subject to the AB32 Landfill Methane Rule (Title 17 California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Chapter 10, Article 4, Sub-article 6, §95462 through §95476), which has an annual reporting requirement. The required annual report under this Rule must be submitted by March 15, 2015, for reporting of calendar year 2014 data.
Annual Reports must include the following information, as specified in §95470 of the Rule:
General site information
Total volume of LFG collected (reported in standard cubic feet (scf)),
Average composition of LFG collected over the reporting period (reported in percent methane and percent carbon dioxide by volume),
Gas control device type, installation, rating, fuel type, and total LFG combusted in each
control device,
Date GCCS installed
Percent methane destruction efficiency
Volume and composition of gas shipped off-site
Type and amount of supplemental fuels burned with the LFG.
Recent topographic map, and
All required monitoring data.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 22 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
CONSULTANT shall compile the required data into a report in a format suitable for submittal to
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Officer. CONSULTANT shall provide a
draft of the report to CITY for review. Final report shall incorporate CITY comments and be
submitted to CARB EPA – Greenhouse Gas Annual Reporting (online submittal)
CITY is required under the EPA GHG reporting rule, 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart HH, to submit a
report annually. CONSULTANT shall compile the required data and input into an appropriate electronic format in accordance with EPA GHG rule specifications for upload to the EPA’s online reporting tool (e-GRRT). CONSULTANT shall submit draft data file to CITY for review.
Final report shall incorporate CITY comments and be submitted to EPA via e-GRRT.
CONSULTANT shall be added to the website as CITY agent and manage the website reports on
behalf of CITY. The data to be reported is for calendar year 2014, and the reporting deadline is March 30, 2015.
As specified in the EPA Rule, the following information is required:
Landfill Operations (Open/closed/Year)
Waste Disposal Calculations
Waste Composition (If Available)
Modeling Parameters Used
Methane Data
Landfill Area, Cover Types by Area, and Oxidation Fractions Used
LFG Modeling Results
Emissions from stationary combustion units.
Flow of collected LFG
Methane content of LFG
Temperature and pressure data for LFG
Description of control device(s) both on- and off-site
Control device operating hours
Description of GCCS, landfill areas and waste depths
Computed methane volume captured
Computed methane generated (corrected for oxidation using EPA model)
Computed methane generated (corrected for oxidation using LFG recovery flow and collection efficiency)
Methane Emissions, Method 1 (Modeling)
Methane Emissions, Method 2 (Gas Captured and Estimated Collection Efficiency)
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 23 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
Other Engineering Services
On occasion CONSULTANT may be asked to evaluate the performance and design of the gas
system using the services of a qualified LFG engineer. CONSULTANT shall provide engineering services for duties including, but not limited to possible LFG and LCRS system design, permitting and equipment change-out. Work on these engineering services requires
written approval from CITY prior to CONSULTANT working on or billing to these Tasks.
Typically, CONSULTANT shall develop and submit a written cost estimate prior to work on
these subtasks. Task 4 – Non-Routine Maintenance and Repairs and Other Support Services.
CONSULTANT shall provide as requested by CITY, on-call support services, including:
manpower; equipment; instrumentation; and materials in accordance with the fee Schedule for this task and the rate schedule supplied by CONSULTANT. This work shall occur only after approval from CITY. Non-routine maintenance and repairs may include but not be limited to:
1) Providing qualified personnel that shall respond to the LFG flare alarms (24 hours per day,
seven days per week). CONSULTANT shall respond to the call out and be on-site within four (4) hours notice in the event of emergency repairs associated with the flare system.
2) Attending meetings with the BAAQMD or other agency staff.
3) CONSULTANT shall provide laborer(s) and technicians(s), at rates specified in the proposal for duties associated with the non-routine maintenance of the LFG or LCRS systems. At CITY request, CONSULTANT shall:
a) Attend meetings with CITY, to review status/condition of the LCRS or LFG system.
b) Provide written recommendations for repairs or upgrades that are outside the routine maintenance tasks.
c) Provide laborers and technicians to undertake projects requested by CITY, including, but
not limited to:
Disconnection and removal of lateral collection pipes from LFG and LCRS extraction wells;
Extension of vertical extraction wells to facilitate refuse filling operations;
Reconnection of lateral collection pipes;
Installation of heavy equipment crossings;
Repair of damaged LFG and LCRS extraction system components; and
Connection of new LFG and LCRS wells to the system.
End Scope of services
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 24 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.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. Perform on-going maintenance, monitoring, and reporting 365 Days
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 14 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.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
One Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Eighteen Dollars, $126,418.00. 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 One Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand and Sixty Dollars,
$139,060.00. 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
$126,418.00 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed
$12,642.00.
BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED
AMOUNT
Task 1- Routine LFG System Maintenance, Well-Head Monitoring,
Surface Monitoring and Reporting. $52,708.00
Task 2 - Landfill Flare Stack Emission Sampling, Analytical
Testing. $8,210.00
Task 3 - Report Preparation and Engineering Services. $34,000.00
Task 4 - Non-Routine Services, Repairs and Other Support Services. $30,000.00
Sub-total Basic Services $124,918.00
Reimbursable Expenses (For All Tasks). $1,500.00
Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $126,418.00
Additional Services (Not to Exceed). $12,642.00
Maximum Total Compensation $139,060.00
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev. Feb. 2014 15 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost.
Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are:
A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement 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 $100.00 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 Contracts Administrator and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services.
Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 19 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 20 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 21 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 22 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 23 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANTS 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:
REQUIRE
D 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 ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL (E & O)
PROF / POLLUTION LIABILITY
$2,000,000 $2,000,000
YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONSULTANT, 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT’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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
Professional Services
Rev Feb. 2014 24 C:\Users\mnolen\Documents\C15157760_SCS Field Services_Landfill Gas Monitoring.docx
B. CROSS LIABILITY
THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER,
BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY.
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: B018DBD9-25C8-4A55-A4B5-14A91F79DB23
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5543)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
Summary Title: 820 Los Trancos - Site and Design for single family home
Title: Approval of a Site and Design Application by Peck Design on behalf of
Walnut Holdings, LLC for a new 13,118 sf single family home, detached
garage, and pool and Associated Site Improvements on a 10.39-Acre Parcel of
Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District located at 820 Los Trancos Road.
Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared.
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend the Council
approve the following regarding the proposal at 820 Los Trancos:
1. Negative Declaration and Addenda thereto, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Attachment E)
2. Record of Land Use Action approving a Site and Design application to allow the
construction of a two-story single family residence, a swimming pool, a detached pool
house and other associated site improvements (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
The Municipal Code requires that City Council review new development in the Open Space
zoning district and provides for Council Consent Calendar review of new single family homes.
Approval, conditionally approval, or denial of the project must be based on specific findings,
which are contained in Attachment A. The proposed project is the construction of a new home
in a natural depression on the site. The existing tree canopy that covers over 40 percent of the
site would remain intact, providing a visual buffer of the proposed residence from offsite views.
The Planning and Transportation Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of
the project.
Background
City of Palo Alto Page 1
On December 10, 2014, the Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration
(including an Addendum), and the Site and Design Review application. The staff report and
Commission meeting minutes for the December 10, 2014 public hearing are provided as
Attachments F and G. These attachments are also available on the City’s website and in City
files for public review.
During the Commission hearing, no members of the public spoke on this project. There were a
few issues raised by the Commission during the hearing. The first issue was related to
placement of the house on the property. While the proposed house will be located high on the
property it is in a lower lying basin, clear of trees, making it the ideal building site. A second
issue addressed by the Commission related to the preservation of the landscape trees in the
area of proposed work. The City’s Arborist provided testimony to the Commission that the
retaining walls proposed near the trees had been reviewed, and that further changes could be
made in the field if needed to preserve the trees. Lastly, the Commission had concerns about
runoff near the proposed driveway. The project engineer explained how the water would
travel around, and under the driveway, and staff explained that site drainage would be more
thoroughly reviewed during the Building permit process. The Commission ultimately found the
conditions of approval adequate and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project
with no changes.
Discussion
Project Description
The project consists of a Site and Design Review application for the construction of a new
10,423 square foot (sf), two-story single family residence, not including an approximately 5,000
sf below grade basement. The parcel is a 10.39 acre site in the Open Space (OS) zoning district.
The project also includes a detached 2,503 sf garage and landscape improvements. The
architectural style of the proposed residence is described by the applicant as California
Mountain Home with clean detailing. The home is set in the existing clearing, to minimize
impacts to existing trees and follow the natural contours of the quarry basin. The residence
consists of three connected buildings that form a central courtyard. The separate garage
building nestles into the hill to the east, creating a protective courtyard off the kitchen.
The stained cedar exterior walls, dark bronze metal roofing and tan/grey/earth colored stone
base, anchors the house to the site with warm and natural colors that blend into the
surrounding hills and vegetation.
The landscape plan is designed to fit seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site. Plant
materials would be selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics.
Special consideration is placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees that would
surround the structure.
Scope of Review
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Council may approve, modify or disapprove the proposed plans submitted as it may deem
necessary to accomplish the following objectives:
(a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
(b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
(c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
(d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Key Issues
Potential concerns such as offsite views and tree protection were discussed in the attached
Commission staff report. One of the key considerations for new projects in the open space
district is that a new home should be designed to have the least physical and visual impact to
the property and off site views. Staff and the Commission reviewed the project and
determined the proposed development is well screened from offsite views by a mature ring of
trees.
Open Space Development Criteria
Section 18.28.070(o) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) requires the Planning and
Transportation Commission and City Council to evaluate the proposed project’s conformance
with the Open Space Development Criteria. These criteria, and an analysis of the project’s
conformance with each criteria, are set forth in the findings in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A).
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record
of Land Use Action (RLUA). The proposal substantially complies with the Open Space
Development Criteria as noted in the RLUA. There is one area where the proposal deviates
somewhat from the Development Criteria; that being Criteria #2 related to locating
development away from hilltops. While the proposal does deviate from Criteria #2, the
deviation is necessary and appropriate as this area is already clear of trees. As set forth in the
RLUA, the new house will be located in the same general location as the previously approved
house, and will remain well screened from off-site views; thus, the intent of development
criteria provisions is met. A single family home is a permitted use within the Open Space zone
district. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications.
Environmental Review
This site was the subject of a previous Initial Study and Negative Declaration in conformance
with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The proposed home is located
City of Palo Alto Page 3
in essentially the same location on the property and will therefore have the same ‘less than
significant’ impacts, as described in the attached Addendum (Attachment E).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (PDF)
Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment C: Zoning comparison (PDF)
Attachment D: Applicant's project description (PDF)
Attachment E: Negative Declaration and Addenda (PDF)
Attachment F: PTC Staff Report (no attachments) (PDF)
Attachment G: PTC Minutes (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
ACTION NO. 2014-_06___
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
LAND USE ACTION FOR 820 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND
DESIGN REVIEW (14PLN-00144)
On March 16, 2015, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review
application for construction of a two-story single-family residence, detached garage structure, swimming
pool, landscaping and other site improvements in the Open Space Zone District, making the following
findings, determination and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
A. Elizabeth Holmes of Peck Design, LLC on behalf of Walnut Holdings, LLC, property
owner, has requested the City’s approval to allow construction of a two-story single-family residence, a
detached garage and other site improvements for a total floor area of 13,118 square feet. (“The Project”).
B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-030) of over ten acres in size in the Palo
Alto Foothills. The site is undeveloped, containing no structures or utilities. The site is designated on the
Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space and is located within Open Space (OS) zoning district.
The project includes construction of a new 10,423 square foot single-family residence (including basement
areas) with an outdoor swimming pool and a 2,695 square foot garage. The driveways would be
constructed of pervious materials consisting of decomposed granite and several patios would have stone
pavers over sand. Total impervious area (including building foot print and other hardscaped areas) would
be 15,579 square feet. All utilities will be installed, including electricity, telephone, water, and septic
system lines.
C. The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) reviewed and
recommended approval of the Project on December 10, 2014. The Commission’s recommendations are
contained in CMR # 5543 and the attachments to it.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has
determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Negative or
Mitigated Negative Declaration. An initial study was prepared for the project in 2004 and it was
determined that, with the implementation of conditions of approval, no potentially adverse impacts would
result from the development, therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the
environment. The applicant has made minor revisions to the project since then, including changes to floor
area, impervious area, building orientation and the materials palette. An addendum to the Negative
Declaration was prepared on November 24, 2014. This addendum found that the revisions would not
significantly change the findings as described in the original Initial Study.
SECTION 3. Site and Design Review Findings
1. The use will be constructed and operated in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious,
and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. The project is located in an
area of other single-family residential home sites. Although the project introduces development to a
previously undeveloped site and will be visible from the shared driveway, the project was designed to
minimize the visual impact of the structures by following the natural topography of the site, and by
minimizing the amount of second floor areas. The development will have minimal visual impacts on
adjacent sites. Furthermore, the materials, colors and landscaping selection have been designed to blend in
with the natural environment to the greatest extent possible.
2. The project is consistent with the goal of ensuring the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project would maintain desirability of investment in the same and adjacent areas, in that the proposed design, size and use of the site are consistent with the existing residences on Los Trancos Road. The construction of all improvements would be governed by the regulations of the current Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable codes to assure safety and a high quality of development.
3. Sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance are observed in the
project. The project has been designed to minimize the impact on existing vegetation. Conditions of
approval have been incorporated into the project and would be implemented to minimize impacts on
biological resources, protected trees, and geotechnical stability. The use of permeable materials will help
reduce rainwater flows across the land. The proposed design of the residential structure, detach garage,
shed, driveway, and walkways will follow existing site topography.
4. The use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project
proposal complies with the policies of the Land Use and Community Design and the Natural Environment
elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including:
Policy L-1: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of undeveloped land
west of the Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. The project site is located
southwest of the Highway 280 and east of Alpine Road, within the Open Space district. The Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Open Space/Controlled Development.
Single-family residential uses are permitted within this district. The structures would be designed to
minimize the impact on the open space by minimizing the amount of impervious surfaces, by designing
low-profile buildings and by the use of materials and colors that are compatible with the environment.
Policy L-5: The Comprehensive Plan states to maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The project proposal would be compatible with other structures in the area and does not detract from the natural character of the site. Although the project would bring development to an essentially undeveloped site, the residential structure, detached garage and other proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to neighboring properties.
Policy L-60: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the project site is located within an
Archaeological Resource Area of Low Sensitivity. Palo Alto is known to contain widely dispersed
prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a variety of artifacts.
Therefore, cessation of all grading and construction activities is required, if any archaeological or human
remains are encountered. At that time, retention of a qualified archaeologist to address the find in the
field, notification of the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office, and if native American remains are
discovered, evaluation of the finds by a Native American descendent shall be required. The Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California,
would provide implementation of additional mitigation measures.
