Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-06 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL April 6, 2015 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 P.M. Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 1 April 6, 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 Study Session 6:00-7:00 PM 1.Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:15 PM 2.Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:15-7:25 PM Oral Communications 7:25-7:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. REVISED 2 April 6, 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. Minutes Approval 7:40-7:45 PM 3. January 20, 2015 February 9, 2015 February 17, 2015 Consent Calendar 7:45-7:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. in the Amount of $514,000 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III Along and Near (A) San Antonio Road Between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads and, (B) Middlefield Road Between East Charleston and East Meadow Drive 5. Approval of a Construction Grant Agreement with The Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail in the Amount of $40,000 for Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station Accessibility Improvements and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Capital Project Fund in Amount of $40,000 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 7. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council / Palo Alto Emergency Services Council 8. Approval of Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for Emergency Operations Plan 9. Approval of Contract with Traffic Data Services, Inc. for a Total of $100,000 to Provide On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the General Fund 10. Approval of Contract Number C15155597 with Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,250 for Consulting 3 April 6, 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. Engineering Services for the Citywide Bridge Assessment Project – CIP PE-13012 11. Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Site and Design Application for a New Single-Story, Single-Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements on a 3.5-Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District Located at 805 Los Trancos Road 12. Adoption of Corrected Resolution of the Council Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated 13. Confirmation of Appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement 14. Adoption of a Contract Amendment with Val Security and a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $175,000 to Increase the Project Safety Net Fund and Decrease the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund 15. Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue 16. Approval of a Contract Amendment with Genuent USA, LLC, Intratek Comuter, Inc., Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, GTC Systems, Inc., Modis, Inc., Bodhtree Solutions, Inc. and Signature Technology Group, Inc. For IT Temporary Staffing Support Services in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $650,000 Per Fiscal Year for All Seven Contracts Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 7:50-8:05 PM 17. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project, Located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility 4 April 6, 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. 8:05-10:05 PM 18.City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 10:05-10:15 PM Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Closed Session 10:15-11:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 19.CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Kathy Shen, Melissa Tronquet, Dania Torres Wong, Sandra Blanch, David Ramberg, Joe Saccio, Molly Stump, Walter Rossmann, Eric Nickel) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) 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. 5 April 6, 2015 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2015 Sp. Policy and Services Committee Wednesday, April 8, 2015 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Report on Surplus Property Donated to Nonprofit Organizations and Contributions to the City from Those Nonprofit Organizations Palo Alto Fire Department Quarterly Performance Report for Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2015 Public Letters to Council SET 1 SET 2 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4966) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion Title: Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation This study session updates the City Council regarding ongoing Cost of Services study efforts and provides an opportunity for individual Council members to provide input on the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. No formal action is requested. Executive Summary In Fiscal Year 2013, staff embarked on an ambitious effort to study the City’s fees, fee structure, and services. After several meetings with the Finance Committee, at its November 5, 2013 meeting, the Finance Committee approved a motion directing Staff to bring forward to the City Council a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for Council discussion and to update the Council on the cost of services study. This report provides an update of the cost of services effort; the methodology used to determine City fees; and transmits the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for Council review and discussion. Background In July 2012, staff presented to the Finance Committee an overview of the process for conducting the analysis of the City’s fee related services (Attachment A) as part of a broader cost of services study. At this meeting, the Finance Committee requested that staff provide additional information about the methodologies utilized in the study and provide examples that illustrate how the full cost, and cost recovery levels, are determined. In order to analyze the City’s fees, the City retained the services of MGT America (MGT). In March 2013, staff returned to the Finance Committee with a detailed presentation of methodologies utilized in addition to a follow-up regarding MGT's progress towards completion of the study (Attachment B). In August 2013, MGT submitted their findings to staff for review and a formal report was submitted to the Finance Committee in September 2013 (Attachment C). MGT’s fee analysis, City of Palo Alto Page 2 which followed best practices, assessed staff time worked and hourly cost of providing a particular service. This analysis was based on actual data from Fiscal Year 2012 to determine current cost recovery levels and General Fund subsidies for various services. It is important to note that only Public Works (Engineering), Police, Animal Services, Fire (except for Emergency Medical Response activities), and Community Services fees were included in the analysis. Planning & Community Environment fees, which included fees for the newly created Development Services Department, were excluded from the analysis until a full costing of activities was completed. After discussion of staff’s user fee cost recovery policy considerations, the Finance Committee also directed staff to return with a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for review and discussion. In November 2013, staff presented the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy to the Finance Committee for review and consideration of City Council approval (Attachment D). The draft policy includes five policy statements to determine the appropriate level of General Fund subsidy for various fees for City services. These policy statements will, in turn, inform the levels of cost recovery using a three-tiered system of low (0%-30% cost recovery), medium (30.1% to 70% cost recovery), and high (70.1% to 100% cost recovery). As captured in the minutes, during the November 2013 Finance Committee Meeting, committee members provided valuable feedback and input to the policy (Attachment D). Although the Finance Committee agreed with the policy statements - with some additional considerations - committee members sought to understand the policy statements in the context of current cost recovery levels. In response, staff proposed to present to the Finance Committee information on cost recovery levels for some of the City’s 1,000 municipal fees during the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget hearings. As part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Finance Committee Budget hearings, staff provided an initial set of cost recovery level ranges as depicted in Table 1 below (see Discussion section of this report). Further, as part of preparation of this report, staff reviewed the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommendations for the establishment of government charges and fees (Attachment E). The User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy is consistent with GFOA recommendations. As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to review cost of services, funds were included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Budget to engage in a review of planning and some development services related fee activity. To that end, in July 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to review all Planning and Community Environment fees in addition to some Development Services fees. A more detailed update on the scope and timing of this study is provided under the Discussion section of this report. In parallel to the effort of studying and assessing the cost recovery levels of City fees, staff also researched numerous approaches to advancing the broader cost of services discussion. In the Discussion section below, staff proposes to move forward with a programmatic organizational analysis during Fiscal Year 2016. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion This report is intended to provide the Council with an update of the cost of services study efforts and request input from the Council on a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. As part of the discussion of the policy, the report includes information on the methodology for calculating municipal fees and cost recovery levels for most municipal fees except those related to the Planning & Community Environment Department, Development Services Department, and some Community Services Department fees. Cost of Services Study Update During the last few years, the City has reviewed various services and, where appropriate, brought recommendations for alternative service delivery forward for City Council consideration. For example, the City outsourced parks maintenance, golf course maintenance, custodial services, and, most recently, street sweeping services. Due to fluctuations in workload, the City has also employed hybrid models to address the timely provisioning of services. For example, in the Development Services Department, in-house personnel provide baseline services related to plan check and building inspections, which are often supplemented by contracting for specialty services and peak workloads. On a separate track, during the last few years, staff has implemented various technology enhancements which have created capacity for existing staff to focus on higher value activities related to service enhancements and cost reductions. For example, the Community Services Department implemented a new class registration system to enhance customer service and the Administrative Services Department is in the process of implementing a new banking services contract, which will streamline the accounts payable process for City vendors at a lower overall cost to the City. Staff continues to be committed to reviewing existing services and determining whether the private or non-profit sector can provide an existing service at the same or better level of service at a lower or equal cost to the taxpayer. Currently, staff is exploring potential partnerships with non-profits for Animal Services and the Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo. Although the City continuously reviews alternative service delivery models and has brought forward to the Council consideration of changing the service delivery for certain programs or functions, the City has not systematically reviewed service delivery models at a programmatic level. Therefore, as part of the FY 2016 Proposed Budget process, staff intends to request funding for consultant services to assist the City with a programmatic assessment of all services provided to the public as well as internal support services. Municipal Fee Cost Recovery Level Analysis During the November 2013 Finance Committee Meeting, committee members reviewed the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (Attachment D). In general, the Finance Committee agreed with the policy statements with some additional considerations. As part of the discussion, the Finance Committee sought to understand the policy statements in the context City of Palo Alto Page 4 of current cost recovery levels. In response, staff proposed to present to the Finance Committee information on cost recovery levels for some of the City’s 1,000 municipal fees as part of the Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. During the Fiscal Year 2015 budget presentation to the Finance Committee, staff provided cost recovery level ranges for fees charged by certain departments/divisions. A summary of that information is listed below in Table 1. Table 1: Fiscal Year 2015 Municipal Fees Cost Recovery Levels Department/Division Lowest Highest ASD – Documents 40% 100% ASD – Real Estate 100% 100% Development Services – Fire Prevention 13% 100% Development Services – Public Works 23% 100% Police Department 18% 100% Public Works Department 11% 100% The table above demonstrates that cost recovery levels for fee-related activities can range widely for some departments. For example, an Encroachment Permit is charged by the Public Works Department to construction companies, developers, or home owners needing to encroach on the City right-of-way. The Encroachment Permit for fences is $153 and has a cost recovery level of 11 percent. Another example is Police Department fees for Pushcart vendors. The Pushcart fee for a new permit is $293 and has a cost recovery level of 18 percent. The Pushcart renewal fee is $98 and has a cost recovery level of 91 percent. As a next step in determining cost recovery levels, during the last few months, staff worked on determining average cost recovery levels of Community Service Department (CSD) as they relate to activities of the Arts & Sciences and Recreation divisions, which include camps and classes, based on Fiscal Year 2015 budget data. To better understand cost recovery levels, staff provided relevant enrollment data for Fiscal Year 2014, the most recent year available. Due to the wide range of fees charged for classes, camps, and other offerings, staff calculated an average cost recovery level versus cost recovery ranges based on the calculation of individual fees. The actual cost recovery level for a particular activity may vary depending on the total cost of producing the activity and the number of attendees. Also, overall program cost recovery is not solely correlated to enrollment. Within the Arts & Sciences division, there are revenue based educational instruction contracts with the school district, audience participation, and exhibition visitors. In Fiscal Year 2014, youth enrollment in Arts & Sciences classes and camps was 4,671 and adult enrollment was 921 for a total of 5,592. There were 346 youth Arts & Science classes and camps offered and 96 adult classes for a total of 442 classes and camps. Fees for Arts & Sciences classes and camps range from $33 - $600. Table 2 below provides summary City of Palo Alto Page 5 information for Arts & Sciences activities which include Fiscal Year 2015 cost recovery percentages at the program level as well as Fiscal Year 2014 enrollment data. Consistent with the cost recovery levels reported at the May 2014 Finance Committee Budget hearings; these costs include direct costs for instructors and materials as well as the indirect costs to support these programs. Table 2: Arts & Sciences Division Cost Recovery Level by Program Program Cost Recovery Percentage (FY 2015) Number of Enrollees (FY 2014)* Number of Classes (FY 2014) Children’s Theatre (Theatre, Music & Dance) 32% 1,314 143 Junior Museum & Zoo 24% 1,476 96 Art Center (Exhibitions & Visual Arts) 23% 2,802 203 Public Art, Concerts, & Art Partnerships 1% n/a n/a TOTAL 25% 5,592 442 * Enrollment does not include contracted instruction with school district. Although the Junior Museum & Zoo primarily targets youth participation, the Children’s Theatre—which also has high youth participation—also includes Music & Dance activities for both youth and adults, and has a total cost recovery of 32 percent. Taken separately, the Children’s Theatre has a cost recovery of 26 percent along with a Fiscal Year 2014 class and camp enrollment of 806 youth for 63 offerings, an average of 12.8 participants per class or camps. Children’s Theatre activities in Fiscal Year 2014 also included 243 performances that included 2,258 participants which drew an attendance of 33,593. Visual Arts activities at the Art Center have a cost recovery level of 47 percent for youth and 61 percent for adults. Reviewing the Fiscal Year 2014 enrollment data for Visual Arts, 122 youth classes and camps were offered totaling 1,957 enrollees or an average enrollment of 16 per class or camp. In comparison, for adult Visual Arts, 81 classes were offered with an enrollee count 845 or 10.4 enrollees per class. With the average attendance for youth classes and camps higher than for adult classes and this data driven analysis, it has become apparent that the General Fund subsidy for youth and adult classes for the Visual Arts program are quite different. Like for Arts & Sciences, Recreation cost recovery levels were also reviewed by youth and adult activities where data was available. For Recreation Classes/Camps, the cost recovery level for adults is 38 percent, teens are 16 percent, youth is 90 percent, and special needs are 11 percent. The total number of enrollees for adult Recreation Classes/Camps is 813 with 77 City of Palo Alto Page 6 classes/camps offered for an average attendance of 10.5. Conversely, the total number of enrollees for youth, teen, and special needs Recreation Classes/Camps is 2,127 with 152 classes/camps offered for an average attendance of 13.9. Regardless of adult vs. youth classes, Table 3 below shows the full cost recovery, direct and indirect, at the program level for various CSD programs. Table 3: Recreation Division Cost Recovery Level by Program Program Cost Recovery Percentage (FY 2015) Number of Enrollees (FY 2014) Number of Classes (FY 2014) Aquatics 57% 1,666 46 Middle School Athletics 60% 1,443 n/a Recreation Classes/Camps 45% 2,940 229 Special Events 8% n/a n/a TOTAL 48% 6,049 275 Planning and Community Environment Fees In July 2014, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to review all Planning and Community Environment (PCE) fees. In August 2014, the City received four responses to the RFP and in September 2014 selected Capital Accounting Partners, LLC to accomplish this review. The goal of the fee study is to review and update PCE fees. In addition, the consultant was tasked with reviewing the fee marketplace to ensure that PCE is recovering revenue for services rendered where a fee does not currently exist. In context of the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy, PCE and Development Services fees should fall within the high range (70.1% to 100%) because individual users are the primary recipient of the benefit or the service received is regulatory in nature. There will be some exceptions to this, and some fees such as appeal fees that will be set at the low end of the range to avoid placing a barrier on appeals. Some transportation fees, such as parking fees, may also be set at the lower end of the range, with the understanding that revenues from parking citations also support program delivery, and parking programs benefit neighborhood quality of life and are not always designed to be revenue neutral. In addition, the Council should consider whether there is the need for a policy allowing the City Manager to waive certain planning fees on occasion when the applicant is a non-profit organization and their application would fulfill a public purpose. Such a policy could include criteria to ensure its infrequent use, and could require a report to the City Council. This policy could address situations like a recent example, in which the City’s use permit fee was cited in the newspaper as a barrier to establishment of a temporary homeless shelter. Staff anticipates that the consultant study of PCE fees will be completed during spring 2015 and City of Palo Alto Page 7 will demonstrate a current cost recovery level of around 50% for many fees. While incremental adjustments to PCE fees will be included in the FY16 budget process, the cost of services study and resulting recommendations—including a schedule for more significant PCE fee adjustments—will be provided brought forward to the City Council no later than the FY 2017 budget process. Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy As part of the Fiscal Year 2015 budget process, staff increased most municipal fees with the average salary and benefits cost increase of about 5.85 percent in order to maintain the current cost recovery level. However, as identified through the discussion above, there are many fees which are not at 100 percent cost recovery and staff seeks City Council input regarding the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level policy. At the direction and input of the Finance Committee, staff has prepared a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (Attachment F). This policy is framed based on various policy statements as listed below. 1. Community-wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as Police patrol services only through taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or businesses such as the issuance of building permits, it is expected that individuals or businesses receiving that benefit pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Community Benefit: For regulated activities such as development review and regulatory permits, it is appropriate that the service recipient such as an applicant of a building permit or a Pushcart Vendor permit pay for the permit although the community at large benefits from the regulation. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life are factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth without over stimulating a market with artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may result in huge waiting lists and attract participants from other cities; however, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services from low income individuals, special needs individuals, and seniors. 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for other General Fund funded City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an City of Palo Alto Page 8 emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. Based on these policy statements, Table 4 below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0-30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges. It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not absolute. Some policy statements may weigh more heavily than others, which may result in a different cost recovery level grouping for particular fees. For example, fees for recreational activities are expected to be set in general at the medium cost recovery level. However, if certain recreation classes have a high demand, a high cost recovery level may be appropriate. It is important to note that municipal fees will be reviewed annually by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council as part of approval of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Table 4: Cost Recovery Level Grouping by Policy Considerations Cost Recovery Levels Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% - 30%  No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received  Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements  No intent to limit the use of the service  Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service  Affordability of service to low-income residents Medium 30.1% - 70%  Services which promote healthy activities and educational enrichment to the community  Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% - 100%  Individual users or participants receive most or all of the benefit of the service  Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service  The use of the service is specifically discouraged  The service is regulatory in nature Starting with the Fiscal Year 2017 budget process, assuming City Council approval of the User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy during calendar year 2015, as part of the annual budget process, each fee will be evaluated based upon current level of cost recovery and its corresponding cost recovery range. Based on this analysis and the various policy statements and considerations, City of Palo Alto Page 9 during the annual Finance Committee budget hearings, staff will bring forward any fee increases or decreases with changed cost recovery levels and/or a substantially increased cost recovery percentage. For example, most fees will be adjusted annually for general salary and benefit increases. Other fees may be adjusted as a result of market studies that staff intends to perform on a periodic basis every 3 to 4 years or as warranted. For fees which fall within the draft policy cost recovery levels, staff intends to maintain the existing cost recovery level range. As identified in this report, there are some fees which may require significant increases to align with cost recovery levels as identified in this policy. For these fees, staff intends to phase-in fee increases over several years and seeks Finance Committee review and City Council approval of such increases. Table 5 below provides examples of fees for which cost recovery levels would be changed based upon the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy once approved by the City Council. Table 5: Cost Recovery Level Policy Application Fee Current Percentage Cost Recovery Current Cost Recovery Percentage Range Potential Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Consideration Background Check Renewal (Police) 60% Medium High Individual users or participants receive most or all of the benefit of the service Fire Hydrant Installation (Fire) 56% Medium High The service is regulatory in nature Storm Water Inspection Fee (Public Works) 29% Low High Individual users receive most or all of the benefit of the service Storm Water Plan Check Fee (Public Works) 23% Low High Individual users receive most or all of the benefit of the service Development Services Fees As part of the aforementioned Planning and Community Environment (PCE) fee study, some Development Services fees were also studied such as a Green Building fee or Landscape review fee. As part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget, staff intends to recommend funding for a consultant study to comprehensively review all Development Services fees. After review of all Development Services fees, the City will have studied all municipal fees and their respective cost recovery levels. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Fee Calculation Methodology At the November 2013 Finance Committee meeting, the Finance Committee asked staff to inform the Council on the direct and indirect cost components included in municipal fees. To calculate the appropriate fee amount, three cost components are taken into consideration: (1) salary and benefits, including compensated absences; (2) overhead rates, also referred to as indirect costs (which includes departmental and citywide overhead charges); and (3) non-salary costs directly related to a particular fee. In addition, some fees are assessed a 5 percent technology surcharge, as approved by Council as part of the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2013 Municipal Fee Schedule, to lessen the fiscal burden on the General Fund for technology initiatives. As part of the annual budget development process, salary and benefits are reviewed citywide and adjusted to reflect current wage and benefit costs in order to determine the fully burdened cost. For Fiscal Year 2015, the average citywide increase was 5.85 percent. By classification, the fully burdened cost is then divided by 2,080 (annual full-time equivalent hours) to determine the fully burdened average hourly rate for a position. Departments then determine which positions are responsible for providing a given service and apply the number of hours by position to determine the total salary and benefit costs for fee-related activities such as processing a permit. In addition, the City applies a compensated absence rate to the salary and benefits costs of approximately 23 percent to account for average leave time, breaks, attendance of meetings, and other work not directly related to fee activities. The second component included in the calculation of fees is overhead or indirect costs, which are intended to recuperate services provided by support departments such as Finance, People Strategy and Operations, or Council Appointees. For example, the People Strategy and Operations Department allocates its cost based on the number of full-time equivalents in an operating department to recuperate the cost of supporting departments with hiring staff, disciplining staff, or processing personnel action forms. In Public Works, facility maintenance and custodial services are allocated based on the square footage of office space occupied by operating departments. Department overhead rates, which are typically calculated by taking the total administrative cost of a division or department and dividing it by the total labor cost of the same division or department, are also allocated to programs and services, and are included in the fee cost recovery analysis. The third component, non-salary costs, such as materials and supplies attributable to a specific fee activity are allocated. In addition, as previously mentioned a 5 percent technology surcharge is also added to some fees to provide funding for technology initiatives and reduce the financial burden to the General Fund. Next Steps Based on Council discussion, staff will bring the policy for approval to the Finance Committee and the City Council or directly to the City Council. After approval of the User Fee Cost City of Palo Alto Page 11 Recovery Level Policy, staff will review the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy, which was approved by the City Council in 2007. This policy categorizes classes into four cost recovery level groups (Attachment G). The Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy sets minimum and target cost recovery levels driven primarily by whether the benefit received provides a personal or community benefit or some combination thereof. As stated above, all Planning & Community Environment and select Development Services fees are currently under outside study and review. It is anticipated that this work will be completed in spring 2015. As part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Proposed Budget, staff intends to seek funding approval for a comprehensive Development Services fee study. As part of the City’s ongoing efforts to provide quality services at a lower cost to taxpayers, staff intends to undergo a programmatic organizational analysis pending approval of consultant funding as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget process. This programmatic organizational analysis will help facilitate the city-wide review of service delivery. In the mean-time the City will continue to work on developing partnerships with private and non-profit sector groups similar to current partnerships efforts with the Junior Museum and Zoo (JMZ). On September 23, 2014, Community Services staff presented information to the Policy & Services Committee in response to Council direction from the Fiscal Year 2015 budget hearings about the policy issue of charging use fees for the privately-developed Alma Plaza Community Room, and the waiver of rental fees for community center rooms and fees under the provisions of the City’s Co-Sponsorship Policy. After extensive discussion, the Policy & Services Committee did not make recommendations to Council for changes to the Co-Sponsorship Policy or for procedures related to the reservation and use of the Alma Plaza Community Room, the Committee asked staff to return to Policy & Services with additional information on the use of various Community Services rooms and how fees might be set for particular rooms or facilities to maximize usage of the facility. Staff believes that the issue of fee setting for City facility rentals is closely connected to this policy discussion and the fees are approved annually as part of the Municipal Fee Schedule adoption. Therefore, staff intends to return to the Policy & Services Committee with responses to the questions raised in context of the user fee cost recovery level policy. Resource Impact Depending on the discussion with the City Council, staff intends to bring the User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for approval to the Finance Committee and the City Council or directly to the City Council. Once the Policy is approved, staff will review each fee and assign a target cost recovery level (low, medium, high) as part of the annual budget process starting with the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. Those fees which fall outside the target range will be recommended for adjustment as part of the annual budget process. Some adjustments may be phased in over several fiscal years. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 12  Attachment: Attachment A: Discussion of Scope of Work and Methodology Utilized for the Cost of Services Study, Finance Committee July 2012 and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B: Cost of Services Study Follow Up Finance Committee March 19, 2013 and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C: Cost of Services Study Draft Report Finance Committee Sept. 17, 2013 and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment D: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Finance Committee Nov. 5, 2013 and Minutes (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment E: GFOA Best Practices - Establishing Government Charges and Fees (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment F: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy March 2015 (DOC)  Attachment: Attachment G: Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy November 2007 (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 2991) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 7/3/2012 July 03, 2012 Page 1 of 6 (ID # 2991) Summary Title: Cost of Services Study Title: Discussion of Scope of Work and Methodology Utilized for the Cost of Services Study From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation: This report is provided for background purposes. In addition, Staff will be available to respond to questions at the July 3, 2012 meeting. Background: The City recently retained the services of MGT of America (“MGT”) to assist in the preparation of a full cost of fee related services study. It is important to note that the scope of MGT’s analysis is limited to fee-related services. The costs of services that are not fee-related, including the majority of public safety services, are not included in the scope of this particular study. However, some analyses have been conducted on these other services and additional studies will be conducted in the future. In addition, the City has hired a separate consultant to review and update the City’s development impact fees. The Fiscal Year 2013 Adopted Budget reflects $133.4 million of General Fund revenue, of which $20.3 million (approximately 15%) is generated from user fees. The study of fee-related services is expected to be completed this summer and the findings and recommendations will be presented in Fall 2012. During the May 29, 2012 Finance Committee meeting, staff was asked to return to the Committee in advance of the Fall presentation to discuss the methodology that is being used to complete this analysis. This report will outline the scope of work for this analysis, methodologies utilized to develop costs and fees, and issues related to cost recovery levels. Discussion: Attachment A July 03, 2012 Page 2 of 6 (ID # 2991) User fees are charged to recover some or all costs incurred in providing a service from which one or more individuals obtain a benefit. In California, the ability to impose fees has been significantly curtailed by a series of voter approved initiatives as well as other statutory schemes and related court rulings. In general, public agencies can establish fees to recover up to 100% of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service(s). Any amount of a particular fee that is more than 100% of the cost is considered a special tax and, by law, requires approval by two-thirds of the electorate. Please note that rental charges for rooms or facilities, fines, penalties and late charges are not technically user fees and are not required to be based on actual costs. Instead, these types of charges are more typically governed by market rates, reasonableness and other policy driven factors. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, local government agencies had the option of increasing property taxes to offset the cost of providing services. Proposition 13 and subsequent initiatives, including Propositions 4 and 218, significantly limited the extent to which California cities and counties could generate revenue to pay for critical public services. In addition, city and county tax revenues have been negatively impacted in recent years by a number of actions taken by the state to address its deteriorating financial status. Given the financial challenges that most cities and counties face, many agencies are re- evaluating the costs of providing services, including fee-related services. The full cost of providing a particular service, less the revenue derived from the fee(s) charged for that service, is referred to as the subsidized portion of the cost. Historically many cities, including Palo Alto, have not passed on the full cost of service to the users. The extent to which services that primarily benefit the user are subsidized by general tax revenue is largely a policy matter. However, there are some common factors used by other agencies to evaluate “who benefits and who pays”. The latter part of this report provides a general overview of this issue in order to provide data to facilitate informed decision-making processes. Scope of Work: MGT was retained to provide the following deliverables for a not to exceed total cost of $61,000: Estimated total cost (direct and indirect) for all fee related services- either at the activity or program level - and current cost recovery levels Comparable fees as available, charged in eight other Bay Area cities Recommendations for changes to the City's cost plan and user fees - including new or changed fees - based on best practices, industry standards and all applicable rules and regulations Alternative approaches and methodologies for future fee adjustments Attachment A July 03, 2012 Page 3 of 6 (ID # 2991) Models and templates that City staff can use to update cost of services calculations based on changes in costs, revenues, time and/or volume estimates This study does not analyze the following: The cost of services that are not fee related (e.g. most public safety services, library services, advanced planning, etc.). Staff will review and report separately on these services. Development Impact Fees – the City has retained a separate consultant to review and update the City’s Planning related impact fees. The cost of utility services Potential cost savings, operational efficiencies, alternative service models or performance outcomes (although the cost of services study will provide useful information for City staff to use in these types of analyses) MGT is utilizing data provided by City staff to quantify the total costs incurred in providing a particular service (or category of service) as well as the revenues derived in relation to those services through the imposition of user fees. For purposes of conducting this study, MGT was provided with Fiscal Year 2012 adopted expense and revenue information. The City will retain the model programs developed by MGT and staff will be able to update financial information as well as time and volume estimates in the future. Methodology: The standard approach for analyzing the cost of providing fee-related services is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” approach. With the exception of recreational fees, this is the approach that was utilized for all fees. Recreational fees will be discussed later in this report. A general description of the “bottom up” approach is as follows: 1. Identify all direct staff time spent on the fee related activity or service MGT has had a series of meetings with staff from Public Works, PCE, Police, Fire, CSD and the Library to identify every employee, by classification, who performs work directly in support of a fee related service. Direct staff costs are incurred by employees who are “on the front line” and most visible to the customers (e.g. planners, park rangers, building inspectors, etc.). Once all direct staff are identified, the departments provided estimates of how much time each of those employees spends, on average, working on that particular service or program. Developing time estimates for fee related services can be challenging and departments should be commended for the time and effort they put into this. Although MGT provided Attachment A July 03, 2012 Page 4 of 6 (ID # 2991) departments with templates and other tools to assist them in developing average or “typical” time estimates, these calculations were necessarily developed by the subject matter experts in each operating department. 