Policy L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto’s roads and trails for motorists,
cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. Although the project would bring development to an essentially
undeveloped site, the project would not seriously impede views of the foothills to users of Los Trancos
Road or Alpine Road due to the low profile.
Policy N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area should be
consistent with the City of Palo Alto Open Space development Criteria. Conformance with the Open Space
Development Criteria is discussed below.
SECTION 4. Open Space Review Criteria
The project proposal meets the following Open Space Review Criteria and the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan regarding development in designated open space areas.
1. The development should not be visually intrusive from public roadways and public
parklands. As much as possible, development should be sited so it is hidden from view. The proposed
construction would not be visible from Los Trancos or Alpine Roads and surrounding properties. The low
profile building and a site plan that follows existing natural topography minimizes the impact of the
development from off-site views. Natural vegetation and existing mature trees will be maintained, which
will allow the new development to blend in with the immediate environment. The use of earth tone colors
and natural building materials would also minimize the visual impact of the development.
2. Development should be located away from hilltops and designed to not extend
above the nearest ridgeline. The footprint of the proposed residence is not located on a hilltop and will not
extend above the nearest ridgeline.
3. Site and structure design should take into consideration impacts on privacy and views of neighboring properties. The size and topography of the site and extensive vegetation will mitigate views of the proposed structures from adjacent properties.
4. Development should be clustered, or closely grouped, in relation to the area
surrounding it to make it less conspicuous, minimize access roads, and reduce fragmentation of natural
habitats. The mass of the structures is set into and along the natural contours of the site. The site
improvements are generally clustered together. The width and design of the driveway would minimize
grading and reduce impacts on existing trees.
5. Built forms and landscape forms should mimic the natural topography. Building
lines should follow the lines of the terrain, and trees and bushes should appear natural from a distance. The
building footprint, landscaping and patio areas, which roughly follow the existing slope, are responsive to
the natural topography. The project would maintain all of the existing mature trees and vegetation, thereby
reducing the disturbance to the site.
6. Existing trees with a circumference of 37.5 inches, measured 4.5 feet above the
ground level, should be preserved and integrated into the site design. Existing vegetation should be
retained as much as possible. The Arborist Report and construction plans have been evaluated by the
City’s Planning Arborist, who has agreed that sufficient tree protection measures have been included in the
project to ensure the retention of all protected trees.
7. Cut is encouraged when it is necessary for geotechnical stability and to enable the
development to blend into the natural topography. Fill is generally discouraged and should never be
distributed within the driplines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading.
The cuts proposed for the basement are encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the
natural topography. Fill will not be placed in the dripline of any existing tree. The amounts of cut exported
off the site would be kept to a minimum.
8. To reduce the need for cut and fill and to reduce potential runoff, large, flat expanses
of impervious surfaces should be avoided. Impervious surfaces have been minimized, limited to the
building footprint, retaining walls and small areas of the patio and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces
would be below the 3.5% of the site area that is the maximum allowed.
9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural
building materials in earthtones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural, consisting primarily of stained cedar siding, with a stone base, and dark (weather copper) standing seam metal roof. These earth tone colors that will blend with the surroundings.
10. Landscaping should be native species that require little or no irrigation. Immediately adjacent to structures, fire retardant plants should be used as a fire prevention technique. The
landscape plan was designed to fit seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site. Plant materials
would be selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics. Special consideration is
placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees that would surround the structures.
11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not
directly visible from off-site. The residences would create additional light and glare, but window
coverings would minimize light spill from the rooms to the outside at night. The recommended conditions
of approval would require any exterior lighting to be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding
property and open space lands.
12. Access roads should be of a rural rather than urban character. (Standard
curb, gutter, and concrete sidewalk are usually inconsistent with the foothills environment). The existing
Los Trancos Woods Road is developed with a rural character. No changes to this road are expected as a
result of this project.
13. For development in unincorporated areas, ground coverage should be in
general conformance with Palo Alto's Open Space District regulations. The project is within the City limits
and meets the O-S (Open Space) District zoning regulations.
SECTION 5. Site and Design Approvals Granted.
Site and Design Approval is granted by the City Council under Palo Alto Municipal Code Section
18.82.070 for application 14PLN-00144, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the Record.
SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with
plans last revised on December 2, 2014, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of
approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission or City Council.
2. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan
set submitted with the Building Permit application.
3. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building
permit drawings for all buildings, structures, and other features.
4. A landscaping plan shall be included with the plans submitted for the building
permit. The plan shall include species type, size and quantities to be planted. The irrigation plan shall be
included showing any mechanical irrigation systems.
5. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a glass type that minimizes reflectivity
from off site views.
6. All exterior lighting shall be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands.
7. If during grading and construction activities, any archeological or human remains
are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner's office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
8. Indemnity: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for 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 own
choice.
9. Judicial Review. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
10. Impact Fees. Development Impact fees (including Parkland Dedication, Community Facilities, Library, Housing, and Citywide Transportation Impact Area fees) with an estimated total of $84,976.15 must be paid prior to building permit issuance. This is an estimate and the final total may change based on date of building permit submittal.
11. 90-day Protest Period: California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or
conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or
exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these
development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section
66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE
PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE
BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as
specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the
date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements.
Public Works
12. WET SEASON WORK: Grading and excavation is in the hillside areas is strictly
controlled by Public Works during the wet season (October 1 through April 15) to prevent storm water
pollution and erosion.
13. SWPPP: It appears the proposed development will disturb more than one acre of
land. Accordingly, the applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for storm water
discharge associated with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed for this project
with the SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the Permit. The General Permit requires the applicant
to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should include
permanent and post development project design features, as well as temporary measures employed during
construction to control storm water pollution.
The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the Building Permit plan submittal phase.
You can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works Engineering at CPA
Development Services (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on the City of Palo Alto website (Search: Public Works-Permits-Forms & Permits). Include in plan submittal for Building Permit:
14. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a Grading &
Excavation Permit shall be submitted to Public Works at the Development Center when submitting plans
and applying for a Building Permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development
Center and on the City (Public Works) website.
15. MASTER WORK SCHEDULE: Prior to issuance of Grading & Excavation Permit,
the applicant shall submit a Master Work Schedule to Public Works Engineering. The schedule must show
the proposed grading schedule, and reflect associated site conditions.
16. WINTERIZATION PLAN: Winterization Plan shall be submitted to Public Works
Engineering as required, to address all work areas that have not been stabilized prior to onset of the wet
season (10/1–4/15).
17. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a Grading &
Drainage Plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and
drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from
the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splash blocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any
site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or impedes
existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be
collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as
much as feasible by directing runoff to pervious areas on the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan
Guidelines for Residential Developments on the City (Public Works) website.
18. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The full sized "Pollution
Prevention - It's Part of the Plan” sheet shall be included in the plan set. This sheet may be downloaded
from the City (Public Works) website.
19. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that
is proposed in the public right-of-way. That includes sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, and
utility lateral installation. The plans shall reflect that the Contractor performing this work must first obtain
a Permit for Construction in the Public Street (Street Work Permit) from Public Works at the Development
Center.
20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The proposed project will be creating or
replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide
calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application.
The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the
Development Center or on the City (Public Works) website.
Urban Forestry
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
21. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION
LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b-above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s
typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City
Standards, Regulations and the following information:
a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/
specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all
roots in proximity)
b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC
8.10.080.
c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree.
d. Sudden Oak Death protocols. The tree protection report and project site arborist shall
determine
i. (a) whether or not it is feasible to remove any bay laurel (Umbellularia californica)
within 10-feet of any oak (Quercus sp) and,
ii. (b) to evaluate with the land owner the benefits of proactive Agrifos treatments on
oaks to prevent SOD infection.
e. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree
Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and
PAMC 18.40.130.
22. BUILDING PERMIT/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. Please provide a separate
cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. Cite the most
significant tree impact notations and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been
made and provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference.
Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be
clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project.
23. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit
shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets:
a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s
full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the
Development Center website at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant
shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize all relevant
Tree Activity Inspections that apply to this project. Inspections and contractor
monthly reporting to Urban Forestry by the project arborist are mandatory. (All
projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan:
check #7.)
b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the
City shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet
index.
24. PROTECTIVE TREE FENCES. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading,
foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing
around all Regulated Trees, as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard
Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; and Project
Arborist’s direction for each tree enclosing the Tree Protection Zone. SITE PLAN
REQUIREMENTS. The Site Plans must show Type I or Type II fencing around the Street Trees a bold
dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the
City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; and/or Project Arborist direction for each tree. Plans
with Public Trees shall show (a) full extension of Type II street tree fencing to enclose the entire planter
strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk
situations.
c. Add Site Plan Notes. (delete where not applicable)
i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and
inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and
construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and
contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the
approved plans”.
ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and
utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be
protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before
working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist, Henry Kramer at
650-367-4900.";
iii. Note #3. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for
basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a
vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating
into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban
Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.”
iv. Note #4. Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility
trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor
shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of
the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See
sheet T-1 for instructions.”
26. LANDSCAPE PLANS (from buildings to woodland canopy edge)
a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff,
including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist,
b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site
plantable areas out to the curb as 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-of-way 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 of the 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, Standard
Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler
heads mounted 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 backflow device is adequately obscured
with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is
preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire
cages are discouraged).
c. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria:
i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and
all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from
the site.
ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree
performance.
d. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification
to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are
achieved with a separate letters of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to
owner’s representative for each of the following:
i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building
Permit set of plans.
ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable.
iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally
inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed
and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots.
iv. 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.
7. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
8. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved
grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’
method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching,
including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain
intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots,
then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans.
9. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction
shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Henry Kramer (650-367-
4900), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the
revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry.
10. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be
printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
11. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all
protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction
scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to
PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final
landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and
documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Monthly Tree
Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning
with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual,
Addendum 11.
12. 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.
13. WATERING SCHEDULE. All trees to be retained shall receive monthly watering as
identified in the Tree Protection Plan during all phases of construction per the City Tree
Technical Manual, Section 5.45. A written log of each application of water shall be kept at
the site. The City Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of this log before final inspection is
requested.
14. SUDDEN OAK DEATH (Required Best Management Practice). To deter the potential
spread of sudden oak death disease in the Open Space District of Palo Alto, the City
requires that all contractor activities and delivery vehicles perform the work according to
the county quarantine restrictions in the attached Sudden Oak Death Best Management
Practices. Violation is subject to penalty and/or prosecution.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/default.asp
15. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, 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
1. Project Arborist Inspection. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project
Arborist to prepare a report after evaluating all trees to be retained and protected, as
indicated in the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injury,
if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the property owner. The report shall
provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and
irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. The final
arborist report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for
temporary or final occupancy.
16. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of
a verification letter 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.
17. PROJECT ARBORIST INSPECTION LETTER. The contractor shall call for a final
inspection by the Project Arborist to evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as
indicated in the approved plans, of the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for
injuries, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The final project
arborist letter report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request
for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding
issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable.
18. 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
19. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and
pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current
version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired
by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
20. FIVE YEAR MONITORING REPORT. Because of the importance of visual screening
represented by the on-site trees proposed with this project, the property owner shall ensure
the survival of the tree plantings for a period of five years. The owner shall install any
necessary replacement trees and monitor their survival. A certified arborist shall prepare a
report at the end of five years documenting the condition of the trees and said report shall
be forwarded to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Any subsequent
owner(s) shall also be obligated to replace any trees that die with trees of the same size and
species stated on the approved building permit plans.
Fire Department
25. A fire sprinkler system shall be provided which meets the requirements of NFPA Standard No.13 - 1996 Edition for the main house and Sports Building. The cottage may be sprinklered in accordance with NFPA Standard No.13D - 1996 Edition. Fire Sprinkler system installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Building plans will not be
approved unless complete sprinkler coverage is indicated.
26. An approved underground fire supply shall be provided for the sprinkler system, and
shall meet the requirements of NFPA Standard No. 24 - 1996 Edition. Fire supply system installations
require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. (PAMC15.04.083) NOTE: Fire Department
approval will be withheld until Utilities Department and Public Works Department requirements
have been met.
27. Additional hydrants shall be provided to make a minimum of 1 hydrant available
within 500 feet of the point on the access road closest to the structure. Fire supply shall be designed to
provide a combined flow from the hydrants of not less than 1,500 gallons per minute at a minimum
residual pressure of 20 psig, for a period of not less than 2 hours . (98CFC903.4.2) NOTE: Delivery of
building materials to the site will be prohibited until the hydrant and an adequate water supply have
been provided.
28. Tree Limbs and other vegetation shall be kept clear of the structure in accordance
with Appendix II-A of the 1998 California Fire Code. NOTE: No tree should be planted closer than 10
feet to any point on the exterior of the building.
29. Entry Gate (if provided) shall be equipped with an Opticom receiver for Fire
Department access or a Key Box shall be provided (if gate is not electrically driven). Contact the Fire
Prevention Bureau at 329-2184 for details.
Watershed Protection Group
Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department:
30. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater. Prior approval shall
be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to
the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a
determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated
ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may
not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the
discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the
approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any
costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule.
31. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water. Unpolluted water shall not be
discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system.
32. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper. On and after January 1, 2003,
copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing
asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for
which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper
ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic
structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For
the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as
Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural
Resources Report and Inventory.
33. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC. Condensate lines shall not
be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system.
34. PAMC 16.09.205 Pool, Spa, Fountain. No person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat
exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following:
Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter;
Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter;
Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or
Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter.
The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system,
pool, spa or fountain water.
A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge
limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter.
35. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping. Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead
alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage
except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate
materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater
plumbing.
36. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches. Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer
or storm drain sumps.
37. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat
Exchangers. It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers
and heat exchangers to the storm drain system.
Electric Engineering
GENERAL
1. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
2. The applicant 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 applicant shall
contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to
beginning work.
3. 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 ELECTRIC
SERVICE
1. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications
involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal.
2. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
3. This project requires 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 (see detail comments below).
4. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers,
switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City.
5. 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.
6. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the
Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
7. 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.
8. 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 cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
9. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be
connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for
connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the
transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet
will not be required.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement
of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the
Electric Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
1. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before
digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips.
2. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service
Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked.
The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall
be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
3. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads)
required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a
secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code
requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will
be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the
City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the
Applicant.
4. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the
depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run.
Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
5. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall
be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
6. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus
duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the
National Electric Code and the City Standards.
7. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service
Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA
standards for meter installations.
8. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be
submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to:
Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
9. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal.
10. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION
1. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT
1. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property for City use.
2. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
3. All fees must be paid.
4. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and
applicant.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
A Public Utility easement shall be granted to the City along the primary and secondary conduit
trench running between the sidewalk and the transformer pad located on the customer's
property. A Public Utility easement shall also be granted to the City for the installation of the
transformer pad.
_________________________ ____________________________
___________________________
Depending on the design, Customer may be responsible for obtaining Public Utility easement
from the property owners at 620 Los Trancos Rd.
SECTION 7. Term of Approval.
Site and Design Approval. In the event actual construction of the project is not commenced
within two years of the date of council approval, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or
effect, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(G).080.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Attachment D -
Attachment E -
Attachment F
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5351)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type:WƵďůŝĐ,ĞĂƌŝŶŐ Meeting Date: 12/10/2014
Summary Title: 820 Los Trancos
Title: 820 Los Trancos - Site and Design Review of a New Two Story Single
Family Residence, Detached Garage and Associated Site Improvements on a
10.39 Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District; Negative
Declaration approved January 2004
From: :ŽĚŝĞ'ĞƌŚĂƌĚƚ͕^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ
Lead Department: Planning & ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) recommend that
the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) approving a Site and Design
Review to allow the construction of a two story single family residence, detached garage and
associated site improvements at 820 Los Trancos Road.
Background
The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled
Development and is located with the Open Space (OS) zoning district. The project site is 10.39
acres and located west of Highway 280 in the Palo Alto foothills. The property consists
primarily of steep terrain sloping up from the west and is covered with Oak, Aleppo and Coulter
Pine trees and other vegetation. The site is vacant with a relatively flat clearing at the upper
center of the property. This approximately 1.5 acre clear portion of the site, a former quarry, is
predominantly surrounded by Coast Live Oak trees, and is referred to as “the project site” in
this staff report. The scope of work associated with this project is limited to this area of the
property. In 2004, a slightly larger home was approved (03-D-6) for this site, but was never
constructed.
Surrounding land uses include single family homes. Access to the site is from a shared driveway
(also known as Los Trancos Woods Road) that serves two other homes, and is connected to Los
Trancos Road and Alpine Road in Portola Valley.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
P&TC Packet Page 1 of 57
Project Description
The proposal includes construction of a 10,423 square foot (sf), two-story single family
residence with additional basement area. The project also includes a detached 2,503 sf garage
and landscape improvements. The architectural style of the proposed residence is described by
the applicant as California Mountain Home with clean detailing. The home is set in the existing
clearing to minimize impacts to existing trees and follows the natural contours of the quarry
bowl. The residence consists of three connected buildings that form a central courtyard. The
separate garage building nestles into the hill to the east, creating a protective courtyard off the
kitchen. The stained cedar exterior walls, dark bronze metal roofing, and tan/grey/earth
colored stone base anchor the house to the site with warm and natural colors that blend into
the surrounding hills and vegetation.
The landscape plan is designed to fit seamlessly with the existing natural areas of the site. Plant
materials would be selected for water conservation and low-maintenance characteristics.
Special consideration is placed on the preservation of the existing oak trees that would
surround the structure.
Summary of Land Use Action
Commission Purview
Site and Design Review is a process intended to ensure the development in environmentally
and ecologically sensitive areas will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity,
compatible with environmental and ecological objectives and in accord with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan.
The Planning and Transportation Commission shall recommend approval or shall recommend
such changes as it may deem necessary to accomplish the following objectives:
1. To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly,
harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites.
2. To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or
educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas.
3. To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be
observed.
4. To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.
A Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A) provides tailored findings for Site and Design
Review approval of the project for the P&TC to review and recommend to the City Council.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
P&TC Packet Page 2 of 57
In addition to the Site and Design Review Objectives, PAMC 18.28.070 Additional OS District
Regulations, Section (p) Open Space Review Criteria, sets forth 12 review criteria taken from the
Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element. Staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with
these Criteria has been provided in the attached Record of Land Use Action.
Summary of Key Issues
Visibility and Aesthetics
One of the key considerations for new projects in the open space district is that a new home
should be designed to have the least physical and visual impact to the property and off site
views. It’s important that new homes be designed to blend into the rural environment and be
as unobtrusive as possible. The goal is to maintain the natural look and feel of the hillside
environment.
The proposal to place the new home in the location of a previously approved home is an
appropriate choice. While the location is at the high point of the lot where the Open Space
Review Criteria recommend not building a structure, it is clearly the best place on this particular
property to build for several reasons. First, it is the only part of the property not covered by
trees. Second, it is the only location on the lot that is currently accessible. Any other area of the
property would need a new access driveway cut through the existing trees resulting in tree
removals. Third, it is the only relatively flat part of the property and needs little grading
compared to what would be needed to attempt development on a different area of the parcel.
Lastly, the fact that the proposed development site is screened from offsite views by a mature
ring of trees that would provide a substantial visual barrier of the new home to offsite views
from both public and private vantage points.
The applicant has provided photographs of the project site from a multitude of vantage points,
including the Los Trancos Road and several areas within Portola Valley. The photos
demonstrate that the building site is heavily screened from offsite views and there are only a
few vantage points where small portions of the proposed residence would be visible.
The design employs a multitude of strategies to limit the visibility of the new home. The height
of the structure was kept eight inches lower than the previously approved structure and the
dark colored sloped roofs help to blend the home in with its surroundings. A more compact
two story plan was chosen over a single story design to avoid having the structure sprawling
over the site and spreading out to the edges of the developable portion of the lot. The colors
and materials selected for the project would also help the proposed structure to blend into its
hilltop setting. The materials are natural, consisting primarily of stained cedar siding, with a
stone base, and dark (weathered copper) standing seam metal roof. These earth tone colors
would blend well with surrounding hillsides. The wall colors are complimented by the earth-
toned, decomposed granite driveway, and the textured stone pavers that would cover the
courtyard and patio areas.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
P&TC Packet Page 3 of 57
Tree Protection
The project includes retention of all existing trees, including several significant trees. There are
an extensive number of oak trees covering the slopes of the larger property as well as
surrounding the relatively flat project site. The existing tree canopy covers over 40% of the
developable area and forms a visual screen of the home from offsite views and will provide
privacy for adjacent neighbors. As shown Sheets C-2.0, tree protection fencing will be provided
to ensure retention of these existing trees.
An updated arborist report (Attachment E) describes the condition of each tree in the project
area. Each tree is numbered and recommendations are given for tree protection during
construction and for its long term health.
Policy Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as set forth in the Draft Record
of Land Use Action. The proposal substantially complies with the Open Space Review Criteria as
noted in the RLUA. There is one area where the proposal deviates from the Review Criteria.
Review Criteria #2 related to locating development away from hilltops. While the proposal
does deviate from this Open Space Review Criteria, it is appropriate as this project site is
already clear of trees, is well screened from offsite as further explained in the RLUA, and does
not represent a substantive shift in City Policy. A single family residence is a permitted use
within the Open Space zoning district. Staff believes there are no other substantive policy
implications.
Next Steps
Upon recommendation by the P&TC, the project would be placed on the City Council consent
calendar.
Environmental Review
This site was the subject of a previous Initial Study and Negative Declaration in conformance
with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The proposed home is located
in essentially the same location on the property and will therefore have the same less than
significant impacts. An addendum has been prepared to reflect the current project plans.
Courtesy Copies
Debbie Pedro, Town of Portola Valley, Planning Director
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use Action (will be available on-line prior to the meeting
and at places) (PDF)
x Attachment B: Location Map (PDF)
x Attachment C: Zoning comparison (DOC)
x Attachment D: Applicant's project description (PDF)
x Attachment E: Arborist Report 11-17-2014 (PDF)
Attachment F: 820 Los Trancos Road Negative Declaration (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
P&TC Packet Page 4 of 57
x
x
x Attachment G: Project Plans (Hard copies for P&TC, staff, libraries and Development
Services Center only) (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
P&TC Packet Page 5 of 57
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
53 54 55
Attachment G -
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
December 10, 2014
EXCERPT
Public Hearing 820 Los Trancos Road (14PLN-00144) Request by Peck Design on behalf of Walnut Holdings, LLC
for Site and Design review of a new 13,118 sf single family home, detached garage, and pool. Zoning
District: Open Space (OS). Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration and addenda
thereto. For more information contact Jodie Gerhardt at Jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org.
Chair Michael: And our next item is a quasi-judicial matter related to 820 Los Trancos Road and site and
design review. So we would have required disclosures if any, if there’s been any ex-parte communication
by Commissioners with the applicant or visits to the site. Does anybody have any disclosures to make of that nature? Ok. None. So let’s begin this with a presentation from staff. Jodie Gerhardt.
Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner: Ok, thank you Chair Michael and Commissioners. My name is Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner for the City. Tonight we are here to discuss the project at 820 Los Trancos
Road. And I’m doing two things at once here, but the property is just over 10 acres inside and there is a
clearing on the upper portion of the project site, which is where the house is proposed to be located. It
is, the project does include construction of a two-story home along with a detached garage and other site
and landscaping improvements. The subject property is located in the open space zoning district and all
properties within the open space zoning district are subject to the site and design combining regulations
and the open space review criteria. So and since the City only processes a few site and design
applications and I know that we’ve got several new Commissioners as well I’m going to take a few extra
minutes to go through the process.
So the site and design review process is intended to provide review and approval for development that is in environmentally sensitive areas and it applies to all properties in the open space, the agricultural, and any properties that have the D overlay. So we do have a process flow chart here that does there are sort of two different flows actually. If it was a larger project for commercial or multi-family or mixed-use type
project then the application is made to the Planning Department, it’s reviewed by the Planning
Commission, it goes on to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and ultimately a final decision made by
the Council. For single family homes the project just goes to Planning Commission, which we’re doing
here tonight and then it goes straight on to Council for a final approval.
As far as the Commission’s purview you are asked to review the plans to make recommendation of
approval or to make a recommendation of changes to the plans that would be necessary to accomplish
the four objectives that you see on the screen here. We also have, staff has draft findings that are
contained in the Record of Land Use, which is Attachment A of the staff report. Lastly there is the open
space review criteria that’s contained in the code and this establishes 12 different review criteria that are taken from the Comprehensive Plan. These include such things as avoiding visual intrusion of the development, the development should not go beyond a ridgeline, the built form should mimic the topography of the site, and we should retain existing trees as much as possible. So again the findings for these criteria are contained in Attachment A.
So onto the project itself, this project there is a previous approval for this site done in 2004. So this is a
slight revision from that. The house is generally located in the same location as was previously approved
in 2004. There is a very clear opening on the property sort of ripe for development. So staff took a look
at the visibility from offsite and also took a look at the mature trees. Those are really the two main
issues that we were concerned about. So you’ll see we do have some pictures of offsite and the
applicant will go further into details on this if you have any questions, but really the project is not visible
from offsite. And then you’ll also see here the location and the arrow pointing to the approximately one
1
1 2 3 4
5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15 16
17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29
30 31
32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41 42
43
44
45 46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54
55
56
and a half acres that is already clear of trees and that is where the proposed development is proposed to
happen. So I’d like to now turn it over to our City Arborist. Again there are several mature oak trees on
the property and so we had the Arborist fully involved in this project and he can give you a little bit of
more information. Thank you.
Dave Dockter, Arborist: Good evening Commissioners, my name is Dave Dockter. I’m the Arborist in the
planning development review area of things and as Jodie said one of our charges is to kind of watch out over the environmental aspects of the site and design whether it’s the Baylands or up in the hillside areas. The natural environment is really a major player in our Comp Plan, Urban Forest Mater Plan, zoning ordinance, etcetera.
The specific project frankly is better than the previous one that was approved in that there are no trees
really being removed other than a couple Coulter pines. It’s an oak woodland area that we’re ascertained
is literally going to be untouched with the grading and the driving, the driveway going in. If you look at
the map where the arrow is the yellow area that’s the predominant area where there’s these unique
introduced Coulter pines. These are not native to our area, but they are native to Southern California,
Baja. They have a reputation of being the heaviest pinecones in the world. So it’s just good habitat for
that, for the squirrels and animals nearby, but the applicant has proposed to take care of those which are
above the road. They over story most of the house area. Below these, this row of Coulter pines is this
open Meadow area from a previous quarry. The quarry is now gone. It’s a natural meadow area now
that’s been utilized by the wildlife and it’s just perfectly built for a home to be nestled in. Almost no grading is occurring that would affect negatively any of the oak woodland, the trees.
Lastly I would just make a note that in our conditions of approval we’ll ensure that all the precautions are
being taken for sudden oak death so that trucks don’t take muddy, muddy infected soil from this site or
from another site to this site. Sudden oak death is in the immediate area here, so we’ve got a precaution
for the project to comply with that. And lastly any, any grading or open soil areas are going to be hydro
seeded with a special Los Trancos wildlife flower mix if you will. So the applicant is committed to working
with all our requests and with that I’m open to any questions you might have, but just to give both the
Commission and City Council a comfort level this, the applicant here has just done wonderful things with
the Arborist and Tree Protection Report. And the eventual plantings that will occur will be working
directly with staff. So it’s in good shape as far as I’m concerned. Thank you and we’ll turn it over to the
applicant. Jodie? Ok, for a presentation.
Elizabeth Holmes, Peck Design: Hi, I’m Elizabeth Holmes. I’m the main designer on the project and I have a team. This is my team. Mark Southerland is the architect, [Mitch unintelligible] is [unintelligible] and architecture team. And then I have Henry Cramer and Jim Toby here. He’s our arborist and our civil engineer. So we’ve been together, we have been working together for two years and I’ve been working
on this project for about eight. This is a friend’s house and I happen to live in Portola Valley, so this is
dear and near to my heart.
So let’s see, ok. So the property, the property is a bowl and we’ve specifically set the house, which is a
courtyard shaped house into the bowl with the higher two-story house up against the hill. The only
house that we can see from this within half a mile is the house that was just built right on the hill they
have an easement through our property to get to the house on top which is a sort of Mexican Spanish
Los Cabos house and it’s much more visible. And then we can see a couple of houses over at the
ranches. So it’s off Los Trancos right above Portola Vineyards, which we cannot see. There’s the project
site which you guys can all see. Ok, so this is out front taken from the ranches and let me see I have a little pointer here, ok. So our site is, is that it? I can’t see from, that’s our site right there. So that’s our site. So this is literally the only place that you can see our house. This is the house that was just built and this house right here is a white house with a very nice porch around it that you can see from Alpine
Road. And that’s how you know where our house is because you can only see that house.
So this is the same location and then you can see again right there is our site. Go ahead sorry, what?
Oh yeah. We’re does it say? You know three-quarter almost two-thirds of a mile from our site and we’re
in this, we’re in Portola Valley at this point and the site is clearly in Palo Alto. So these are so Mark drove
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
around and just went to a bunch of locations we thought we might be able to see the site from and you
that was the only site we could see it from. We went up on Golden Oak and all the other high locations.
You can see it up from one other location when I was hiking, but you can’t it’s from no other houses in
other words. It’s well located for us. So not visible, not visible.
So this is an aerial view and you can see it’s completely naked right now. So this is driving up this private
road and we’re at Number 1 here and to the left is the driveway. You’ve already dropped off the road, which the client owns. You’ve dropped off the road and you’re on the property now, but you can see across the meadow and this I… you can’t see the house that’s in cons… or is now completed. This is in the same location sort of looking back. Off to the right where that fence ends and you see an oak tree
that’s where we’re going to drop into the property and there’s an existing service road there that was
taken, the quarry used it. So we’re not doing any grading there. There’s a small amount of fill that we
do as we turn into the property.
This is looking across and you can see the construction on the top of the hill there. This is where you
would see that house from their own property. We have already added about 60 oak trees, about two
years ago we came in and there was a… if you look across the hill there’s a bare space on the hill and a
bunch of trees had fallen so we went in, cleared up all the property, and added a bunch of native oaks on
this side so that anyone driving by would not, the house would be less viable on that side up there
because you can see it from a distance and there’s a house there and also on the right. So the neighbor
had actually come in and because the client’s trees were overhanging the property he went out, he cut the trees down and cleared a whole bunch of trees out of our property without our… it was not, they didn’t ask us in other words. So we went back in and added trees in the place where he had taken the pines out. They were all pines so it wasn’t they weren’t oaks, but so we’ve we were taking an active,
active participation in restoring the property to what it was. And everything that we’ve planted has been
native.
So this is up where the house will be. You’re standing sort of in the courtyard behind between the
garage and the main living building, which is sort of the center of the courtyard. And that’s Windy Hill
directly out our, out our view line. So in this location the living room building is to the left, we’re
standing in the main family room/kitchen building, and our two-story building is off to the right and you
can’t see it right now. The two-story building is up against that hill, but not in not even close to any of
those trees. And then you can see the bare spot, bare spot up on the right and you can see some of the old pine trees that are starting to fail and they had actually fallen over, which is what we filled in. This is back at the road. So this is our site plan and we have some terraced meadows off the we’ve created a courtyard between the three house buildings and they are all native grasses with some native plantings in between, but it’s basically there are no deer fences, there is no roses, there are no… I live here so I know what can and cannot be planted and basically nothing except grasses can be planted so that’s what it’s
going to be. And then you see the garage to the back.
There’s one main driveway that the clients and guests would enter that drops down off on the left and
there’s a turnaround, fire engine turnaround and then they pull up and they pull sort of there’s a small
rise and then a drop into the garage and then on the back side is a service entrance for the garbage and
service/maintenance. So this is these are a couple more shots. This is I’m now standing under I’m sort
of standing in the parking area. There’s a gorgeous grove of oaks behind me and those oaks all those
small oaks that you see we just planted. And right now right to the left you can see a section of the
fence that was some very bad drainage that they did a couple before my client owned the property and everything’s sort of dumped on and we’re now we’ve taken care of that and all the utilities are right across the road.
That’s the beautiful, one of the two really beautiful oak groves which is we’re maintaining clearly. And
right now there’s actually a driveway which I believe was the entry to the previous house through the
middle of those trees and we’ve completely already closed off the fence and restoring that. And we’ve
planted all the way along the fence there. That’s the driveway they were going to use and that’s oh no,
I’m sorry, we’re back now at the service entrance which is further to the east of the oaks. So this is just
conceptual this is not the actual building, but this here is some massing studies that we did early on just
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15
16
17 18
19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30 31 32
33 34
35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43
44
45
46
47 48
49
50 51 52 53 54 55
looking at how the building was going to sit in the landscape. And there it is again. And in these
drawings the two-story building, which is off to the north you don’t actually see the pretty steep rise up
because it hadn’t been surveyed at that point, but there is a pretty big there’s quite a hill there.
That’s just the site oh so that’s looking back up at the site so the two-story building is on the left and
there’s actually a step that they had a previous road that will all be graded out so it’ll look much more
natural than this looks presently. Just a bunch of other sites. This is our site plan area diagram. We have two or let’s see, we have a couple of areas of terracing that is set in concrete and most of the terracing will be set in stone so that it’s really the client is very low maintenance and they just want it to be very natural.
Floor plans so you enter on the bottom in the bottom building with the living room and then there’s a
central building. They don’t actually entertain very much. They have the building in case they need it,
but basically they’ll be living in the upper two buildings. And they have two sets of in-laws so that’s why
we have extra guestrooms and they have three children.
These are our materials so that’s cedar which natural cedar and standing seam roof and some stone,
stone base. So it, it clearly is going to stand out when it’s green like right now, but we all know that
California’s not that green so it works very well in the three-quarters of the year. So there are elevations
and the idea was the client actually wanted a more rustic sort of Tahoe-esque building and our team has
been pushing away from that because I think it’s inappropriate for the local area when he seems to be fine with that after two years. So there is stone, which he wanted for warmth and grounding the building, but the idea was not to have a huge show house it was to have a almost a Colorado kind of feel, more low key.
Certainly you can ask me any questions, but these are all clearly elevations. Sections, heights, and we’re
not asking for any variance. We’re completely within all, all requirements and have worked very hard to
do that, which was difficult on this building which is two stories, but it is in compliance. And landscape
plan, grading and drainage so our septic is off to the left and when we were out there we the septic was
further into the trees, which looked like it wasn’t in the trees and when we went out there with your
arborist it appeared it was actually in the trees so we moved it. Now you can see it’s to the right of that
third grove of trees, which seems to work really well. Tree protection, tree protection and we’ll have a
construction operations area and then we of course would landscape that back. And I think that’s it.
Anything else?
Chair Michael: Well thank you very much. It looks like a stunning project. Let’s just open up to questions from the, comments from the Commission. Would anybody like? Commissioner Gardias.
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you Mr. Chairman. So let’s clarify the one thing probably the most
important here in the handout and I have a question to the planner about this. There’s a statement that
that about open space review criteria where the buildings should not be not recommended to be built
and of course it’s an obvious requirement. Could you please tell us something about this requirement or
this review criteria specifically so we can educate ourselves? I didn’t have time to prepare so please tell
us about them and then also tell us how this location relates to this requirement. And I have more
questions after that. Thank you.
Ms. Gerhardt: You’re asking about the open space review criteria and about the location of the home
(interrupted)
Commissioner Gardias: Yes please.
Ms. Gerhardt: Of the home related to that criteria? There is a criteria that asks that development be
located away from hilltops and design not to extend above the nearest ridge. Given the sort of clearing
on this property that it is sort of a bowl shape it does sort of dip down a little bit. The house will be built
into the topography, which is another one of their criteria. For all of those reasons we were saying that
4
1 2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14
15
16 17
18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35 36 37 38 39
40 41
42
43
44 45 46 47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54
55
the project does meet that specific criteria that even though it’s sort of higher up on the property this is
the most logical place to put, to build the home.
Commissioner Gardias: So it’s along the requirements, is it correct?
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct.
Commissioner Gardias: Ok. And how, how tall is hill because it’s really hard to, the hill that’s behind the house it’s really hard to judge from, from the plans and from the pictures.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think if you go back to where it shows that hill because there is another house, the
house above actually is on the ridge.
Ms. Holmes: It is on the ridge.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, but there’s a fair distance between sort of your pad level and their pad level is a
good (interrupted)
Ms. Holmes: Oh, it’s at least 100 feet. Yeah, I mean it’s they can’t see us. They look you know… ok, so
our house is sitting down here. Their house is sitting up here. So the level from here to here yeah it’s,
yeah. It’s got to be more than that. But yeah, 50 or 60 feet.
Commissioner Gardias: 50 or 60 feet?
Ms. Holmes: So their house sits on the ridge right here. Their house actually protrudes off this corner.
You can see it a lot just drive on Alpine and you can see it.
Commissioner Gardias: Are those developments that you referred to during your presentation are they
one-story or two-story?
Ms. Holmes: That one is a two-story house.
Commissioner Gardias: That one on the ridge is two-story? Wow, we should have reviewed that before.
So ok very good. So that answers question from this perspective. So let me go through some other
questions. So to the, question to the Arborist so when you look at the drawing C2.2 that shows, that shows trees which may be oaks I believe trees 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30 there is a retaining wall that goes at the back of the garage that cuts through the drip lines of those trees. Have you looked at this? Because it seems to me that pretty much this cut would be just removing the portions of the roots of those oaks.
Ms. Gerhardt: Those aren’t oaks, those are all pines.
Commissioner Gardias: They’re pines?
Mr. Dockter: Yes, that’s correct those are pines and there is a really steep natural drop off there too. So
the pines have grown for so long with that existing steep drop off cut, it’s not actually a cut that well the
retaining wall that we do have they are putting in are carefully placed to not cut into the root zone. So it
may look like it’s closer than where the roots really are. We, we are very careful to have all of the
retaining walls exactly placed to in relation to the root zone of the trees whether they’re oaks for the driveway coming in and around the garage area and there’s a side parking area too that looks like it comes really close to some trees, but it’s carefully placed to the topography that’s out there. There is a bunch of bumps and terraces and drop offs that aren’t really reflected too well from the plan view.
Commissioner Gardias: Ok this is how it looks on the drawing that pretty much this retaining wall just cut
through the roots and then giving that this is down the hill you may expect that roots were expanding
5
1 2
3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16 17
18
19
20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28
29
30
31
32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41
42
43
44
45 46
47
48
49
50 51 52 53 54
55 56
down the hill because of the water runoff so this area may be moist and then for this reason trees may
be just penetrating with their roots down the hill, right?
Mr. Dockter: Intuitively you’re correct that the roots follow the drainage, they follow the water, but we’re
accounting for that.
Commissioner Gardias: Ok.
Mr. Dockter: And we absolutely can make some onsite adjustments to with especially with retaining walls and if it needs to move a foot one way or another to preclude cutting some roots that’s what the arborist, their arborist who’s here tonight, but we have him really tied to the project at all times. Anything going
on in this tree root zone area he’s they’re going to be communicating with us, with staff to make sure no
roots get cut.
Commissioner Gardias: So if there is if I’m hearing this right during the excavation process if there’s
going to be a trace of the roots they will contact you and then possible adjustments to the retaining wall
may be made?
Mr. Dockter: That’s correct. We would, we would enforce that and we’re accounting for some
movement, a foot one way or another or a couple of few feet. We have that liberty and the applicant’s
done a pretty good job as citing the roadway to follow the existing kind of skid road that’s already there. Go ahead.
Man at 3:09:20ish: Commissioner Gardias, if I might add I think there’s also complementary use to the retaining wall going in by carefully placing that retaining wall we’re avoiding further erosion downhill from
those pines and avoiding them becoming susceptible to falling over. So I see there’s also a plus side to
the actual placement of the retaining walls.
Ms. Holmes: And this is a, if you look in this section right here this is the area we’re talking about. So
you see it’s quite steep and the trees are in here. This is the roadway up here, which is flat and the trees
are sitting up in here and our retaining wall that’s our retaining wall right there.
Commissioner Gardias: Right.
Ms. Holmes: So it’s not it’s hard to see in those plans, but it is quite steep and the trees are all [unintelligible].
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, I mean it clearly shows on Plan C-2.2. So if the perimeter of a tree is
properly stated and I hope that it is. Then the wall just cuts through the roots as I understand, but I
take your explanation for as the answer and I understand there is a process to secure this. So that’s let’s
just move on to the next one.
There is I would like to talk to you for a moment about, about the field that’s a roadway that’s shown on
plan on Sheet C-2.4. It shows the roadway that leads to the house that’s right this is the bottom of the
drawing at the bottom square that runs on the field. That’s correct. So when you look at the plans it has
a trench that’s cut through it that naturally has a purpose of disbursing water downhill I believe or it
doesn’t show and then it shows that the road has a slope and that this trench the trench is probably the
bottom point of this road because there is a 10 percent slope from the south or west side and 2 percent from the east side. So when I look at this, this portion it leads me to this questions. Number one is there may be a large runoff of water along the driveway or this access or main driveway. So that’s number one and I’d like to listen to ask you to provide me with explanation of how you ended up with one, with one trench drain. There may be another one required because then the water would
accumulate from running from both directions and then will erode the hill of the point of the exit. Then
also there is another point when you think about this. If there is a fill and then there’s a fill when you
look at the section I think the section is on the Sheet C-2.6 there is going to be a hill down runoff of
water, rain water that’s going to go going against the retaining wall and then there is no penetration
6
1 2
3
4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11
12 13
14 15 16
17 18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29
30
31
32
33 34 35 36 37 38 39
40
41
42
43
44
45 46
47
48 49
50 51 52 53 54
through the field sections then show it. There are no details or explanations how this would so there’s a
potential erosion of the hill along this retaining wall.
Jim Toby, Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.: Good evening I’m Jim Toby the project Civil Engineer. Actually
we’ve taken a close look at all this stuff so the runoff you see coming from the road itself the roadway
the roadway link you’re referring to is not necessarily a very long run of roadway and we’re going to be
providing a fairly robust trench train across the road to be able to pick that up. That’s the steeper portion where we are referring to as the 10 percent roadway coming down. When you look at the area to the right of that trench train where it says two percent our final intention is going to be that most of this runoff actually flows off to the side a little bit. These are kind of preliminary plans so I’m not
showing every single grade in those areas, but in general the roadway will have a cross slope to it so
even though you’re having a two percent coming to the trench train you’re also going to have a two
percent pitch cross sloped to the left. So some of that water will actually go down into the hill naturally,
some of it will be picked up in that trench drain, and the intention is that we’re going to collect a fair
amount of the storm water be able to disperse it on the site in a controlled manner once we actually get
along to collecting all the storm water in the various pipes. The natural terrain of the site as you can kind
of see is kind of a bowl shape site so our goal is to simply release the storm water around the building
and release it in a controlled manner downhill at the site.
Commissioner Gardias: Right, I understand, but it’s not on the drawings. And then if in addition to this,
this two percent slope collects water not only from the driveway, but also from the parking area that’s in front of the house so if you think about this the way that it’s shown or engineered it would be a large amount of water that would be running down this driveway, meeting the water that’s coming from the other side of the field, and everything will be meeting at the field, at the trench, I’m sorry.
Mr. Toby: So what we also do if I can refer you to Sheet C-2.3.
Commissioner Gardias: Right.
Mr. Toby: We have accounted for some of that water. We have some of this water runoff will actually be
dispersed into swales along the edge of the roadway, which will be collected into area drains. Those area
drains will then allow the water to be collected and brought in a controlled manner around the driveway
and into where it’s going to be disbursed on site. So there are a number of area drains here. We do
provide a number of grades and some detailing of exactly how that’s going to work, but the water is going to even if you look at the contours yes we’re showing a two percent gentle grade towards that trench drain, but not all the water is going to reach that trench drain. It is going to be dispersed into the swales along the edge of the roadway.
Commissioner Gardias: And where are the swales on 2.3?
Mr. Toby: 2.3 so can we go to 2.3 on the screen? Down there, do we have that? There we go. So this
water will also collect and kind of go in this direction. This is the natural this is contours are going down
right here. We have a swale that’s coming along here so we collect some of the water coming from the
roadway it’s going to come this way into the swale. There’s an area drain right here, some storm drain
piping right here. So we are accounting for some of this water. When we design the driveway we’re not
going to design the driveway to have just a simple slope only in this direction. It’s going to slope in this
direction and also in this direction. So we always put a cross slope on the driveway and that will basically
that’s something that we detail a lot more thoroughly when we get to the final construction drawings rather than the preliminary drawings.
Commissioner Gardias: I understand, but it’s not on these drawings (interrupted)
Chair Michael: I’m just checking on time. You’re over your five minutes by…
7
1
2 3
4 5
6
7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17 18
19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26
27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34
35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42
43
44
45 46
47
48
49 50 51 52 53 54
55
Commissioner Gardias: Yes, thank you very much. So sorry for this, but it’s clearly not on the drawings
so that’s my concern, right? I would like to just have it shown and just submit it to the Commission for
this reason.
Mr. Toby: No problem.
Commissioner Gardias: Thank you.
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck.
MOTION
Commissioner Alcheck: Good evening, thank you for assembling your team tonight. So this is actually
the first time I’ve had the pleasure of having Dave Dockter present to us. You’re sort of famous and I
haven’t encountered a single arborist in the private sector that doesn’t think you’re phenomenal at your
job. So I think your recommendation, your assessment of the applicant’s effort weighs heavily on at least
my position. I also hold our City Planners in high esteem as well and so it sounds like the applicants have
taken, made a great deal of effort. Eight years is a long time to be working on a project. I hope that the
development of the project is in a fourth of the time that they need to design it and I’m sure that would
delight your client. But more importantly I just want to recognize that it sounds to me like you’ve
worked very closely with staff and that you’ve taken this concept of respecting the environmental issues involved here very sincerely.
I would be motivated to make a Motion to support this but, I’ll do that now. I’m going to move that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Record, excuse me, yeah, the
Record of Land Use Action approving the site and design review to allow the construction of two-story
single family residence with detached garage, approve site improvement at 820 Los Trancos Road.
Chair Michael: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Downing: Second.
Chair Michael: So seconded by Commissioner Downing. So do you have any further remarks that you want to make?
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I just want to suggest that it might be helpful if staff articulated what sort
of requirements these documents had for the Commission so that for example we were just dealing with
a detail that may not have been pronounced on the documents, but the assumption is, is that if it’s not
there it wasn’t required or it wouldn’t even have made it this far. And so I think that could help because
clearly the Planning Department and eventually the Building Department is going to be very involved in
this and so your first step is getting through your Planning Department and then the Building Department
is going to be very heavily involved in the actual construction and you’ll have somebody onsite constantly
reviewing these components. So to some extent moving forward it might be helpful to know if the
documents are in order so that there’s no misconception that maybe there’s missing information.
Chair Michael: Commissioner Downing do you want to speak to your second?
Commissioner Downing: Sure. I support this Motion because having looked at all the requirements as laid out by staff and all the supporting materials it looks like you’re well within all the laws that you need to be in, all of our ordinances, and in line with our Comp Plan. And honestly to me the word of the City
Arborist is probably golden in these sort of decisions and if he’s happy I’m happy.
Chair Michael: So other Commissioners? Vice-Chair Tanaka.
8
1 2
3
4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13
14 15
16 17
18
19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
27 28
29 30
31
32
33
34 35 36
Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Just a quick question for staff; so I assume since this project’s been going on
for eight years all the neighbors know about this? Ok. I was just wondering if all the neighbors know
about this I mean I know there’s a written notice, but has there been any feedback from the neighbors
about this project? Any issues, any complaints, etcetera?
Ms. Gerhardt: There has been notification out to the neighbors. The staff report was sent to Portola
Valley just to make sure that they were aware of it as well. We did receive from the Vineyard that’s down the hill they just had a question about what was going on, but no major issues beyond that. Just wanting to understand the project.
Chair Michael: So I just had one question and this is this is just for my education so this is in Portola
Valley which is in San Mateo County and here we are in Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. And if you do a
search on the Arastradero-Pearson open space this appears to be outside of that map in terms of the
open space. So how does it happen that Palo Alto is the lead agency to have jurisdiction on site and
design review?
Ms. Gerhardt: The property is truly in the City of Palo Alto and that’s how we’re the lead agency even
though it’s very close to Portola Valley, but it is in the City of Palo Alto.
Chair Michael: Ok so it even though the other house is in Portola and on Trancos Road have sort of a
Portola Valley…
Mr. Toby: The creek actually is the county line between Santa Clara County and San Mateo County and this property is actually on the southern end of that creek.
VOTE
Chair Michael: Ok, good. So that was a mystery to me. And I think other questions I’ve had have
already been asked. I think the presentation of the staff report, the applicant’s presentation was very
thorough and I’m prepared to support the Motion. Does anybody have any debate? Ready to vote on
the Motion? All in favor? So that’s unanimous. Congratulations.
MOTION PASSED (7-0)
Commission Action: Motion to recommend Council approve the Record of Land Use Action was made by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Commissioner Downing. Approved unanimously.
9
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5484)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Utilities Marketing Contract Amendment: SCVWD
Title: Approval and Authorization for the City Manager to Execute
Amendment One to Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara
Valley Water District to Increase Palo Alto’s Total Cost Obligation by $500,000
Through FY 2016 for a Total Cost Obligation of $1,235,915 to Fund Water
Conservation Rebate and Incentive Programs and Adoption of a Related
Budget Amendment Ordinance for Fiscal Year 2015 to Provide Appropriation
in the Amount of $400,000
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment One (Attachment A) to
the 2014-2016 Memorandum of Understanding with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
for the Administration and Funding of Water Conservation Programs (the “2014-2016
MOU”) to increase the City of Palo Alto’s (City) three-year $735,915 total cost obligation by
$500,000 to $1,235,915;
2) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve changes to the targets, budgets and
other aspects of the programs set forth in Appendix A of the 2014-2016 MOU; provided
such changes do not otherwise increase the City’s total cost obligation.
3) Adopt a related Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment C) to appropriate $400,000 for
this Amendment One from the Water Fund offset with reduction from the Water
Operations Reserve.
Executive Summary
Although not a wholesale water customer of the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the
City, through its Utilities Department (CPAU), partners with SCVWD to achieve mandated state
and local water efficiency and drought conservation targets. This partnership is formalized in a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and offers water conservation programs and services
to residential and commercial customers within the City.
The 2014-2016 MOU was approved midway through the current four-year California drought.
In response to recent state drought restrictions, SCVWD pursued very aggressive action in 2014,
including doubling rebates and lifting of cost caps for the Landscape Rebate Program (LRP). The
enormous customer response to the new LRP program incentives depleted the available funds
for the MOU for the remainder of the contract term unless funding is increased as proposed.
The proposed funding increase of $500,000 will allow CPAU and SCVWD to continue delivering
cost effective water efficiency programs for the remaining term of the MOU.
Background
For over a decade, CPAU has partnered with SCVWD to administer water efficiency programs to
meet the City’s water reduction goals (the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan established a
goal of reducing per capita water usage by 20% by 2020). This partnership between SCVWD and
the City is currently formalized through the 2014-2016 MOU, under which SCVWD and the City
co-fund various programs. The first MOU was adopted by Council in 2002 (CMR 359:02). Over
time, the water efficiency programs provided under the MOU have evolved or expanded
concurrent with advancements in water-saving technologies and best practices for water-
efficient program delivery.
The most recent 2014-2016 MOU, approved by Council in July 2013 (Staff Report #3744), covers
the period between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016, and provides for nine water efficiency
programs, with seven administered by SCVWD and two administered by CPAU. Under this
2014-2016 MOU, the City has an obligation to pay SCVWD a maximum of $735,915 as co-
funding for the seven programs administered by SCVWD. Similarly, SCVWD has an obligation to
pay the City a maximum of $164,625 as co-funding for the two programs administered by the
City. For rebate programs, including the LRP, the co-funding from CPAU pays for 50% of the
total customer rebate.
Discussion
The LRP provides rebates for residential and commercial customers to replace high water using
landscape with low water using landscape. With limited participation levels in prior years due to
the high cost of landscape conversion, the original LRP annual budget in the MOU was set at
$100,000 in rebates for 100,000 square feet of landscape conversions per year, and assumed 37
participants (30 residential and 7 commercial).
FY2010-011 FY2011-2012 FY2012-2013 FY2013-2014
Landscape Conversion
Program Number of
Participants
72 26 28 27
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Due to the severe drought situation, in 2014 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted
emergency regulations for urban water conservation, requiring mandatory water use
restrictions in all cities, specifically targeting outdoor water use
In April 2014 and in response to State action SCVWD doubled the LRP rebate level from $1.00
to $2.00 per square foot of replacement landscaping. SCVWD’s change was designed to boost
customer participation in the historically underutilized LRP program. SCVWD also
recommended removing the maximum rebate amount of $1,000 for residential and $10,000 for
commercial properties in order to attract customer participation. SCVWD recommended that
CPAU consider a similar action... In that same month, CPAU followed SCVWD’s
recommendation and increased its customer rebate contribution from $1.00 to $2.00 per
square foot until December 31, 2014, and agreed to waive the maximum rebate, thus providing
LRP applicants with up to $4.00 per square foot for their entire conversion.
The doubling of rebates and elimination of maximum rebate amount limits by SCVWD and
CPAU immediately resulted in increased volume and size of customer LRP applications
throughout the City, including commercial customers with significant turf acreage and large
campus environments. Through December 31, 2014, SCVWD received 226 Palo Alto rebate
applications for 409,708 square feet of landscape, with CPAU rebates totaling approximately
$725,000.
The SCVWD and CPAU program changes resulted in the total number of Palo Alto LRP
applications in 2014 exceeding the prior four years of the program by 148%. The hugely
successful effort permanently converted 9.4 acres of high water using landscapes in Palo Alto to
low water use.
Due to MOU budgetary constraints, and after fulfilling the commitment to double the LRP
rebate level through December 2014, on January 1, 2015, CPAU returned LRP funding levels to
the original $1.00 per square foot (all customer classes), and rebate limits to the original $1,000
per residential site, and $10,000 per commercial site. SCVWD will extend their doubled LRP
program funding through June 15, 2015, which will continue to benefit Palo Alto LRP applicants.
To ensure continued and aggressive water conservation efforts, and because of the
unanticipated level of response to the LRP, staff recommends Council approve an amendment
to the existing 2014-2016 MOU with SCVWD to add an additional $500,000 to CPAU’s funding
obligation for a revised maximum City funding obligation total of $1,235,915. The additional
funding will ensure continued momentum of the seven effective water efficiency programs
administered by SCVWD during the ongoing drought.
A summary of the 2014-2016 MOU and the proposed amendment is included below:
City’s Total Cost
Obligation
Proposed Increase End of Term
City of Palo Alto Page 4
2014-2016 MOU
(July 1, 2013) $735,915 n/a June 30, 2016
Amendment No. 1
(Proposed) $1,235,915 $500,000 June 30, 2016
In addition to the proposed change to the 2014-2016 MOU maximum funding level in
Amendment One, staff further recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his
designee to approve changes to the targets, budgets and Palo Alto’s cost per measure set forth
in Appendix A of the MOU. This will allow budget flexibility across the various water
conservation programs covered under the MOU.
Resource Impact
For Fiscal Year 2015, $100,000 of funds for the proposed Amendment One to the 2014-2016
SCVWD-MOU for the balance of the term is available in the FY 2015 budget. The remaining
$400,000 for Fiscal Year 2015 will be added to the Water Fund, offset by a reduction to the
Water Operations Reserve as recommended in the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance.
The additional $500,000 will fund previously committed incentive rebates, pending rebate
requests, and additional anticipated rebates for the rest of the fiscal year 2015. Given the
return of program rebate limits, the budgeted contract amount is also expected to be sufficient
to fund the program for Fiscal Year 2016. Staff will monitor the levels of 2014-2016 MOU
customer participation, rebate expenditures by program, and financial reports from SCVWD to
ensure adequate budgetary oversight for the remainder of the 2014-2016 MOU term.
Policy Implications
The proposed Amendment One to the MOU continues funding for water efficiency programs
authorized under the MOU and the Council-approved Urban Water Management Plan. The
2014-2016 MOU with SCVWD is also consistent with the Council-approved Utilities Strategic
Plan: Key Strategic Objective BP6: “Offer programs to meet the needs of customers and the
community” and Strategic Objective BP12: “Promote efficient use of resources.”
Environmental Review
The proposed Amendment One does not meet the definition of a project pursuant to Section
21065 of the California Public Resources Code, thus no environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act is required.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Amendment One to SCVWD MOU with revised Attachment A (PDF)
Attachment B: Copy of Current MOU FY 14 - 16 (PDF)
Attachment C: BAO xxxx - SCVWD Amendment (PDF)
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
5484/so 1 Revised February 23, 2015
Ordinance No. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE WATER FUND TO PROVIDE AN APPROPRIATION OF
$400,000 FROM THE WATER FUND OPERATING RESERVE TO AMEND THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT (SCVWD) THEREBY INCREASING PALO ALTO’S TOTAL COST OBLIGATION BY
$500,000 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2016 FOR A TOTAL COST OBLIGATION OF
$1,235,915 TO PARTICIPATE IN WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS. THE
REMAINING $100,000 IN FUNDING NEEDED FOR THE CONTRACT WILL BE FUNDED
FROM AVAILABLE WATER DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM) OPERATING
BALANCE.
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. Since 2002, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) has partnered with
SCVWD to administer water efficiency programs to meet the City’s water reduction goals
(the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan established a goal of reducing per capita water
usage by 20% by 2020.) This partnership between SCVWD and the City is formalized through
a MOU, through which SCVWD and the City co-fund various programs; and
C. The most recent MOU, approved by Council in July 2013, covers the period
between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2016, and comprises nine water efficiency programs,
with seven administered by SCVWD and two by CPAU. Under this MOU, the City has an
obligation to pay SCVWD a maximum of $735,915 as co-funding for the seven programs
administered by SCVWD and SCVWD has an obligation to pay the City a maximum of
$164,625 as co-funding for the two programs administered by the City. For rebate
programs, the co-funding from CPAU pays for 50% of the total customer rebate; and
D. Due to the severe drought situation, in 2014 the State Water Resources Control
Board adopted emergency regulations for urban water conservation, requiring mandatory
water use restrictions in all cities, specifically targeting outdoor water use; and
E. In April of 2014 and in response to SCVWD doubling its Landscape Rebate
Program (LRP) rebate level from $1.00 to $2.00 per square foot for replacement landscaping
and removed the maximum rebate amount of $1,000 for residential and $10,000 for
commercial properties in order to attract participation in this historically underutilized
program, CPAU followed SCVWD’s recommendation and increased its customer rebate
contribution from $1.00 to $2.00 per square foot until December 31, 2014, and agreed to
ATTACHMENT C
5484/so 2 Revised February 23, 2015
waive the maximum rebate thus providing LRP applicants with up to $4.00 per square foot
for their entire conversion; and
F. The doubling of rebates and lifting of limits by SCVWD and CPAU immediately
resulted in increased volume and size of customer LRP applications throughout the City,
including commercial customers with significant turf acreage and large campus
environments; and
G. To ensure continued and aggressive water conservation efforts, and because of
the unanticipated level of response to the landscape rebate program, staff recommends
Council approve an amendment to the existing 2014-2016 MOU with SCVWD to increase
Palo Alto’s total cost obligation by Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) needed to
fund the MOU for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2015.
SECTION 2. The sum of Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) is hereby
appropriated to the Water Operating budget to fund a portion of the MOU. This increase is
offset by a reduction to the Water Stabilization Reserve. The remaining One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000) required for the contract will be funded from available Water
DSM operating balance.
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 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.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
5484/so 3 Revised February 23, 2015
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 Utilities
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5559)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
Summary Title: CP Themes and Structures
Title: Comprehensive Plan Update Status and Discussion of Existing
Comprehensive Plan Themes and Structure
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council review and discuss the organizational structure of the
existing Comprehensive Plan, as well as the seven themes contained within the plan, and
reaffirm their wish to maintain them within the Comprehensive Plan Update while extending
the horizon year to 2030, adding two concept area plans, and updating the goals, policies, and
programs as needed to address challenges facing our City now and in the future. It is
understood that the Council may want to dive deeply in the meaning of the themes and how
they might manifest or be expressed in the Comp Plan.
Executive Summary
One of the City Council’s priorities this year is to move forward with the ongoing update of the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s “general plan,” or policy
document governing land use and related issues. The Plan (which sets policy) works in tandem
with zoning (which are regulations) to guide decision making about land use, transportation,
housing, and related issues.
The current version of the Plan is called Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, and the City has been working on an update to the plan since 2008. In
early 2014, the Planning and Transportation Commission forwarded their recommended
changes to goals, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council for
review and the City Council initiated a new phase of the process, which included public
workshops and “scoping” of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A leadership group was
formed to assist with community engagement.
On December 8, 2014, the City Council approved a multi-part motion which, among other
things, called for Council, Commission, and community work sessions focusing on critical issues
and choices that must be addressed in the updated plan. The City Council has begun these
City of Palo Alto Page 1
work sessions with a discussion of possible growth management strategies like an annual limit
on office/R&D, and a community “summit” is planned for May 30, 2015 to kick-off community
work sessions for the balance of the year.
This agenda item is intended to give the Council an opportunity to discuss the overall themes
and organizational structure of the existing Comprehensive Plan, and whether these should be
changed and/or prioritized. If desired, a subsequent Council session could be scheduled to
delve deeper in to the plan, examining the vision statements for each element of the plan, as
well as the high level goals and topics addressed.
The Council’s preferences will help to structure the community conversations that will occur at
the May 30, 2015 summit and in the months that follow.
Background
The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan, was adopted in the late 1990s and sets goals and policies related to land
use and development issues, including transportation, housing, natural resource, community
services, and safety.
Every local jurisdiction (including charter cities) in California is required to have a “general plan”
like this (see Government Code 65300 et seq.), and the State recommends these plans be
updated on a regular basis. Palo Alto recognized the need to update its plan in 2006 and began
the process in earnest in 2008, when a consultant was retained to work with staff and the City’s
Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
The PTC’s draft work product was provided to the City Council in early 2014, and focused on
organizational changes to delete redundancies and make the text more accessible and user
friendly, emphasizing the existing GP themes and ensuring they were represented throughout
document, and incorporated environmental sustainability issues. When the PTC’s work product
was brought forward to the City Council, staff proposed a process that would complete the plan
and an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in parallel with expanded community
engagement (Staff Report 4415 from March 3, 2014).
This approach recognized that the EIR process can be an effective way to compare various
growth level scenarios and that EIR preparation itself takes approximately 18 months. Staff
recommended that this effort commence immediately with “scoping” and the identification of
possible alternatives for analysis in the EIR that could then be used to inform proposed
revisions and additions to the Comprehensive Plan (Staff Report ID# 4944 from August 4,
2014). Public workshops and “scoping” meetings were held in the summer of 2014 and the
Council requested a pause in this process on August 6th to permit consideration of potential
changes to the City’s zoning code and zoning map for commercial areas. (Staff Report ID# 5033
from September 8, 2014).
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The Comprensive Plan and zoning are directly linked because the zoning map and zoning
effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a policy document
that identifies desired land uses and intensities via a Land Use and Circulation Map and the land
use designations defined on pp. L-10 through L-13 of the Comprehensive Plan. The City’s
zoning ordinance and zoning map are regulatory tools, rather than policy documents, and
implement the Comprehensive Plan land use designations by establishing specific uses,
densities, and development standards for every area of the City. Thus zoning districts and
standards are more specific than Comprehensive Plan land use designations, and each
Comprehensive Plan land use designation may be implemented via more than one zoning
district.
At a series of meetings culminating on December 8, 2014, the City Council discused their desire
to consider zoning changes concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Update and discussed a
number of issues they would like to consider in the course of the update. (Staff Report ID#
5236 from December 8, 2014) The discussion lead to a motion directing staff to:
1. Proceed immediately (i.e. in advance of the Comp Plan Update) with zoning ordinances
to address retail preservation & parking exemptions, returning to Council with a report
on potential topics prior to going to Planning and Transportation Commission with a
draft ordinance.
2. Schedule a Council work session to discuss parameters of an annual office/R&D growth
management program and potential interim zoning changes for future consideration.
3. Schedule a series of Community/Commission/Council work sessions about “big picture”
planning issues utilizing simplified planning scenarios to test the growth management
program as well as a) the potential elimination of housing sites on San Antonio and
South El Camino in exchange for increased densities or new sites closer to transit and
jobs/services, b) the potential for major transportation investments in the Caltrain
corridor and the County Expressway system, and new public transit, c) the potential use
of sustainability-based performance measures and programs, and d) potential
commercial zoning changes discussed at the City Council Study Session on September 8,
2014.
4. Also use the work sessions to review goals, policies, and programs from the existing
Comp Plan & the recommendations forwarded by the PTC in early 2014.
5. Prepare an impacts analysis (Draft EIR) to inform the Community/Commission/Council
work sessions, presenting the impacts of simplified scenarios (and the policy choices
they represent) as well as potential cumulative impacts over the next 15 years.
6. Concurrent with the Comp Plan Update, prepare a draft zoning ordinance(s) for
consideration that would implement aspects of the plan, including many of the zoning
ideas discussed at the City Council study session on September 8, 2014.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Since the Council’s action on December 8, 2014 the City Council has held work sessions on
growth management strategies, including the idea of an annual limit on office space, and staff
has been working with the City’s consultants and the leadership group to plan a “summit” for
May 30, 2015 and a series of community work sessions that will follow. While the precise
schedule and structure of these follow-on community work sessions have not been determined
yet, they are expected to extend at least to the end of 2015, running concurrently with
continued City Council sessions on critical issues. Table 1, below, presents an initial list of topics
for the City Council sessions and some parameters for the community work sessions.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Comprehensive Plan Vision & Themes
The existing Comprehensive Plan starts with a statement that is still current and could have
been written yesterday:
“Each of us has a vision of what Palo !lto should be like in the future. !lthough our
visions are different, they share common qualities. We aspire to create a safe, beautiful
City for ourselves, our children, and future generations. We envision a City with diverse
housing opportunities, where the natural environment is protected, where excellent
services are provided, and where citizens have a say in government. We aspire to create
a City that is economically health and a good place to do business.
“The Palo !lto Comprehensive Plan strives to build a coherent vision of the City’s future
from the visions of a diverse population. It integrates the aspirations of the City’s
residents, businesses, neighborhoods, and officials into a bold strategy for managing
change.
“The Comprehensive Plan is the primary tool for guiding the future development of the
City. Of a daily basis the City is faced with tough choices about growth, housing,
transportation, neighborhood improvement, and service delivery. A Comprehensive Plan
provides a guide for making these choices by describing long-term goals for the City’s
future as well as policies to guide day-to-day decisions.”
The existing Comprehensive Plan then presents seven major themes, each of which is
summarized in several sentences. These themes were not proposed to change as part of the
PTC’s work, although the PTC put a great deal of effort into weaving the topic or theme of
sustainability through the goals, policies, and programs of the plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Table 3. Seven Existing Comprehensive Plan Themes
Building Community and Neighborhoods
Palo Alto’s diverse neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community. Schools, libraries,
parks, public facilities and small businesses are an essential part of neighborhood life and help build
the bridge between neighborhood and community. The City is committed to building upon the
strengths of its neighborhoods, keeping them safe and attractive, maintaining a distinct identity for
each, and delivering top-quality community services to all residents.
Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character
The community treasures the special qualities of the City, including its historic buildings, pedestrian
scale, high-quality architecture, and beautiful streets and parks. Maintaining the physical qualities
of the City is an overarching consideration, incorporated in all parts of the Plan. The Land Use and
Community Design Element includes specific provisions to maintain Palo Alto’s best features and
enhance and improve those areas where these features are lacking.
Reducing Reliance on the Automobile
The Plan provides new policies and specific actions for reducing the impacts of cars on the
environment and improving options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit-users. In the future, a
greater emphasis will be placed on improving the City’s multi-modal transit stations. New light rail,
shuttle bus, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities are envisioned. The City will strive to create a
development pattern where people can walk, bicycle or take public transit rather than drive.
Meeting Housing Supply Challenges
Palo Alto is perceived as a built-out city. Increasing the housing supply and maintaining the
diversity and quality of Palo Alto's housing stock are challenges. This Comprehensive Plan seeks to
meet these challenges by increasing the supply of housing at all price levels. The plan safeguards
existing single family neighborhoods and rental housing. It proposes new map designations where
higher densities are allowed in appropriate locations and new policies to ensure that the remaining
housing sites are used efficiently.
Protecting and Repairing Natural Features
With most of the baylands and foothills already protected as permanent open space, the
Comprehensive Plan’s focus turns inward to the fragile ecosystems within developed portions of the
City. The City’s creeks, many of which have been altered by flood control projects, are envisioned
as greenbelts and community gateways. A pilot project in urban creek restoration is identified. The
Plan also emphasizes the benefits of street trees and promotes an urban forest throughout the City.
Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs
Palo Alto is well known as a desirable residential community and a City with a healthy, competitive
business community. Meeting the demands of each community is a major theme of the Plan. The
Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and commercial areas and sets limits where
necessary to ensure that business and housing remain compatible. It encourages commercial
enterprise, but not at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods. The City is committed to
retaining existing businesses, maintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting quality new
businesses.
Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership
The Plan emphasizes the City’s commitment to strong community participation. It encourages
collaboration among citizens, businesses, and local officials. It affirms Palo Alto’s role as a leader in
addressing regional issues.
Source: Embracing the New Century, Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, 1998
Staff would welcome the City Council’s input on the plan vision and themes, particularly
whether any of the explanatory text accompanying the themes should be updated and whether
City of Palo Alto Page 8
the themes should be prioritized in any way (other than being presented in their current order).
In addition, the Council’s input and direction on the nature of the role the themes will play in
framing and guiding subsequent discussions planned for the Comp Plan update will be
important. The Council’s input will help to set the stage for discussions at the May 30 summit
and the community work sessions that follow.
Timeline
The Comprehensive Plan Update has been underway for many years and the City Council
“reset” the process in 2014 in an effort to ensure broad community input, to identify and
address critical issues facing our community, and to ensure concurrent consideration of needed
zoning changes.
Consistent with the Council’s direction on December 8, 2014, the City Council has begun a
series of work sessions on critical issues that are likely to continue through the end of the year.
Community work sessions will commence with a “summit” scheduled for May 30, 2015, and are
also likely to continue at least through the end of the year. During the same period, a Draft EIR
will be prepared, along with a fiscal analysis, both of which will provide data and analysis to
inform Council and community discussions. A final Comprehensive Plan Update and a final EIR
will be prepared for consideration by the City Council in 2016.
Resource Impact
Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan structure and themes is not expected to affect the cost
of the project or have fiscal impaces.
Policy Implications
The City’s Comprehensive Plan sets forth the City’s policies with regard to the topics addressed.
The structure and themes of the Plan will inform discussions regarding updated goals, policies,
and programs.
Environmental Review
Adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan will require preparation and certification of a
program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
City of Palo Alto Page 9
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5523)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/16/2015
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Adobe Creek Bike/Ped Bridge Design Competition
Title: Review of the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design
Competition Process and Outcome, and Authorization to Proceed with
Contract Negotiations to Develop a Scope of Work and Cost for Basic Design
Services Necessary to Complete Joint California Environmental Quality
Act/National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Adobe Creek
Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to proceed with contract
negotiations with the party voted the winner by the design competition jury of
the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge 2014 Design Competition. The HNTB
Corporation team was the winner of the competition. Contract negotiations will
develop a scope of work and cost of the basic design services necessary to
complete joint California Environmental Quality Act/National Environmental
Policy act review for the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge.
Alternatively, the Council could direct staff to proceed with contract negotiations
with one of the other two design teams that participated in the competition, or to
proceed with a Request for Proposal process in lieu of selecting any of the teams.
The Council could also request additional information about any of the three
design team submissions to the competition prior to making its decision.
Executive Summary
This report recommends proceeding with the winner of the design competition,
the design team of HNTB Corporation, 64 North, Bionic Landscape Architecture
and Ned Kahn, as determined through the Adobe Creek Pedestrian & Cyclist
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Bridge 2014 Design Competition, held on December 17, 2014. The Council’s
directive initiated a five-month competition process, managed by American
Institute of Architects California Council (AIACC). AIACC and the City solicited 60
international, national and local design firms, ultimately spurring the creation of
three inspirational bridge designs that met the following four guiding design
principles set in advance by the City Council:
1. Innovation – inspire and engage the community with a contemporary
design, incorporating creativity, originality, functionality, technology and
education, that is also identifiable as a landmark in the heart of Silicon
Valley;
2. Versatility – achieve a balance between engineering and art, efficiency and
beauty, diversity of users and functionality, while conforming to the
project’s construction budget;
3. Interconnectedness –respect the delicate ecosystem of the Baylands;
recognize the integration with nature, connection to the bay trails and
importance of viewing nature while accommodating
walkers/bikers/commuters, enhancing the human experience and universal
accessibility; and
4. Conservation – incorporate state-of-the-art bird-friendly design science and
guidelines and develop innovative approaches to management of native
and non-native predator species.
The firm selected by Council to further develop a design must negotiate with the
City on scope of work and cost to complete and other items, comply with rigorous
City and Caltrans review and permitting processes, and produce bid documents by
the end of 2016.
Background
The existing Lefkowitz Tunnel is a seasonal Highway 101 undercrossing facility
located in South Palo Alto near the confluence of Barron and Adobe Creeks and
connects to the San Francisco Bay Trail. This undercrossing is typically accessible
approximately six months of the year from April 15 to October 15. The Council
initiated and unanimously approved the City of Palo Alto Highway 101
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Over/Undercrossing Feasibility study in 2011 identifying the need for a year-
round, pedestrian and bicycle bridge crossing of Highway 101 at Adobe Creek.
The Council approved the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation Plan that identifies this bridge as the preferred alternative for
improving connections across Highway 101 from South Palo Alto to the Baylands.
The Council directed staff to proceed with a qualifications-based design
competition process for the overcrossing at Adobe Creek in June 2013 (staff
report #3572). The competition process was implemented the following year
after the Council approved a contract amendment with Alta + Planning (Alta) in
June 2014 (staff report #4585); that scope of work included the preparation of
design guidelines and studies needed to define the parameters of the design
competition and to complete the environmental assessment in 2015.
Board, Commission, Council Input prior to the competition
Staff received Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Parks and Recreation
Commission (PRC) comments on the guiding principles and design guidelines
during study sessions in July and August 2014, respectively. The ARB suggested
that the project emphasize the bridge representing the “heart of Silicon Valley”
through Palo Alto’s leadership and innovative spirit in Silicon Valley, and the ARB
and PRC emphasized the connection with the Baylands, as reflected in the first
three guiding design principles. The fourth guiding principle, “Conservation”, was
added by the Council in September 2014.
Staff finalized the competition process in September 2014 (staff report #5050) by:
1. Reducing design concepts to 3 finalists (reducing the competition cost by
$20,000).
2. Requiring design firm teams to include a landscape architect, architect and
engineer.
3. Requiring design firms to have experience designing and building at least
one bridge in the last ten years (reduced from two bridges).
4. Adding a cost estimator to the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to evaluate
bridge concept and project budget alignment.
5. Adding a structural engineer to the jury to evaluate the constructability of
bridge concepts.
6. Creating a 9-member panel (4 ARB and 5 jury members) to evaluate the
three finalists and holding deliberations in public.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Competition Process
AIACC’s services included establishing competition guidelines and reviewing
design criteria, inviting designers to submit proposals, selecting a competition jury
and Technical Advisory Panel (TAP), and assisting with the jury’s short-listing of
three qualified design teams. The teams were then given a stipend to develop
conceptual designs for the bridge.
Designs were received from the three design teams on December 5, 2014. On
December 8, the TAP (comprised of City staff, local engineers and agency
representatives, and a cost estimator) met to evaluate the submitted design
concepts. TAP commentary from that meeting is noted in Attachment E.
At the public design competition meeting, held December 17, the jury and ARB
received presentations followed by a design team Q & A period. Public comments
were heard after the presentations were made. ARB commentary was next,
followed by the jury’s deliberation. A unanimous third place vote went to
Submission B, The Portage. A minority vote (1 ARB member and 1 juror) placed
Submission C, the stream-lined bridge design, first, while a majority vote (3 ARB
members and 4 jurors) placed Submission A, The Confluence, first. (Please note
that while votes of both jurors and ARB members are described, the ARB votes
were advisory while the jury vote decided the outcome.)
Competition overview and public outreach
The competition process development, implementation, and community and
Boards and Commissions engagement steps taken were, as follows:
ARB & PRC guidance on design guidelines & guiding principles (Jul-Sep 2014)
Council approval of AIACC scope of work & guiding principles (Sep 2014)
2014 Design competition instructions, Attachment A (Oct 2014)
Design Guidelines finalized, Attachment B (Oct 2014)
Jury reviews 20 submissions/selects 3 finalists, Attachment C (Nov 3, 2014)
Three designs submitted to City, Attachment D (Dec 5, 2014)
Three designs posted on YouTube, AIACC and City websites (Dec 8, 2014)
TAP comment on designs, Attachment E (Dec 8, 2014)
Jury and ARB public meeting/end competition (Dec 17, 2014)
Review of designs by:
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (January 6, 2015)
Planning and Transportation Commission (January 14, 2015
Architectural Review Board (January 15, 2015)
Public Art Commission (January 22,2015)
Parks and Recreation Commission (January 27,2015)
Public comments on three designs on-going
Bridge concepts showcased on the City website and the design boards displayed
within Palo Alto before and after the competition continue to generate public
comment. In January, the jury’s ranking, meeting transcripts (Attachment F) and
determination of the winner were forwarded to the community and reviewed
with the City’s boards and commissions. See discussion section of this report and
refer to the comments matrix, Attachment G.
Discussion
The staff recommendation that negotiations with HNTB proceed in order to
develop a scope of work and cost for basic design services is based on the jury’s
ranking and the City’s boards and commissions review and public commentary as
discussed below.
Technical considerations and Jury’s ranking of the designs
The jury’s professional qualifications and experience, summary of design
submissions, and principal comments and findings regarding the designs is
summarized by the AIACC, Attachment H.
The jury, considering cost, constructability, maintenance and structure, clearly
identified Submission A and Submission C as viable corten steel structures
adequately addressing the aforementioned challenges. Submission B, primarily
made of wood, did not fare as well given the anticipated higher maintenance
costs and wood structure safety concerns. Although the TAP raised questions
about cost and constructability, the jury thought all designs could likely meet the
$8 million construction budget, including contingency, and a total project budget
of $10 million, given this level of conceptual design. The jury recognized the
innovative approaches to the structural designs such as minimizing the number
and depths of supporting columns, maximizing the deck spans and innovative
construction methods that would make it possible to contain costs within the $8
million construction budget.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
While the jury and ARB at their joint meeting found that all three submissions
followed the design goals and objectives, guiding principles, and other factors
consistent with site’s environmental considerations, they selected Submission A
by HNTB, based on its overall aesthetic and the landmark status they anticipate
this bridge could create for Palo Alto citizens and the broader community of
Silicon Valley.
Board, commission, public, and public agency input after the competition
The additional board, commission and public commentary received after the
competition have provided a wide range of comments (see comments matrix,
Attachment G). From a user perspective, Submission A has been designed to give
the users an experience of looking up at the arch, artwork and sky before drawing
their attention to the Baylands natural setting or Adobe/Barron Creek confluence
and the congruent touch-downs of the trail systems. Based on community, board,
and commission feedback, this design is an identifiable landmark optimizing
artistic expression and the separation of cyclists and pedestrians along their route
to work, school and to recreational destinations. See Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory
Committee (PABAC), City board and commission meeting notes, Attachment I.
Staff met with Caltrans representatives after the competition to discuss the
agency’s following comments regarding: (a) a request for refined cost estimates
and technical data to support the proposed structural design; (b) concerns
regarding the use of corten steel in a saline environment; (c) construction staging
and the associated traffic impacts of installation of large steel structures near and
over the Highway 101 freeway; and (d) a need for further study of potential
visual, lighting and bird-safety impacts related to Submission A’s height, cables
and “disk” technology proposed as a bird deterrent. These concerns align with
comments by the public, TAP, PABAC, City board, commission, Audubon and
Acterra representatives, and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter’s Conservation
Committee.
Staff’s recommendation to proceed with further development of Submission A is
based on (a) the jury’s decision, (b) comments of the public and board and
commission members; and (c) a general consensus on cost, constructability,
structure, the guiding design principles and aesthetics. Although staff did not ask
board and commission members to vote on the submissions, nearly all did
City of Palo Alto Page 7
express their preference, and a strong majority concluded that the HNTB
Corporation team’s Submission A had best satisfied the competition’s guiding
design principles. Concerns that have been raised regarding cost, constructability,
structure type and material, bird-safety, and lighting would be analyzed further
prior to the public circulation of the draft environmental assessment.
Additionally, the City’s Site and Design process provides another venue to refine
the design concept to meet environmental and site constraints. Visible design
modifications to either Submission A or Submission C could include significant
changes such as the spacing and thickness of cables; additional structural
supports, columns and anchoring devises to eliminate and/or minimize vibration
and deck movement; and lighting level reduction depending on further study and
environmental assessment of the selected design. Staff's recommendation
assumes that the Council will concur with the winner of the Design Competition
as its preferred design team for further development of a bridge design. Council
could alternatively choose one of the other two bridge design teams or could
decide not to pursue any of the three. Council can direct staff to initiate a
traditional Request for Proposal process if no design team is selected.
Resource Impact
Funding for a $10 million total project cost for the Highway 101
Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Project is programmed in Capital Improvement
Program project PE-11011 (staff report #5050). Funding for this project consists
of $8 million grant for construction from One Bay Area Government (OBAG) and
local grants and $2 Million in funding from the Infrastructure Reserve and the
Council Infrastructure Plan. It is important to note that the $10 million total
project cost is a planning level estimate that is now several years old. The
estimate does not include construction cost inflation, the current higher cost
bidding environment, or the likely cost impacts of building in the Baylands area.
Once the design progresses, an estimate of the construction cost will be refined.
If additional funding is needed, staff will review and return to Council with options
to reduce cost if desired.
Policy Implications
The project is consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the
Comprehensive Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Goal T-3 Facilities, Services and Programs that Encourage and Promote
Walking and Bicycling
Goal T-14 Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local
destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open
space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-
model transit stations.
Environmental Review
The bridge project is subject to the requirements of California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Bridge
alignments within the Baylands have been informally vetted with regulatory
agencies and the community, prompting competitors to consider the sensitivity of
Baylands in their design submissions. A draft environmental assessment will be
circulated during summer 2015 to account for new alignments proposed in design
submissions with the final certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
and Environmental Assessment (EA) anticipated during winter 2015.
Next Steps
Upon receiving the Council’s direction assuming Council concurs with staff’s
recommendation, staff will begin negotiations with the HNTB Corporation’s
design team concerning a scope of work and cost to complete preliminary design
work to provide the necessary information and analysis for the joint CEQA/NEPA
environmental assessment. Staff will then return to Council within one to two
months for approval of the design contract. The initial design contract will
develop the design only to the level needed for completion of the environmental
assessment (often 20-25% design). Further development of the design will
require a future contract amendment that will occur after certification of the
environmental assessment.
The current project timeline is as follows:
Tentative Project Timeline
Enter into design contract (April 2015)
Public Circulation of Draft EIR /EA (Summer 2015)
Environmental assessment and PTC review (Summer/Fall 2015)
Circulation of Final EIR/EA/Complete Public Review (End of 2015/Early 2016)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Completion of 35% preliminary design, estimates and environmental
assessment (End of 2015)
Completion of 100% design and construction bid documents (Fall 2016)
Begin Construction (Early 2017)
Complete Construction (Summer 2018)
Attachments:
Attachment: A - Design Competition Instructions (PDF)
Attachment: B - Design Guidelines (PDF)
Attachment: C - Pedestrian & Cyclist Bridge Proposals-reduced (PDF)
Attachment: D - Three Designs Submitted (PDF)
Attachment: E - TAP commentary for Adobe Creek Bridge (PDF)
Attachment: F - 12-17-2014 Jury's Design Competition transcript (PDF)
Attachment: G - Comments Matrix (PDF)
Attachment: H - AIACC Final report- Adobe Creek Bridge Competition (PDF)
Attachment: I - Letters from the Public (PDF)
HNTB Engineering
49 Stevenson Street, Ste. 600
San Francisco, California 94105
1735 Technology Drive, Ste. 650
San Jose, California 95110
1111 Broadway
Oakland, California 94607
64North Architecture
3528 Multiview Drive
Los Angeles, California 90068
T 310 923 0813
Bionic Landscape Architecture
833 Market Street, Suite 601
San Francisco, California 94103
T 415 206 0648
NED KAHN STUDIOS
Artist
1899 Mariner Drive
Sebastopol, California 95472
T 707 823 1760
Wil Carson NCARB, LEED AP
Design Principal
64North Architecture
Ted Zoli PE
National Bridge Chief Engineer
HNTB Engineering
Marcel Wilson ASLA, PLA
Design Principal
Bionic Landscape Architecture
Ned Kahn
ArtistAbove|Chain of Ether, San Diego, California|Ned Kahn, Artist
March 4, 2015
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re:
Adobe Creek Pedestrian Bridge Design Clarifications
Dear Councilmembers:
A series of questions have been raised regarding our scheme following its selection
by the design competition jury. There have also been modifications to the design
proposed by the City’s Commissions & Boards and members of the public to
further improve the proposed project. These modifications are ones that we would
certainly support should the City decide to incorporate them.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to share the thinking that has shaped
our design and its benefits for the City. Please see the attached documents which
sum up key clarifications, facts, and potential proposed modifications.
We look forward to sharing our design in person on March 16. If you have
questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us directly at
carson@64north.com or 310 923 0813.
Sincerely,
HNTB Engineering49 Stevenson Street, Ste. 600San Francisco, California 941051735 Technology Drive, Ste. 650San Jose, California 95110 1111 BroadwayOakland, California 94607
64North Architecture
3528 Multiview Drive
Los Angeles, California 90068
T 310 923 0813
Bionic Landscape Architecture
833 Market Street, Suite 601
San Francisco, California 94103
T 415 206 0648
NED KAHN STUDIOS
Artist
1899 Mariner Drive
Sebastopol, California 95472
T 707 823 1760
Wil Carson NCARB, LEED AP
Design Principal
64North Architecture
Ted Zoli PE
National Bridge Chief Engineer
HNTB Engineering
Marcel Wilson ASLA, PLA
Design Principal
Bionic Landscape Architecture
Ned Kahn
ArtistAbove|Chain of Ether, San Diego, California|Ned Kahn, Artist
KEY CLARIFICATIONS
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
A number of concerns have been raised regarding our team’s design. We appreciate this opportunity to share
the thinking that shaped our design and its benefits for the City and the Baylands.
+ BIRD SAFETY
A final, very important concern that has been raised is that of bird safety. This is a concern that shaped the
design and integration of artwork on the bridge from its outset. Please see the attached letter from our team
member and biologist at it relates to successfully addressing bird safety.
+ COST
A concern has been raised regarding cost. We are confident that our structural solution represents the least
possible risk as it relates to cost, and that the project can be delivered within the City’s stated budget, as it is
the most proven and least experimental of the proposed structures. Arch structures have consistently proven
to be significantly less expensive than self-anchored suspension bridges, which are traditionally one of the most
expensive bridge types (examples include the east span of the Bay Bridge and London's Millennium Bridge.
Furthermore, the thin deck of the arch allows us to reduce the overall length of the bridge by an additional
100’, further reducing overall costs. Finally, maintenance and inspection costs will similarly be straightfoward
and low, with all elements exposed to view, easily reached, and able to be maintained or replaced as necessary,
an important consideration when considering the economics of the total life cycle cost of the bridge.
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN
+ STRUCTURAL FEASIBILITY
A concern has been raised regarding the structural feasibility of our design, and that it is less robust than the
other proposed solutions. The opposite is true. Steve Burrows, the sole engineer on the design jury, noted
that the arch structure was the most deliverable of the three schemes. He further felt that it would not
present “torsion and lateral problems” as a self-anchored suspension bridge would, which “means time, means
cost, means a different visual impression” in order to realize the alternative proposed solutions.
+ CABLE SUPPORTS & HEIGHT IN THE BAYLANDS
A concern has been raised regarding the competition’s desire for a solution that is not cable-stayed and
minimzes height, specifically as it related to towers, in the Baylands. Our arch is in fact the only proposal that
is not cable stayed, with no cables in the Baylands, with a maximum height of 18’ in the Baylands, well under
the prescribed 35’. Importantly, the design is the only proposal that avoids towers in the Baylands, eliminating
roosts for raptors which prey on the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and other related species.
+ PERMITTING
We are likewise confident that the bridge can be easily permitted by CalTrans, building on our success at
Cupertino’s Mary Avenue Bridge, where we were asked to create an alternative to a bridge designed by others
that had come in doubly over budget and successfully permitted it in only 6 weeks. In addition, our solution is
the only one that does not place additional fill in the Baylands, allowing us to minimize environmental impact
and successfully permit the restoration of this critical habitat.
KEY FACTS
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
+ SAFETY
Current national best practices recommend against placing bridge structure in interstate medians due to
the real and signifcant risk of collisions and compromised bridge integrity. This is important not only in the
center median but in between Highway 101 and Bayshore, which is more proximate to truck traffic. Placing
structures in these outer medians also limits future planning changes to US 101 and necessitates months of
freeway closures for construction. Similarly, there is an existing 30” gas main directly adjacent to the Bay
Trail whose relocation would be a very significant cost, potentially more than the bridge's total budget. The
arch scheme is the only competition entry that avoids all of these conflicts.
+ CONSERVATION & THE FUTURE
The project is a demonstration of a more multifunctional, forward-thinking approach to integrating
infrastructure and conservation. It leverages its small footprint for larger-scale effects, such as filtering
stormwater not just from the bridge but also from East Bayshore, as well as recapturing greywater. A new
vernal pond restores the natural character of the Baylands, and becomes a home for a more diverse range of
ecologies. Geotextile walls minimize the bridge’s footprint in the Baylands and are home to pollinator species,
drawing the natural character of the Bay into the City west of Highway 101. Finally, the design importantly
plans for future sea level rise, anticipating additional habitat area for endangered species as well as insuring that
the design is as vital and successful in 50 and 100 years as it is when it is built.
+ A LIGHT, GRACEFUL STRUCTURE CELEBRATING PALO ALTO’S CONNECTION TO THE BAYLANDS
Living in Palo Alto, we felt that the defining characteristic of the Baylands is its vast, open space. We have
sought to create a structural solution that celebrates this new connection in the most light, airy manner
possible, with arch ribs and deck only 18” deep, as well as integrating details like the required missile barrier
over the highway into the structure, removing the need for unsightly supports and creating a profound, direct
connection between pedestrians and cyclists as they pass along the bridge and the Baylands beyond.
+ AMENITIES
The bridge encourages use of this important connection to the baylands through incorporating key amenities
including bathrooms, a bicycle repair station, public plaza, and interpretive boardwalk.
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN
+ SEPARATING USERS SHARING THE PUBLIC REALM
Working with local bicycle advocates during the design process, we recognized that the bridge will be used
by a wide diversity of user types, including children and the elderly. As such we have separated cyclists and
pedestrians, both through material finish and physical separation, allowing each group to safely and comfortably
use the bridge; turning radii were also set to control descent speeds.
+ A SINGLE NIGHT OF TRAFFIC DISRUPTION
Using an innovative, proven method of bridge erection, Self-Propelled Modular Transports, that our team has
used successfully for Caltrain and in Utah, the bridge can be constructed offsite and rolled into place,
requiring only a single nighttime closure and eliminating traffic disruption and the risks posed by nearby high
voltage lines to construction methods that rely on a crane.
2169-G Francisco Blvd. East, San Rafael, CA 94901 ph: 415-454-8868 info@wra-ca.com www.wra-ca.com
March 4, 2015
City Council, City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Adobe Creek Pedestrian Bridge Design and Bird Deterrence
This letter addresses existing and proposed bird deterrence elements of a proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge at the
Adobe Creek Overcrossing project site in Palo Alto. The proposed bridge would cross Highway 101 adjacent to an
area of open space and historic baylands. While the issue of bird collisions with buildings has received substantial
attention in recent years, minimal to no research exists that document bird strikes on bridges or bridge cables. We
have thus considered the project in consultation with national experts in bird collision and collision deterrents.
The proposed bridge design is a through arch bridge with suspension cables that support the bridge deck. This
design has been successfully utilized with no known bird strikes in areas near bird habitat and migratory routes
including Happy Hollow Park over Coyote Creek in San Jose, the Berkeley Pedestrian Bridge over Interstate 80, and
over Lake Champlain. The proposed arch is located directly over 14 lanes of extremely busy traffic on Highway 101.
According to several of the national avian experts we consulted, birds by nature will avoid flying parallel to and
directly above the freeway at an elevation low enough to strike the bridge. This information was corroborated by
engineers with the City of Berkeley, whose Berkeley Pedestrian Bridge is a similarly designed through arch bridge
more directly adjacent to the Bay and wetland nesting areas and that bird strikes are not an issue.
Several elements were incorporated into the preliminary design to mitigate the risk of bird collisions. These elements
are based on proven examples in other applications (e.g., power lines and viticulture) that have been proven effective
and include:
Lighting is a bird attractant and poses the greatest danger for bird collisions. Bird-appropriate lighting was
chosen for the bridge. This includes no large, upward pointing lights which may attract or confuse passing
birds. Instead lights are horizontal or down-ward facing which reduces their attractive nature to birds.
Five-inch diameter steel discs are to be mounted onto the suspension cables, similar to flight diverters that
are used for power lines and reflective tape used in viticulture. They will sway freely and reflect sunlight and
headlights alerting birds to the presence of the bridge.
To further our goal of making the bridge even more bird-friendly we reached out to several national experts in the bird
collision field, including Dr. Dan Klem, Professor of Biology, and Sarkis Acopian Professor of Ornithology and
Conservation Biology in the Department of Biology at Muhlenberg College, author of more than 30 published studies
on the subject; Kara Donohue, Senior Biologist at Southern California Edison, an expert on birds and cables, biologist
Angela Kociolek of the Western Transportation Institute, and Professor Amanda Rodewall, Director of Conservation
Science for the Cornell University Lab of Ornithology, the center of avian research in the United States.
Each of these national experts independently confirmed the efficacy and appropriateness of our approach. They
further suggested the following design changes which can be incorporated to improve mitigation of bird collisions
further, which we are happy to adopt:
Making the cables darker to increase their contrast to allow birds to see them more easily.
Increasing the density of reflective discs on the cables to make the wires appear more solid and less
penetrable.
Increasing the diameter of the cables to at least 1 inch or greater to increase their visibility.
In conclusion, while the likelihood of any birds interacting with the bridge in a potentially harmful manner (i.e., flying
low, parallel to and just over the freeway) is very low, the proposed design features will reduce the potential for bird
strikes even further. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Geoff Smick
President/Ecologist
0’ 10’ 20’50’
0’ 10’ 20’50’
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN | WRA
POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS:
+ PROPOSED HEIGHT MODIFICATION OF 20 - 25’
In discussing our competition proposal with the City of Palo Alto Boards & Commissions as well as with community members, we felt that the
overall height of the bridge, 56’ above the bridge deck and 75’ above the freeway, might be reduced to create a more modest overall profile, while
maintaining the efficient, minimal 18” profiles throughout for both deck and arch ribs and ensuring there are no unsafe supports in the center of
Highway 101 nor between Highway 101 and Bayshore. Followng additional structural analysis, the overall height of the bridge can be reduced 20-25’.
BEFORE / South Elevation
AFTER / South Elevation
20 - 25’ Reduction
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN | WRA
+ PROPOSED HEIGHT MODIFICATION OF 20 - 25’
BEFORE / Perspective from South
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN | WRA
+ PROPOSED HEIGHT MODIFICATION OF 20 - 25’
AFTER / Perspective from South
CONFLUENCE : ADOBE CREEK PEDESTRIAN & CYCLIST BRIDGE
HNTB | 64NORTH | BIONIC | NED KAHN | WRA
+ NEW DIRECT CONNECTION TO SOUTHBOUND WEST BAYSHORE BICYCLE PATH
One additional concern that was raised by many constituencies, including PABAC, was that the primary commuter pathway for bicyclists is
southbound along West Bayshore and that all three proposed concepts did not allow for bicycles to move onto the bridge with a minimum of effort.
Each of the proposed schemes currently accomodates these users with a shortcut stair. However, because our scheme has already been designed
with a unique “loop over” configuration to the west of Highway 101, it is possible to add a second ramp from the north which merges with the
existing configuration. This solution would require additional negotiation with Google, who owns the building adjacent, as the ramp would further
extend onto their property. However, the proposed ramp would not block any vehicular traffic nor pedestrian access to the building.
Potential Direct
Ramp to North
Vehicular
Access
Beneath
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
March 16, 2015
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Colleagues' Memo From Mayor Holman, Council Members Burt,
Schmid, and Wolbach Regarding Strengthening City
Engagement with Neighborhoods
GOAL
Palo Alto residents are engaged and care deeply about proposals that enhance or may harm our
quality of life. To further support strong neighborhood participation in civic affairs, we propose
initiating several actions to better integrate the understanding, consideration, and actions of
our City government with neighborhoods’ interests and concerns.
BACKGROUND
The City has made great strides in making information available including the very informative
Development Services Construction Updates and the Open Data Portal. Use of various social
media channels such as Facebook, Twitter, and Next Door have enhanced City outreach and
communication with citizens and neighborhoods. This memo seeks to build on those
accomplishments with additional focus on communication with neighborhoods, adding much
more face-to-face contact.
Palo Alto is comprised of 37 neighborhoods, each impacted by decisions that are considered or
made by City government. Whether the event is led or supported by City planners, Public
Works, Utilities, the City Manager’s Office, outside agencies such as VTA, Caltrans, or even
developments in another community, it is incumbent on the City to make best efforts to inform
its citizens. Further, the neighborhoods often have very different characteristics and interests
from one another as acknowledged in our Comprehensive Plan Goal L-3: "Safe, attractive
residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of
shopping, services, schools and/or other gathering places".
The current “Know Your Neighbors” Grant Program provides grants for promoting neighbors
getting to know one other. While this program has been very popular, frequent comments
about the program include that the grant money is spent on permits for use of public facilities
or street closure permits for block parties, leaving little funding for the event itself. The
proposed programs below would be the City’s first comprehensive neighborhood engagement
initiative.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on research of other cities’ programs and community members’ comments, we
recommend that the following proposed City actions be referred to the Policy and Services
Page 2
Committee:
1. Recognize neighborhood associations and provide placement on the City Community
Partners webpage, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/partners with links to a map of the
general neighborhood area and to the association website or other contact information.
The City should review the process for recognition in consultation with neighborhoods and
explore agreement on some basic standards and requirements regarding governance and
association responsibilities for outreach and inclusion, as a recognized neighborhood
association.
2. For recognized neighborhood associations, the City should explore guidelines and costs for
providing periodic free use of available public facilities for public meetings and events as
well as insurance coverage under the City’s policy.
3. Provide small, one-time start-up grants for neighborhood associations to be used to attend
the United Neighborhoods of Santa Clara County’s Annual Conference and toward
neighborhood association initiation activities.
4. Support neighborhood associations in distributing relevant City information to members,
including information about upcoming community meetings or events, notification about
proposed projects in their neighborhoods, City initiatives, emergency preparation events,
County proposals, Public Works or Utilities projects, Caltrain, VTA or neighboring
communities’ plans.
5. Each neighborhood association will be encouraged to identify a designated
“Communications Officer” as information liaison with the City.
6. Hold annual town hall-style meetings with City Council representatives and appropriate
City staff and focused on different regions of Palo Alto. The meetings shall encourage both
individual and neighborhood association participation.
7. Evaluate creation of an Ombudsperson program with the neighborhoods to follow up on
neighborhood or resident issues and facilitate conflict resolution when needed.
DISCUSSION:
Certain of these proposals may be adopted and implemented ahead of others. It is
our intention that the town hall-style meetings would commence early this year, and the
Ombudsman program would likely take more time and possibly need to be considered in the
budget cycle.
STAFF IMPACT:
Staff impact and resources necessary to support this program may be significant, depending on
the scope of the program components ultimately adopted. Research and discussion regarding
impacts of the program will be necessary, including legal and risk implications along with
staffing and funding aspects. These need not be deterrents to proceeding, just
Page 3
acknowledgment that a more formal and interlinked relationship will also require some more
explicit standards and monitoring and reporting. The most effective city neighborhood
programs are formalized in this regard. Staff acknowledges that this discussion can first take
place during the Policy and Services referral and discussion.
Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk
Page 4