2. Calculate direct cost of the staff time for each fee using productive hourly rates Productive hourly rates are used to support full cost recovery. A full-time employee typically has 2,080 paid hours per year. However, cost studies reduce that number to account for non-productive hours (sick leave, vacation, holidays, training, meetings, participation in non-core services, etc.). MGT calculated the productive hourly rate for each classification based on the salary and benefit information provided by the City and an industry standard of 1,600 productive hours. 3. Determine any other operational costs (i.e. other than personnel costs) that can readily be traced to a specific fee-related service as a direct cost Professional services contracts are an example of an expense that can often be traced to a specific service or program. 4. Determine indirect or “overhead” costs Indirect costs include department and citywide overhead. Department overhead costs include managers, supervisors and support staff as well as other operational costs that are incurred for a common purpose and not readily assigned to a particular service or program. Typically, these costs are allocated based on either the number of full time equivalent employees in the department or expenditures per division or cost center. Citywide overhead costs include expenses incurred by departments that provide services to all City departments (Auditor, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Manager, Administrative Services, Human Resources and Public Works/Facilities Maintenance). These departments are also referred to as central services departments. Citywide overhead costs are allocated to each operating department via cost plan charges. The State Controller’s Office guidelines stress the importance of allocating citywide overhead costs in a way that “equitably reflect the value of service” provided to the department receiving the service(s). The bases for allocating citywide overhead costs can vary but must demonstrate a causal relationship between the allocation methodology and the costs allocated to the operating department. In most cases, industry standards utilize one of the following methodologies for allocating citywide overhead: Attachment A July 03, 2012 Page 5 of 6 (ID # 2991) Number of full-time equivalent staff in the operating department Total operating department expenditures, excluding fixed assets, pass through funds and large purchases (e.g. energy purchases) Actual or estimates of time spent in support of the operating department based on documented procedures The scope of work with MGT includes an analysis of the City’s current methodology for allocating citywide overhead (or cost plan charges). Cost plans must conform with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as well as federal and state cost recovery guidelines. MGT’s comments and recommendations in relation to the City’s cost plan will be incorporated into the City’s Fiscal Year 2014 cost plan. Once total costs are calculated, volume data is used to determine cost per service or activity. Finally, revenue data provided by the departments is used to determine current cost recovery levels. Please note that recreational fees are typically calculated at the program levels (e.g. swimming programs, classroom programs, etc.) for several reasons, including: a. Programs and activities change in size and scope from one season or year to another, rendering a consistent fee schedule many times impractical; b. Many recreational or facility fees are set at comparable venue or service rates; c. The cost to calculate some fees at a more granular level could be outweighed by any realistic revenue offset, especially in light of the first two reasons above. So, for example, costs and revenues for classroom registrations are reported, but the scope of work for this study did not include itemization of costs and revenues by type of class (e.g. story acting class). 5. Crossover Support from other departments. Where applicable, direct and indirect costs associated with external departmental assistance in the user fee process is an additional cost component of fee-for-service activities. For example, a set of building plans may be routed to PCE, Public Works and Fire staff for review and comment. If these departments do not charge their own plan review fees, their costs are appropriately considered as an additional cost component to the fee charged by the “home” department. General Parameters for Setting Fees: Attachment A July 03, 2012 Page 6 of 6 (ID # 2991) In setting fee levels, the primary guiding principle is that the charge cannot be greater than the cost incurred in providing the service. In addition, fees cannot be set higher than costs in one area in order to subsidize another program or service. Beyond that, fee setting is largely a policy matter typically focused on who benefits from - and who pays for - the service. Certain core municipal services clearly benefit the community as a whole (e.g. police patrol) and are typically funded 100% by General Fund revenues. Other services primarily benefit the individual (e.g. building and development, certain recreational services, etc.) and, as such, fees for these services can appropriately be set at full cost recovery. However, many services fall between 100% community benefit (no cost recovery) and 100% individual benefit (full cost recovery). For the latter, the level of cost recovery is driven by a number of factors including a particular jurisdictions’ goals and priorities, fairness and equity, competing needs, and impact on demand. In the end, however, every dollar used to subsidize a service that primarily provides a private benefit is a dollar that is not available to fund other community public services. The focus of the July 3rd Finance Committee meeting is the methodology used to complete the study. The report that will be provided in the Fall will assist in policy setting decisions such as cost recovery levels, level of services provided, method of service delivery and opportunities to develop public-private partnerships. Staff will provide a wider view of the process and timeline as well as examples of user fee policies used in other agencies as part of the Fall report. Attachments: Attachment A-Scope of Work (DOCX) Prepared By: Gail Wilcox, Management Specialist Department Head: Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer City Manager Approval: ____________________________________ James Keene, City Manager Attachment A ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES - MGT OF AMERICA Project #1: OMB A-87 and Full Cost Allocation Plans 1. Provide the City with a list of financial and operational data requirements for the study. 2. Review and comment on the City’s current methodologies and processes for collecting, calculating and allocating direct and indirect costs. 3. Meet with staff from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss critical issues surrounding development and implementation of the cost allocation plan. 4. Conduct a kick off meeting with departments heads and designated staff to discuss the purpose, scope, requirements and timeline for the project, followed by meetings with each central service department or division to identify the primary services or functions provided, the recipients of those services, and both gross and net cost for each service. 5. Recommend, based on applicable laws and regulations, industry guidelines and best practices, the bases for allocating these costs to their benefitting funds, departments, cost centers and/or activities. 6. Draft an OMB A-87 compliant and a full cost recovery plan consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) using MS Windows 7 based software that the City can adapt and continuously update to reflect financial and organizational changes. 7. In addition to the draft plans, provide: a) A narrative of changes and results b) A schedule comparing total allocated costs between fiscal years, to receiving departments defined criteria (e.g. a variance greater than 5% or $10,000) c) A schedule documenting unit costs of identified support activities such as the cost of payroll per employee or the cost per purchase order d) A schedule documenting unit costs of identified support activities such as the cost of payroll per employee or the cost per purchase order e) A self-auditing schedule that reconciles the sum of all central service department expenditures to the sum of allocated costs 8. Meet with each central service department and OMB staff to present and discuss the draft plans and make modifications as directed by the Administrative Services Director/CFO. 9. Prepare supplemental schedules, management reports, compliance verbiage and certifications as necessary or requested. 10. At the request of the Administrative Services Director/CFO, participate in one presentation of the final plans to the City’s Finance Committee. 11. Assist City staff in integrating the cost plans into the City’s existing financial and operating systems and provide one training class for City staff. 12. Consult with City staff, should the need arise, to defend the cost allocation plans as a result of audits or other challenges. Attachment A Project #2: Comprehensive Review of the Municipal “User” Fee Schedule 1. Review the City’s municipal code and all existing fees. 2. Provide the City with a list of all financial and operating data requirements for the study. 3. Meet with designated OMB staff to solidify parameters and timeframe for the study and discuss issues that could impact the study. 4. Conduct a kick off meeting with department heads and designated staff to define the purpose, scope, requirements and timeline for the project, followed by meetings with individual departments to assess current methodologies for calculating costs and current recovery levels. 5. Ensure 100% of available staff hours are identified to fee or non-fee related services and calculate productive hourly rates for all employee classifications contributing to fee related services. 6. Conduct a full cost analysis using fully burdened rates. 7. Prepare a draft FY 2013 municipal fee schedule that reflects best practices and conforms to all applicable laws, statutes, rules and regulations governing the collection of fees, rates and charges by public agencies including, but not limited to, Proposition 218 and Proposition 26. 8. Identify any factors such as statutory limitations, market conditions or other potential policy and service level considerations which prevent, or could prevent, full cost recovery. 9. Prepare a narrative explanation of the basis for the recommended fees. 10. Prepare a financial analysis of projected revenue impacts and changes associated with the recommended fees. 11. Meet with City staff to discuss the draft fee schedule and make agreed upon revisions with final approval from the Administrative Services Director/CFO. 12. Prepare a Final FY 2013 municipal fee schedule, including estimated costs, revenues and cost recovery levels for each fee. 13. Prepare and deliver one presentation to the City’s Finance Committee or the City Council to facilitate their understanding of the fee study and its implications for the City. This presentation will be at the guidance and discretion of the Administrative Services Director/CFO. 14. Provide the municipal fee schedule and models written in MS Excel to the City so the City can adapt and continuously update these to reflect financial and organizational changes. 15. Consult with City staff, should the need arise, to defend the City’s fees as a result of any legal or other challenges. Project #3: Survey of Comparable Agencies (Optional at City’s discretion) 1. Conduct a benchmark survey of comparable public agencies 2. Work with City staff to identify common fees charged in comparable agencies and develop a matrix to illustrate comparable fees. Attachment A Attachment A Finance Committee MINUTES Page 1 of 16 Special Meeting July 3, 2012 ROLL CALL Chairperson Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Burt, Scharff, Shepherd (Chair) Absent: Price ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 1. Review of FY2012 Third Quarter Financial Report. David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services provided a presentation overview of the third quarter financial report and noted Attachment A was missing a page but was presented as an at-place item for review. Fiscal year 2012 continued to see a stable budget which meant Staff was staying on target for what was presented during the mid-year. The retiree medical update was presented in May which provided a year-end close projection for fiscal year 2012. The goal for the year-end close in December was to have a Budget Stabilization Reserve contribution from the General Fund. There were potential increased revenues beyond what was listed in the third quarter report so Staff was cautiously optimistic. The incurred but not yet realized costs for the Workers Compensation and General Liability actual costs were not known until the receipt of the Actuarial report in the August timeframe and could have an impact on the final year end close. The permits and licenses category was 28 percent higher in fiscal year 2011 as were the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues. Public safety overtime was ahead of budget as was not unusual for this time of year; fire was exceeding the overtime budget by 29 percent and the police by 28 percent. The overage was primarily driven by vacancies Attachment A MINUTES Page 2 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 in both departments. The unused salary savings in fiscal year 2012 were expected to cover the overages. Council Member Burt said the TOT showed increased revenue of 7.3 percent from 2011. He calculated a 20 plus percent increase and asked Staff where the difference was. Mr. Ramberg said the 7.3 percent was reflective of the total TOT for the overall year so for 2011 the total year for the TOT was $8 million and to date in the 2012 budget year the TOT was registering at $8.6 million. Council Member Burt said the Staff Report reflected the TOT revenue was $4.9 million through the third quarter which meant the TOT revenue for the fourth quarter alone was $3 million. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services requested time for Staff to reevaluate the numbers and return with an explanation. Council Member Burt asked if there was a sense of how to anticipate the impact as time progressed for employees moving towards the newer two tier pension system. He estimated there was little impact in the public safety employees going from 2.7 percent at 50 to 2.7 percent at 55. Mr. Perez said in discussions with John Bartell, the Actuarial firm used by the City, he believed there would be little impact from the public safety shift as there would be from the miscellaneous employees who went from 2.7 percent at 55 to two percent at 60. There was a gradual savings and the reason was CalPERS did their actuary two years in the rears so an employee entering the City under the new tier was not recognized until the end of their second year of employment. Vice Mayor Scharff asked for clarification that on Attachment A the adopted budget was what Council had adopted for fiscal year 2012 and the adjusted budget was what Staff was projecting to be the fourth quarter results. Mr. Perez stated yes with some changes. There was a line item called encumbrances and reappropriations where the previous year’s commitments were carried forward which was added to the budget number creating an illusion of a growing expenditure. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if those numbers were not revenues. Mr. Perez said they reflected as inflated revenues and expenditures so when the budget numbers were being compared to the adjusted budget removing Attachment A MINUTES Page 3 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 that line item would balance out. There were mid-year changes the Council approved during the second quarter that were also embedded. Vice Mayor Scharff said the report showed a $3,750,000 deficit but the loan to the Refuse Fund did not actually occur, is that correct. Mr. Perez clarified the amount was going to be reversed back out, rendering the budget in a positive position. Staff had recently heard from the state on the sales tax, the county on the property tax, and the hotel taxes all indicating the numbers were increasing better than what Staff had projected. Vice Mayor Scharff said by not providing the loan to the Refuse Fund plus the state, county, and hotel taxes meant there were more funds coming in which balanced out. Mr. Perez stated there was more money coming in and there was savings from the vacancies. At the end of the year Staff was scheduled to have an informed discussion with the Finance Committee as to where the City wanted to position themselves beyond the 18.5 percent in reserves which was the previous target. Vice Mayor Scharff asked where Staff expected the reserves to be as a percentage. Mr. Ramberg noted the expected rate was at 21 percent for the Budget Stabilization Reserve as a percentage of total use of funds. Vice Mayor Scharff said roughly 21 percent and the target was 18.5 percent. He asked what the dollar difference was between 21 and 18.5 percent. Mr. Perez said approximately $4 million. Mr. Ramberg explained during fiscal year 2011 the TOT revenues by quarter were first at $1.9 million, second at $1.8 million, third at $1.9, and the fourth was $2.4 million. Council Member Burt said the third quarter of 2011 reflected $4.9 million but the numbers calculated for the cumulative three quarters was $5.6 million. Mr. Ramberg agreed there appeared to be a discrepancy and Staff would look into it. NO ACTION TAKEN Attachment A MINUTES Page 4 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 2. Discussion of Scope of Work and Methodology Utilized for the Cost of Services Study Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services explained that the Cost of Service Study (Study) was performed about every five years. There was a desire to repair the structural and financial imbalance, along with the expense reductions. The Study showed the Finance Committee and Council where cost recovery for fees and services had revenue. Some services were without fees; these were reviewed separately for changes. The goal was to achieve greater efficiency and utilize available technology to do so; the Information Technology Director was involved in this part of the process. Staff was aware of probable service level changes with the completion of the Study. Previous Cost of Service Studies, such as the utilities studies, did not provide many options for the Council; this years’ Study presented options and different courses of possible actions that were taken within the limitations of the law. He introduced Management Specialist Gail Wilcox who presented the scope of work and the methodology used for the Cost of Services Study. Gail Wilcox, Management Specialist said the fiscal year 2013 budget included revenue that consisted of $20 million of user fees, which was approximately 15 percent of the total General Funds revenue. $8.1 million of those funds came from Planning and Community Environment, $6.7 million from the Community Services Division, with $3 million from Golf, $4.2 million from Fire, $2 million from paramedics fees, $600,000 from Public Works, and $300,000 from Police. The purpose of the Study was to determine the cost for providing services and to determine how much of those costs were to be recovered through user fees. The consulting firm, MGT of America (MGT), was selected through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to complete the Study. Staff was expecting to receive the completed reports from MGT in August, with a presentation to the Finance Committee at some point thereafter. She noted the Study did not include the development impact fees or the AB1600 fees, but noted a separate consultant was looking into those fees and services. The method utilized by MGT was to begin looking at the fees from the bottom up, which meant MGT was receiving the data from City Staff, but the templates and tools were being provided by the consultant. They calculated the fully loaded cost by adding the direct Staff cost, plus the department and Citywide overhead. The front line Staff were the employees that had the most interactions with the customers, such as Building Inspectors, Planners, and the Park Rangers, were considered direct costs. Department and Citywide expenses were considered indirect costs. Departmental overhead was usually management, secondary support Staff, and any other operational expense that was not easily traced to the activity. Citywide overhead was referred to as the Cost Allocation Plan, which included the services for all of the central services departments; City Attachment A MINUTES Page 5 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Manager, City Auditor, City Attorney’s Office, City Clerk’s Office, Administrative Services, Human Resources, and Facilities maintenance. The method for allocating costs varied by department, for example, the Human Resources department’s costs were based on the number of Full Time Employees (FTE). MGT also provided a listing of the City’s fixed assets for the purposes of allocating depreciation because currently the City did not include the depreciation in the Cost Allocation Plan. For example Recreational fees were treated differently. The methodology was that they examined things from top to bottom. A recreational study required an analysis that was so detailed that the benefit was disproportionate to the cost. There was a recreational cost service performed but at a higher level based on the market and comparable venue rates. MGT provided the City with price differentials for non-residents who used the services. Cost recovery was considered the subsidizing portion of the cost. Cost recovery was a policy issue. The main question was how much of the tax dollars were used to pay for services that provided a unique or special benefit for a single individual. When Staff returned in the fall timeframe, the discussion was to be focused on community wide benefits and services, such as police patrol because it was funded by tax revenues versus services that provided a private benefit. Mr. Perez noted that direct and indirect costs were broken down to show the level of recovery for each item examined. For example, Golf Maintenance Services were contracted out, which saved several hundred thousand dollars. When Staff allocated the indirect overhead, they based it on Full Time Equivalents (FTE). When the majority of the FTE’s went away, the majority of the overhead went away from the golf course. The results reflected that expense line for the golf course was lower, which meant the fee for golf needed to be changed. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if golf services were charged at the market rate. Ms. Wilcox said the golf fee was not more than the full cost recover fee, or there would be a tax assessment. Chair Shepherd said any amount of a particular fee that was more than 100 percent of cost was considered a special tax. By law that required approval of two-thirds. She asked if that rule applied to other fees, such as swimming and tennis. Mr. Perez stated there was a need for replacement of infrastructure but the fees shown were only of the current costs, not the future costs for replacement. There was room to adjust for future cost recovery based on the policy decisions that were set. Attachment A MINUTES Page 6 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Vice Mayor Scharff recalled a discussion with the City Attorney regarding fees being different depending on what they were. Some fees were not charged higher than their cost recovery but he believed there were recreation fees that were. Ms. Wilcox said that was true for the facilities fees, not the service fees. Chair Shepherd clarified the rental fees were reflective of a fee higher than cost recovery. Vice Mayor Scharff asked Staff to clarify what was to be done and if the fees needed to remain cost recovery only. Mr. Perez wanted to have legal Staff guide them on the direction of legal constraints. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the broader cost of recovery approach was included in the upcoming infrastructure needs. Mr. Perez felt Staff needed to provide examples of what that approach looked like before deciding it was the appropriate approach. He did not want to place the cost of the program at a price people were not willing to pay. Vice Mayor Scharff asked why Palo Alto was put at a disadvantage. They charged less than the full cost recovery because it did not make sense to charge a fee higher than the market rate. Mr. Perez wanted to clarify that if the summer camp counselors spent 15 percent of their time in a facility preparing for the day’s events, 15 percent of the replacement cost of the facility was part of the cost allocation. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the Study showed what the market rate was for the items in Palo Alto. Ms. Wilcox stated the market rates reflected of the eight surrounding cities; Cupertino, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Mateo, Santa Clara, & Sunnyvale. Chair Shepherd asked about private sectors. Ms. Wilcox said Staff could utilize private sector facility rental fees. Mr. Perez said he checked with other departments who had more knowledge of outside facilities fees and acknowledged it was not fiscally responsible to pay the consultant to research that type of information. Attachment A MINUTES Page 7 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Chair Shepherd confirmed Staff retrieved outside facility rental information and said it was included as a part of the Study. Mr. Perez said yes, the information was included. Council Member Burt said historically the golf course had a bond debt service. That depended on the year there was a deficit or a surplus, after paying the debt service. The maintenance was privatized, which saved direct and overhead dollars, making way for the possibility of consistent surplus from the golf course. Mr. Perez said that was correct. Council Member Burt mentioned there was a review for golf course redesigns, which had the potential to generate significant revenue. The revenue was used to renovate and upgrade the course. He asked if the City benefited from the upgrade and whether the City was prohibited from the surplus dollars going towards other community service functions. Mr. Perez said the program was giving current cost recovery but not future cost recovery; he was going to verify his answer with Legal Staff. He did not believe it was out of line to build reserves for future replacement. Council Member Burt clarified that some of the surplus funds went towards significant ongoing maintenance. The model showed the City was able to liberate land for playing fields, upgrade the course, and as a result of the upgrade, drive more rounds and higher green fees. He noted most of the rounds played were not by Palo Alto residents. Mr. Perez said in conversations with residents and onsite visits to the facility, there were a number of capital needs and it was evident the City was not funding these needs. Council Member Burt recognized there was a number of ways the dollars were reinvested into a greater golf complex. He asked if the golf course was the only place the surplus dollars could be used. Vice Mayor Scharff said golf courses were considered recreational facilities so that a criterion was met and there was a return on investment or utilities. If there was a return on utilities, which was more highly regulated than other areas, he found it was difficult to understand, since the General Fund paid to build the golf course, for which there was no return investment. Attachment A MINUTES Page 8 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Council Member Burt said there was a question of consistency because there were a lot of facilities where the same argument could be made. Chair Shepherd said those were policy questions. Mr. Perez mentioned he did not have a great deal of information in front of him but he was aware other agencies made the golf course an Enterprise. Vice Mayor Scharff believed there were areas where being conservative was beneficial, but this was not one of those areas. Council Member Burt agreed the Enterprise route was a good solution. He asked if the methodology was going to discuss private and public communities. Ms. Wilcox said yes, it was community wide. Council Member Burt asked if the consultant was going to identify what a hybrid was and what the balance was between private and communitywide benefits. Ms. Wilcox said yes, the consultant provided examples from other cities that showed a range by percentage of rates and from that information, the City made policy decisions on how to proceed. Council Member Burt said his questions were centered on the value basis and how to identify them. For example a City priority was Youth Well Being and there were programs that were serving that priority. There was a direct benefit to the youth participating in the program, and an indirect benefit to those who experience the youth’s participation. He wanted to be sure there was a City value system put into place before the consultant depicted the rate schedules. Ms. Wilcox noted the main focus of the Study was to identify the full costs and current recovery levels. From there, the process was based on ranges commonly seen in other cities. Council Member Burt asked if the Finance Committee saw samples early on in the process so they would know the direction things were moving. Ms. Wilcox agreed and said Staff could provide that information. Vice Mayor Scharff agreed with that sentiment and wished to see the same information. Attachment A MINUTES Page 9 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Mr. Perez stated a key piece was identifying the number of benefactors. Vice Mayor Scharff asked what determined a private versus a public benefit. Ms. Wilcox said if a developer pulled a permit to build a project to make money, it was considered a private benefit. Vice Mayor Scharff clarified that even if only five people attended a program, it was considered a community benefit. Ms. Wilcox said at the outmost extreme, 100 percent community benefits were considered fully paid by tax dollars, as in patrol and Advanced Planning. Parks and Recreational Programs were typically funded with a combination of tax dollars and user fees and were considered a societal benefit mentally, emotionally, and physically. Council Member Burt asked what the Summer Concert Series was considered because there was no entry fee and some attended regularly, while some never attended. Mr. Perez said yes, that was classified as a community benefit, while a course for guitar lessons was classified as private. Chair Shepherd struggled with how to quantify services provided by the City. A suggestion was a location where a person purchased a home and sold it for more than the purchase price. She felt community services added to that value and noted how the City changed childcare when they placed childcare availability on campuses for Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Council Member Burt said under the scenario where there was afterschool childcare onsite, it cleared up child drop-off traffic, there was less emissions, and it increased safety for children not having to move to a secondary location. Chair Shepherd noted that childcare convenience was provided by a Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) grant; which made it difficult to capture and place into a module. Mr. Perez expressed the difficulty for a city’s inner working because each city held varied policies and value systems. Sustainability and safety were key values because this was the level at which the City chose to recover costs. These were factors the Council wanted to consider when they made decisions about cost recovery levels. Attachment A MINUTES Page 10 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Chair Shepherd asked if the Study included sports programs offered through PAUSD middle schools. Mr. Perez said those were different levels of contractual agreements between the City and the PAUSD. Chair Shepherd asked if those agreements raised the City’s resources because of necessary hiring’s. Mr. Perez saw these as services provided where there was no fee charged. Chair Shepherd confirmed the answer was no. Mr. Perez said MGT was providing the first analyses, whereas Staff was likely performing the latter two. Chair Shepherd mentioned the City of San Carlos was exporting their recreational activities to Half Moon Bay and asked if San Carlos was part of the eight benchmark cities. Mr. Perez stated he was in contact with the Finance Director for San Carlos and was told there were interesting matters that they had realized as a result of the structural changes they had made. He noted, as with Palo Alto, that outsourcing of park maintenance had a saving factor. Chair Shepherd said, along with the cost savings, it was easier to manage as well. Mr. Perez said it was easier to manage one person, as opposed to an entire staff, yes. San Carlos outsourced for Police and Fire as well. Chair Shepherd asked how San Carlos charged Half Moon Bay. Mr. Perez said the presentation given to the Finance Directors’ shared an example of the swimming program; they rented the high school pool and hired part-time non-benefited personnel to travel to Half Moon Bay to run the programs. They also changed the telephone answering procedures to announce Parks & Recreation without mentioning the City name. Chair Shepherd asked why the shift was done. Mr. Perez said the amount of funds collected from Half Moon Bay covered their costs because the program was already established. Chair Shepherd asked if they could subsidize. Attachment A MINUTES Page 11 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Mr. Perez said they were not subsidizing, they were recovering the full costs. Vice Mayor Scharff said sharing the recreation program lowered the fixed cost. Chair Shepherd said it was more about the economy of these cities and their abilities to scale and fully employ swim instructors. Mr. Perez said that was correct. Chair Shepherd asked what the consequences were, with respect to the golf course, if there was a boom in rounds and the City inadvertently made a profit. She suggested the pieces of the Study be brought to full Council incrementally, in an effort to have a better understanding and to discuss each section. Mr. Perez asked if the request was for a draft report to be presented to the full Council to discuss and critique prior to the release of the final report because if the golf course activity increased, there were expenses not accounted for that the additional funds were used towards. Chair Shepherd said the pension costs were assigned as part of the Cost Study, so the legacy was loaded. Mr. Perez expressed the pension portion was part of the dilemma because the costs were being allocated by Full Time Employees (FTE) for pension, retirement, and medical. Additionally, programs contracted out their expenses and shifted to other departments because there were no longer FTE’s associated with the program. Council Member Burt clarified that prior to the maintenance being contracted out there were FTE’s and managers overseeing them with administrative costs for the manager; there were overhead costs under that scenario. The maintenance was contracted out with a minimal amount of work done to administer. The administrator ensured the contractor was providing the level of quality of work, in theory, the management for the Community Services Department (CSD) went down by that percentage. Chair Shepherd noted the report showed 1600 hours was full time due to the floater holidays. She said full time was usually 2000 hours with two weeks of time off. They needed to have this discussion about the 400 hours and who was paying for that. She asked how the City made money if they chose the Enterprise route or considered a public/private partnership with a private entity. Attachment A MINUTES Page 12 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Mr. Perez said the scenario he had seen played out was a city turning their entire operation to a private industry, the golf course, pro shops, and grounds. Then he saw it receiving a contracted annual sum. That was the type of situation Staff was interested in researching for Palo Alto. Chair Shepherd asked if that city was bound by the same fee binding as Palo Alto. Council Member Burt said the scenario mentioned was different and Staff needed to research the circumstances for today’s applicableness. Mr. Perez noted the golf course industry in the Bay Area had a severe downturn over the last few years. He surmised Palo Alto did not add enough for the cost because the retired employees of the golf course were vested. The City was still responsible for their pension and retiree medical but those expenses were not included. Chair Shepherd understood the City projected cash flow from the golf course, which was in the projections for the Long Term Financial Forecast. Mr. Perez said that was correct. Chair Shepherd understood it was not a large sum of money but it was better than a deficit. Mr. Perez said, in reviewing the 2009 budget, when employees were in place, the year ended with a negative $326,000. They made changes and the year closed with a positive $76,000. The City gained by contracting the services and ended in the mid $75,000. Rob De Geus, the Division Manager for Golf projected the 2012 budget at $228,000 for the adopted budget. There were significant changes in gain from contracting the services. Chair Shepherd said the funds were banked into the books so it could change the anticipated scenario. Mr. Perez had discussions with CSD. They requested the leftover funds be returned to the golf course for upgrades and renovations. Vice Mayor Scharff said there was a significant savings in budget by contracting services. Mr. Perez agreed. Attachment A MINUTES Page 13 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Vice Mayor Scharff said by executing the contacted services other departments were being charged more as their fixed costs rose because the golf course was no longer taking part of those fixed costs. Mr. Perez clarified it was within the departments. Vice Mayor Scharff said within CSD. Mr. Perez said that was correct. He noted that was true but wanted to validate that before he confirmed. Vice Mayor Scharff said if that was true, he felt the entire methodology was flawed because there was money being saved and it was driving costs higher in the departments that were unrelated. He felt that was wrong. Council Member Burt thought that was true, provided there was not an overall adjustment to the overhead commensurate, with less staffing than the overhead was serving. In the long run it worked but in the short run there was an issue. If the golf maintenance was five percent of the employees but no longer served them with the overhead, there would not be an immediate adjustment in management. If it was a 25 percent difference, there was a need for an immediate adjustment. Mr. Perez clarified 78 positions were eliminated over the last few years. He agreed the model needed to be changed and he expressed why it was a positive exercise to meet and go over the process. Chair Shepherd asked if the entire golf course processes was exported out, was the legacy assigned to the incoming revenue to offset in order to make it whole. Council Member Burt noted the golf course contract was recently renewed so the entire golf course was not being outsourced in the foreseeable future. Chair Shepherd believed using the golf course was a good way to apply the theory on how to come to policy. Mr. Perez acknowledged the details for the direct and indirect costs needed to be presented because issues surfaced during this type of discussion. Distribution of the legacy costs were embedded in the direct and indirect costs. Council Member Burt requested that the Finance Committee direct Staff to return with a draft report and examples. Attachment A MINUTES Page 14 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Vice Mayor Scharff concurred that seeing examples in stages was beneficial. Mr. Perez worked with MGT to complete a draft report to bring before the Finance Committee. Vice Mayor Scharff recommended a check-in prior to the draft report to prevent Council from being surprised. He did not want false methodology driving policy decisions. Council Member Burt did not want the community to respond to something that was only partially vetted. Mr. Perez asked the Committee if they wanted legal Staff and the consultant to be in attendance for the release of the draft report and the vetting process. Council Member Burt asked where the consultant was traveling from and what the expense was e to have them in attendance. Mr. Perez said they were traveling from Sacramento at a minimal expense but the contract needed to be amended. Council Member Burt agreed there was a value for the consultant to be in attendance but the goal was to arrange it so they did not need to travel to multiple meetings. Vice Mayor Scharff felt that in order for the consultant to attend he needed to be far enough along to have a meaningful discussion. Mr. Perez agreed to use the consultants time wisely. Chair Shepherd said Staff did not request action be taken on this item so she wanted to know how Colleagues were going to be brought up to date on the progress. Mr. Perez acknowledged the item had no required action. He noted it was a Finance Committee item and there were no future plans to expand the item until the Committee approved it and forwarded it the full Council. Staff received a request from the Mayor to be available for those Council Member’s not on the Finance Committee. He agreed that input received from other Council Member’s was shared to ensure everyone had the same questions and answers. Chair Shepherd said it appeared there was at least two more sessions with the Finance Committee on the matter prior to a recommendation for full Attachment A MINUTES Page 15 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Council. She asked if there was going to be an interim going to full Council to avoid a battle of ideas prior to the final report. Mr. Perez felt once the Finance Committee reviewed the first draft report there was going to be a good sense of direction for the policy making. He mentioned a component to the process was a community outreach program. Chair Shepherd wanted to see a road map of the process. Mr. Perez believed in producing the draft report first, then laying out the process and issues. NO ACTION TAKEN FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services noted the next scheduled meeting was July 17, 2102. Reappropriations were items Staff had identified as budgets for specific projects and were carried from fiscal year 2012 to 2013. He informed the Committee he was out of the office on that date but David Ramberg, the Assistant Director was going to be in attendance. The first meeting after the Council break was schedule for September 4th but was cancelled because of a Special City Council meeting. The next scheduled meeting after Council returned was September 18th. Chair Shepherd noted neither she nor Vice Mayor Scharff were in town on September 4th. David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services verified the Hotel Tax for the 4th quarter of fiscal year of 2011 and noted there were quite a bit of accruals, which calculated to $3.1 million. He said the City was on pace to complete $3.5 million in the 4th quarter of fiscal year 2012. Council Member Burt asked why there were accruals in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Mr. Perez explained the receipts came in at the close of the fiscal year, which accrued for the month of July and part of August. Council Member Burt said the process was running at more than 20 percent ahead of fiscal year 2011 and for this year they projected being seven percent ahead. Mr. Perez felt it was better if Staff provided the detailed numbers for the month. Attachment A MINUTES Page 16 of 16 Finance Committee Special Meeting 7/3/12 Council Member Burt felt the seven percent was an overly conservative number. Vice Mayor Scharff asked how the TOT worked and who the hotel paid. Mr. Perez explained the hotel received funds from the individuals renting the rooms and they remitted directly to the City. Vice Mayor Scharff said the remittance took up to 45 days. Mr. Perez said once the month ended the hotel had 30 to 34 days to remit. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if the time table was generated by a City Ordinance. Mr. Perez said that was correct, it was in the Municipal Code and there was a penalty for not complying within the specified time. Vice Mayor Scharff mentioned the state had moved their TOT process to an online remittance. He asked if the City considered that change and was it beneficial. Mr. Perez said from a cash flow perspective, an online remittance process was beneficial but Staff needed to research the burden it placed on the hotels. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:46 p.m. Attachment A City of Palo Alto (ID # 3151) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/19/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cost of Service Study Follow Up Title: Cost of Service Study Follow Up From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation This report is provided for informational purposes. Background Last year, the City retained the services of MGT of America (“MGT”) to assist staff in determining the full cost of providing General Fund services for which user fees are charged (or could be charged). The analysis will depict current cost recovery levels as well as potential areas for increasing revenues. User fees and permits currently generate approximately $22.4 million annually, which is approximately 15.4 percent of all General Fund revenue. The user fee analysis will facilitate more informed decision-making processes and provide the framework for setting fees, level of service, service delivery modes and prioritizing services that will meet the City’s fiscal and policy goals. In July 2012, staff presented the Finance Committee with an overview of the process for conducting this analysis. The Finance Committee requested that, prior to bringing MGT’s draft report back for consideration, staff provide additional information about the methodologies utilized in this study and some examples that illustrate how the full costs and cost recovery levels are developed. Several issues have delayed completion of MGT’s analysis, including staff turnover and competing priorities in departments, data reconciliation and personnel changes within MGT. Staff expects to have the full report and findings to the Finance Committee before the end of the current fiscal year. Discussion Propositions 13, 218 and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability Attachment B City of Palo Alto Page 2 to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 contains a more general articulation of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government bear the burden of proof that “a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to recover the reasonable costs of the government activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on , or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § (e).) The approach MGT and other consultants utilize to analyze cost recovery levels is relatively standardized. Most fees are analyzed by building the costs of providing that particular service from the bottom up. In some cases, however, the cost of developing the analysis at the granular level is outweighed by the benefits for reasons that will be outlined later in this report. For these services, consultants utilize a top down approach to developing full costs and cost recovery levels. Both approaches require the identification of direct and indirect costs, defined as follows: Direct Costs are those that can be identified specifically with a cost objective (in this case, service or program). Direct costs include “front line” staff such as building attendants, program producers and inspectors. Their time – and compensation costs – can usually be readily assigned to a particular fee activity or program. Any non-personnel related costs that are incurred specifically in relation to a particular fee activity can also be classified as a direct cost. In many cases, however, non-personnel related costs are not readily assigned to one particular fee activity so these costs are frequently allocated as an indirect cost. Indirect Costs are those that are a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and b) not readily assignable to the specific cost objective (fee service) without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. The federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines for cost allocation state that indirect costs should be distributed or allocated to the benefitting cost objective “on bases that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits received”. Indirect costs include citywide overhead, which are also referred to as “cost plan charges”. The methodology for allocating citywide overhead varies by and within each “sender” department (ASD, Human Resources, City Attorney, City Auditor, City Manager, City Council, City Clerk and Public Works/Facilities Maintenance). For example, Human Resources costs are allocated based on the number of full-time equivalent positions in each of the receiving departments. ASD’s OMB division costs are allocated based on operating expenses in each of the receiving departments. In some cases, time estimates or item count from the sender department are Attachment B City of Palo Alto Page 3 used to allocate costs. MGT recommends that the City include a use allowance in the cost plan to allocate costs for capital assets. The City does not currently incorporate an allowance into cost plan charges. MGT utilized the cost principles outlined in the federal OMB Circular A-87 to allocate these costs. To sum: 1. The computation of the use allowance is based on the acquisition cost and useful life of the assets involved. 2. The use allowance for buildings and improvements is computed based on a useful life of 50 years. Thus 2 percent of the acquisition cost can be included as an annual cost. 3. The use allowance for equipment that costs $5,000 or more is computed based on a useful life of 15 years. Thus, 6.66 percent of the acquisition costs can be included as an annual cost. OMB A-87 does not allow agencies that receive federal funds to include land acquisition in the use allowance. Inclusion of a use allowance in the full cost calculation for the Golf, Aquatics and Children’s Theatre programs increased the total costs for those programs by 2%, 9% and 1%, respectively. Other indirect costs include department/division administration (managers, support staff, etc.) and any other cost incurred for a common purpose or not easily traced to a specific fee activity. These type of indirect costs will require policy decisions as part of the full report discussion. Description of Methodologies Utilized in Study Most fees were analyzed as follows (“bottom up” or fee level):  Identify and allocate staff time spent directly to support specific activities or services for which the user fee is charged (e.g. building inspectors, plan checkers).  Based on compensation data provided by the City, calculate direct staff costs for each fee related activity or service. The hourly rate of compensation is then converted to a productive hourly rate in order to recover costs associated with paid leave, meetings, training and other time not spent directly in the provision of a particular service or activity. Productive time varies for each individual based on availability and utilization of paid leave and other factors. For purposes of this analysis, MGT assumed 1,600 productive hours. The range in other agencies is typically 1,500 -1,700 hours.  Compile all indirect costs and integrate with the productive hourly rate to create a “fully burdened” hourly rate. Attachment B City of Palo Alto Page 4  The fully burdened hourly rate is then applied to time estimates provided by City staff to develop the full cost.  Cost recovery and subsidy levels are calculated based on volume estimates provided by City staff and revenue receipts. For example, if the full cost of providing any particular fee service is $100 and the fees paid by the individual benefitting from the service are $80, the cost recovery rate is 80 percent and general taxpayer funds are subsidizing 20 percent of the service. In some cases, the potential benefits of conducting a bottom up analysis of a particular fee are outweighed by the expense that would be incurred in developing this information. This is almost universally the case with recreational programs, which are typically analyzed at the program level instead of the fee level. For example, we have developed the full cost of golf services at the program level to illustrate current cost recovery and subsidization levels. Staff also identified the percentage of direct costs that are currently recovered, the percentage of direct costs and CSD department overhead recovered and as well as the percentage of full costs (i.e. direct and all indirect costs, including citywide overhead). However, a substantial amount of effort would be required to identify and track costs at the individual fee level (e.g. weekday daily fee, twilight, super twilight, primetime rates). The cost of conducting such a detailed analysis would outweigh the value of this information, in particular because elasticity of demand and local policy goals are typically factors that are evaluated when establishing recreational fees. The “top down” or program level analysis is conducted as follows:  Identify all direct costs (staff, supplies and materials, contracts, general expenses, etc.) for the program. For purposes of capturing full costs, non-operating costs such as debt service are included as a direct cost when applicable.  Allocate division, department and citywide overhead (indirect) costs. MGT allocated these indirect costs as follows: o Division overhead is allocated to each program within the division based on the ratio of program direct expenses to division direct expense. For example, direct expenses for Golf are approximately 29.5 percent of the total direct expenses for the Open Space/Parks/Golf division. Thus, 29.5 percent of the division overhead was allocated to the Golf program. o Department overhead is allocated to each program based on the ratio of program direct expenses to total department direct expenses. Direct expenses for the Golf Attachment B City of Palo Alto Page 5 program represent approximately 6.6 percent of the total direct expenses for CSD. Thus, 6.6 percent of the department overhead was allocated to the Golf program. o Citywide overhead expenses (“cost plan charges”) are allocated using three different methodologies. Public Works’ custodial and facilities maintenance costs are allocated based on square footage. Central service department costs (CAOs, Human Resources, ASD,) are allocated using the same percentage basis used to allocate department overhead to individual programs. And the use allowance for capital expenses is assigned to each program based on assets acquired in support of that program (e.g. the cost of acquiring pool heaters is assigned to the Aquatics program)  Once full costs (all direct and indirect) are calculated, cost recovery levels are presented in a manner to depict percent of direct costs recovered as well as percent of direct and indirect (full) costs. Attached are three examples that illustrate the process for calculating full costs and cost recovery levels at the program level. Fees for Use of Government Property Unlike fees for services rendered, fees charged for the use of government property, including park and recreational facilities, are exempt from Proposition 26 (“No Hidden Taxes”). As a result, public agencies are permitted to set fees for use of these facilities as well as equipment rentals at any price the market will bear. This exemption applies to green fees, cart and other equipment rental fees for Golf services. Timeline/Next Steps MGT’s complete draft report will be presented to the Finance Committee for discussion before the end of the current fiscal year. Staff will also be conducting separate cost analyses on non- fee related services, such as Human Services and “back room” operations (finance and human resources). Once preparation of the FY 2014 Operating Budget is complete, staff will develop a scope of work, tentative timeframes and any resource impact analysis for each of those studies and return to the Finance Committee for discussion. Staff is requesting feedback on the three examples and approach to incorporate into the final draft report. Attachments:  Attachment A: Cost of Service Study Follow Up Samples (PDF) Attachment B ATTACHMENT "A" GOLF FY 2012 Adopted FY 2012 Actuals Difference DIRECT COSTS Operating: S&B - .97 FTE (1)$139,203 $129,586 -$9,617 Contract (2)$1,552,863 $1,431,868 -$120,995 Misc. (3)$399,295 $327,645 -$71,650 Non-Operating: Debt Service $559,539 $499,074 -$60,465 GF Loan Repay $94,849 $0 -$94,849 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $2,745,749 $2,388,173 -$357,576 INDIRECT COSTS CSD Division Overhead (4)$0 $60,325 $60,325 CSD Dept Overhead (5)$0 $194,493 $194,493 Citywide Overhead (6) General $41,455 $210,654 $169,199 Citywide Overhead (7) Custodial/Fac Maint $0 $73,025 $73,025 Facility/Use Allowance (8)$0 $58,567 $58,567 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $41,455 $597,064 $555,609 TOTAL FULL COSTS $2,787,204 $2,985,237 $198,033 REVENUES Fee Revenues $2,857,850 $2,624,748 -$233,102 Other Revenues (9)$157,320 $95,393 -$61,927 TOTAL REVENUES $3,015,170 $2,720,141 -$295,029 Net Profit/ Loss 227,966$ (265,096)$ (493,062)$ PERCENT COST RECOVERED Direct Cost 110%114%n/a Direct Cost + Division/Dept OH n/a 103%n/a Full Cost (Direct + All Indirect)n/a 91%n/a (1) .60 FTE Regular; .37 FTE Temporary/Hourly (2) Golf maintenance, management fees, credit card fees, cart/club rentals (3) Allocated charges, rents/leases, water, supplies/materials, general expenses (4) Allocated based on ratio of Golf direct expenses to total direct expenses for OS/Parks/Golf Division (5) Allocated based on ratio of Golf direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (6) Allocated based on ratio of Golf direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (7) Custodial/Maintenance cost plan charges allocated based on square footage (8) Calculated based on acquisition cost and useful life of asset (9) Proshop & restaurant lease, restaurant utilities, interest income (debt service) Attachment B FY 2012 Adopted FY 2012 Actuals Difference DIRECT COSTS Operating: S&B - 11.34 FTE (1)$418,794 $458,518 $39,724 Contracts $15,000 $11,903 -$3,097 Supplies, Materials, and General (2)$38,500 $42,093 $3,593 Misc. $0 $2,188 $2,188 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $472,294 $514,702 $42,408 INDIRECT COSTS CSD Division Overhead (3)0 $30,577 $30,577 CSD Dept Overhead (4)$0 $40,316 $40,316 Citywide Overhead (5) General $0 $43,666 $43,666 Citywide Overhead (6) Custodial/Fac Maint $0 $35,211 $35,211 Facility/Use Allowance (7)$0 $62,153 $62,153 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $0 $211,923 $211,923 TOTAL FULL COSTS $472,294 $726,625 -$254,331 REVENUES Fee Revenues $400,550 $501,164 $100,614 Other Revenues $0 $0 $0 TOTAL REVENUES $400,550 $501,164 $100,614 Net Profit/ Loss (71,744)$ (225,461)$ (153,717)$ PERCENT COST RECOVERED Direct Cost 85%97%n/a Direct Cost + Division/Dept OH n/a 86%n/a Full Cost (Direct + All Indirect)n/a 69%n/a (1) 1.24 FTE Regular; 10.1 FTE Temporary/Hourly Based on 50 year useful life (2) Rescue and training equipment, safety supplies, uniforms, minor facility maintenance , etc. (3) Allocated based on ratio of Aquatics direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Recreation Division (4) Allocated based on ratio of Aquatics direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (5) Allocated based on ratio of Aquatics direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (6) Custodial/Maintenance cost plan charges allocated based on square footage (7) Calculated based on acquisition cost and useful life of asset Aquatics Attachment B FY 2012 Adopted FY 2012 Actuals Difference DIRECT COSTS Operating: S&B - 9.79 FTE (1)837,005$ 864,834$ 27,829$ Contracts (2)131,679$ 225,554$ 93,875$ Supplies, Materials, and General 194,789$ 112,168$ (82,621)$ Misc. 2,762$ 32,490$ 29,728$ TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 1,166,235$ 1,235,046$ 68,811$ INDIRECT COSTS CSD Dept Overhead (3)-$ 48,241$ 48,241$ CSD Dept Overhead (4)-$ 96,740$ 96,740$ Citywide Overhead (5) General -$ 104,779$ 104,779$ Citywide Overhead (6) Custodial/Fac Maint -$ 207,998$ 207,998$ Facility/Use Allowance (7)-$ 16,768$ 16,768$ TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS -$ 474,526$ 474,526$ TOTAL FULL COSTS 1,166,235$ 1,709,572$ 543,337$ REVENUES Fee Revenues 330,100$ 360,304$ 30,204$ Other Revenues (8)-$ 80,000$ 80,000$ TOTAL REVENUES 330,100$ 440,304$ 110,204$ Net Profit/ Loss (836,135)$ (1,269,268)$ (433,133)$ PERCENT COST RECOVERED Direct Cost 28%36%n/a Direct Cost + Division/Dept OH n/a 32%n/a Full Cost (Direct + All Indirect)n/a 26%n/a (1) 6.05 FTE Regular; 3.74 FTE Temporary/Hourly (2) Costumes, stage set building materials, show royalties, equipment, rental fees, etc. (3) Allocated based on ratio of Childrens Theatre direct expenses to total direct expenses for Arts & Sciences Division (4) Allocated based on ratio of Childrens Theatre direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (5) Allocated based on ratio of Childrens Theatre direct expenses to total direct expenses for the Department (6) Custodial/Maintenance cost plan charges allocated based on square footage (7) Calculated based on acquisition cost and useful life of asset (8) Donations / Contributions Children's Theatre Attachment B FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 22 Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 19, 2013 Council Member Burt called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Berman Agenda Items 1. Utilities Options for Cost Savings Modifications to Palo Alto's Street Sweeping Phil Bobel, Assistant Director of Environmental Services recalled the Finance Committee (Committee) discussed street sweeping during the 2012 Budget cycle. The Administrative Services Department (ASD) analyzed options for street sweeping. Ron Arp, Solid Waste Manager reported a crew within the Public Works Department was responsible for sweeping all streets, most parking lots, and cleaning Downtown sidewalks. The analysis was based solely on the street- sweeping portion of the overall Public Works Department Budget. The cost for five fulltime street sweeper operators and large sweepers was $980,000 annually, or slightly more than 40 percent of the sweeping Budget. Staff did not evaluate savings for other tasks, such as sweeping and cleaning bike paths, medians, parking lots, sidewalks, and garages, picking up leaves and debris and transporting them to the Smart Station’s, or cleaning homeless encampments. Cost savings was realized in the sweeping Budget without significant impacts to residents and businesses. Staff recommended reducing the frequency of sweeping in residential and light commercial areas during the eight months of the non-leaf season. Weekly sweeping during non-leaf season had limited value in protecting the environment. He said contracting some of the work could save costs. Option One was the City's current program of sweeping all public streets on a weekly basis year round, with the exception of the Downtown area, which was swept three times per week. The Budget cost was $980,000 annually. Approximately half of costs Attachment B MINUTES Page 2 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 were Staff costs and the other half were equipment costs. Palo Alto was the only City of those surveyed that swept weekly during the non-leaf season in residential areas. ASD calculated a future cost for pension and healthcare liability under Option One of $339,000 per year. Option Two was contracting all street-sweeping tasks. He mentioned that contracting eliminated five Full-Time Employee’s (FTE) and some equipment. Also, in Option Two, streets in residential areas were swept every other week during the non-leaf season. He said the Downtown area would still be swept three times per week. The cost of contracting all street sweeping was $441,000 annually, a savings of more than $500,000 per year. The disadvantage of contracting street sweeping was the City's inability to respond to emergency events. In Option Three, Staff's recommendation was a mixture of Options One and Two where in-house crews swept streets every other week year round. A contractor supplemented in-house crews by sweeping streets weekly during the leaf season. All Downtown street sweeping was contracted, and occurred three times per week year round. Option Three eliminated two FTE’s and two machines, and was going to cost approximately $675,000, with a savings of $305,000; Option Three retained the City's emergency response ability. Staff recommended a pilot program to sweep selected residential areas every other week beginning in late spring through early fall 2013. Staff intended to return to the Committee with recommendations in late 2013, with a goal of full implementation in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Staff did not request the Committee approve any of the one Option’s; rather Staff requested input regarding feasibility of the plan and direction to proceed with a pilot program. Chair Burt requested Staff provide context for emergency event response. Mr. Arp explained street sweeping crews were called out monthly to remove mud from streets caused by water main breaks and the Police Department occasionally called out street sweepers to remove debris from automobile accidents. Council Member Schmid clarified that the Committee would not recommend one of the Options, just discuss issues and recommend implementation of a pilot program. Mr. Bobel agreed with his assessment. Council Member Schmid inquired whether increased parking reduced the effectiveness of street sweeping. Steve Banks, Manager of Maintenance Operations agreed that increased parking was a problem. Permanently posted signs in the Northern Downtown area allowed a clean sweep along the curb. In other areas, Staff Attachment B MINUTES Page 3 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 posted temporary signs four to five times a year. If residents provided information regarding debris underneath parked vehicles, Staff would post those areas as well. Council Member Schmid asked if the frequency of street sweeping changed in the past to every other week, only to return to weekly. Mr. Bobel was not aware of that. To the best of his recollection, the City always swept weekly. Council Member Schmid felt the City's previous outsourcing experiences were satisfactory, and requested Staff comment on the effectiveness of outsourcing other services. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services reported outsourcing worked out extremely well at the Golf Course. Effectiveness of outsourcing depended on Staff clearly structuring the scope of services and punitive clauses for nonperformance, and clearly establishing the level of performance. The City had some issues with the parks contract, but Staff was resolving those. For the most part, outsourcing was successful. Staff needed to negotiate with labor groups if street sweeping was outsourced. Council Member Schmid assumed Staff discussed positive and negative aspects of outsourcing with other cities that used contractors. Mr. Perez indicated Staff talked with other cities and mentioned that the list on Attachment B reported results of Staff's survey. Council Member Schmid inquired whether emergency response was the responsibility of the Public Works Department. Mr. Bobel answered yes. If the City contracted street sweeping services, then Public Works Staff had less ability to meet their responsibilities. Council Member Schmid asked if street cleaning was the only issue affected by contracting sweeping services. Mr. Bobel responded yes, only street sweeping. Council Member Schmid noted street sweeping Staff had other job responsibilities during the weeks they were not sweeping streets, and asked if this was a new work program. Mr. Bobel indicated these were not new work items, and asked if Council Member Schmid meant during the pilot program. Attachment B MINUTES Page 4 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Council Member Schmid meant during the pilot program and under Option Three. Mr. Bobel reported Staff would restructure job responsibilities so that all cleaning functions continued. No new functions were to be added. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the number of Staff would be reduced by sweeping every other week. Mr. Bobel explained reducing the frequency of sweeping under Option Three reduced Staff by two FTE’s. Reasons for implementing a pilot program were to ensure Staff could maintain efficiency and to determine resident’s reaction. Council Member Schmid stated the pilot program needed to be large enough to provide good data, yet he noted to Staff that the City needed excess personnel during the pilot program. He mentioned that the Refuse Fund had its own source of revenue, and asked whether Refuse rates or the General Fund paid for street sweeping costs. Mr. Bobel explained the Refuse Fund was an Enterprise Fund, and its structure was the same as the Electric Fund. Refuse rates funded the Refuse Fund, of which approximately $2 million was spent on street sweeping. The street sweeping program under discussion comprised approximately of $1 million of the total street sweeping Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd favored a pilot program. She thought a contract for street sweeping should include a charge for wear and tear on City streets by street sweepers. She asked if residents in the pilot program would receive a reduced fee for the reduced frequency of street sweeping. Mr. Bobel explained the current Refuse Fund fee was $6.66. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed the Refuse Fund fee and Household Hazardous Waste fee totaled $10. Mr. Bobel agreed $10 was the fixed portion of the refuse bill. He mentioned that most likely, Staff would not recommend a reduced fee because costs continued to rise in other areas. As the City reduced expenses, hopefully the fee would not increase. Vice Mayor Shepherd confirmed the fee would remain stable and inquired whether the Public Works Department responded to toxic spills. Mr. Arp reported a contractor cleaned larger toxic spills. The Public Works Department cleaned small spills if they knew what the substance was. Attachment B MINUTES Page 5 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Mr. Bobel explained $1 million of the total $2 million Street Sweeping Budget was utilized for the cleaning of special problems. Vice Mayor Shepherd was excited by the opportunity to stabilize rates and to reduce the impact of vehicles on streets. She requested additional information regarding emergency response at a future discussion. Mr. Bobel said he would provide that information and added that common emergencies were when residents requested special attention in a specific area. Those emergencies were typically handled by a street sweeper. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed emergency response was included in the bid. Chair Burt assumed the topic would be contentious before reviewing the Staff Report. Approximately half of surveyed cities contracted street sweeping. He asked how other cities responded to irregular events. Mr. Arp reported some cities utilized Public Works crews; others contracted at an hourly rate for contractor response. The next phase of analysis was to gather more details regarding emergency response. Chair Burt inquired whether the City reduced General Fund employees by 14 percent without layoffs. Mr. Perez stated the reduction was approximately 13 percent, including frozen positions. The City laid-off approximately seven to eight positions of the 80 positions reduced. Chair Burt asked if Staff planned to reassign employees. Mr. Banks reported the Department was probably not able to accommodate the two FTEs; during the pilot program, the FTEs were accommodated though. Mr. Perez suggested Staff leadership search for positions in other Departments for reassignment of the FTE’s. Chair Burt recalled Staff achieved reductions with minimal layoffs. Mr. Perez indicated Staff would strive to do the same once results of the pilot program were known. Chair Burt was interested in a hybrid of Options Two and Three. He assumed half of the street sweeping Staff was needed for irregular events. He said one FTE and three outsourced employees was the ideal balance for Attachment B MINUTES Page 6 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 handling irregular events while minimizing costs; perhaps Staff was able to include that in their evaluation. Mr. Bobel believed Staff would include that information because Staff wanted to perform more analysis and include information from the pilot program. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) contracted with the City to sweep El Camino Real. If the City contracted street sweeping, it did not need to contract with Caltrans to sweep El Camino Real. Staff was reviewing compliance issues with the Caltrans contract. Street sweeping was a measure in the required Storm Water Permit. In the commercial areas, Staff ensured the City was meeting those requirements. Staff wanted to return to the Committee with more information for outsourcing street sweeping. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt contracting with Caltrans increased staffing and financial responsibilities. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to direct Staff to 1) conduct a pilot program to modify sweeping frequency of residential and light industrial routes from weekly service to bi- weekly service in the late spring through early fall 2013, 2) direct Staff to finalize the cost savings analysis in the late 2013, allowing time to implement Council-approved modifications and any resulting contracts in Fiscal Year 2015. Council Member Schmid was enthusiastic about the pilot program. It provided an opportunity to explore alternatives. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Berman absent 2. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Adopt a Resolution to Increase Water Fund Revenues by $2.4 Million per year Effective July 1, 2013 and Amend Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4 and W-7. Eric Keniston, Resource Planner reported the two main cost drivers for rate increases were Purchase Costs of water from Hetch Hetchy and Construction Costs. Purchase Cost estimates decreased over the prior year. One construction project scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 was delayed to FY 2014, and projects were moved out in successive years. Because of these changes, Staff predicted no rate increase in FY 2014, with reserves near the minimum requirement. He noted that in FY 2015, the rate increase could possibly be 16 percent. Staff suggested a seven percent rate increase in FY 2014 and FY 2015. In future years, construction costs were expected to Attachment B MINUTES Page 7 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 remain relatively flat, while water supply costs were expected to increase. With the return of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds in FY 2013, the Rate Stabilization Reserves were at the upper end of the required level. If costs and revenues remained in line with projections, the Rate Stabilization Reserve was at the lower end of the required level. Overall rates increased five to seven percent. The first rate tier increased by $0.45, and the second rate tier increased by $0.52. Smaller customers saw a slightly larger bill impact because of the increased monthly customer service charge. The bill impact for a median customer was projected at 2.4 percent, or slightly less than $6. In order to increase water rates by July 1, 2013, a notice needed to be mailed out by the middle of April 2013. A public hearing for water rate increases was scheduled for June 2013. Council Member Schmid noted Hetch Hetchy rebuilding costs increased rates for the next five years, and he wished to spread that among as many users as possible. With more users using more water, the cost per unit was expected to decrease. Instead, proposed rates were increasing, and the burden fell more on the small residential user. He inquired why the small users were paying more. Debra Lloyd, Senior Resource Planner explained rates were driven by the Cost of Service Model. The percentage increase was slightly larger for tier one usage; however, the actual dollar impact was larger for tier two users. Council Member Schmid believed conservation was taking place on the residential side rather than the large commercial group. Mr. Keniston did not see that level of conservation yet and said conservation seemed equal across all groups. Council Member Schmid asked why the small user had a higher percentage increase. Mr. Keniston indicated the meter charge was increasing by seven percent, and that was a large component of the residential bill. For a commercial customer, the fixed component was much smaller. Chair Burt asked why the monthly service charge was increasing more for small users. Ms. Lloyd noted the fixed charge was based on meter size, and was comprised of a greater component of the total bill. When the fixed charge increased, it had a greater impact on the total bill for the smaller user. There was a slightly higher percentage increase on tier one users. The ratio Attachment B MINUTES Page 8 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 between tier one and tier two users was decreasing slightly with this rate increase. Chair Burt inquired whether the fixed charge was embedded in tier one pricing or if it was a separate line item. Ms. Lloyd indicated it was separate. Chair Burt believed the public would find the rate per gallon a more useful metric. He requested an explanation for the Utility User Tax (UUT) increasing by 3.6 percent, while the bill increase was 2.4 percent. Mr. Keniston explained the UUT was five percent of electric, gas, and water charges. Chair Burt asked if electric, gas, and water rates were increasing by 3.6 percent. Mr. Keniston stated they increased on an aggregate level by 3.6 percent. Chair Burt inquired whether CIP costs would decrease because the underground reservoir project costs were below budget. Mr. Keniston reported quite a bit of funds remained from the reservoir project, and those funds could be utilized for related projects. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to accept the recommendation by Staff to 1) increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 7.0 percent, or $2.4 million per year, effective July 1, 2013; and 2) Amend Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-2, W-3, W-4, and W-7. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Berman Absent 3. Cost of Service Study Follow Up Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director recalled the Finance Committee (Committee) requested Staff return with samples. Staff expected to have a report to the Committee by June 2013. The City utilized a multi-prong approach to stabilize long-term financial viability. One prong was the Cost of Services. Three components of Costs of Services were: 1) services with associated fees; 2) services without fees; and 3) administration costs. Gail Wilcox, Management Specialist said the report was one of three analyses performed to determine the full cost of providing services. The primary goals of this analysis was to calculate all direct and indirect costs of Attachment B MINUTES Page 9 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 providing fee-related services, and to determine the cost recovery level based on revenue generated from fees. The City retained MGT of America, a firm used to assist with this analysis. The majority of data utilized in this analysis was provided by Staff. The City had approximately 1,000 fees. Staff expected to submit a full report to the Committee by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. In FY 2012, $21.7 million was generated from user fees, approximately 15 percent of all General Fund revenues. Planning and Community Environment Department had fee revenue of $9 million, which represented 42 percent of all fee revenues in FY 2012. Community Services Department (CSD) generated fee revenues of $5.7 million. Of that amount, $2.6 million in fees were generated from the Golf Program. Fire Department fees generated approximately $5 million, approximately half of that from paramedic fees. The Public Works Department generated fee revenues of approximately $1 million. The Police Department and all other fees comprised the remaining $1 million of fee revenues. Overhead Costs were also referred to as Indirect Costs. Indirect Costs were a significant factor in the calculation of full costs. City-wide Overhead or Cost Plan Charges were generally allocated to Centralized Administrative Support Departments. There were no mandated methodologies for allocating City-wide Overheard Costs. The State Controller and Federal Office of Management and Budget indicated the methodology for allocating costs needed to reflect the benefit the receiving department received. It was common practice for the Human Resources Department costs to be allocated to the Operating Departments, based on the number of Full-Time Employee (FTE) positions in the Operating Department. Facility maintenance and Custodial Services provided by the Public Works Department were allocated based on square footage of each department. MGT's analysis incorporated a use allowance to capture the costs of capital and fixed assets. Department and division overhead were part of cost analysis. A productive hourly rate was utilized to recover the cost of paid leave and other time when employees were not engaged in delivering a particular service. Actual productive hours varied significantly between each employee; therefore, MGT utilized 1,600 as an average number of productive hours. The industry range was typically 1,500 to 1,700. MGT used two basic methodologies in the analysis. The first was the top-down or program-level approach, which was almost universally used for recreational programs. The second methodology was the bottom-up or fee- level approach. The program-level analysis was a combination of program direct expenses, division overhead, department overhead, and City-wide overhead. Jeff Wakefield, MGT of America explained the bottom-up or fee-level approach was used for the majority of Departments. The first steps were to acquire the class of employee for each fee category, and then identify tasks associated with each service. For each Staff member, MGT identified the Attachment B MINUTES Page 10 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 average number of minutes involved in each task. This determined the estimated time for each fee category. The time figures were applied against the fully burdened labor rates. The product of the average time multiplied by the fully burdened labor rates resulted in the summary figures. Ms. Wilcox stated Staff provided general information and recommendations for new or changed fees so that the Council was able to set policy. Staff conducted a survey of similar fees charged in eight surrounding cities, and would provide that information. CSD was collecting utilization data regarding the number of patrons, a breakdown of resident versus non- resident usage, and comparable facility rental rates. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the only State mandate was not to charge more than 100 percent of costs without community election. Mr. Wakefield answered yes. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Council could set fees between 0 and 100 percent at its discretion. Ms. Wilcox responded yes. Council Member Schmid noted the Indirect Cost was the major change with substantial numbers. The ratio of Direct Costs to Indirect Costs was interesting. He asked if Staff was requesting that Council make an explicit decision regarding services with no fees. James Keene, City Manager stated the Council would make an informed choice regarding use of a standard or custom fee’s. Staff needed to provide more clarity regarding costs and revenue. The Council had discretion to determine who paid or how the City collected revenue. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Council received an analysis point for each fee. Ms. Wilcox reported that for the program-level analysis, CSD produced one analysis for each program. Staff then presented a summary worksheet indicating the current fee, total costs, total revenues, and cost recovery amounts. MGT made a recommendation in terms of industry standards. Council Member Schmid inquired whether Staff was reviewing the fee schedule for CSD only, or were they reviewing the whole fee schedule. Ms. Wilcox answered the whole fee schedule. Council Member Schmid asked if analysis included everything. Attachment B MINUTES Page 11 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Ms. Wilcox responded correct. Council Member Schmid noted service providers could question whether they were receiving value for all the Indirect Costs, and asked if the City was providing them with an option for outsourcing. Mr. Perez believed if the City provided a good service, then the demand would be there. The process demonstrated the level of recovery, which Indirect Costs included, variations of methodology, it showed who benefited from services, who paid for services, it included additional methods to deliver services, levels of service, creation of efficiencies, and opportunities for public-private partnerships and regionalization. Staff recommended some type of outreach, which included surveys. Council Member Schmid noted that Golf and Aquatics Departments had high recovery rates, which were characterized by outsourcing and hourly workers. He was startled to see that the rate of productive hours was assumed at 1,600 hours. He assumed that in outsourcing services, Staff looked for higher rates of productive hours from contractors. Mr. Perez found that to be the case when outsourcing services at the Golf Course. It depended on the contractor's structure with regard to benefit packages. The number of productive hours ranged from 1,500 to 1,700. Council Member Schmid assumed the number of productive hours was much higher in the private sector. Mr. Wakefield had no specific knowledge regarding contractors. MGT excluded holiday time, sick time, vacation time, breaks, and leave. Council Member Schmid clarified 1,600 productive hours was assumed for public sector employees. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the example of the Golf Course was a top- down approach. Mr. Wilcox reported City-wide Overhead was allocated to the Departments by different methodologies depending on the Department. If the Golf Course represented a total of 6.67 percent of all direct expenses for CSD, then it received 6.6 percent of City-wide Overhead allocated to CSD. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested all costs of the Administrative Services Department (ASD) and the City Manager's Office be completely expensed across all services at the allocated percentage. Mr. Keene presumed the analysis utilized 2,080 hours. Attachment B MINUTES Page 12 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated hours started at 2,080, and then leave was subtracted. Mr. Keene stated many employees did not work 2,080 hours; therefore, the overheard rate was undercharged. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed residents paying for services with cash subsidized residents paying with credit cards, and inquired whether the City had a surcharge for use of credit cards. Mr. Perez reported State law did not allow the City to implement a surcharge for credit card use. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if that law pertained to municipalities only, and asked if the City could implement a cash discount. Mr. Perez stated the law was a municipality restriction. Staff was reviewing other modes of payment that potentially lowered the cost. Technology was available; however, vendors and users had to participate. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the cost for pensioners was included in the expense for each Department. Mr. Perez responded yes. The recommended methodologies for Council consideration accounted for those types of expenses. There were conflicting impacts as a result of a particular methodology, and Staff discussed that when making recommendations to full Council. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the Council would need to review methodology service-by-service. Mr. Perez reported similar situations occurred under the old formula. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated ASD had a multiplier effect based on all activities. Mr. Perez noted the City reduced Staff as it moved from purchase requests to procurement cards. Lighter workloads had impacts throughout the administrative departments. Vice Mayor Shepherd was unsure how to navigate an increase of Staff to support new services. The Council deliberately added services that gave value to the community, but needed an analysis of when a new service required more Staff. Attachment B MINUTES Page 13 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Mr. Perez reported Staff's goal was to identify issues and concerns as they surfaced. He viewed the process as continual because Council could move in a different direction then was recommended by Staff. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Committee would be utilizing the information to make difficult Budget decisions. Mr. Keene reported sorting the status quo versus reducing costs or raising revenue would be challenging. It was good government to pursue this information. The question of what to do with the information remained. This sort of information was valuable in budget discussions and informed a continuous improvement process. It allowed the Council to deepen review and to inform potential changes. He suggested that Council review a few services each year for deeper discussion. Mr. Perez also believed it was good governance to reassess and understand the City's portfolio of services. He thought this exercise could inform policy decisions. Mr. Keene felt the analyses informed continuous improvement of services and efficiencies. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked when the Committee would be reviewing the information. Mr. Perez reported the Committee could review analyses in May 2013, but mostly likely Staff would wait to present the completed study. Vice Mayor Shepherd liked the concept of reviewing Overhead Costs because reducing Overhead Costs for services decreased subsidies. Chair Burt stated performing analysis required time and costs. He inquired whether there was any value in performing both bottom-up and top-down analyses to allow comparison of outcomes. Mr. Wakefield indicated it was very difficult to perform a top-down analysis on all fees, and said it would probably quintuple the amount of time he used. Chair Burt clarified he meant performing both analyses on a small sample of services. Mr. Wakefield said he had not performed that exercise but said the general wisdom in the industry was that the bottom-up method was used for most fee-related services provided and offered more accuracy. Whenever possible, MGT utilized the bottom-up analysis. Attachment B MINUTES Page 14 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Chair Burt was interested in another point of comparison between other cities. This information was a method for informing decisions and increasing transparency and deliberateness. Ms. Wilcox reported there were not many similar comparisons among cities because cities bundled services differently. Chair Burt asked how much of City outsourcing was paid by the hour and how much was paid based on performance. Mr. Perez said there was a hybrid because Custodial Services had hourly rates; whereas, for Parks, there was a mixture. Chair Burt believed the City was not concerned with how many hours were required to provide a certain quality of service. The City wanted highly productive contractors who met performance standards. Mr. Perez noted a good example was refuse collection. Robert De Geus, Division Manager reported Golf Course contracts contained performance standards and expectations that required a minimum number of maintenance Staff. Chair Burt inquired whether Staff would be concerned if a contractor met performance standards while utilizing fewer people. Mr. De Geus indicated Staff was concerned primarily with performance; however, having managed the Golf Course in-house, Staff wanted to understand how the contractor could do the work with fewer employees. Chair Burt stated Staff wanted the contractor to be transparent about how it intended to meet performance goals, but Staff did not want to stipulate that. Mr. De Geus agreed. Chair Burt indicated Staff would scrutinize whether a contractor had a good plan, but would not manage the plan or determine it in advance. He suggested a Study Session regarding best practices in competitiveness. Mr. Keene noted managed competition was the state-of-the-art term for that process. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not believe the Committee requested Staff to change its methodology for analyses. Attachment B MINUTES Page 15 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Chair Burt reported the information was a tool for informing decisions. He wanted to make that clear so there were not a variety of expectations as to how the information was used. NO ACTION REQUIRED Break from 9:05 to 9:13 4. Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023 Long Range Financial Forecast (Continued From March 5, 2013) Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director wanted to provide Staff with feedback to the Finance Committee's (Committee) comments at the end of the prior discussion, and to receive input for discussion with the Council. The Mayor indicated he wanted the Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) to be an Action Item on the Council Agenda. The first comment concerned tax revenue associated with hotels currently under construction, and earmarking those funds as revenue streams for infrastructure expense; He said Staff could include that in the LRFF. The second comment concerned calculating the pension savings from the third tier pension benefits. Staff suggested hiring an actuary firm to assist in calculating those savings because the alternative scenario contained an approximate $50 million impact between the years of 2017 and 2023. He remarked that the $50 million impact should be offset by savings. The third comment requested further clarification on the CalPERS pension rate estimates included in the base model. Staff suggested utilizing the actuary firm to validate their application of the CalPERS estimates. With regard to the fourth comment from the previous meeting, Staff requested clarification. With regard to the fifth comment, Staff was comfortable with their estimates for sales and Documentary Transfer Taxes. If the Committee had concerns, Staff would note them in documentation to the Council and in the model. Chair Burt indicated the Committee needed to decide whether to make the first comment a recommendation to the Council. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to have Staff put the related tax revenue associated with hotels currently under construction in the Long Range Financial Forecast. Chair Burt noted the comment also contained a provision to earmark revenue streams for infrastructure expense. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not want to earmark revenue for infrastructure expense. Attachment B MINUTES Page 16 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Council Member Schmid did not recommend earmarking funds at this time. Chair Burt wanted to earmark funds for infrastructure. He asked if Staff needed a Motion. James Keene, City Manager suggested the Committee move the separate items. MOTION RECAPPED: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to include Transient Occupancy Tax for hotels currently under construction in the Long Range Financial Forecast. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Burt moved to have Council consider earmarking revenue streams for infrastructure expense. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not object to the Committee asking the Council to hold a policy discussion regarding earmarking funds. Chair Burt inquired whether the City had other definable new revenue sources. Mr. Perez could not recall any new revenue sources. There were some implied such as the Utility Users Tax (UUT). Chair Burt stated a change in the Cubberley lease could be a new revenue source. Vice Mayor Shepherd reported discussion from the Infrastructure Committee meeting indicated a bond may not be needed. Chair Burt suggested the Finance Committee recommend that full Council consider whether discrete new revenue streams needed to be earmarked for specific purposes such as infrastructure. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Chair Burt make a suggestion that was separate from the Motion to prevent confusion. Chair Burt agreed. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Berman Absent MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd that the Finance Committee recommend the Council hold a discussion on Attachment B MINUTES Page 17 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 whether discrete new revenue streams be identified for specific purposes, such as infrastructure use. Council Member Schmid felt the Motion was a policy change when the Committee was considering amendments to the LRFF. Chair Burt explained potential new revenues would have a multi-year impact on the LRFF. Council Member Schmid believed defining new revenue sources for infrastructure was separate from review and approval of the LRFF. Chair Burt stated budgeting one or two new revenue streams was a part of the LRFF. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated a Committee could hold a broader discussion. She wanted the Infrastructure Committee to develop new revenue streams; however, she thought this would be a good conversation for the Council. MOTION PASSED: 2-1, Schmid no, Berman absent Chair Burt recalled the next topic was calculation of the pension savings for third tier employees. Staff wished to hire an actuary. He inquired whether Staff needed a Motion for Staff to hire an actuary. Mr. Perez answered no and said hiring an actuary was within the City Manager's authority. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether this work was within the scope of work for Bartel Associates. Mr. Perez replied no. The previous work was regarding retiree medical. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if this work could be added to Bartel Associates' scope of work for the next cycle. Mr. Perez reported the City had not engaged Bartel Associates for pension services. Given the significant impact of Staff estimates, it was beneficial for an actuarial firm to validate Staff's calculations. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to understand the importance of the information at the current time. Mr. Perez felt it was important because Staff wanted to ensure they were making sound decisions based on sound information and said data was based on actual demographics; however, some assumptions were based on Attachment B MINUTES Page 18 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) experience. He said a pattern could develop in the next five to ten years that would shift because the City will have savings from new employees moving into the third tier. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure Staff worked efficiently. Chair Burt clarified that the actuary would project the number of employees in the third tier and the point in time that would impact City liabilities. Mr. Perez reported the actuary would make assumptions regarding employees' retirement dates and the likelihood of employees being in tier two, versus being in tier three. Chair Burt inquired if the impact was many millions of dollars. Mr. Perez answered yes. The unknown factor was when the impact would occur. Chair Burt acknowledged that the actuary could only provide a best estimate. At the current time Staff did not include any estimate, and it was a significant change. Mr. Perez indicated Bartel Associates performed the same analysis for other agencies. Council Member Schmid stated the difference between tier two and tier three was savings; however, CalPERS reform opened the possibility of losses for the City. Mr. Perez explained the two percent at age 60 could move to 2.418 percent at age 63. In tier three, a cap on the maximum pension allowance an employee could earn was tied to the Social Security limit. The question was how many employees would go to in tier two. Chair Burt stated the Committee did not need to take action on the request to hire an actuary, and continued to the third topic. Mr. Perez reported Staff was comfortable with their estimates. He said an actuary could validate those estimates to ensure Staff's calculations were sound. Vice Mayor Shepherd said she had no confidence in CalPERS' rate of return. She hoped the LRFF would include the effect of each 1/4 percent rate change. Attachment B MINUTES Page 19 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Chair Burt did not believe this was a point of contention. Mr. Keene indicated Staff could include a note and some calculations in the LRFF. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure that was included. Chair Burt indicated the third topic required no action by the Committee. With regard to the fourth topic, he was concerned about projecting the prior anticipated utility increases for the future. While capital expenditures continued to increase for various utilities, the commodity costs on gas and electric might not rise at historic rates. Experts in the industry were reexamining those historic trends and escalations, and suggesting the escalations may not occur at the same rate. Renewables and non- renewables were experiencing market changes, which could be new trends. He requested Staff discuss with Utilities Staff any anticipated trends that should be factored in. Mr. Perez indicated Staff would do so. Council Member Schmid agreed that Staff should review that. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Utilities did not provide the majority of revenues. Chair Burt inquired whether the Report included a breakdown of revenues from different streams. Joe Saccio, Assistant Director of Administrative Services reported the last LRFF included a compound annual growth of approximately 2.9 percent for UUT. The historical 20-year compound annual growth was 3.8 percent, and the prior ten years was 5.3 percent. Chair Burt suggested the adjustment was included. Mr. Saccio noted Staff had lowered the projected annual growth. It was incumbent on Utilities to explain their forecasts in terms of prices of commodities and capital. Chair Burt inquired about the percentage of the Budget. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the sales tax had been erratic. Chair Burt recalled the final topic was long-term projections for sales and Documentary Transfer Taxes. The concern was that the 20-year Attachment B MINUTES Page 20 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 compounded growth was 2.07 percent, the 10-year compounded growth was one percent, and the forward projection was 3.38 percent for sales tax. Mr. Saccio explained Staff reviewed the forecast and assumptions. Those were reasonable growth rates for the next few years. Comparing the four quarters of calendar year 2012 to the four quarters of calendar year 2011 resulted in a 12.4 percent increase. Chair Burt felt that information was not relevant in projecting a 10-year forecast. He requested Staff's rationale for projecting 3.4 percent growth when the prior growth was only one or two percent. Mr. Saccio said Staff considered the first couple of years when preparing the LRFF. Chair Burt indicated the LRFF did not appear to include a recession. Mr. Saccio recalled the Committee's prior instructions were to review the prior 20 years and include all the recessions in those 20 years in order to determine a rate of growth. Chair Burt asked how Staff moved from 2.0 percent growth to a projected 3.38 percent growth. Mr. Perez reported Staff was comfortable with the projected growth for the next five years. Staff reviewed the final five years, and either made adjustments or stated the Committee was uncomfortable with Staff's long- term projections for sales tax. Council Member Schmid felt the general economic outlook as stated on pages three and four was optimistic. He thought it would be good to have a section about persisting economic problems. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff relied on any new source of sales tax. Mr. Saccio responded no and said the Amazon tax would go to the jurisdictions where warehouses were located. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the Amazon tax would be ZIP code specific, and was projected to provide $2.5 billion to the State of California. Mr. Saccio stated the State of California would receive its share of the sales tax, but the one percent of sales tax for local jurisdictions went to the local jurisdictions where the Amazon warehouse is located. Attachment B MINUTES Page 21 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the City would receive funds from the Amazon sales tax. Mr. Saccio replied no. Staff relied on sales tax from Hewlett Packard; however, that had not occurred. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff could resolve the higher projection for sales tax. Mr. Perez stated Staff would review the second of the five years of the LRFF and would provide more detail. If Staff did not change their opinion, they needed to provide an explanation. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff preferred to present the LRFF to the Council or if they preferred returning to the Committee. Mr. Perez suggested that was preferable in light of Budget hearings beginning in May. Mr. Saccio noted that the major taxes over the past five years had a cumulative growth rate of 4.1 percent. The forecast contained 4.2 percent growth. Every year some taxes did not meet projections and others exceeded projections. In totality, projections were close to the trend in historical growth. Chair Burt stated the LRFF should be as close to correct as possible. The Amazon issue raised the question of how much Staff considered trends of internet sales and their impact on 10 and 20-year trend. He noted that changes in tax law could change that. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Lalo Perez, Administrative Services Director noted there was not a meeting on April 2, 2013. The Agenda for the meeting on April 16, 2013 included Recommendations for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Golf Course Reconfiguration, the Wastewater Collection Utility Financial Projection, the Electric Utility Financial Projection, the Gas Utility Financial Projection, Fiber Optic Fund Financial Projection, and the Annual Rate Schedule Increase for Storm Drains. He noted that the Finance Committee should consider beginning its meeting at 6:00 P.M. to cover all items. Chair Burt stated the April 16, 2013 meeting would be a Special Meeting beginning at 6:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested sending a letter to State Representatives explaining there was no Amazon sales tax that affected Palo Alto. Attachment B MINUTES Page 22 of 22 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 3/19/2013 Mr. Perez said he would refer that to the City Manager's Office because there was a concern that Community Development Block Grant funding could be eliminated. 4/2/2013 - canceled 4/16/2013 ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:01 P.M. Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 3900) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/17/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cost of Services Study Title: Cost of Services Study - Draft Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Finance Committee: 1) Accept this report and MGT’s draft report 2) Provide input on user fee cost recovery policy considerations 3) Direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council in November a draft user fee cost recovery policy, which will guide the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule Executive Summary: As reported at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee Meetings, the City hired a consultant to assist the City with a Cost of Services Study. This report transmits MGT’s draft report, recommends considerations for a user fee cost recovery policy, responds to previous Finance Committee information requests, and outlines next steps in the Cost of Services Study. Background: Propositions 13, 218 and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 contains a more general articulation of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government bear the burden of proof that “a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to recover the reasonable costs of the government activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on , or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § (e).). It is important to note that rental charges for rooms or facilities, fines, penalties and late charges are not technically user fees and are not Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 2 required to be based on actual costs. Instead, these types of charges are more typically governed by market rates, reasonableness and other policy driven factors. As discussed at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee meetings, the City retained the services of MGT of America (“MGT”) to assist staff in determining the full cost of providing General Fund services for which fees are charged based on FY 2012 actual data. User fees, permits and rental charges generated approximately $22.2 million in fiscal year 2012, which was approximately 15 percent of total General Fund revenues. The following is a breakdown of General Fund fee revenues by department:  Planning and Community Environment (PCE) $9.0 million  Community Services Department (CSD) $6.2 million  Fire Department $5.0 million  Public Works $1.0 million  Police/Animal Services $0.7 million  All Other $0.3 million In March 2013, staff presented an overview of the methodology MGT used for this analysis to the Finance Committee along with examples of specific fee calculations (link to report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33539). MGT’s fee analysis, which follows best practices, assesses the staff time worked and the staff’s hourly cost of providing a particular service such as processing a permit or inspecting a fire sprinkler system. Then, indirect expenses are added to recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support department costs, and compensated absences. Discussion: This section of the report provides a summary of the draft MGT report, recommends policy considerations for a forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, and responds to previous Finance Commmittee information requests. MGT Report Attachment A is MGT’s draft report dated August 1, 2013. MGT’s report was based on FY 2012 actual data. Given the actual FY 2012 activity level, fee charged, and cost, the report provides the various cost- recovery levels for fees and General Fund subsidies related to Public Works (Engineering), Police, Animal Services, Fire (except for Emergency Medical Reponse activities), and Community Services. It does not include the fee calculations for the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department as well as some development related fees charged by other departments. Currently, these services are provided by staff in PCE, Fire, Public Work and Utilities and, as such, costs related to these services are being incurred in a multitude of cost centers across departments. The analysis of these services will be completed once the cost for Development Services activities is analyzed in each affected department. Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 3 Any changes resulting from this analysis will be brought forward to the Finance Committee as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget process. Overall, MGT’s analysis indicates that the City recovered approximately 35 percent of the full cost of providing fee related services in FY 2012 for the departments mentioned above. Thus, the City’s General Fund subsidized 65% percent, or approximately $20 million, of the cost of these services. As expected, cost recovery levels varied quite a bit between departments and programs. Based on that analysis, MGT also identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed generated a cost recovery level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees with a cost recovery level above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and budgeted costs, staff is in the process of reviewing these fees.. Staff intends to return to the Finance Committee in November if this analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to bring them to a 100% cost recovery level. Fees Charged in Other Cities Staff reviewed fees charged by seven other cities (Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Menlo Park, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Fremont) in order to understand how Palo Alto’s fees place in comparison to these agencies (see Attachment B). It is important to note that conclusions that can be drawn from comparisons of fee levels across the surveyed cities are fairly limited due to agencies’ differences in defining and structuring their respective fees. For example, certain services included in fees may be combined in some cities but separated in others; fees in other cities may be based on historical or other subjective factors unrelated to costs; and fees are also affected by differences in cost factors such as cost allocations of indirect support costs, employee benefit costs, and service efficiencies (the overall time necessary to complete a particular service or activity). User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Considerations MGT’s report also includes policy considerations for setting cost recovery levels. Based on MGT’s report and a review of other cities’ User Fee Cost Recovery policies, the following policy considerations are presented to the Finance Committee for discussion. Based on the Committee’s review and discussion, staff recommends presenting a draft User Fee Cost Recovery policy to the City Council in November. Such a policy will then inform the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. 1. Community-wide vs. Private Benefit: The use of taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the community as a whole such as police patrol services. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or groups such as the issuance of building permits, it is common for the individual(s) receiving that benefit to pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Service Driver: The concept of the service recipient vs. service driver is particularly important for regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits. Although the community primarily benefits, 100% cost recovery from the “driver“ of the need for service is appropriate such as a building permit or a Massage establishment permit applicant. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life may also be factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 4 to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth for without overly-stimulating a market by artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may attract participants from other Cities. It should be noted, that the current Municipal Fee Schedule for recreational services includes a lower rate for Palo Alto residents than residents living outside of Palo Alto. However, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services to low income individuals, children, or seniors. 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for core City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. Based on these policy considerations, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0-30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges. It is important to note that these groupings provide guidance and are not absolute. Some policy considerations may weigh more heavily than others, which will be considered in the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. For example, fees for recreational activities should be set in general at the Medium cost recovery level. However, fees for seniors or low income residents may be at the low cost recovery level. Alternatively, permits and development activity should be set at close to 100% cost recovery level. Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 5 Cost Recovery Levels Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% - 30%  No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received  Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements  No intent to limit the use of the service  Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service  Affordability of service to low-income residents Medium 30.1% - 70%  Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% - 100%  Individual users or participants receives most or all of the benefit of the service  Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service  The use of the service is specifically discouraged  The service is regulatory in nature With the exception of fees for classes offered through the Community Services Department (CSD), the City currently has no formal policies in place governing cost recovery targets for user fee services. The CSD’s class cost recovery guidelines are included in Attachment C. They are consistent with the policy considerations recommended and overlay a process for continuously evaluating the programs offered by CSD. However, CSD’s full costs and cost recovery factors have not been updated in six years. Once the Committee has provided input to the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy considerations, staff will review the attached CSD Class Cost Recovery Policy and bring forward recommendations for City Council consideration, as necessary. Since demand for services are factors to consider when evaluating fees charged by the Community Services Department, the Finance Committee asked staff to provide utilization data for these programs where available. Attachment D includes that data as well as information CSD staff compiled related to facility rental rates. The utilization data reflects FY 2012 actual usage while the facility rental rates represent charges as of spring 2013. Resource Impact: As discussed, based on FY 2012 data, MGT identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed generated a cost recovery level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 6 with a cost recovery level above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and budgeted costs, staff is in the process of reviewing these fees. Staff intends to return to the Finance Committee in November if this analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to bring them to a 100% cost recovery level. Any such reduction in fees may result in downward adjustments to the FY 2014 fee revenue estimate. Once the City Council approves the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, staff will develop the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. Depending on the approved policy and the FY 2015 Base Budget expenditures for activities related to Municipal Fees, the estimated fee revenue for FY 2015 may decrease, increase, or remain approximately equivalent to the FY 2014 estimated fee revenue level. Next Steps: As mentioned in this report and previous Committee reports, by the end of the calendar year and fiscal year, staff has to accomplish several milestones related to the Cost of Services Study. Review of certain FY 2014 Adopted Fees MGT’s methodology for assessing the cost related to Municipal Fees is rather complex. Therefore, staff from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a simpler, albeit still labor intensive, process to collect cost information and estimated fee activity levels from departments. Additionally, indirect expenses are added to recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support department costs, and compensated absences. This cost assessment will not include costs for using City facilities, since such a methodology still requires further analysis. This methodology will be used to review these FY 2014 Adopted Fees, which have been identified in MGT’s report with a higher than 100% cost recovery level based on FY 2012 actual data. If this review determines that FY 2014 Adopted Fees are above full cost-recovery levels, staff will bring forward recommendations to adjust these fees downward in November 2013. User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Based on input from the Finance Committee, staff recommends bringing forward to the City Council a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. This policy will guide and inform the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. As part of the transmission of the FY 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule, staff intends to present to the City Council the cost recovery percentages for fees and/or group of fees. Due to the changing benefits structure of classic versus new employees, staff intends to analyze the cost for fee activities annually and set fees in accordance with the forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy as part of the annual budget process. Once the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy is approved by the City Council, the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy will be reviewed and updated. Cost of Services Studies for Internal Support Functions As presented in the March 2013 Finance Committee Meeting report, staff has been reviewing internal support functions to more effectively provide such services to direct services departments such as Public Safety, CSD, or Utilities. Since the majority of internal support functions are either mandated by law (e.g. financial reporting in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or rather complex in comparison to similar private sector activities (e.g.: benefits and payroll for various employee groups with different special pay and benefit levels within the employee groups), the initial review has not led Attachment C City of Palo Alto Page 7 to further analysis yet. Staff intends to continue the analysis and present the findings to the Committee by the end of the calendar year. Attachments:  Attachment A: MGT's Palo Alto User Fee Report (PDF)  Attachment B: Seven Cities Fee Comparison (PDF)  Attachment C: Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy (PDF)  Attachment D: Cost of Services (PDF) Attachment C Attachment AAttachment AAttachment AAttachment A City of Palo Alto Draft User Fee Study Findings August 1, 2013 2001 P Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 Attachment C Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents Page Executive Summary Introduction 2 Scope and Objectives 2 Economic and Policy Considerations 4 Methodology 5 Study Findings 9 User Fee Summaries by Department: Public Works - Engineering 12 Police 14 Animal Services 18 Fire 19 Community Services 24 Attachment C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction MGT of America (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Palo Alto (City) with this summary of findings for the user fee study. The City has not undertaken a comprehensive analysis of its user fees since the 2002/03 fiscal year. Since that time, the City has adjusted fees on an annual basis, largely via a CPI adjustment factor. The City is now interested in knowing the current full cost of providing user fee-related services, and exploring the options of modifying current fees to better reflect Council priorities. In 2012, the City contracted with MGT to perform this cost analysis using fiscal year 2012 expenditures, staffing and operational information. MGT was also tasked with recommending fee adjustments for each department based on industry best-practices. This report is the culmination of the past fifteen months of work between MGT and City management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all management and staff who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to the success of this study. Study Scope and Objectives This study included a review of fee-for service activities within the following departments/divisions: Public Works (Engineering) Police Animal Services Fire Community Services At the request of the City, the analysis of fees charged by the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department and other development related fees was deferred pending a comprehensive review of all costs related to development services. Currently, development related services are provided by staff in the PCE, Public Works, Fire and Utilities Departments. Once all development related costs are consolidated into one budget, the full cost of development services will be determined. The study was performed under the general direction of the Office of Management and Budget with the participation of representatives from each department. The primary goals of the study were to: Page 2 Attachment C Define what it costs the city to provide various fee-related services. Recommend fee adjustments based on industry best practices, practices of comparable agencies and MGT’s professional opinion. Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees. Compile information regarding fees charged by the following neighboring cities: Cupertino, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Provide user fee models and templates to City staff enabling staff to update the study results in future years and incorporate new fees as they occur. The industry standard is to conduct a comprehensive review of fees every three to five years and make annual adjustments based on an inflation index. However, given the increasing cost of public sector employee benefits, agencies may incorporate those cost increases into the annual fee adjustments. The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on general fund revenues. The following is a list of legal, economic and policy issues that governmental agencies typically take into consideration when determining cost recovery levels. State Law – In California user fees are limited to the “estimated reasonable cost of providing a service” by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. Proposition 26 was approved by California voters in November of 2010 and clarified which charges are considered user fees and which are considered taxes. The significance of this distinction is that user fees may be raised by Council action up to the limit of actual cost, whereas taxes may not be increased without a majority vote of the public. None of the fee adjustments recommended by MGT are considered taxes per Proposition 26 guidelines. It should be noted that fees charged for the use of government property are exempt from Proposition 26. These include fees for parks and facility rentals as well as green fees, cart and other equipment rental fees for golf services. All of these fees may be set at any price the market will bear. Economic barriers - It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. Page 3 Attachment C Community benefit - If a user fee service benefits the community as a whole to some extent, it is appropriate to subsidize a portion of the fee. Many community services fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge or for a minimal fee regardless of cost. Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest recovery levels (15%-50%). Miscellaneous classes tend to have the moderate cost recovery levels (50%-85%) and adult sport programs typically have higher cost recovery levels (60%-100%). Private benefit – If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, the fee is typically set at, or close to 100% full cost recovery. Development- related fees generally fall into this category, however exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged exclusively to residential applicants. Service driver - In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, code enforcement activities benefit the community as a whole, but the service is driven by the individual or business owner that violates city code. Managing demand - Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price may result in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa. For most cities recreation services are highly elastic. Due to Palo Alto’s demographics, this may not necessarily be the case for Palo Alto’s recreational programs. It should be noted that Palo Alto provides a much wider array of services to its community than are found in other cities. Consequently, a significant number of non-residents participate in Palo Alto’s recreational programs and services. Competition - Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City’s fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector competitors could be adversely affected. Incentives – Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as water heater permitting or youth sports activities. Disincentives – Penalties can be instituted to discourage undesirable behavior. Examples include fines for constructing without a building permit and fines for excessive false alarms within a one-year period. The flow chart below helps illustrate the economic and policy considerations listed above. Page 4 Attachment C Who Benefits Public Mostly taxes & some fees Youth sports Private Private / Public Public / Private Type of Service Individual benefit only Primarily the individual with some community- wide benefits Primarily the individual with some community benefits Community Police patrol services Example Services Mostly fees & some taxes 100% fees 100% taxes Tax vs. Fees Policy Development services Code enforcement services DECISION-MAKING FLOW CHART Methodology The standard approach for analyzing the cost of providing fee-related services is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” approach. The bottom up approach was used for all user fees except Community Services and Animal Services fees. Community Services and Animal Services fees will be discussed later in this report. A general description of the “bottom up” approach is as follows: 1. Identify all direct staff time spent on the fee related activity or service MGT conducted a series of meetings with staff from Public Works, Police, Animal Services and the Fire Department to identify every employee, Page 5 Attachment C by classification, who performs work directly in support of a fee related service. Direct staff costs are incurred by employees who are “on the front line” and most visible to the customers (e.g. park rangers, fire inspectors, etc.). Once all direct staff were identified, departments estimated how much time those employees spend, on average, working on each particular service or program. Developing time estimates for fee related services can be challenging and departments should be commended for the time and effort they put into this. Although MGT provided departments with templates and other tools to assist them in developing average or “typical” time estimates, these calculations were necessarily developed by the subject matter experts in each operating department. 2. Calculate direct cost of the staff time for each fee using productive hourly rates Productive hourly rates are used to support full cost recovery. A full-time employee typically has 2,080 paid hours per year. However, cost studies reduce that number to account for non-productive hours (sick leave, vacation, holidays, training, meetings, etc.). MGT calculated the productive hourly rate for each classification based on the salary and benefit information provided by the City and an analysis of annual productive hours by classification. 3. Determine any other operational costs (i.e. other than personnel costs) that can readily be traced to a specific fee-related service as a direct cost Professional services contracts are an example of an expense that can often be traced to a specific service or program. 4. Determine indirect or “overhead” costs Generally there are two types of indirect costs: departmental and citywide overhead. These indirect costs are allocated across user fee services in order to capture the full cost of providing the service. . If a department performs non-fee related services, a commensurate amount of indirect cost is segregated and not allocated to the fee related services. Departmental overhead costs – these costs include managers, supervisors and support staff as well as other operational costs, such as materials and supplies that are incurred for a common purpose and not readily assigned to a particular service or program. Citywide overhead costs – each department and fund within the city receives an allocation of cost from the city’s various central service departments. Central service departments are those whose main function is to support other city departments and funds. Such departments include the Auditor, Clerk, Attorney, City Manager, Administrative Services, Human Resources and Public Works/Facilities Maintenance. The methods for allocating central service costs can vary but must demonstrate a causal relationship between the allocation methodology and the costs allocated to the operating department. The State Controller’s Office guidelines Page 6 Attachment C stress the importance of allocating citywide overhead costs in a way that “equitably reflect the value of service” provided to the department receiving the service(s). In most cases, industry standards call for one of the following methodologies for allocating central services costs: Number of full-time equivalent staff in the operating department Total operating department expenditures, excluding fixed assets, pass through funds and large purchases (e.g. energy purchases) Actual or estimates of time spent in support of the operating department based on documented procedures 5. Compare total costs to the current fee schedule. Once all direct, indirect and crossover costs are calculated, MGT compared the total cost for each fee-related service to the fee currently charged to the public. In most cases we found the total cost of providing a service exceeded the fee charged. In these instances, the fee can be increased to recover these subsidies. However, there were a number of services for which the total calculated cost was less than the fee charged. In these cases the fee must be lowered to comply with State law. 6. Annual volume figures are incorporated. Up to this point we have calculated fee costs and revenues on a per-unit basis. By incorporating annual volume estimates provided by each department into the analysis, we extrapolate the per-unit results into annual cost and annual revenue information. This annualization of results accomplishes two primary benefits: Management information: the annualized results give management an estimate of the fiscal impact of any fee adjustments. Because annual volume will change from one year to the next, these figures are estimates only. Actual revenue will depend on future demand level and collection rates, which for some services can be less than 100%. Cross checks and reasonableness tests: by annualizing the results we also annualize the time spent by staff on each service. These annualized results will surface any instances of over or under estimation of time. In these cases we review these results with staff and resolve any anomalies. All staff hours were identified to either fee or non-fee related services. Page 7 Attachment C 7. Recommend fee adjustments. MGT provides fee adjustment recommendations based on industry best practices and practices of comparable agencies. Of course MGT’s recommendations are advisory in nature only – ultimately Council must decide what fee levels are appropriate for Palo Alto. Methodology – Community Services and Animal Services fees In some cases, the potential benefits of conducting a bottom up analysis of a particular fee are outweighed by the expense that would be incurred in developing this information. This is almost universally the case with recreational and animal service programs, where a substantial amount of effort would be required to identify and track costs at the individual fee level. For example, it is difficult to estimate city staff time related to an individual participating in a karate class. The cost of conducting such a detailed analysis would outweigh the value of this information, in particular because elasticity of demand and local policy goals are typically factors that are evaluated when establishing recreational and animal service fees. Accordingly, we have analyzed Community Service and Animal Service fees at the program level using a “top down” approach. In this approach we identify the direct 2012 expenditures for each program and incorporate division, departmental and citywide overhead in a manner similar to the “bottom up” approach. We then compare the resulting full cost against 2012 program revenues to calculate the cost recovery level for each program. Page 8 Attachment C Study Findings The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision-makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of services and presents recommended fee adjustments and their fiscal impact. Recommendations are based on careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, industry best practices and market comparisons. Although there are opportunities to increase fees and cost recovery levels for Animal Control and Community Services, these fees are typically set based on local elasticity of demand considerations and/or each jurisdiction’s goals and priorities. The results of the study identified that overall, most departments recover much less than the actual cost of providing services. Accordingly, there is an opportunity to raise additional funds through fee adjustments. There are several possible reasons for the current subsidy levels: During the 2003 comprehensive fee analysis, Council may have intentionally subsidized certain services. Subsequently, even if these fees were adjusted annually to keep pace with increasing city costs, these fees would still be below actual cost. It is likely the City’s practice of adjusting fees annually via a CPI factor did not keep pace with actual governmental service costs. Over the past decade, government sector costs have outpaced general inflation. Many user fee related processes have changed over the past decade. Often this is the result of increasing service-level demands by the general public. Also, the State has mandated many additional inspections and reviews that add to the City’s cost structure within the development-related departments, including Public Works Engineering. Restructuring of fees. We found that several of the City’s fees could be more equitably charged via a different fee structure. This is particularly true with for the Engineering fees. For example, Construction in the Right of Way fees: these fees are currently assessed on a flat 5% of the cost of construction. Discussion with Engineering staff and subsequent analysis of time estimate responses indicated that economies of scale exist with these services. Accordingly, we restructured these fees into a declining percentage sliding scale structure. Comparison analysis. A component of our analysis included a survey of user fees charged by neighboring cities. This survey gives City management a picture of the market environment for city services. This survey is imprecise in that a fee with the same name may involve slightly different services among the various cities surveyed. Some cities lump several services into one fee category, whereas other cities break fees down into a high level of specificity. Accordingly the purpose of this comparison analysis is to impart a sense of how Palo Alto’s fees levels compare with neighboring jurisdictions. The comparison analysis is provided under a separate cover. The exhibit on the following page displays the summary of costs and revenues for each department/division analyzed: Page 9 Attachment C City of Palo Alto User Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue Analysis Actual 2012 RecommendedRecommendedRecommendedRecommended Costs, UserCosts, UserCosts, UserCosts, User CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent General FundGeneral FundGeneral FundGeneral Fund Cost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost Recovery IncreasedIncreasedIncreasedIncreased Department/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/Division Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A) Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B ) Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C ) Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D) Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E) Public Work Public Work Public Work Public Work ---- EngineeringEngineeringEngineeringEngineering $1,108,780 $816,846 74% $291,934 $1,108,780 100% $291,934 PolicePolicePolicePolice $443,545 $338,389 76% $105,156 $443,545 100% $105,156 Animal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal Control $1,969,171 $1,008,427 51% $960,744 $1,008,427 51% $0 FireFireFireFire $1,553,690 $886,140 57% $667,550 $1,553,690 100% $667,550 Community ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity Services $25,525,449 $7,645,996 30% $17,879,453 $7,645,996 30% $0 Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total: $30,600,635 $10,695,798 35% $19,904,837 $11,760,438 38% $1,064,640 Column A, User Fee Costs –––– The full cost of the services we analyzed was approximately $30.6 million. The vast majority of these costs were incurred providing fee-related services. However, because the analyses for Animal Control and Community Services were done at the program level, the full cost for those analyses includes non-fee related expenses. For example, costs for maintaining open space are included in the Community Services Department and costs for field operations are included in Animal Control. Column B, Current Revenues –––– Based on current individual fee levels, the City generates fee related revenues of $10.69 million and is experiencing a 35% cost recovery level. Within each department, cost recovery levels fluctuate significantly. Several Police and Fire fees are currently set above actual cost. MGT recommends the City review employee benefit and other cost increases that have occurred since FY 2012 to determine if these fees will need to be reduced. The analyses of individual fees are presented in subsequent sections of this report. Again, since Animal Control and Community Services were analyzed at the program level, some of the revenues for these programs are not derived from user fees. For example, Animal Control revenues include approximately $600,000 in reimbursements for services provided to other cities. Column C, General Fund Subsidy –––– Current fee levels recover 35% of full cost, leaving 65% or $19,904,837 to be funded by other funding sources. This represents a “window of opportunity” for the City to increase fees and general fund revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services by the general General Fund subsidy. Please note, however, that approximately $17.9 million of this $19.6 million represents historically subsidized programs within the Community Services Department. Page 10 Attachment C Column D, Recommend Recovery –––– It is estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would generate fee revenues of $11,760,438. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 38.%. Column E, Increased Revenue –––– Increasing fees to recover full costs in the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments would generate approximately $1,064,640 in additional revenue. This represents a 10% increase over revenue currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annual basis. Please note that the above information does not include costs or cost recovery levels for development-related services. As stated earlier in this report, the analysis of those fees will be completed once the Development Services budget is established. Department Summary Charts The subsequent pages display the results of our individual fee analysis. Because Community Services and Animal Services were analyzed on a program level, their results reflect cost and revenue on a program basis only. For all other departments, the current charge, total cost and recommended fee are listed for each fee-related service. The summaries are in the following order: Public Works (Engineering) Police Animal Services Fire Community Services Page 11 Attachment C Public Work – Engineering Attachment C User Fee Study Summary Sheet Service Name Fee Description Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Certificate of Compliance/ Correction/ Map Amendment 14 $3,000 80%80%80%80% $3,731 $52,239 $42,000 $10,239 100%$3,731 $52,239 $10,239 4 Street Cut - Excellent Pavement per sq ft 5,200 $15 68%68%68%68%$22 $115,001 $78,000 $37,001 100%$22 $115,001 $37,001 5 Street Cut - Good Pavement per sq ft 4,700 $10 54%54%54%54%$18 $86,319 $47,000 $39,319 100%$18 $86,319 $39,319 6 Street Cut - Fair Pavement per sq ft 3,200 $8 51%51%51%51%$15 $46,770 $24,000 $22,770 100%$15 $46,770 $22,770 7 Street Cut - Poor Pavement per sq ft 3,900 $5 46%46%46%46%$11 $42,376 $19,500 $22,876 100%$11 $42,376 $22,876 8 Service Lateral Connection 305 $1,000 87%87%87%87% $1,151 $350,930 $305,000 $45,930 100%$1,151 $350,930 $45,930 9 Encr - Dumpster, Container 30 $135 64%64%64%64% $211 $6,317 $4,050 $2,267 100%$211 $6,317 $2,267 10 Encr - Fence 5 $135 23%23%23%23% $596 $2,982 $675 $2,307 100%$596 $2,982 $2,307 11 Encr - Non-residential Long Term > 5 days 30 $850 103%103%103%103% $825 $24,754 $25,500 -$746 100%$825 $24,754 -$746 12 Encr - Residential $400 61%61%61%61% $660 100%$660 n/a n/a 13 Encr - Non-residential Short Term < 5 days 15 $425 102%102%102%102% $416 $6,240 $6,375 -$135 100%$416 $6,240 -$135 14 Encr - Non-residential 1 Day 30 $200 61%61%61%61% $330 $9,902 $6,000 $3,902 100%$330 $9,902 $3,902 15 Encr - VTA Bus Shelters' Installation/Relocation $315 12%12%12%12% $2,713 100%$2,713 n/a n/a Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations 16 Encr - Flood variance fee Cost + 15% n/an/an/an/a t&m n/a n/a n/a 100%t&m n/a n/a 17 Grading:101-1,000 cubic yards 20 $130 per 100 cy 67%67%67%67% $576 $11,525 $7,723 $3,802 100% $215 per 100 cy $11,525 $3,802 18 Grading: 1,001-10,000 cubic yards 20 $1,310 plus $130 each addl 1000 cy 67%67%67%67% $2,155 $43,097 $29,027 $14,070 100% $2,155 plus $253 each addl 1000 cy $43,097 $14,070 19 Grading: 10,001 cubic yards or more 5 $2,485 plus $130 each addl 10,000 cy 62%62%62%62% $4,435 $22,175 $13,725 $8,450 100% $4,435 plus $200 each addl 10k cy $22,175 $8,450 20 Flood Zone Determination Letter $55 30%30%30%30% $181 100%$181 n/a n/a 21 Temporary Elevation Benchmarks 1 $270 54%54%54%54% $501 $501 $270 $231 100%$501 $501 $231 22 Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Construction Site Dewatering.10 $135 + $80/month n/an/an/an/a $133 $1,334 $133 $1,201 100% $135 + $135/month $1,334 $1,201 23 Storm Plan Check 10 $350 48%48%48%48% $726 $7,259 $3,500 $3,759 100%$726 $7,259 $3,759 24 Storm Inspection Fee + Hrly 25 $320 60%60%60%60% $534 $13,344 $8,000 $5,344 100%$534 $13,344 $5,344 25 Construction and Repair Per Hour 10 $86 85%85%85%85% $102 $1,017 $864 $153 100%$102 $1,017 $153 Page 12 Attachment C User Fee Study Summary Sheet Service Name Fee Description Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations 26 Sweeping Services Per Hour 5 $89 50%50%50%50% $176 $880 $443 $438 100%$176 $880 $438 27 Traffic Control/Graffiti Services Per Hour 15 $79 85%85%85%85%$93 $1,397 $1,182 $215 100%$93 $1,397 $215 28 Tree Services Per Hour 15 $73 53%53%53%53% $137 $2,056 $1,091 $965 100%$137 $2,056 $965 29 Supervision Per Hour 2 $85 63%63%63%63% $135 $270 $170 $100 100%$135 $270 $100 30 Newsrack Impoundment Fee $50 +$3/day n/an/an/an/a $125 100%$125 n/a n/a 31 Street trees-new trees for subdivisions $100 ---------- Delete ----------n/a n/a n/a 100%n/a n/a n/a 32 Tree Removal addl for damage 2 $100/ inch of trunk n/an/an/an/a $100/ inch of trunk $2,000 $2,000 100% $100/ inch of trunk $2,000 33 Tree Inspection for private development change to flat fee 200 $105 / insp 41%41%41%41% $494 $98,851 $41,000 $57,851 100%$494 $98,851 $57,851 34 Construction in ROW: $1-$5k % of const. cost 37 $240 or 5% of contract 58%58%58%58% $413 $15,296 $8,880 $6,416 100% 10.3% of const. cost $15,296 $6,416 35 Construction in ROW: $5-$25k % of const. cost 80 $240 or 5% of contract 56%56%56%56% $1,077 $86,193 $48,000 $38,193 100% 9% of const. cost $86,193 $38,193 36 Construction in ROW: $26-$100k % of const. cost 13 $240 or 5% of contract 151%151%151%151% $1,992 $25,896 $39,000 -$13,104 100% 3.3% of const. cost $25,896 -$13,104 37 Construction in ROW: $101k + % of const. cost 5 $240 or 5% of contract 190%190%190%190% $4,874 $24,369 $46,250 -$21,881 100% 2.6% of const. cost $24,369 -$21,881 38 Improvement Plan Review: $1-$25k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $814 $1,628 $1,628 100% 3.3% of const. cost $1,628 39 Improvement Plan Review: $26-$100k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $1,628 $3,256 $3,256 100% 1.6% of const. cost $3,256 40 Improvement Plan Review: $101k +1 t&m n/an/an/an/a $2,605 $2,605 $2,605 100% 0.9% of const. cost $2,605 Total User Fees $1,108,780 $816,846 $291,934 $1,108,780 $291,934 % of Full Cost 74% 26%100% 36% Page 13 Attachment C Police Attachment C Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Adult Entertainment Estb - business location change Flat $810 81%81%81%81%$996 100% $996 2 Adult Entertainment Estb - new (non-refundable application fee) Flat $1,790 83%83%83%83%$2,152 100% $2,152 3 Adult Entertainment Estb - renewal Flat $810 81%81%81%81% $996 100% $996 4 Billiard Room (non-refundable application fee)Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 5 Bingo Establishment Flat 1 $50 n/an/an/an/a n/a 6 Bingo employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Processing Fee)Flat 2 $70 n/an/an/an/a n/a 7 Bingo employee renewal (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Processing Fee)Flat $53 n/an/an/an/a n/a 8 Bowling Alley (non-refundable application fee)Flat $120 n/an/an/an/a n/a 9 Carnival Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 10 Circus Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 11 Closing out sale Flat $61 56%56%56%56% $109 100% $109 12 Closing out sale - renewal (maximum of 2)Flat $61 56%56%56%56%$109 100% $109 13 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – New Flat $2,100 100%$2,100 14 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – Renewal Flat $800 100%$800 15 Background Investigation - new each owner, officer, agent employee Flat $136 80%80%80%80% $169 100% $169 16 Background Investigation - renewal, each owner, officer, agent employee Flat $53 42%42%42%42% $126 100% $126 17 Helicopter Landing Fee Flat 5 $240 885%885%885%885% $27 $136 $1,200 -$1,064 100% $27 $136 -$1,064 18 Hot tub/sauna business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 19 Hot tub/sauna employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee)Flat $81 n/an/an/an/a n/a 20 Hot tub/sauna new (non-refundable application fee)Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a 21 Hot tub/sauna - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 22 Hot tub/sauna sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a 23 Massage estb - new establishment (non-refundable application fee) Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $1,790 24 Massage estb - sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $122 Re-evaluate massage establishment fees once the new program and program guidelines are implemented Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 no data no data Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Page 14 Attachment C Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 25 Massageg estb - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $810 26 Massage estb - business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $810 27 Massage Tech - New (Does not include DOJ or FBI Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat 200 $81 179%179%179%179% $45 $9,042 $16,200 -$7,158 100% $45 $9,042 -$7,158 28 Massage Tech - Renewal Flat $63 100% 29 Mechanical Amusement Device Establishment Flat 1 $74 68%68%68%68%$109 $109 $74 $35 100% $109 $109 $35 30 Noise Exception Permit Flat 108 $250 137%137%137%137% $182 $19,656 $27,000 -$7,344 100% $182 $19,656 -$7,344 31 Push Cart Vendor - New license (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $244 19%19%19%19% $1,302 100% $1,302 32 Push Cart Vendor - Renewal Flat $86 79%79%79%79% $109 100% $109 33 Push Cart Vendor - Each additional cart Flat $244 675%675%675%675%$36 100% $36 34 Push Cart Vendor - Location change and/or cart change Flat $163 100%$163 35 Push Cart Employee - New license (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $81 100% $81 36 Push Cart Employee - Renewal Flat $63 100% $63 37 Soliciting information for commercial purpose (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $2,250 100% $2,250 38 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - day Flat $81 224%224%224%224% $36 100% $36 39 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - quarter Flat $122 337%337%337%337% $36 100% $36 40 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - year Flat 2 $365 1009%1009%1009%1009% $36 $72 $730 -$658 100% $36 $72 -$658 41 Each employee operating under Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat 20 $81 224%224%224%224% $36 $723 $1,620 -$897 100% $36 $723 -$897 42 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Each Vehicle-Inspection/permit Flat 200 $61 169%169%169%169%$36 $7,234 $12,200 -$4,966 100% $36 $7,234 -$4,966 43 Taxi/Public Transp Vehicle - Master License-Application/certificate Flat 2 $1,750 61%61%61%61%$2,890 $5,781 $3,500 $2,281 100% $2,890 $5,781 $2,281 44 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Master License-Annual renewal Flat 3 $810 75%75%75%75%$1,085 $3,255 $2,430 $825 100% $1,085 $3,255 $825 45 Taxicab/Public Transportation/Vehicle Service Driver (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) new and renewal Flat 200 $81 299%299%299%299% $27 $5,425 $16,200 -$10,775 100% $27 $5,425 -$10,775 no data Re-evaluate massage establishment fees once the new program and program guidelines are implemented no data no data no data Page 15 Attachment C Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 46 Taxi/Pub Transp Veh - Transfer fee Flat 12 $40 88%88%88%88% $45 $543 $480 $63 100% $45 $543 $63 47 Temp Street Closure - Class A: Parades, Runs, Street Fair, etc. Varies 10 $100 - $1,260 n/an/an/an/a $486 $4,855 $4,855 100% Hourly $4,855 48 Traveling Show Flat 2 $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 49 Permit Inspection Fee Flat 2 $90 25%25%25%25% $364 $728 $180 $548 100% $364 $728 $548 50 Permit Inspection Fee 201-400 attendees Flat 1 $110 26%26%26%26%$425 $425 $110 $315 100% $425 $425 $315 51 Permit Inspection Fee 401-600 attendees Flat $125 26%26%26%26%$486 100% $486 52 Permit Inspection Fee each additional 200 attendees Flat $20 33%33%33%33%$61 100% $61 53 Report Copy Fee Flat 1400 $10 37%37%37%37% $27 $38,277 $14,000 $24,277 100% $27 $38,277 $24,277 54 Clearance Letter Flat 130 $30 111%111%111%111% $27 $3,508 $3,900 -$392 100% $27 $3,508 -$392 55 Photo Reprint, color or black and white Flat 10 $35 74%74%74%74%$47 $473 $350 $123 100% $47 $473 $123 56 Research Fee (includes audio and video taping)hourly 100% 57 Subpoena Copy Fee Statute 100% 58 Location Crime Statistics Fee Flat 15 $39 39%39%39%39% $101 $1,518 $585 $933 100% $101 $1,518 $933 59 Parenting Project Program Flat 25 $120 49%49%49%49% $243 $6,069 $3,000 $3,069 100% $243 $6,069 $3,069 60 Parenting Project Materials Flat 5 $35 58%58%58%58% $61 $303 $175 $128 100% $61 $303 $128 61 Vehicle Impound Fee Flat 260 $125 46%46%46%46% $274 $71,174 $32,500 $38,674 100% $274 $71,174 $38,674 62 Vehicle Reposession Receipt Flat 25 $15 55%55%55%55% $27 $684 $375 $309 100% $27 $684 $309 63 Audio copy request Flat $120 100%$120 64 Alarm registration - new Flat 286 $35 129%129%129%129% $27 $7,758 $10,010 -$2,252 100% $27 $7,758 -$2,252 65 Alarm registration - renewal Flat 2145 $35 194%194%194%194% $18 $38,791 $75,075 -$36,284 100% $18 $38,791 -$36,284 66 Attendant Lot Parking Fee Structure 67 0-1 hours no charge 68 1-3 hours flat $2 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69 3-4 hours flat $4 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70 Over 4 hours flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71 Daily Maximum flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 72 Emergency Response Fee actual cost $50-$12,000 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100% hourly rates n/a n/a Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Page 16 Attachment C Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 73 Fingerprints 74 DOJ Fed rate $52 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 FBI Fed rate $24 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 76 False Alarm Response Fees - Excessive 77 3rd Residential False Alarm Flat 313 $100 47%47%47%47% $211 $66,056 $31,300 $34,756 100% $211 $66,056 $34,756 78 3rd Bank/Commercial False Alarm Flat 157 $100 27%27%27%27%$372 $58,353 $15,700 $42,653 100% $372 $58,353 $42,653 79 4th False Alarm Flat $150 100% 150% of 3rd 80 5th and each Subsequent False Alarm Flat $200 100%200% of 3rd 81 Police Service Fees 82 Community Service Officer hourly 200 $68 78%78%78%78% $87 $17,363 $13,600 $3,763 100% $87 $17,363 $3,763 83 Police Agent hourly 100 $131 58%58%58%58% $226 $22,642 $13,100 $9,542 100% $226 $22,642 $9,542 84 Police Officer hourly 200 $121 76%76%76%76% $160 $31,957 $24,200 $7,757 100% $160 $31,957 $7,757 85 Police Reserve hourly 100 $51 84%84%84%84% $61 $6,062 $5,100 $962 100% $61 $6,062 $962 86 Police Sergeant hourly 60 $144 59%59%59%59% $243 $14,565 $8,640 $5,925 100% $243 $14,565 $5,925 Total User Fees $443,545 $338,389 $105,156 $443,545 $105,156 % of Full Cost 76% 24%100% 31% Fees#82 thru 86) for events where less than 80% of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization, a 20% discount shall apply. For events where 80% or more of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization; or events declared as co-sponsored by the City of Palo Alto, a 25% discount shall apply. Page 17 Attachment C Animal Services Attachment C Program Fee Description Annual Cost Current Recovery Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Range Revenue at Current Rate Recommended Subsidy 1 Adoptions Varies $147,104 52%52%52%52% $77,137 $69,967 50-70% $77,137 $69,967 2 Animal Boarding Varies $46,771 72%72%72%72%$33,732 $13,039 16-90% $33,732 $13,039 3 Disposal of Dead Owned Animals/Euthanasia Varies $128,706 74%74%74%74%$94,821 $33,885 50-90% $94,821 $33,885 4 Impoundment Varies $221,460 68%68%68%68%$151,114 $70,346 50-90% $151,114 $70,346 5 Licenses and Pet Identification Varies $112,964 90%90%90%90%$101,956 $11,008 100% $101,956 $11,008 6 Miscellaneous Sales, Pet Supplies Varies $52,572 86%86%86%86%$45,291 $7,281 80-100% $45,291 $7,281 7 Veterinary Services Varies $98,435 65%65%65%65%$64,404 $34,031 50-100% $64,404 $34,031 8 Annual Permits Varies $34,481 46%46%46%46%$15,877 $18,603 14-80% $15,877 $18,603 9 Spay and Neuter Clinic Varies $344,714 82%82%82%82%$284,161 $60,552 80-100% $284,161 $60,552 12 Animal Testing Varies $33,963 0%0%0%0%$0 $33,963 60-80%$0 $33,963 13 Vaccinations/Microchip Varies $98,261 71%71%71%71%$69,580 $28,681 100% $69,580 $28,681 14 Trap Rental/Home Quarantine Inspection Varies $38,693 61%61%61%61%$23,602 $15,091 8-60% $23,602 $15,091 15 Cremations Services Varies $30,738 87%87%87%87%$26,639 $4,099 73% $26,639 $4,099 16 Field Services Varies $580,309 3%3%3%3%$20,112 $560,197 0-10% $20,112 $560,197 Total User Fees $1,969,171 $1,008,427 $960,744 $1,008,427 $960,744 % of Full Cost 51% 49%51%49% City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal Services 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Page 18 Attachment C Fire Attachment C Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Flat 225 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $249,380 $67,500 $181,880 100% $1,108 $249,380 $181,880 $0 2 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Per head 30000 $1.50 54%54%54%54% $2.78 $83,523 $45,000 $38,523 100% $3 $83,523 $38,523 $0 3 Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2) NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Flat 12 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $13,300 $3,600 $9,700 100% $1,108 $13,300 $9,700 $0 4 Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2) NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Per nozzle 350 $6.50 54%54%54%54% $12.07 $4,226 $2,275 $1,951 100% $12 $4,226 $1,951 $0 5 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Flat 140 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $155,170 $42,000 $113,170 100% $1,108 $155,170 $113,170 $0 6 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Per device 5000 $6.50 114%114%114%114% $5.73 $28,627 $32,500 -$3,873 100% $6 $28,627 -$3,873 $0 7 Standpipe system wet, dry or combination, per riser Flat 12 $175 23%23%23%23% $752 $9,029 $2,100 $6,929 100% $752 $9,029 $6,929 $0 8 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Flat 1 $220 25%25%25%25% $889 $889 $220 $669 100% $889 $889 $669 $0 9 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Per hydrant 3 $50 50%50%50%50% $101 $303 $150 $153 100% $101 $303 $153 $0 10 Underground fire service line (includes inspection and re-inspection - 1 each occurrence)Flat 11 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $12,192 $3,300 $8,892 100% $1,108 $12,192 $8,892 $0 11 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Flat 4 $300 36%36%36%36% $844 $3,375 $1,200 $2,175 100% $844 $3,375 $2,175 $0 15 Verification of Fire Protection System Maintenance and Certification Flat 300 $75 45%45%45%45% $167 $49,950 $22,500 $27,450 100% $167 $49,950 $27,450 $0 16 A Level I Facility - Minimal Storage (defined as having no hazardous materials over CFC Permit amounts as specified in CFC section 105)Flat 87 $230 71%71%71%71% $324 $28,208 $20,010 $8,198 100% $324 $28,208 $8,198 $0 B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal., City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 17 B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal., 500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. Category also includes Dry Cleaning, Fixed Medical Gas, Auto or Aircraft Repair and Service Stations Flat 140 $470 97%97%97%97% $487 $68,122 $65,800 $2,322 100% $487 $68,122 $2,322 $0 18 C Level III Facility - Quantities exceed 50 gal., 500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. and not categorized as Level II Flat 200 $825 95%95%95%95% $865 $172,939 $165,000 $7,939 100% $865 $172,939 $7,939 $0 19 D Business Plan (HMBP) Flat 251 $285 93%93%93%93% $307 $77,024 $71,535 $5,489 100% $307 $77,024 $5,489 $0 20 E Petroleum Abovegroung Storage Tank Flat 16 $500 58%58%58%58% $858 $13,721 $8,000 $5,721 100% $858 $13,721 $5,721 $0 21 E Provisional (6 month term)Delete 0 $165 n/a n/a 22 F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure, otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. (See CEQA for additional fees.)Flat 47 $300 37%37%37%37% $816 $38,370 $14,100 $24,270 100% $816 $38,370 $24,270 $0 23 F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure, otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. Additional hours over 2 Per hour 30 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $5,379 $4,500 $879 100% $179 $5,379 $879 $0 24 Late Fee for Hazardous Materials Storage Permits Fine 0 25% of haz mat fee n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% 25% of haz mat fee Page 19 Attachment C Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 25 Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection.Flat 12 $300 81%81%81%81% $368 $4,421 $3,600 $821 100% $368 $4,421 $821 $0 26 Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection - each hour over 2 Per hour 6 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $2,004 $900 $1,104 100% $334 $2,004 $1,104 $0 27 After hours inspection fee (before or after normal business hours; weekends and holidays included, and is to be paid in advance of inspection)Per hour 100 $165 48%48%48%48% $344 $34,381 $16,500 $17,881 100% $344 $34,381 $17,881 $0 28 Christmas Tree Lot/Pumpkin Patch Flat 5 $150 25%25%25%25% $603 $3,013 $750 $2,263 100% $603 $3,013 $2,263 $0 29 Care Facility (including community, child day care and residential care for the elderly) Fire and Safety Inspections (CFC 111.4). Excludes residential elderly care facilities with six or fewer persons. Flat 91 $150 27%27%27%27% $546 $49,676 $13,650 $36,026 100% $546 $49,676 $36,026 $0 30 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance 7-25 clients Delete 0 $65 n/a n/a 31 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance >25 clients Delete 0 $125 n/a n/a 32 Outside Cooking Booths Flat 11 $165 30%30%30%30% $546 $6,005 $1,815 $4,190 100% $546 $6,005 $4,190 $0 33 Use and Occupancy Fire Inspection Flat 100 $125 23%23%23%23% $537 $53,743 $12,500 $41,243 100% $537 $53,743 $41,243 $0 34 Standby fire watch or after-hours at fire or incident scene Per hour 0 $165 49%49%49%49% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 35 California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 111.4.3)Flat 7 $600 36%36%36%36% $1,670 $11,689 $4,200 $7,489 100% $1,670 $11,689 $7,489 $0 36 High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 111.4.3) - each hour after 4 Per hour 3 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $1,002 $450 $552 100% $334 $1,002 $552 $0 37 Consultation fee Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 38 Alternate Means and Methods Application Flat 1 $300 28%28%28%28% $1,073 $1,073 $300 $773 100% $1,073 $1,073 $773 $0 39 Hazardous Materials investigation Per hour 0 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $0 $0 $0 100% $179 $0 $0 $0 40 Appeals to decisions Per hour 0 $250 75%75%75%75% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 41 Additional hours over plan review/inspection (hourly minimum to be billed)Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 42 Site Disaster Planning Per hour 250 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $83,495 $37,500 $45,995 100% $334 $83,495 $45,995 $0 43 Hydrant Flow Fee Flat 0 $200 59%59%59%59% $341 $0 $0 $0 100% $341 $0 $0 $0 Page 20 Attachment C Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 44 Hazardous Materials Data Entry Fee Per hour 50 $65 36%36%36%36% $179 $8,964 $3,250 $5,714 100% $179 $8,964 $5,714 $0 45 Aerosol Products Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 46 Amusement buildings Flat 0 $365 76%76%76%76% $481 $0 $0 $0 100% $481 $0 $0 $0 47 Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 48 Bowling alley and pin refinishing involving the use of flammable liquids Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 49 Candles and open flames in assembly areas Flat 114 $135 44%44%44%44% $306 $34,901 $15,390 $19,511 100% $306 $34,901 $19,511 $0 50 Carnivals and fairs Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 51 Cellulose nitrate storage/nitrate film Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 52 Confined Space Flat 0 $125 10%10%10%10% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 53 Combustible fiber/material storage Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 54 Dust producing devices Flat 0 $105 8%8%8%8% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 55 Excavate within 10 feet of flammable or combustible pipeline Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 56 Explosive or blasting agents Flat 2 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $244 $510 -$266 100% $122 $244 -$266 $0 57 Fireworks display Flat 0 $525 80%80%80%80% $660 $0 $0 $0 100% $660 $0 $0 $0 58 High-piled combustible storage Flat 1 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $122 $255 -$133 100% $122 $122 -$133 $0 59 Hot Work (Welding and Cutting) operations Flat 53 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $11,226 $9,010 $2,216 100% $212 $11,226 $2,216 $0 60 Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209%$122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100%$122 $4,032 -$4,383 $060Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100% $122 $4,032 -$4,383 $0 61 Malls, Covered Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 62 B Place of public assembly (temporary)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 63 C Open flame/flame producing devices Flat 4 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $5,071 $300 $4,771 100% $1,268 $5,071 $4,771 $0 64 D Liquid or gas-fueled powered equipment Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 65 Magnesium working Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 66 Occupant load increase (temporary public assembly)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 67 Open burning Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 68 Operate a tank vehicle to transport flammable/combustible liquids Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 69 Organic coatings Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 70 Ovens, industrial baking or drying Flat 4 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $489 $1,020 -$531 100% $122 $489 -$531 $0 71 Parade Float Per hour 0 $95 7%7%7%7% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 72 Place of public assembly (annual or each occurrence)Flat 196 $200 34%34%34%34% $594 $116,516 $39,200 $77,316 100% $594 $116,516 $77,316 $0 Page 21 Attachment C Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 73 Pyrotechnical special effects material Flat 0 $170 523%523%523%523% $33 $0 $0 $0 100% $33 $0 $0 $0 74 Refrigeration Equipment Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 75 Spraying/Dipping Flat 18 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $3,813 $3,060 $753 100% $212 $3,813 $753 $0 76 Tent or air-supported structure having an area in excess of 200 square feet; or canopies in excess of 400 square feet (includes a public assembly permit of $125.00 for all tents)Flat 30 $365 61%61%61%61% $603 $18,080 $10,950 $7,130 100% $603 $18,080 $7,130 $0 77 Tire recapping/tire storage Flat 0 $480 38%38%38%38% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 78 Corrosives Flat 62 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $10,354 $15,810 -$5,456 100% $167 $10,354 -$5,456 $0 79 Cryogenic Fluids Flat 49 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $8,183 $12,495 -$4,312 100% $167 $8,183 -$4,312 $0 80 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Flat 181 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $30,226 $46,155 -$15,929 100% $167 $30,226 -$15,929 $0 81 Flammable Solids Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 82 Compressed Gas (inert)Flat 32 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,344 $8,160 -$2,816 100% $167 $5,344 -$2,816 $0 83 Flammable Gas Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0 84 Oxidizing Gas Flat 35 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,845 $8,925 -$3,080 100% $167 $5,845 -$3,080 $0 85 Pyrophoric Gas Flat 2 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $334 $510 -$176 100% $167 $334 -$176 $0 86 Toxic, highly toxic, moderately toxic, health hazard Gas Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0 87 Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $087Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $0 88 Health Hazard (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 89 Organic Peroxides Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0 90 Oxidizers (liquids & solids)Flat 19 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $3,173 $4,845 -$1,672 100% $167 $3,173 -$1,672 $0 91 Pyrophoric Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 6 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $1,002 $1,530 -$528 100% $167 $1,002 -$528 $0 92 Radioactive Materials Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0 93 Toxic, highly toxic, health hazard materials (includes pesticides, fumigants, and etiologic agents)Flat 45 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $7,515 $11,475 -$3,960 100% $167 $7,515 -$3,960 $0 94 Unstable Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0 95 Water Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 96 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0 97 Emergency Response Fee (Hazmat -PAMC 17.24.050)Sliding 0 $1,080 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly 98 Engine Company Second Re-inspection (After inspection and re-inspection only) Per hour 0 $195 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly Page 22 Attachment C Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 99 Installation or Closure without approved plans and/or permits (Fire Protection/HazMat; double original fee)Penatly 0 $725 n/a $725 100 Preventable False Alarm (CFC 401.3.1)Penatly 0 $180 n/a $180 Total User Fees $1,553,690 $886,140 $667,550 $1,553,690 $667,550 $0 % of Full Cost 57% 43%100% 43% 0% Page 23 Attachment C Community Services Attachment C Total Direct Expense Total Indirect Expense Total Full Cost Total Fee Revenue Total Other Revenue Total Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Costs % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery Children's Theatre 1,235,046$ 515,804$ 1,750,850$ 360,304$ 80,000$ 440,304$ 1,310,546$ 36%25% JMZ-Sciences 767,528$ 239,633$ 1,007,161$ 500,698$ -$ 500,698$ 506,463$ 65%50% JMZ-Exhibits & Zoo 408,874$ 180,183$ 589,057$ 6,721$ 3,000$ 9,721$ 579,336$ 2%2% Art in Public Places 105,629$ 45,124$ 150,753$ 2,625$ -$ 2,625$ 148,128$ 2%2% Community Theatre 29,460$ 522,435$ 551,895$ -$ 18,449$ 18,449$ 533,446$ 63%3% Summer Concerts 73,270$ 18,849$ 92,119$ -$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 90,119$ 3%2% Visual Arts-Youth 293,085$ 75,397$ 368,482$ 200,074$ 38,000$ 238,074$ 130,408$ 81%65% Visual Arts - Adults 169,697$ 43,655$ 213,352$ 61,694$ -$ 61,694$ 151,658$ 36%29% Art Exhibitions 135,481$ 34,853$ 170,334$ -$ -$ -$ 170,334$ 0%0% Music & Dance - Youth 56,845$ 14,624$ 71,469$ 62,864$ -$ 62,864$ 8,605$ 111%88% Music & Dance - Adults 61,895$ 15,923$ 77,818$ 24,314$ -$ 24,314$ 53,504$ 39%31% Arts Facilities 842,882$ 506,476$ 1,349,358$ -$ 15,802$ 15,802$ 1,333,556$ 2%1% Total Arts and Sciences 4,179,693$ 2,212,956$ 6,392,649$ 1,219,294$ 157,251$ 1,376,545$ 5,016,104$ 33%22% Aquatics 514,702$ 224,132$ 738,834$ 501,164$ -$ 501,164$ 237,670$ 97%68% MSA 326,515$ 110,157$ 436,672$ 289,391$ -$ 289,391$ 147,281$ 89%66% Recreation - Adults 278,827$ 98,389$ 377,216$ 187,686$ -$ 187,686$ 189,530$ 67%50% Recreation - Teens 306,622$ 76,472$ 383,094$ 114,540$ -$ 114,540$ 268,554$ 37%30% Program Publication 100,807$ 24,874$ 125,681$ -$ -$ -$ 125,681$ 0%0% Recreation - Youth 614,001$ 151,508$ 765,509$ 754,294$ 754,294$ 11,215$ 123%99% Rec - Special Needs 56,072$ 13,836$ 69,908$ 6,942$ 1,500$ 8,442$ 61,466$ 15%12% Recreation - Facilities 1,025,410$ 296,684$ 1,322,094$ 431,955$ -$ 431,955$ 890,139$ 42%33% Special Events 92,289$ 22,773$ 115,062$ 15,821$ 15,821$ 99,241$ 17%14% Total Recreation 3,315,245$ 1,018,825$ 4,334,070$ 2,301,793$ 1,500$ 2,303,293$ 2,030,777$ 69%53% Golf 2,388,173$ 542,126$ 2,930,299$ 2,624,748$ 95,393$ 2,720,141$ 210,158$ 114%93% Open Space 1,724,555$ 421,921$ 2,146,476$ 34,630$ 9,135$ 43,765$ 2,102,711$ 3%2% Parks 4,398,314$ 1,203,052$ 5,601,366$ 25,639$ 336,538$ 362,177$ 5,239,189$ 8%6% Total OS/Parks/Golf 8,511,043$ 2,167,099$ 10,678,142$ 2,685,017$ 441,066$ 3,126,083$ 7,552,059$ 37%29% Total Cubberley 1,349,431$ 1,064,354$ 2,413,785$ -$ 840,075$ 840,075$ 1,573,710$ 62%35% Total Human Services 1,278,249$ 428,554$ 1,706,803$ -$ -$ -$ 1,706,803$ 0%0% TOTAL CSD 18,633,661$ 6,891,788$ 25,525,449$ 6,206,104$ 1,439,892$ 7,645,996$ 17,879,453$ 41%30% Page 24 Attachment C ANIMAL SERVICES Fee Palo Alto Cupertino  (Humane  Society of SV) Fremont Menlo Park  (Peninsula  Humane) Mountain View  (SVACA) San Mateo  (Peninsula  Humane) Santa Clara (SVACA) Sunnyvale (Humane  Society SV) Adoptions ‐ Dogs $125  pp $; Adult: $175;  Companion  prices if adopt  2 $171‐$175 Under 7‐$120;  7+ ‐ $75;  under 6 mos ‐  $135 $150  Under 7‐$120;  7+ ‐ $75; under  6 mos ‐ $135 $150  Puppies: $350;  Adult: $175;  Companion prices if  adopt 2 Adoptions ‐ Cats $125  Kittens: $175;  Cats: Currently  waived $124‐$136 Under 7 ‐ $80;  7+ ‐ $50;  under 6 mos ‐  $105 Under 6 mos ‐  $150; All Other ‐  $100 Under 7 ‐ $80;  7+ ‐ $50; under  6 mos ‐ $105 Under 6 mos ‐ $150;  All Other ‐ $100 Kittens: $175; Cats:  Currently waived Impound Dog ‐  Licensed $30 (1st  offense) up to  $165 (11th+  offense) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95  (1st); $110  (2nd); $160  (3rd);  $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  Impound Dog ‐  Unlicensed $50 (1st  offense) up to  $200 (11th+  offense) $30 (1st  offense) up to  $165 (11th+  offense) $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  Impound Cat $30 (1st  offsense); $45  (2nd offense);  $60 (third  offense) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95  (1st); $110  (2nd); $160  (3rd);  $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  1 9/9/2013 Attachment C ANIMAL SERVICES Fee Palo Alto Cupertino  (Humane  Society of SV) Fremont Menlo Park  (Peninsula Humane) Mountain View  (SVACA) San Mateo  (Peninsula  Humane) Santa Clara  (SVACA) Sunnyvale  (Humane  Society SV) License ‐  Dog/Neutered $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $12 (12 mos);  $17 (24 mos);  $21 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos); $55  (36 mos) $22 (12 mos); $32  (24 mos); $42 (36  mos) $20 (12 mos);  $55 (36 mos) $22 (12 mos);  $32 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) License ‐  Dog/Spayed $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $12 (12 mos);  $17 (24 mos);  $21 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos); $55  (36 mos) $22 (12 mos); $32  (24 mos); $42 (36  mos) $20 (12 mos);  $55 (36 mos) $22 (12 mos);  $32 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) License ‐ Dog/   Unaltered $40 (12 mos);  $60 (24 mos);  $80 (36 mos)$150 (12 mos) $25 (12 mos);  $35 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $50 (12 mos); $145  (36 mos) $100 (12 mos) $50 (12 mos);  $145 (36 mos) $100 (12 mos) $150 (12 mos) Neuter Dog ‐  Resident $100‐$250  based on  weight $110‐$130 based on  weight $110‐$130  based on weight Neuter Dog ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $135‐$325  based on  weight $85‐$135 based  on weight $91  $80‐$140+ based on  weight $135‐$155 based on  weight $80‐$140+ based  on weight $135‐$155  based on weight $85‐$135 based  on weight Spay Dog ‐  Resident $120‐$270  based on  weight $120‐$140 based on  weight $120‐$140  based on weight Spay Dog ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $160‐$345  based on  weight $110‐$170  based on weight $91  $90‐$150+ based on  weight $145‐$165 based on  weight $90‐$150+ based  on weight $145‐$165  based on weight $110‐$170  based on weight Neuter Cat ‐  Resident $65 $60 $60  Neuter Cat ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $90 $60 $54 $50 $75 $50 $75 $60  Spay Cat ‐  Resident $95 $70 $70  Spay Cat ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $130 $95 $54 $60 $85 $60 $85 $95  2 9/9/2013 Attachment C COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Classes/Camps Residents: $6‐ $865; Non‐ Residents: Fee  plus up to 50% Fees are formula  driven based on  instructor's hrly  rate, number of  classes, min.  number of  participants,  indirect and  equipment/supply  costs, add 20% for  non‐residents Not in fee schedule.  Fees  are published in each  Activities schedule.  Fees  are set to cover all direct  costs including  instructors, materials,  contracted services, City's  costs of arranging  programs, use of facilities  and "necessary  overhead". $5 additional  charge for non‐residents Varies ‐ City has  independent  contract  agreements  with instructors  who provides  guaranteed  income to the  course Fees for most  classes/activities  are set based on  targeted cost  recovery of  direct and/or  indirect costs for  each  class/activity Not included  in Muni Fee  schedule ‐  Priced in each  Rec Activity  Guide; Higher  fees for non‐ residents Set  administratively  by Parks/Rec  Director; non‐ residents pay  lower of 25% or  $50 more per  class than  residents Tennis Primetime: Residents ‐  $9/hr; Non‐resident ‐  $11/hr; Non‐Primetime:  $8/hr. Yearly Key ‐  Residents: $50;  Non‐residents:  $100 $8  Resident ‐  $6/hour; Non‐ resident ‐  $8/hour Aquatics ‐ Lap Swim Set by Director Daily : Non‐ Resident $4‐$6 $5  Daily: Non‐Resident $4‐$6 $6  10 Swim: Resident $40  10 Swim: Non‐ Resident $60  25 Swim: Resident $87.50  25 Swim: Non‐ Resident $109  25 Swim:  Sr./Resident $30  25 Swim: Sr./Non‐ Resident $38  3 9/9/2013 Attachment C COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Aquatics ‐  Recreational  Swim Varies by pool,  activities and  residency Set by Director Child ≤2$0‐$4 Spectator $3  Child ‐  Resident $2,50‐$5 $3 $3  Child ‐ Non‐ Resident $2.50‐$6 $4 $4  Adult ‐  Resident $3‐$6 $4 $5  Adult ‐ Non‐ Resident $3‐$8 $5 $6  Family ‐  Resident $10 $139‐$180 Family ‐ Non‐ Resident $18 $174‐$220 4 9/9/2013 Attachment C COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale GOLF ‐ 18 Holes Wkday: Resident $36‐$40 Up to $31 $33 $25 $35  Wkday ‐ Regular or  Non‐Resident $38‐$42 Up to $38 $38 $37 $35  Wkday ‐  Resident/Sr. $27‐$30 Up to $21 $27  Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17) $12‐$16 after 1pm  Sept 1‐April 30 Up to $16 $14/  resident  only Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident $46‐$51 Up to $47 $45 $34 $44  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Regular $48‐$53 Up to $54 $53 $50 $48  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident/Sr. Wkend/Holiday ‐  Jr.(≤ 17) $15‐$18 after 1 pm  Sept 1‐April 30 $17/resident only GOLF‐ 9 Holes Wkday: Resident $23‐$25 $15 $15  Wkday ‐ Regular or  Non‐Resident $23‐$25 $17 $15  Wkday ‐  Resident/Sr.$14‐$16 Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17) $11‐$13  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident $26‐$29 $17 $17  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $26‐$29 $19 $19  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident/Sr.$17‐$19 5 9/9/2013 Attachment C FIRE Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Fire Flow Test $215 $250 $211  Fire Suppression/  Sprinkler  Inpection $325 plus  sprinkler heads Varies by type  of facility $96/hour plus  fee based on  sprinkler heads Varies by type of  facility $85/hour; 3 hour min. Varies by type of  facility $535‐$1,474  depending on  facility & sprinkler  heads Varies by  facility/size Preventable False  Alarm $195‐ $1,622/hour ‐  charged after 2  in 12 month  period After second  incident: Engine ‐  $508; Inspector ‐  $332 $134 for 3rd and  subsequent  occurences $385  $253 ‐ After 3rd  time in 180 day  period 3rd‐4th: $200;  5th‐7th:$350;  8th‐10th:  $500; 11th+:  $750 Fireworks $565 each  occurrence $96/hour $1,084 $154/hour $292 per  occurrence plus  standby personnel  at time of show $571 each  occurrence $229  Licensed  Community Care,  Residential or  Child Day Care  Inspections $160/annual or  each license  renewal Based on  assessed risk  level Pre‐license  Inspection: $164  plus $368‐$484  based on occupancy $154/hour $100 per  inspection $134‐$404  depending on  max  occupancy Haz Mat  Emergency  Response Up to $1,170  each incident or  100% full cost  recovery Job cost based  on employees'  salary plus  overhead Hourly rates Hourly rates for  personnel/engine Hourly rates for  personnel and  equipment Hourly rates for  personnel/truck  company Actual costs 6 9/9/2013 Attachment C POLICE Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Massage Estab. ‐  New $750  $395 includes  fingerprint $300 plus  background Sole proprietor ‐  $135 plus  background $900  $444 plus hrly  rate for  personnel Sole proprietor  $313 $924  Massage Estab. ‐  Renew $450 $93 $150  Sole proprietor ‐  $135 plus  background $450 $74 biyearly Sole proprietor ‐  $210 $857  Massage  Therapist ‐ New $300  $298 includes  fingerprint $60 plus  background $450  $336 plus  hourly rate for  personnel $209  Massage  Therapist ‐  Renew $150 $62 $30 $98 biyearly $45  False Alarm Registration: $38;  3rd alarm: $108;  4th: $162; 5th+:  $216 $160  Registration:  $40 (new);  Permit renew:  $20; $60 fine if  more than 3  alarms in 120  days or 5 in 365  days Registration:  $25; Standard:  $175; High Risk:  $350 Registration:  Residential ‐ $20;  Commercial ‐ $80;  2nd alarm: $100;  3rd alarm: $150; 4th  alarm: $250; 5th+  alarm: $500 2nd and  subsequent:  $104 Registration: $24;  Fines: $63 (3rd);  $90 (4th); $115  (5th +); additional  for bank hold up  alarm Registration:  Residential ‐ $35;  Business ‐ $70;  3rd‐4th alarm:  $200; 5th‐7th  alarm: $350; 8th‐ 10th alarm: $500;  11th+ alarm:  $750 Taxi Driver ‐  Permit $88/up to 4 years,  plus fingerprint $323, includes  fingerprint $306  $75, including  fingerprint $180 $90 $160 $205 Taxi Driver ‐  Renewal $194 $108 $50 $130 $37 $144  Taxi ‐ Vehicle  Inspection $66/year $28 $200 (biennial) $108 $53 $116  Fingerprinting DOJ and FBI  established fees $52 plus DOJ/FBI $45 plus DOJ  and other  agency fees City's cost plus  DOJ/FBI $72 $32 plus DOJ/FBI $66 7 9/9/2013 Attachment C POLICE Vehicle ‐  Impound  Release $135 $196  Vehicle Code  Infraction: $200;  Misdeameanor  or Felony: $300 $150 plus additional  $120 if  misdemeanor or   felony and  addiitonal $150 if  repeat offender  (within 12 mos) Impound: $76;  Stored: $76 $52 $238  7 9/9/2013 Attachment C PUBLIC WORKS Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Encroach Residential: $430;  Non‐residential:  $460‐$920 Major: $488;  Minor: $244 Varies based on  type and size Major: $825 plus  3% of cost;  Minor: $470;  Residential:  $1,069; Non‐ residential: $1,955 $312 plus 6%  of project cost Processing Fee ‐  $186; engineering  and inspection ‐  higher of $179 or  8% of construction  cost Varies based on  size/duration Cert of  Correct/  Compliance $3,240 $1,620  Deposit/Actual  Cost Correction: First  3 sheets: $750;  Each Addl: $100;  Compliance:  $900 Compliance: $700 $107/hour Correction ‐ $2,509  per certificate;  Compliance ‐ staff  salary X 2.25 Correction: $301;  Compliance: $534 Bldg  construct/  street impact  Higher of $240 or  5% of contract  work .58% of project  valuation Flat rate plus % of  construction costs  (% varies based on  dollar amount)$910  Flat rate plus % of  construction costs (%  varies based on dollar  amount) Street Trees $100  15 gallon:  $155; 24" box:  $330 $85  15 gallon tree:  $100 15 gallon:  $11.07/linear ft. 24" box: $350 $155 $251  Street Cuts Service lateral  connection:  $1,080/ trench; $5‐ $16/sq.ft of trench  depending on  pavement  condition Minor ‐ $609;  Major:  $1,583; Over  15 days or  $30K = 5% of  project Costs Deposit plus fee  based on linear ft. Fees based on  staff hourly  billing rates Varies based on  sq.footage $312 deposit;  $107/hour Varies based on  sq.ft. and thickness  of asphalt Deposit plus fee  based on linear ft. 8 9/9/2013 Attachment C ATTACHMENT C Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy The Community Services Department (CSD) offers a variety of programs within its various divisions such as recreational activities, arts and sciences classes, and open space interpretive programs. The following Class Cost Recovery Policy is to be used as a guideline to establish cost recovery targets for fee-based classes and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks. Included in CSD’s Strategic Plan is an initiative to “focus energy and (budgetary) resources on sustaining and enhancing core services”. Through implementation of this Class Cost Recovery Policy, the department aims to establish cost recovery levels while providing core services and meeting the social needs of the community. Policy The policy takes into consideration: (1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) target level of cost recovery, and (3) fee setting considerations. Cost recovery levels are inclusive of direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include both department and City overhead. Although each program has set minimum and target cost recovery levels, other fee setting considerations may factor into the pricing of registration fees. Fee setting considerations may either increase or decrease fees and place cost recovery outside of the minimum and target levels. These factors include, but are not limited to, market rates, programs for those with special needs, new programs still being established, and population served. However, within each of the three divisions offering fee-based classes, the division-wide cost recovery should meet minimum cost recovery levels. Once a program is determined to be within the purview of the Class Cost Recovery Policy, program fees are to be established using the Class Cost Recovery Model and adjusted as needed. The model is included in the pages to follow. Each fee-based class or camp is placed in one of four Cost Recovery Groups. The groups range from Community Benefit to Personal Benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost recovery spectrum. Programs rated as Community Benefit will cost recover less, while programs rated as Personal Benefit will cost recover more. This cost structure is in line with the department’s mission statement: “Engaging individuals and families to create a strong and healthy community, through parks, open space, recreation, social service, arts, and sciences.” The four Cost Recovery Groups are: • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Attachment C Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four groups. Each group has a cost recovery range inclusive of a minimum cost recovery and a target cost recovery level. This detail is reflected in pages to follow. On an annual basis, programs are to be reviewed to ensure the established cost recovery levels are met and adjustments made. Recovered Costs Direct costs are expenses incurred in correlation to a class being offered. These costs would not be incurred if a class were not offered. Typical direct costs are instructor fees and supplies and materials. Department indirect costs cover overhead costs incurred by the department for administrative support, program supervision, utilities, and some maintenance. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless whether a class is offered or not. City indirect costs encompass citywide overhead, administrative, and facility maintenance costs. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless of whether a class is offered or not. Department indirect cost is estimated to be 15% of direct cost while both department and City indirect costs are estimated to be 35% of direct cost. These estimates are subject to change as programs are reviewed and to reflect changing overhead costs. Attachment C Class Cost Recovery Model This model is to be used by Program Coordinators, Supervisors, and Division Managers to plan, evaluate program cost recovery, and determine expenses, revenues, and course registration fees. Attachment C Class Cost Recovery Guidelines In conjunction with the Cost Recovery Model, the following guidelines are to be used to place classes and camps into one of the four Cost Recovery Groups. Process: 1) Set a cost recovery range for each Cost Recovery Group, with minimum and target recovery levels. 2) Evaluate and place each existing program in a Cost Recovery Group. 3) Determine guidelines to be used to place future new programming into a Cost Recovery Group. Parameters: 1) Apply to fee-based class and camp programs. 2) Generally, cost recovery for children’s programs will be less than adult programs. 3) Some programs may cost recover less than the minimum level. However, other programs will need to make up for the difference. 4) Approximately 15% above Direct Costs covers Department Overhead, subject to adjustment. 5) Approximately 35% above Direct Costs covers both Department and City Overhead, subject to adjustment. 6) Other fee considerations should be taken into account, such as, but not limited to, market pricing, competition from other service providers, new program being established, and population served. Cost Recovery Groups, Cost Recovery Minimum, and Cost Recovery Targets: Group I: Community Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Less than Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Direct Cost Group II: Majority Community benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 115% Direct Cost Group III: Equal Community and Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 115% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Up to 135% Direct Cost Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 135% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 135% Direct Cost Attachment C Characteristics of Community Benefit vs. Personal Benefit programs The four Cost Recovery Groups represent a cost recovery “spectrum”. Programs classified as being of Community Benefit will cost recover less than programs classified as being of Personal Benefit. Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four cost recovery groups. • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Below are characteristics to define Community and Personal benefit, opposite ends of a cost recovery “spectrum”. The opposite ends are represented by Group I and IV. As most programs have aspects of both benefits, they are placed within the spectrum in either Group II or III. Community Benefit Characteristics Personal Benefit Characteristics Youth and Teen Development Leisure Time Experiences Safety Financial Enhancement Early Childhood Development Stress Reduction Environmental Stewardship Mental / Physical Health for adults Fitness/Healthy Lifestyle for youth Professional Development Connecting / Involving People w/ Community Competitive Sports for adults Service Back to Community Personal Enhancement Encourages Volunteerism Weight Loss Cultural Understanding Fitness for adults Cross-Generational Understanding Fashion/Beauty/Personal Enhancement Unique Experiences not provided by other organizations Classes already provided by other organizations for adults Life Skills for Self Independence Life-Long Learning Diversity of Experience Skill Building Community Policing – Public Involvement Social Networking / Contacts for personal gain Sustaining our Resources Attachment C Attachment D CSD DEPARTMENT WIDE TOTAL Resident %  when  available or  applicable Non‐Resident %  when available or  applicable Number of classes and camps offered Adult 203               Child 582               Total 785               Enrollments in classes and camps Adult 2,688          76%24% Child 12,062        90%10% Total 14,750        89%11% ARTS &SCIENCES DIVISION Children's Theatre: ▪Show Attendance 27,907         ▪Show Participants 1,087           Community Theatre: ▪Show Attendance 45,635         ▪Number of Performances 175               ▪Enrollments in Music and Dance 941               Jr. Museum & Zoo: ▪Enrollments in classes and camps 2,575          87%13% ▪School Outreach Classes ‐ Est. # of Children 9,701           Art Center: ▪Total Attendance 62,055         ▪Exhibition Visitors 29,717         OPEN SPACE, PARKS, GOLF ▪Total visitors at Foothills Park 171,413       ▪Hours of Athletic Field Use 44,226         ▪Gardening Program Participants 292              100% 0% ▪Rounds of Golf 65,653        12% 88% RECREATION CLASS ENROLLMENTS ▪Dance 886               ▪Aquatics 196               ▪Middle School Athletics 1,455          95%5% ▪Private Tennis Lessons 240               ▪Other Recreation 3,532           CUBBERLEY ▪Total Number of Hours Rented 29,282         ▪Total Number of Rental Bookings 9,348          92%8% Community Services Department (CSD) Recreational Activities Participant Data  Fiscal Year 2012 Page 1 of 2 Attachment C Attachment D City Location Room Sq. Ft. Resident Non-Resident Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Ballroom 2,800 $152/hr $228/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Sequoia 2,378 $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr Mountain View Senior Center Social Hall $115 - $231/hr $289 - $405/hr Mountain View Community Center Auditorium $114 - $120/hr $182 - $197/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Community Room 1,125 $110/hr $165/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Juniper 1,085 $55 - $75/hr $75 - $100/hr Mountain View Senior Center Multi A $75 - $150/hr $174 - $289/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Fireside Room 650 $88/hr $132/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Willow 680    $35 - $50/hr $50 - $70/hr Mountain View Senior Center Multi B $23.25 - $46/hr $93 - $127/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Patio 6,300 $90/hr $135/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Large Patio $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Kitchen $32/hr $48/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Kitchen 480    $25 - $40/hr $50 - $70/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Dance Studio 1,650 $47/hr $47/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Maple Dance Studio 2,030 $75 - $100/hr $100 - $135/hr Mountain View Community Center Room 3 (Dance) $38 - $48.50/hr $113 - $131/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium A $92/hr $92/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium B $110/hr $110/hr Menlo Park Onetta Harris Center Gymnasium 6,732 $59/hr $76/hr Mountain View MV Sports Pavilion Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr Mountain View Whisman Sports Center Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr Palo Alto Rinconada & Mitchell ParksGroup Picnic Sites $43 - $119/day Not Available Menlo Park Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $5/hr $10/hr Mountain View Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $103/day Not Available Youth All others Palo Alto Various locations Athletic Fields $3 - $27/hr $46 - $216/hr Menlo Park Various locations Athletic Fields $8 - $34/hr $22 - $100/hr Mountain View Various locations Athletic Fields $2/hr $25 - $88/hr Facility Rental Rates Comparison (Fiscal Year 2013) Page 2 of 2 Attachment C FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES Page 1 of 17 Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None AGENDA ITEMS 1. Library Bond Oversight Committee Quarterly Reports. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, reviewed the directions to Staff from a prior Finance Committee (Committee). The Library Bond Oversight Committee (LBOC) was concerned about the cost increases associated with the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center reaching the bond threshold of $76 million. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the LBOC was a Brown Act Committee. Mr. Perez stated he would check. Council Member Schmid felt the report provided insufficient information and asked if the LBOC merely reviewed payments or discussed payments as accomplishing a goal. Mr. Perez did not personally attend meetings; therefore, he could not provide a summary of the discussion at prior LBOC meetings. Staff could re- agendize the item for an in-depth discussion of LBOC meetings. Attachment C MINUTES Page 2 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Chair Burt recalled that the Council requested regular detailed reports regarding LBOC activities and questioned the role of the LBOC. The LBOC was not tasked with scrutinizing and challenging policy decisions. Council Member Schmid believed an Ordinance required an oversight committee for each major bond issue. If the Council issued another bond and formed an oversight committee, the Council should indicate the benefit it would receive from an oversight committee. Mr. Perez agreed that the role of the LBOC was limited and defined. Public Works and Administrative Services Departments had internal controls for payments and transactions with regard to the bond. The LBOC was a Brown Act Committee. Council Member Schmid suggested holding a discussion about the role of an oversight committee. Chair Burt agreed. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Municipal Code 2.16 was not specific to the LBOC. She inquired whether change orders with respect to LEED green buildings for both the Mitchell Park and Downtown Libraries were bondable. Mr. Perez reported bond counsel generally directed that fixed and permanent parts of the structure were bondable. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested Staff determine whether roof replacement was a maintenance item. Mr. Perez would review that item. He was unaware whether the roof replacement was associated with work being redone or a separate item. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not believe bond funds were being utilized for fixed equipment at Mitchell Park Library. Chair Burt felt furniture and fixtures were outside the use of bond funds. Vice Mayor Shepherd was unsure what fixed equipment in the amount of $1.7 million encompassed. She wanted to ensure that items were properly segregated for payment with capital improvement funds or bond funds. Mr. Perez would review and respond to those items. Attachment C MINUTES Page 3 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 2. Approval of Fiscal Year 2013 Re-Appropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2014. Walter Rossmann, Director of Office of Management and Budget, reported Staff requested the Finance Committee (Committee) recommend to the Council to carry forward funds for various projects. There were various reasons for re-appropriation requests including delays in and sequencing of projects. Staff requested approval to carry forward Management and Professional Development funds across various departments in order to fund training in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. During the mid-year Budget process, Staff would present a plan to appropriate those funds. Approximately $600,000 in the General Fund and $2.3 million in all funds were proposed to be carried forward. In FY 2012 the Council approved carrying forward approximately $1 million in the General Fund and approximately $9 million in all funds. Council Member Schmid asked if operating transfers in and operating transfers out were part of the re-appropriations. Mr. Rossmann explained that the re-appropriated funds were not reflected in the Budget as adopted by the Council. They were funds from the FY 2013 Budget that Staff requested be carried forward to the FY 2014 Budget. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the re-appropriated funds would be included in the FY 2014 Budget as operating transfers in. Mr. Rossmann stated the funds would not be indicated as a transfer. The funds would be placed in the specific funds in which they were originally budgeted. It was not a transfer of funds, but a re-appropriation of funds from one fiscal year to the next. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the funds were re-appropriated because the funds were not spent in FY 2013. Mr. Rossmann answered yes. Chair Burt inquired whether re-appropriated funds moved from the expense side of the FY 2013 Budget to the expense side of the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Rossmann explained that the funds were not shown as an expenditure because they had not been expended. Technically, unspent funds moved to the unrestricted ending fund balance, and then carried forward for the same purpose in the next fiscal year. When the funds were spent, then they would be shown as an expenditure. Attachment C MINUTES Page 4 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Council Member Schmid inquired whether re-appropriated funds would be shown on the revenue side for FY 2014 as an operating transfer in. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, reported that the first quarter report would have a line item for re-appropriations. The specific expenditures would be shown in the specific department categories. Chair Burt asked if re-appropriated funds would move over on both the revenue and expense sides to the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Rossmann replied yes. Chair Burt noted the Police Utilization Study was carried over because of competing work demands, and inquired about the cause of and a solution for the competition. Mr. Perez indicated the Police Department had a significant amount of vacancies which caused difficulties with completing the study. Management Staff suggested the study be included as a re-appropriation so it could be included in the work plan in FY 2014. Chair Burt understood the study had not been initiated. Mr. Perez agreed. Chair Burt inquired about the date for releasing a bid and completing the study. Mr. Perez indicated a bid could be released in three to four months depending on the amount of time needed to complete the scope of services. Ian Hagerman, Senior Management Analyst, reported a Request for Proposal (RFP) had not been drafted. The Police Department was interested in performing the study, but the priority for the study was lower than two larger, more significant projects. Chair Burt suggested the study would not occur in FY 2014. Mr. Hagerman did not expect the project to be completed in FY 2014, but hoped it would be initiated in FY 2014. Chair Burt asked if the study would be initiated once the two larger projects were completed. Attachment C MINUTES Page 5 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Mr. Hagerman stated it was possible to begin the project once one of the larger projects was completed; however, it would be difficult. Chair Burt asked which department initiated the study. Mr. Perez responded that the City Manager's Office directed Staff to perform the study. Chair Burt could accept the timeline for initiating and completing the study; however, he requested a report on the timelines and actions needed for the three major projects. Mr. Hagerman noted other Police Department projects included replacement of mobile audio and video in police cars, outfitting of seven new police cruisers, replacement of TASERs, and investigation of body cameras. A number of significant technology projects needed to be prioritized in the context of the study. Chair Burt agreed that the various technology improvements were important; however, the Council should see the list of competing projects and priorities in order to understand that the study was not forgotten. Mr. Hagerman suggested Staff include a schedule of projects and timelines when the item was presented to the Council. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to recommend the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2013 Re- appropriations to be carried forward into Fiscal Year 2014. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 3. Cost of Services Study - Draft Report. Walter Rossmann, Director of Office of Management and Budget, reported that MGT of America (MGT) updated fees, incorporated the full cost of administrative services and calculated the cost recovery percentage based on activity level. The report did not include any fees related to the Planning and Community Environment Department. MGT reviewed approximately 650 of the City's 1,000 fees. Cost recovery considerations include private versus public benefit, service recipient versus service driver, consistency with City goals and policies, elasticity of demand, and availability of services from the private sector. At the low cost recovery level of 30 percent, the City only recovered some cost for services. The majority of fees overall were within the medium range. MGT identified certain fees in the 2009 Attachment C MINUTES Page 6 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 report which were above the cost recovery level. Staff was reviewing those fees to determine a process to identify costs and related revenues. If it is determined that any fees generated revenue above the costs for providing the service, staff will return to the Finance Committee (Committee) in November 2013 to recommend adjusting these fees. Also in November 2013, Staff would present information regarding the first responder fee. Based on the Committee's input, Staff planned to present a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy to the City Council in November 2013. In December 2013 Staff would begin working with departments to set fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. Staff's recommendations were for the Committee to accept the report as presented including MGT's draft report, to provide input regarding the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy and to direct Staff to present a policy for user fee cost recovery to the Council in November 2013. Vice Mayor Shepherd liked the report's description of the method for considering different services. She inquired about field services under Animal Services. Mr. Rossmann explained that field services was work Animal Services Staff performed in the community such as checking on an abandoned animal. Council Member Berman stated it was logical to break up the services provided. Council Member Schmid indicated the diagram on page 63 provided a sense of Staff's recommendations working differently by department. The gap between the amount charged and the amount that should be charged for Police, Fire and Public Works Departments was substantial. He questioned the need to raise fees for services performed by those departments, because an increased fee could discourage residents from obtaining City services. Mr. Rossmann did not propose increasing fees in one year. Large substantial increases should be phased in over a number of years. Fees for those departments should be at a recovery level of 70 percent to 100 percent. The policy framework was that fees should be high, but not necessarily at 100 percent cost recovery. MGT's recommendations reflected actions taken in other cities. Council Member Schmid agreed with implementing fee increases over time. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, recalled that the Committee wanted to review the draft MGT recommendations and report before receiving a final report. Attachment C MINUTES Page 7 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Council Member Schmid noted the report did not recommend increasing fees for Animal Services and Community Services Department (CSD). The report contained a rationale for charging different fees for some CSD services such as children's and seniors' programs. The vast majority of program users were middle-class City residents. He requested Staff comment on the rationale. Mr. Rossmann stated the average cost recovery levels for those type of programs were approximately 30 percent. There were many variations within programs. The City addressed the disabled, senior, low-income and youth populations with separate programs. In the prior fiscal year, the City subsidized an additional $30,000 to allow those populations to access services at a lower cost. Council Member Schmid indicated the percentage of cost recovery for CSD programs ranged from less than 5 percent to 68 percent. Those percentages did not support the rationale. Mr. Rossmann suggested the Committee consider percentages for groupings of CSD programs rather than overall percentages. When Staff presented the proposed fee schedule for FY 2015, they would present cost recovery levels for groups of activities within a department so the Committee could see the amount the General Fund subsidized services. Council Member Schmid commented that the attendance and enrollment figures showed a benefit beyond the number of participants enrolled in a program. He suggested Staff integrate the attendance and enrollment figures into an assessment of the impact on the community. Mr. Perez added that other components for consideration were public-private partnerships and community surveys regarding programs. Council Member Schmid felt the number of participants and amount of contributions were good indicators of the community's desire for the service. Mr. Perez reported that the Council could identify certain core services as part of the fabric of the community and state that those services would be subsidized. Council Member Schmid indicated that one of the criteria for a survey should be whether services were provided throughout the community. The situation with Cubberley Community Center should be considered when analyzing that data. Attachment C MINUTES Page 8 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Mr. Perez agreed that the situation with Cubberley would influence recommendations for fees. For example, if some Cubberley facilities were renovated, there could be a cost sharing component with tenants. Rhyena Halpern, Assistant Director of Community Services, reported the closing of the Art Center reduced revenue to 1 percent. In FY 2013 the Art Center was open eight months and exceeded the revenue generated the last year it was fully open. The Council decided not to charge a pay for play at the Children's Theatre. The Junior Museum and Zoo did not have a ticket at the gate, resulting in lower revenue. Art in Public Places currently did not generate revenue. The Council decided not to subsidize the three Community Theatre partners, also resulting in lower revenue. Chair Burt asked who the Community Theatre partners were. Ms. Halpern responded TheatreWorks, Palo Alto Players and West Bay Opera. The Council continued to support summer concerts. Class programs under visual arts for both youth and adults continued to do well. The gallery space at Art Exhibitions did not charge admission; therefore, it did not have any revenue. Vice Mayor Shepherd commented that Art Exhibitions was not open. Ms. Halpern indicated the music and dance programs could expand considerably if more physical space was available. The opening of Mitchell Park Community Center would provide additional space for programs and additional revenue through facility rental. Council Member Berman noted the total indirect expenses were astronomically higher than the total direct expenses for Community Theatre, and inquired about the indirect expenses. Ms. Halpern reported the 1.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) at the Community Theatre was reduced to 0.34 FTE, causing the direct expense to be low. The indirect expense was high because of maintenance of the facility. Council Member Berman inquired whether the maintenance cost was ongoing or a one-time expense. Gail Wilcox, Management Specialist, explained that Public Works maintenance and custodial charges were allocated based on square footage. Maintenance and custodial charges were approximately $400,000 for Community Theatre. Attachment C MINUTES Page 9 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Council Member Berman believed a survey regarding community needs and desires for services would influence the cost recovery data. Mr. Perez reported the Committee could retain the item for additional in- depth discussion, because Staff's timeline for the item was a suggestion only. The FY 2015 Budget projection indicated a balanced budget; therefore, there was not a fiscal driver to present the item to the Council. Chair Burt inquired whether the Committee should recommend Staff present a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Policy to the Council in November 2013. Mr. Perez answered no. The Committee could provide Staff with guidelines for the content of the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, which could then be returned to the Committee or presented to the Council. Chair Burt preferred to review the policy before recommending it to the Council. Mr. Perez indicated Staff suggested presenting a draft policy to the Council in November in order to meet the timeline of the Budget process. Chair Burt felt the Committee should spend more time discussing issues. Hopefully the Council could reflect community values in the policy by receiving broad community input. The community deeply valued services and assumed services would continue without change. Mr. Rossmann stated the Council should review fees and cost recovery annually. The Committee could direct Staff to gradually phase in any kind of fee increase and to give advance notice of fee increases. In the past the City increased fees by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and increased the technology fee by 5 percent. Chair Burt indicated the concept of phasing in fee increases reduced his concerns, but did not eliminate them. Staff recommended the Committee present to the Council a policy, which the Committee would need to consider at length. The Committee should consider the many consequences of any policy, and accept and anticipate the community's reaction to a revision of the fee policy. Mr. Perez mentioned that internal discussions coupled the Municipal Fee Schedule with the Budget process; however, fees could be incorporated at any point in the fiscal year. Removing the tie with the Budget process would allow for community input. Attachment C MINUTES Page 10 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Chair Burt felt it was a good idea to consider fees before the Budget process began. He recalled that the Committee wanted to have an extensive period of time for discussion. Mr. Rossmann noted that the Budget assumed a certain amount of revenue from fees. Once the Budget was set at that revenue level, fees needed to be considered to have a balanced Budget. Chair Burt suggested it would be relatively easy to change fees for some programs. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed that the Committee needed to review the policy in depth. The report provided a good discussion of integrating fee increases with community acceptance. She wanted to compare some fees with the fees charged in other communities. Chair Burt did not believe the Committee had a good sense of the policy's implications. The Committee needed to model the policy on a number of areas and ensure it was appropriate for implementation. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the Council should be aware of the material in the MGT report, and the Committee should notify the Council that it would continue to discuss individual fee changes. Chair Burt indicated the Committee should determine whether the policy recommendations appeared to match ramifications before recommending it to the Council. If Staff returned to the Committee with a proposed policy, then the Committee could schedule an entire meeting to review the policy in detail. He questioned whether the Council should adopt a policy prior to fully understanding its implications. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted the Council to agree with the methodology for handling indirect costs prior to the Committee reviewing fees in depth. Chair Burt stated indirect costs were probably the easier portion of the discussion. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted Staff had calculated indirect costs for fees, and the Committee should review the fees for irregularities. Chair Burt believed the contentious part of the discussion would be moving from concept to reality. Attachment C MINUTES Page 11 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Mr. Rossmann reported that the MGT report looked backward in using actual data, actual activity and actual cost. Staff would look forward in setting fees, reviewing budgeted costs and estimating activity levels. Based on the fee setting, Staff could determine revenue and then the cost recovery percentage. The challenge was understanding the consequences of the policy framework. He suggested the Committee approve guidelines rather than a policy. When Staff developed the FY 2015 fee schedule, they would review fees with these guidelines in mind and any significant fee changes above customary increases would be identified for the Committee. To allow in-depth discussion of policy and specifics, Staff could present the Municipal Fee Schedule including cost recovery levels. With that information, the Committee could see the framework and determine whether and how much to increase fees. Council Member Schmid felt the Committee should focus on a policy framework. At the policy level, the consultant made the point effectively that increases in CPI sometimes did not align with the cost basis. If indirect costs were associated with policy, then fees would increase by 5-6 percent. In a few years City services might not be competitive. The policy should engage the question of how important these types of services were to building a community and whether they should be based on the tax base of the community. Perhaps some subsidy from the tax base could be used to build services. A policy should indicate that fees be set around a CPI increase, and the General Fund's subsidy would increase slightly each year. A policy that utilized direct and indirect costs and City overhead would not be viable if fees were increased based on a CPI rate. The heart of the dilemma was City services and their value. Vice Mayor Shepherd mentioned that in the prior year fees increased by 8 percent, and inquired whether the increase affected participation. Mr. Perez responded no; however, fees had not been increased for a while. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the MGT report allowed the Council to consider a discount for some fees. Mr. Perez reported the Council made decisions years ago about the value of services, and it was time for the community to review those decisions. The Council would need a logical explanation for raising some fees and not others. Good outreach would allow the community to understand the rationale for raising some fees. Chair Burt believed the process brought more and better information; however, the Committee needed to reconcile the data with values. Attachment C MINUTES Page 12 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Adjusting fees for accounting methods, CPI and indirect costs resulted in major cost increases for programs and significantly less General Fund subsidy. He wanted the Committee to consider the level of increase in expenses for all programs as the result of better accounting. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the Information Technology (IT) fee was included in indirect costs and expensed to the different departments. She inquired whether that was presented to the Council. Mr. Perez replied no. Chair Burt asked if Staff inadequately attributed IT expenses to various services or incorrectly attributed IT expenses to specific services. Mr. Perez reported that Staff wanted to reflect the cost based on the different methodologies of all overhead expenses throughout the organization. This exercise captured the costs and reflected them throughout programs. Chair Burt inquired whether allocation of costs was consistently standardized through that process. Mr. Perez was attempting to standardize allocation of costs. In some situations the Council could decide that fees for some programs would not be increased. In those situations, Staff would utilize guidelines to set fees with exceptions in some areas. Chair Burt believed that was a form of standardization with discretion. Mr. Perez remarked that the Council might not agree with Staff's recommendation regarding allocation of costs. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to ensure the Council was aware of the methodology for allocation of costs prior to the Committee reviewing the individual fees. Mr. Rossmann indicated the 2014 fees were not set with overhead expenses. Chair Burt asked if the IT overhead expenses were allocated less systematically or under-allocated prior to the IT adjustment. Mr. Perez believed Staff allocated expenses in a proper manner to the funds. Staff was currently reviewing programs and allocating expenses to the specific programs. Attachment C MINUTES Page 13 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Chair Burt understood that the dollar amount allocated to the programs did not change, but the method and detail of allocating expenses changed. Mr. Perez was attempting to add more standardization. Staff utilized obvious methodologies in some areas, but identified a different methodology for subjective areas. Chair Burt suggested Staff present a high-level summary in layman's language of the methodology for allocating expenses. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted there were different methods to allocate expenses, and the methodology was changing again to consider fees. Staff should inform the Council about those methodologies, and then the Committee could review individual fees. Chair Burt indicated at the next Committee meeting Staff would present a summary of changes to the methodology of IT allocations. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the issue was overhead expenses, not IT expenses. Mr. Rossmann stated the technology fee was a direct allocation of capital expenditures within the IT Fund rather than the expenses of operating the IT Department. Based on the internal services provided, different cost allocation basis are used to recuperate the cost for internal services. Chair Burt stated Staff would provide a summary of changes to the methodologies used for overhead allocations to specific services. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed the Committee needed to explain the allocation of costs. Council Member Schmid asked if allocation of costs was embedded in the FY 2014 Budget. Mr. Perez asked if Council Member Schmid was referring to the 5 percent IT fee. Council Member Schmid noted in the Budget the IT Department had a decline in expenditures because of an allocation to other departments. He inquired whether the allocation processes were embedded in the current Budget. Attachment C MINUTES Page 14 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 Mr. Perez answered yes. The draft guidelines were not utilized in the FY 2014 numbers. Chair Burt questioned the impact of the Committee accepting MGT's report in that MGT recommended certain recovery levels. He inquired whether Staff recommended the City implement those recovery levels. Mr. Rossmann replied no. The Committee would acknowledge receipt of the MGT report. That did not mean the Committee accepted MGT's recommendations. Chair Burt suggested a Motion should clarify that the Committee accepted receipt of the MGT report. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted both reports would be addressed at the next Committee meeting. Chair Burt felt the Committee should articulate the intellectual foundation for the value of a benefit accruing to an individual versus an entity. A number of the value-based overlays were aligned with community values. The Committee should discuss the rationale for one group being more important to subsidize than another group. Mr. Perez agreed. The discussion would become more challenging when considering the Development Impact Fee. In some instances, Staff utilized the State system to set fees. Staff identified those services utilizing the State system. Chair Burt indicated at one level the primary purpose of some beneficiaries' existence was financial gain. There was not a clear dividing line for beneficiaries, but there were distinctions among beneficiaries. Council Member Berman noted within the category of residents were renters and homeowners. Chair Burt stated not all residents would receive the same impact. An open discussion would allow the Committee to reflect on and identify sound rationales. Council Member Schmid believed some services provided by CSD and Animal Services benefited all residents and should not be included in categories. MOTION: Vice Mayor Shepherd moved, seconded by Chair Burt to direct Staff to return to the next Finance Committee meeting no later than Attachment C MINUTES Page 15 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 November with a summary of changes to methodology of overhead allocations for specific services, return with a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, and the Finance Committee accepts receipt of the Staff report and MGT draft report. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the Motion allowed the Committee to have a detailed discussion regarding fees after the Council agreed with the methodology for allocation of costs. Chair Burt explained that the Motion did not capture next steps. The policy would return to the Committee for full review of policy implications. Mr. Rossmann requested time for Staff to consider timing, process and the FY 2015 schedule. Staff could provide a draft policy as part of the November recommendation. Vice Mayor Shepherd agreed with Staff including Cubberley Community Center in the discussion. Council Member Schmid felt the title User Fee Cost Recovery Policy held a connotation that the goal was to recover costs. He understood the discussion was that fees might contain costs other than cost recovery. He suggested Municipal Fee Policy Statement as a substitute. Cost recovery was a goal but should not be the single goal. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the policy varied among categories. Chair Burt did not want to imply that the intention was full cost recovery. Mr. Perez suggested recovery levels. Chair Burt agreed with the intent of User Fee Recovery Level Policy. Mr. Rossmann suggested User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. The intent was not to fully recover the cost of services. He inquired whether the Motion should read "specific indirect services" rather than "specific services allocation." Chair Burt intended for the Motion to state indirect costs to specific services. Chair Burt referenced Packet page 48 regarding consistency with City goals and policies. The statement was not limited to Council Priorities or goals, policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan. The Committee should Attachment C MINUTES Page 16 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 consider how to describe the values and Guiding Principles encompassed by this statement.. Mr. Rossmann reported the statement was intended to capture not only current Council policy but also future policy. It was a catchall statement to allow future Council policy decisions. Council Member Berman hoped the Council would have that discussion prior to the item returning to the Committee in November. Mr. Perez would review the timing of the update with the City Manager. Chair Burt noted the cost recovery for CSD youth programs was two or three times the cost recovery rate for adult programs. The City was subsidizing adult programs at a much higher rate in those categories. The Committee should have that type of in-depth discussion. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated one of the factors was market rates. Chair Burt suggested the Committee consider additional factors for community benefit characteristics and personal benefit characteristics. He was unsure what diversity of experience under community benefit meant. It could mean the value of social, economic, and ethnic diversity in the community or the experience of programs. Mental and physical health benefits for adults could be personal or community benefits. Some programs would not be easily categorized. Perhaps the chart needed a third category. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services, announced there was no meeting scheduled for October 1, 2013. On October 15, 2013, the Agenda included the audit of contract oversight for the trenching and installation of electric substructures. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated she would not be present on October 15. Chair Burt wished to ensure the presence of as many Committee Members as possible for important Agenda Items. Mr. Perez stated the only Agenda Item was the audit of contract oversight for the trenching and installation of electric substructures. Staff could poll Attachment C MINUTES Page 17 of 17 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Final Minutes 9/17/2013 for a special meeting or continue the item to the November 5 meeting which had only one Agenda Item. Chair Burt suggested polling for October 8 or 22 as alternative dates. Mr. Perez noted the Policy and Services Committee was scheduled for a meeting on October 8, 2013. Chair Burt requested Staff poll for a meeting. Mr. Perez reported that Staff would present the Development Impact Fee at the November 5, 2013 meeting. The first component was to present the list of infrastructure needs. The consultant would present the process and next steps. Agenda Items for the November 19 meeting included the year-end financial report and the year-end Capital Improvement Program status report. The Agenda for the December 3, 2013 meeting included the first quarter financial information. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:12 P.M. Attachment C City of Palo Alto (ID # 4237) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/5/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Title: Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Finance Committee direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council the attached draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for City Council discussion. Executive Summary: As directed by the Finance Committee at the September 17 meeting, this report presents a Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for Finance Committee review (see Attachment A), summarizes the cost components for fee-related activities, and transmits the September 17 Finance Committee report on the Cost of Service Study (see Attachment B). Background: At the September 17 Finance Committee Meeting, staff transmitted a consultant report regarding the cost of services study for fees not related to development services activities and presented policy considerations for a forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (see Attachment B). At that meeting, Committee Members expressed concern with approving a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy without understanding its application to the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule and its implications to the values of the community. To address this concern, staff shared with the Committee that the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule will include a cost recovery level percentage as an indicator regarding the General Fund subsidy for fee-related activities and proposed to return to the Finance Committee with a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy in November. After extensive discussion, the Finance Committee asked staff to return in November with a draft Policy and a summary of the cost components for setting municipal fees for final Finance Committee review and recommendation to forward the draft policy and this report to the City Council. Discussion: As directed, a draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy is attached (see Attachment A). Staff Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 2 recommends that the Finance Committee forward the draft policy to the City Council for policy discussion. After receiving input from the City Council and after review and approval of the Fiscal Year 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, staff will review and potentially update the draft policy and submit a final version for Finance Committee review and approval in fall 2015. As discussed at the September 17 Finance Committee meeting, as part of the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, staff will document the staff time to provide services for over 1,000 Municipal Fees and calculate the full cost for these fees including the cost components summarized in the table below. As part of the publication of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule, staff will include the average cost recovery level for grouped fees such as arts and science classes, golf fees, or Hazmat Inspection fees, which will indicate the General Fund subsidy provided for such fee-related activities. Cost Component Description Salary and Benefits by Classification Captures the hourly (or portions thereof) cost of employees by average classification costs who provide the service Compensated Absences Cost Captures the cost for vacation or sick time as well as time spent working, which cannot be allocated to specific fees (e.g.: time spent in meetings or trainings) Departmental Administrative Support Cost Captures the portion of cost of administrative units in a Department (e.g.: staff spending time on policy direction, analysis, and department oversight) City-wide Support Department Costs Captures the portion of cost of internal support departments (e.g.: People Strategy and Operations, Purchasing, or Payroll) Non-Salary Costs Any non-salary costs directly related to the fees (e.g.: paper or forms) It is important to note, that the cost for facilities is not included as a cost component. Including facility costs would require the measurement of office space related to the employees providing fee activity services and allocate these costs over the time an employee spends on a particular fee. Based on a preliminary analysis, the potential revenue from this cost component outweighs the cost for collecting the data. Resource Impact: With the review of this draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy, no resource impact is anticipated. However, to keep up with increasing salary and fringe cost, staff is evaluating increasing all FY 2014 Adopted Fees by 3 – 4 % as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget. This will ensure that the General Fund subsidy for fee-related activity will not increase and that the same cost recovery level will be maintained. Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 3 Next Steps: If approved by the Finance Committee, staff intends to bring forward the draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for City Council discussion in December or January. Attachments:  Attachment A - Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy (PDF)  Attachment B - Sept17 Finance Committee Cost of Services Study Report (PDF) Attachment D     Page 1 of 2    USER FEE COST RECOVERY LEVEL POLICY      BACKGROUND    The City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community or individual  residents or businesses.  For certain services such as regulatory fees, arts and science classes, or  recreational activities, the City traditionally has recovered partially or fully the cost for providing these  services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund.      Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to  impose fees and charges.  Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against  taxes being imposed without a vote of the people.       POLICY STATEMENT    It is the policy of the Palo Alto City Council to assess the cost recovery level of over 1,000 Municipal Fees  in lieu of subsidizing fee‐related activities with General Fund dollars based on the following Policy  Statements.    1. Community‐wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as police patrol services only through  taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community.    When the service or  program provides a benefit to specific individuals or groups such as the issuance of building permits,  it is common for the individual(s) receiving that benefit to pay for all of the cost of that service.      2. Service Recipient vs. Service Driver: The concept of the service recipient vs. service driver is  particularly important for regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits.   Although the community primarily benefits, 100% cost recovery from the “driver“ of the need for  service is appropriate such as a building permit or a Massage establishment permit applicant.    3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s  quality of life may also be factors in setting cost recovery levels.   For example, fee levels can be set  to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g.:  false alarms).    4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services.  A  higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes  or summer camps for children and youth without overly‐stimulating a market by artificially low  prices.   Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may attract  participants from other Cities.  However, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the  demand for such services to low income individuals, children, or seniors.      5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in  situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for  core City services.  Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically  Attachment D     Page 2 of 2    delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery  levels.    Based on these policy statements, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low  (0‐30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges with the  Policy statements.  It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not  absolute.  Some policy considerations may weigh more heavily than others, which will be considered in  the annual development of the Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule.  The Proposed Municipal Fee  Schedule is reviewed and approved by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council.  For  example, fees for recreational activities should be set in general at the Medium cost recovery level.   However, fees for seniors or low income residents may be at the low cost recovery level.  Alternatively,  permits and development activity should be set at close to 100% cost recovery level.  Cost Recovery  Levels  Cost Recovery  Percentage Range Policy Considerations  Low 0% ‐ 30%  No intended relationship between the amount paid and the  benefit received   Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would  discourage compliance with regulatory requirements   No intent to limit the use of the service   Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users  of the service   Affordability of service to low‐income residents  Medium 30.1% ‐ 70%  Services having factors associated with the low and high  cost recovery levels   High 70.1% ‐ 100%  Individual users or participants receive most or all of the  benefit of the service   Other private or public sector alternatives provide the  service   The use of the service is specifically discouraged   The service is regulatory in nature    Attachment D City of Palo Alto (ID # 3900) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/17/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Cost of Services Study Title: Cost of Services Study - Draft Report From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Finance Committee: 1) Accept this report and MGT’s draft report 2) Provide input on user fee cost recovery policy considerations 3) Direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council in November a draft user fee cost recovery policy, which will guide the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule Executive Summary: As reported at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee Meetings, the City hired a consultant to assist the City with a Cost of Services Study. This report transmits MGT’s draft report, recommends considerations for a user fee cost recovery policy, responds to previous Finance Committee information requests, and outlines next steps in the Cost of Services Study. Background: Propositions 13, 218 and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. Proposition 26 contains a more general articulation of the cost of service principle and includes a requirement that the local government bear the burden of proof that “a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to recover the reasonable costs of the government activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burden on , or benefits received from, the governmental activity.” (Cal. Const. art. XIII C, § (e).). It is important to note that rental charges for rooms or facilities, fines, penalties and late charges are not technically user fees and are not Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 2 required to be based on actual costs. Instead, these types of charges are more typically governed by market rates, reasonableness and other policy driven factors. As discussed at the July 2012 and March 2013 Finance Committee meetings, the City retained the services of MGT of America (“MGT”) to assist staff in determining the full cost of providing General Fund services for which fees are charged based on FY 2012 actual data. User fees, permits and rental charges generated approximately $22.2 million in fiscal year 2012, which was approximately 15 percent of total General Fund revenues. The following is a breakdown of General Fund fee revenues by department:  Planning and Community Environment (PCE) $9.0 million  Community Services Department (CSD) $6.2 million  Fire Department $5.0 million  Public Works $1.0 million  Police/Animal Services $0.7 million  All Other $0.3 million In March 2013, staff presented an overview of the methodology MGT used for this analysis to the Finance Committee along with examples of specific fee calculations (link to report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33539). MGT’s fee analysis, which follows best practices, assesses the staff time worked and the staff’s hourly cost of providing a particular service such as processing a permit or inspecting a fire sprinkler system. Then, indirect expenses are added to recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support department costs, and compensated absences. Discussion: This section of the report provides a summary of the draft MGT report, recommends policy considerations for a forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, and responds to previous Finance Commmittee information requests. MGT Report Attachment A is MGT’s draft report dated August 1, 2013. MGT’s report was based on FY 2012 actual data. Given the actual FY 2012 activity level, fee charged, and cost, the report provides the various cost- recovery levels for fees and General Fund subsidies related to Public Works (Engineering), Police, Animal Services, Fire (except for Emergency Medical Reponse activities), and Community Services. It does not include the fee calculations for the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department as well as some development related fees charged by other departments. Currently, these services are provided by staff in PCE, Fire, Public Work and Utilities and, as such, costs related to these services are being incurred in a multitude of cost centers across departments. The analysis of these services will be completed once the cost for Development Services activities is analyzed in each affected department. Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 3 Any changes resulting from this analysis will be brought forward to the Finance Committee as part of the FY 2015 Proposed Budget process. Overall, MGT’s analysis indicates that the City recovered approximately 35 percent of the full cost of providing fee related services in FY 2012 for the departments mentioned above. Thus, the City’s General Fund subsidized 65% percent, or approximately $20 million, of the cost of these services. As expected, cost recovery levels varied quite a bit between departments and programs. Based on that analysis, MGT also identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed generated a cost recovery level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees with a cost recovery level above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and budgeted costs, staff is in the process of reviewing these fees.. Staff intends to return to the Finance Committee in November if this analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to bring them to a 100% cost recovery level. Fees Charged in Other Cities Staff reviewed fees charged by seven other cities (Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Menlo Park, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Fremont) in order to understand how Palo Alto’s fees place in comparison to these agencies (see Attachment B). It is important to note that conclusions that can be drawn from comparisons of fee levels across the surveyed cities are fairly limited due to agencies’ differences in defining and structuring their respective fees. For example, certain services included in fees may be combined in some cities but separated in others; fees in other cities may be based on historical or other subjective factors unrelated to costs; and fees are also affected by differences in cost factors such as cost allocations of indirect support costs, employee benefit costs, and service efficiencies (the overall time necessary to complete a particular service or activity). User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Considerations MGT’s report also includes policy considerations for setting cost recovery levels. Based on MGT’s report and a review of other cities’ User Fee Cost Recovery policies, the following policy considerations are presented to the Finance Committee for discussion. Based on the Committee’s review and discussion, staff recommends presenting a draft User Fee Cost Recovery policy to the City Council in November. Such a policy will then inform the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. 1. Community-wide vs. Private Benefit: The use of taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the community as a whole such as police patrol services. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or groups such as the issuance of building permits, it is common for the individual(s) receiving that benefit to pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Service Driver: The concept of the service recipient vs. service driver is particularly important for regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits. Although the community primarily benefits, 100% cost recovery from the “driver“ of the need for service is appropriate such as a building permit or a Massage establishment permit applicant. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life may also be factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 4 to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth for without overly-stimulating a market by artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may attract participants from other Cities. It should be noted, that the current Municipal Fee Schedule for recreational services includes a lower rate for Palo Alto residents than residents living outside of Palo Alto. However, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services to low income individuals, children, or seniors. 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for core City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. Based on these policy considerations, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0-30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges. It is important to note that these groupings provide guidance and are not absolute. Some policy considerations may weigh more heavily than others, which will be considered in the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. For example, fees for recreational activities should be set in general at the Medium cost recovery level. However, fees for seniors or low income residents may be at the low cost recovery level. Alternatively, permits and development activity should be set at close to 100% cost recovery level. Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 5 Cost Recovery Levels Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% - 30%  No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received  Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements  No intent to limit the use of the service  Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service  Affordability of service to low-income residents Medium 30.1% - 70%  Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% - 100%  Individual users or participants receives most or all of the benefit of the service  Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service  The use of the service is specifically discouraged  The service is regulatory in nature With the exception of fees for classes offered through the Community Services Department (CSD), the City currently has no formal policies in place governing cost recovery targets for user fee services. The CSD’s class cost recovery guidelines are included in Attachment C. They are consistent with the policy considerations recommended and overlay a process for continuously evaluating the programs offered by CSD. However, CSD’s full costs and cost recovery factors have not been updated in six years. Once the Committee has provided input to the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy considerations, staff will review the attached CSD Class Cost Recovery Policy and bring forward recommendations for City Council consideration, as necessary. Since demand for services are factors to consider when evaluating fees charged by the Community Services Department, the Finance Committee asked staff to provide utilization data for these programs where available. Attachment D includes that data as well as information CSD staff compiled related to facility rental rates. The utilization data reflects FY 2012 actual usage while the facility rental rates represent charges as of spring 2013. Resource Impact: As discussed, based on FY 2012 data, MGT identified that 34 of the approximately 650 fees analyzed generated a cost recovery level above 100%. In order to ensure that the City does not charge users fees Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 6 with a cost recovery level above 100% based on estimated FY 2014 activity levels, adopted fees, and budgeted costs, staff is in the process of reviewing these fees. Staff intends to return to the Finance Committee in November if this analysis indicates reductions to FY 2014 Adopted Fees are required to bring them to a 100% cost recovery level. Any such reduction in fees may result in downward adjustments to the FY 2014 fee revenue estimate. Once the City Council approves the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy, staff will develop the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. Depending on the approved policy and the FY 2015 Base Budget expenditures for activities related to Municipal Fees, the estimated fee revenue for FY 2015 may decrease, increase, or remain approximately equivalent to the FY 2014 estimated fee revenue level. Next Steps: As mentioned in this report and previous Committee reports, by the end of the calendar year and fiscal year, staff has to accomplish several milestones related to the Cost of Services Study. Review of certain FY 2014 Adopted Fees MGT’s methodology for assessing the cost related to Municipal Fees is rather complex. Therefore, staff from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) developed a simpler, albeit still labor intensive, process to collect cost information and estimated fee activity levels from departments. Additionally, indirect expenses are added to recover costs for departmental administrative support, city-wide support department costs, and compensated absences. This cost assessment will not include costs for using City facilities, since such a methodology still requires further analysis. This methodology will be used to review these FY 2014 Adopted Fees, which have been identified in MGT’s report with a higher than 100% cost recovery level based on FY 2012 actual data. If this review determines that FY 2014 Adopted Fees are above full cost-recovery levels, staff will bring forward recommendations to adjust these fees downward in November 2013. User Fee Cost Recovery Policy Based on input from the Finance Committee, staff recommends bringing forward to the City Council a User Fee Cost Recovery Policy. This policy will guide and inform the development of the FY 2015 Proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. As part of the transmission of the FY 2015 Municipal Fee Schedule, staff intends to present to the City Council the cost recovery percentages for fees and/or group of fees. Due to the changing benefits structure of classic versus new employees, staff intends to analyze the cost for fee activities annually and set fees in accordance with the forthcoming User Fee Cost Recovery Policy as part of the annual budget process. Once the User Fee Cost Recovery Policy is approved by the City Council, the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy will be reviewed and updated. Cost of Services Studies for Internal Support Functions As presented in the March 2013 Finance Committee Meeting report, staff has been reviewing internal support functions to more effectively provide such services to direct services departments such as Public Safety, CSD, or Utilities. Since the majority of internal support functions are either mandated by law (e.g. financial reporting in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or rather complex in comparison to similar private sector activities (e.g.: benefits and payroll for various employee groups with different special pay and benefit levels within the employee groups), the initial review has not led Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 7 to further analysis yet. Staff intends to continue the analysis and present the findings to the Committee by the end of the calendar year. Attachments:  Attachment A: MGT's Palo Alto User Fee Report (PDF)  Attachment B: Seven Cities Fee Comparison (PDF)  Attachment C: Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy (PDF)  Attachment D: Cost of Services (PDF) Attachment D Attachment AAttachment AAttachment AAttachment A City of Palo Alto Draft User Fee Study Findings August 1, 2013 2001 P Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 Attachment D Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents Page Executive Summary Introduction 2 Scope and Objectives 2 Economic and Policy Considerations 4 Methodology 5 Study Findings 9 User Fee Summaries by Department: Public Works - Engineering 12 Police 14 Animal Services 18 Fire 19 Community Services 24 Attachment D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction MGT of America (MGT) is pleased to present the City of Palo Alto (City) with this summary of findings for the user fee study. The City has not undertaken a comprehensive analysis of its user fees since the 2002/03 fiscal year. Since that time, the City has adjusted fees on an annual basis, largely via a CPI adjustment factor. The City is now interested in knowing the current full cost of providing user fee-related services, and exploring the options of modifying current fees to better reflect Council priorities. In 2012, the City contracted with MGT to perform this cost analysis using fiscal year 2012 expenditures, staffing and operational information. MGT was also tasked with recommending fee adjustments for each department based on industry best-practices. This report is the culmination of the past fifteen months of work between MGT and City management and staff. MGT would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all management and staff who participated on this project for their efforts and coordination. Their responsiveness and continued interest in the outcome of this study contributed greatly to the success of this study. Study Scope and Objectives This study included a review of fee-for service activities within the following departments/divisions: Public Works (Engineering) Police Animal Services Fire Community Services At the request of the City, the analysis of fees charged by the Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department and other development related fees was deferred pending a comprehensive review of all costs related to development services. Currently, development related services are provided by staff in the PCE, Public Works, Fire and Utilities Departments. Once all development related costs are consolidated into one budget, the full cost of development services will be determined. The study was performed under the general direction of the Office of Management and Budget with the participation of representatives from each department. The primary goals of the study were to: Page 2 Attachment D Define what it costs the city to provide various fee-related services. Recommend fee adjustments based on industry best practices, practices of comparable agencies and MGT’s professional opinion. Develop revenue projections based on recommended increases (or decreases) to fees. Compile information regarding fees charged by the following neighboring cities: Cupertino, Fremont, Menlo Park, Mountain View, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. Provide user fee models and templates to City staff enabling staff to update the study results in future years and incorporate new fees as they occur. The industry standard is to conduct a comprehensive review of fees every three to five years and make annual adjustments based on an inflation index. However, given the increasing cost of public sector employee benefits, agencies may incorporate those cost increases into the annual fee adjustments. The information summarized in this report addresses each of these issues and provides the City with the tools necessary to make informed decisions about any proposed fee adjustments and the resulting impact on general fund revenues. The following is a list of legal, economic and policy issues that governmental agencies typically take into consideration when determining cost recovery levels. State Law – In California user fees are limited to the “estimated reasonable cost of providing a service” by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. Proposition 26 was approved by California voters in November of 2010 and clarified which charges are considered user fees and which are considered taxes. The significance of this distinction is that user fees may be raised by Council action up to the limit of actual cost, whereas taxes may not be increased without a majority vote of the public. None of the fee adjustments recommended by MGT are considered taxes per Proposition 26 guidelines. It should be noted that fees charged for the use of government property are exempt from Proposition 26. These include fees for parks and facility rentals as well as green fees, cart and other equipment rental fees for golf services. All of these fees may be set at any price the market will bear. Economic barriers - It may be a desired policy to establish fees at a level that permits lower income groups to use services that they might not otherwise be able to afford. Page 3 Attachment D Community benefit - If a user fee service benefits the community as a whole to some extent, it is appropriate to subsidize a portion of the fee. Many community services fees have very moderate cost recovery levels. Some programs are provided free of charge or for a minimal fee regardless of cost. Youth and senior programs tend to have the lowest recovery levels (15%-50%). Miscellaneous classes tend to have the moderate cost recovery levels (50%-85%) and adult sport programs typically have higher cost recovery levels (60%-100%). Private benefit – If a user fee primarily benefits the fee payer, the fee is typically set at, or close to 100% full cost recovery. Development- related fees generally fall into this category, however exceptions are sometimes made for services such as appeal fees or fees charged exclusively to residential applicants. Service driver - In conjunction with the third point above, the issue of who is the service recipient versus the service driver should also be considered. For example, code enforcement activities benefit the community as a whole, but the service is driven by the individual or business owner that violates city code. Managing demand - Elasticity of demand is a factor in pricing certain city services; increasing the price may result in a reduction of demand for those services, and vice versa. For most cities recreation services are highly elastic. Due to Palo Alto’s demographics, this may not necessarily be the case for Palo Alto’s recreational programs. It should be noted that Palo Alto provides a much wider array of services to its community than are found in other cities. Consequently, a significant number of non-residents participate in Palo Alto’s recreational programs and services. Competition - Certain services, such as recreation classes, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available at lower prices. Furthermore, if the City’s fees are too low, demand enjoyed by private-sector competitors could be adversely affected. Incentives – Fees can be set low to encourage participation in a service, such as water heater permitting or youth sports activities. Disincentives – Penalties can be instituted to discourage undesirable behavior. Examples include fines for constructing without a building permit and fines for excessive false alarms within a one-year period. The flow chart below helps illustrate the economic and policy considerations listed above. Page 4 Attachment D Who Benefits Public Mostly taxes & some fees Youth sports Private Private / Public Public / Private Type of Service Individual benefit only Primarily the individual with some community- wide benefits Primarily the individual with some community benefits Community Police patrol services Example Services Mostly fees & some taxes 100% fees 100% taxes Tax vs. Fees Policy Development services Code enforcement services DECISION-MAKING FLOW CHART Methodology The standard approach for analyzing the cost of providing fee-related services is commonly referred to as a “bottom up” approach. The bottom up approach was used for all user fees except Community Services and Animal Services fees. Community Services and Animal Services fees will be discussed later in this report. A general description of the “bottom up” approach is as follows: 1. Identify all direct staff time spent on the fee related activity or service MGT conducted a series of meetings with staff from Public Works, Police, Animal Services and the Fire Department to identify every employee, Page 5 Attachment D by classification, who performs work directly in support of a fee related service. Direct staff costs are incurred by employees who are “on the front line” and most visible to the customers (e.g. park rangers, fire inspectors, etc.). Once all direct staff were identified, departments estimated how much time those employees spend, on average, working on each particular service or program. Developing time estimates for fee related services can be challenging and departments should be commended for the time and effort they put into this. Although MGT provided departments with templates and other tools to assist them in developing average or “typical” time estimates, these calculations were necessarily developed by the subject matter experts in each operating department. 2. Calculate direct cost of the staff time for each fee using productive hourly rates Productive hourly rates are used to support full cost recovery. A full-time employee typically has 2,080 paid hours per year. However, cost studies reduce that number to account for non-productive hours (sick leave, vacation, holidays, training, meetings, etc.). MGT calculated the productive hourly rate for each classification based on the salary and benefit information provided by the City and an analysis of annual productive hours by classification. 3. Determine any other operational costs (i.e. other than personnel costs) that can readily be traced to a specific fee-related service as a direct cost Professional services contracts are an example of an expense that can often be traced to a specific service or program. 4. Determine indirect or “overhead” costs Generally there are two types of indirect costs: departmental and citywide overhead. These indirect costs are allocated across user fee services in order to capture the full cost of providing the service. . If a department performs non-fee related services, a commensurate amount of indirect cost is segregated and not allocated to the fee related services. Departmental overhead costs – these costs include managers, supervisors and support staff as well as other operational costs, such as materials and supplies that are incurred for a common purpose and not readily assigned to a particular service or program. Citywide overhead costs – each department and fund within the city receives an allocation of cost from the city’s various central service departments. Central service departments are those whose main function is to support other city departments and funds. Such departments include the Auditor, Clerk, Attorney, City Manager, Administrative Services, Human Resources and Public Works/Facilities Maintenance. The methods for allocating central service costs can vary but must demonstrate a causal relationship between the allocation methodology and the costs allocated to the operating department. The State Controller’s Office guidelines Page 6 Attachment D stress the importance of allocating citywide overhead costs in a way that “equitably reflect the value of service” provided to the department receiving the service(s). In most cases, industry standards call for one of the following methodologies for allocating central services costs: Number of full-time equivalent staff in the operating department Total operating department expenditures, excluding fixed assets, pass through funds and large purchases (e.g. energy purchases) Actual or estimates of time spent in support of the operating department based on documented procedures 5. Compare total costs to the current fee schedule. Once all direct, indirect and crossover costs are calculated, MGT compared the total cost for each fee-related service to the fee currently charged to the public. In most cases we found the total cost of providing a service exceeded the fee charged. In these instances, the fee can be increased to recover these subsidies. However, there were a number of services for which the total calculated cost was less than the fee charged. In these cases the fee must be lowered to comply with State law. 6. Annual volume figures are incorporated. Up to this point we have calculated fee costs and revenues on a per-unit basis. By incorporating annual volume estimates provided by each department into the analysis, we extrapolate the per-unit results into annual cost and annual revenue information. This annualization of results accomplishes two primary benefits: Management information: the annualized results give management an estimate of the fiscal impact of any fee adjustments. Because annual volume will change from one year to the next, these figures are estimates only. Actual revenue will depend on future demand level and collection rates, which for some services can be less than 100%. Cross checks and reasonableness tests: by annualizing the results we also annualize the time spent by staff on each service. These annualized results will surface any instances of over or under estimation of time. In these cases we review these results with staff and resolve any anomalies. All staff hours were identified to either fee or non-fee related services. Page 7 Attachment D 7. Recommend fee adjustments. MGT provides fee adjustment recommendations based on industry best practices and practices of comparable agencies. Of course MGT’s recommendations are advisory in nature only – ultimately Council must decide what fee levels are appropriate for Palo Alto. Methodology – Community Services and Animal Services fees In some cases, the potential benefits of conducting a bottom up analysis of a particular fee are outweighed by the expense that would be incurred in developing this information. This is almost universally the case with recreational and animal service programs, where a substantial amount of effort would be required to identify and track costs at the individual fee level. For example, it is difficult to estimate city staff time related to an individual participating in a karate class. The cost of conducting such a detailed analysis would outweigh the value of this information, in particular because elasticity of demand and local policy goals are typically factors that are evaluated when establishing recreational and animal service fees. Accordingly, we have analyzed Community Service and Animal Service fees at the program level using a “top down” approach. In this approach we identify the direct 2012 expenditures for each program and incorporate division, departmental and citywide overhead in a manner similar to the “bottom up” approach. We then compare the resulting full cost against 2012 program revenues to calculate the cost recovery level for each program. Page 8 Attachment D Study Findings The study's primary objective is to provide the City's decision-makers with the basic data needed to make informed pricing decisions. This report details the full cost of services and presents recommended fee adjustments and their fiscal impact. Recommendations are based on careful consideration of the results of the cost analysis, industry best practices and market comparisons. Although there are opportunities to increase fees and cost recovery levels for Animal Control and Community Services, these fees are typically set based on local elasticity of demand considerations and/or each jurisdiction’s goals and priorities. The results of the study identified that overall, most departments recover much less than the actual cost of providing services. Accordingly, there is an opportunity to raise additional funds through fee adjustments. There are several possible reasons for the current subsidy levels: During the 2003 comprehensive fee analysis, Council may have intentionally subsidized certain services. Subsequently, even if these fees were adjusted annually to keep pace with increasing city costs, these fees would still be below actual cost. It is likely the City’s practice of adjusting fees annually via a CPI factor did not keep pace with actual governmental service costs. Over the past decade, government sector costs have outpaced general inflation. Many user fee related processes have changed over the past decade. Often this is the result of increasing service-level demands by the general public. Also, the State has mandated many additional inspections and reviews that add to the City’s cost structure within the development-related departments, including Public Works Engineering. Restructuring of fees. We found that several of the City’s fees could be more equitably charged via a different fee structure. This is particularly true with for the Engineering fees. For example, Construction in the Right of Way fees: these fees are currently assessed on a flat 5% of the cost of construction. Discussion with Engineering staff and subsequent analysis of time estimate responses indicated that economies of scale exist with these services. Accordingly, we restructured these fees into a declining percentage sliding scale structure. Comparison analysis. A component of our analysis included a survey of user fees charged by neighboring cities. This survey gives City management a picture of the market environment for city services. This survey is imprecise in that a fee with the same name may involve slightly different services among the various cities surveyed. Some cities lump several services into one fee category, whereas other cities break fees down into a high level of specificity. Accordingly the purpose of this comparison analysis is to impart a sense of how Palo Alto’s fees levels compare with neighboring jurisdictions. The comparison analysis is provided under a separate cover. The exhibit on the following page displays the summary of costs and revenues for each department/division analyzed: Page 9 Attachment D City of Palo Alto User Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue AnalysisUser Fee Revenue Analysis Actual 2012 RecommendedRecommendedRecommendedRecommended Costs, UserCosts, UserCosts, UserCosts, User CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent General FundGeneral FundGeneral FundGeneral Fund Cost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost RecoveryCost Recovery IncreasedIncreasedIncreasedIncreased Department/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/DivisionDepartment/Division Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A)Fee Services (A) Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B )Revenue (B ) Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C )Subsidy (C ) Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D)Policy (D) Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E)Revenue (E) Public Work Public Work Public Work Public Work ---- EngineeringEngineeringEngineeringEngineering $1,108,780 $816,846 74% $291,934 $1,108,780 100% $291,934 PolicePolicePolicePolice $443,545 $338,389 76% $105,156 $443,545 100% $105,156 Animal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal ControlAnimal Control $1,969,171 $1,008,427 51% $960,744 $1,008,427 51% $0 FireFireFireFire $1,553,690 $886,140 57% $667,550 $1,553,690 100% $667,550 Community ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity ServicesCommunity Services $25,525,449 $7,645,996 30% $17,879,453 $7,645,996 30% $0 Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total:Grand Total: $30,600,635 $10,695,798 35% $19,904,837 $11,760,438 38% $1,064,640 Column A, User Fee Costs –––– The full cost of the services we analyzed was approximately $30.6 million. The vast majority of these costs were incurred providing fee-related services. However, because the analyses for Animal Control and Community Services were done at the program level, the full cost for those analyses includes non-fee related expenses. For example, costs for maintaining open space are included in the Community Services Department and costs for field operations are included in Animal Control. Column B, Current Revenues –––– Based on current individual fee levels, the City generates fee related revenues of $10.69 million and is experiencing a 35% cost recovery level. Within each department, cost recovery levels fluctuate significantly. Several Police and Fire fees are currently set above actual cost. MGT recommends the City review employee benefit and other cost increases that have occurred since FY 2012 to determine if these fees will need to be reduced. The analyses of individual fees are presented in subsequent sections of this report. Again, since Animal Control and Community Services were analyzed at the program level, some of the revenues for these programs are not derived from user fees. For example, Animal Control revenues include approximately $600,000 in reimbursements for services provided to other cities. Column C, General Fund Subsidy –––– Current fee levels recover 35% of full cost, leaving 65% or $19,904,837 to be funded by other funding sources. This represents a “window of opportunity” for the City to increase fees and general fund revenues, with a corresponding decrease in the subsidization of services by the general General Fund subsidy. Please note, however, that approximately $17.9 million of this $19.6 million represents historically subsidized programs within the Community Services Department. Page 10 Attachment D Column D, Recommend Recovery –––– It is estimated that adoption of the recommended cost recovery policy would generate fee revenues of $11,760,438. This would bring the overall cost recovery level up to 38.%. Column E, Increased Revenue –––– Increasing fees to recover full costs in the Fire, Police and Public Works Departments would generate approximately $1,064,640 in additional revenue. This represents a 10% increase over revenue currently being collected for these activities by the City on an annual basis. Please note that the above information does not include costs or cost recovery levels for development-related services. As stated earlier in this report, the analysis of those fees will be completed once the Development Services budget is established. Department Summary Charts The subsequent pages display the results of our individual fee analysis. Because Community Services and Animal Services were analyzed on a program level, their results reflect cost and revenue on a program basis only. For all other departments, the current charge, total cost and recommended fee are listed for each fee-related service. The summaries are in the following order: Public Works (Engineering) Police Animal Services Fire Community Services Page 11 Attachment D Public Work – Engineering Attachment D User Fee Study Summary Sheet Service Name Fee Description Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Certificate of Compliance/ Correction/ Map Amendment 14 $3,000 80%80%80%80% $3,731 $52,239 $42,000 $10,239 100%$3,731 $52,239 $10,239 4 Street Cut - Excellent Pavement per sq ft 5,200 $15 68%68%68%68%$22 $115,001 $78,000 $37,001 100%$22 $115,001 $37,001 5 Street Cut - Good Pavement per sq ft 4,700 $10 54%54%54%54%$18 $86,319 $47,000 $39,319 100%$18 $86,319 $39,319 6 Street Cut - Fair Pavement per sq ft 3,200 $8 51%51%51%51%$15 $46,770 $24,000 $22,770 100%$15 $46,770 $22,770 7 Street Cut - Poor Pavement per sq ft 3,900 $5 46%46%46%46%$11 $42,376 $19,500 $22,876 100%$11 $42,376 $22,876 8 Service Lateral Connection 305 $1,000 87%87%87%87% $1,151 $350,930 $305,000 $45,930 100%$1,151 $350,930 $45,930 9 Encr - Dumpster, Container 30 $135 64%64%64%64% $211 $6,317 $4,050 $2,267 100%$211 $6,317 $2,267 10 Encr - Fence 5 $135 23%23%23%23% $596 $2,982 $675 $2,307 100%$596 $2,982 $2,307 11 Encr - Non-residential Long Term > 5 days 30 $850 103%103%103%103% $825 $24,754 $25,500 -$746 100%$825 $24,754 -$746 12 Encr - Residential $400 61%61%61%61% $660 100%$660 n/a n/a 13 Encr - Non-residential Short Term < 5 days 15 $425 102%102%102%102% $416 $6,240 $6,375 -$135 100%$416 $6,240 -$135 14 Encr - Non-residential 1 Day 30 $200 61%61%61%61% $330 $9,902 $6,000 $3,902 100%$330 $9,902 $3,902 15 Encr - VTA Bus Shelters' Installation/Relocation $315 12%12%12%12% $2,713 100%$2,713 n/a n/a Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations 16 Encr - Flood variance fee Cost + 15% n/an/an/an/a t&m n/a n/a n/a 100%t&m n/a n/a 17 Grading:101-1,000 cubic yards 20 $130 per 100 cy 67%67%67%67% $576 $11,525 $7,723 $3,802 100% $215 per 100 cy $11,525 $3,802 18 Grading: 1,001-10,000 cubic yards 20 $1,310 plus $130 each addl 1000 cy 67%67%67%67% $2,155 $43,097 $29,027 $14,070 100% $2,155 plus $253 each addl 1000 cy $43,097 $14,070 19 Grading: 10,001 cubic yards or more 5 $2,485 plus $130 each addl 10,000 cy 62%62%62%62% $4,435 $22,175 $13,725 $8,450 100% $4,435 plus $200 each addl 10k cy $22,175 $8,450 20 Flood Zone Determination Letter $55 30%30%30%30% $181 100%$181 n/a n/a 21 Temporary Elevation Benchmarks 1 $270 54%54%54%54% $501 $501 $270 $231 100%$501 $501 $231 22 Temporary Discharge to Storm Drain from Construction Site Dewatering.10 $135 + $80/month n/an/an/an/a $133 $1,334 $133 $1,201 100% $135 + $135/month $1,334 $1,201 23 Storm Plan Check 10 $350 48%48%48%48% $726 $7,259 $3,500 $3,759 100%$726 $7,259 $3,759 24 Storm Inspection Fee + Hrly 25 $320 60%60%60%60% $534 $13,344 $8,000 $5,344 100%$534 $13,344 $5,344 25 Construction and Repair Per Hour 10 $86 85%85%85%85% $102 $1,017 $864 $153 100%$102 $1,017 $153 Page 12 Attachment D User Fee Study Summary Sheet Service Name Fee Description Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Public Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - EngineeringPublic Works - Engineering 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations 26 Sweeping Services Per Hour 5 $89 50%50%50%50% $176 $880 $443 $438 100%$176 $880 $438 27 Traffic Control/Graffiti Services Per Hour 15 $79 85%85%85%85%$93 $1,397 $1,182 $215 100%$93 $1,397 $215 28 Tree Services Per Hour 15 $73 53%53%53%53% $137 $2,056 $1,091 $965 100%$137 $2,056 $965 29 Supervision Per Hour 2 $85 63%63%63%63% $135 $270 $170 $100 100%$135 $270 $100 30 Newsrack Impoundment Fee $50 +$3/day n/an/an/an/a $125 100%$125 n/a n/a 31 Street trees-new trees for subdivisions $100 ---------- Delete ----------n/a n/a n/a 100%n/a n/a n/a 32 Tree Removal addl for damage 2 $100/ inch of trunk n/an/an/an/a $100/ inch of trunk $2,000 $2,000 100% $100/ inch of trunk $2,000 33 Tree Inspection for private development change to flat fee 200 $105 / insp 41%41%41%41% $494 $98,851 $41,000 $57,851 100%$494 $98,851 $57,851 34 Construction in ROW: $1-$5k % of const. cost 37 $240 or 5% of contract 58%58%58%58% $413 $15,296 $8,880 $6,416 100% 10.3% of const. cost $15,296 $6,416 35 Construction in ROW: $5-$25k % of const. cost 80 $240 or 5% of contract 56%56%56%56% $1,077 $86,193 $48,000 $38,193 100% 9% of const. cost $86,193 $38,193 36 Construction in ROW: $26-$100k % of const. cost 13 $240 or 5% of contract 151%151%151%151% $1,992 $25,896 $39,000 -$13,104 100% 3.3% of const. cost $25,896 -$13,104 37 Construction in ROW: $101k + % of const. cost 5 $240 or 5% of contract 190%190%190%190% $4,874 $24,369 $46,250 -$21,881 100% 2.6% of const. cost $24,369 -$21,881 38 Improvement Plan Review: $1-$25k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $814 $1,628 $1,628 100% 3.3% of const. cost $1,628 39 Improvement Plan Review: $26-$100k 2 t&m n/an/an/an/a $1,628 $3,256 $3,256 100% 1.6% of const. cost $3,256 40 Improvement Plan Review: $101k +1 t&m n/an/an/an/a $2,605 $2,605 $2,605 100% 0.9% of const. cost $2,605 Total User Fees $1,108,780 $816,846 $291,934 $1,108,780 $291,934 % of Full Cost 74% 26%100% 36% Page 13 Attachment D Police Attachment D Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Adult Entertainment Estb - business location change Flat $810 81%81%81%81%$996 100%$996 2 Adult Entertainment Estb - new (non-refundable application fee) Flat $1,790 83%83%83%83% $2,152 100%$2,152 3 Adult Entertainment Estb - renewal Flat $810 81%81%81%81% $996 100% $996 4 Billiard Room (non-refundable application fee)Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 5 Bingo Establishment Flat 1 $50 n/an/an/an/a n/a 6 Bingo employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Processing Fee)Flat 2 $70 n/an/an/an/a n/a 7 Bingo employee renewal (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Processing Fee)Flat $53 n/an/an/an/a n/a 8 Bowling Alley (non-refundable application fee)Flat $120 n/an/an/an/a n/a 9 Carnival Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 10 Circus Flat $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 11 Closing out sale Flat $61 56%56%56%56% $109 100% $109 12 Closing out sale - renewal (maximum of 2)Flat $61 56%56%56%56% $109 100%$109 13 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – New Flat $2,100 100% $2,100 14 Firearms Dealer Master Permit – Renewal Flat $800 100% $800 15 Background Investigation - new each owner, officer, agent employee Flat $136 80%80%80%80% $169 100% $169 16 Background Investigation - renewal, each owner, officer, agent employee Flat $53 42%42%42%42% $126 100% $126 17 Helicopter Landing Fee Flat 5 $240 885%885%885%885% $27 $136 $1,200 -$1,064 100% $27 $136 -$1,064 18 Hot tub/sauna business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 19 Hot tub/sauna employee (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee)Flat $81 n/an/an/an/a n/a 20 Hot tub/sauna new (non-refundable application fee)Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a 21 Hot tub/sauna - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 22 Hot tub/sauna sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a 23 Massage estb - new establishment (non-refundable application fee)Flat $1,790 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100%$1,790 24 Massage estb - sale or transfer of interest Flat $122 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100%$122 Re-evaluate massage establishment fees once the new program and program guidelines are implemented Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 no data no data Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Page 14 Attachment D Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 25 Massageg estb - renewal Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% $810 26 Massage estb - business location change Flat $810 n/an/an/an/a n/a 100%$810 27 Massage Tech - New (Does not include DOJ or FBI Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat 200 $81 179%179%179%179% $45 $9,042 $16,200 -$7,158 100% $45 $9,042 -$7,158 28 Massage Tech - Renewal Flat $63 100% 29 Mechanical Amusement Device Establishment Flat 1 $74 68%68%68%68% $109 $109 $74 $35 100% $109 $109 $35 30 Noise Exception Permit Flat 108 $250 137%137%137%137% $182 $19,656 $27,000 -$7,344 100% $182 $19,656 -$7,344 31 Push Cart Vendor - New license (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $244 19%19%19%19% $1,302 100% $1,302 32 Push Cart Vendor - Renewal Flat $86 79%79%79%79% $109 100% $109 33 Push Cart Vendor - Each additional cart Flat $244 675%675%675%675%$36 100%$36 34 Push Cart Vendor - Location change and/or cart change Flat $163 100% $163 35 Push Cart Employee - New license (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $81 100%$81 36 Push Cart Employee - Renewal Flat $63 100%$63 37 Soliciting information for commercial purpose (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat $2,250 100% $2,250 38 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - day Flat $81 224%224%224%224% $36 100% $36 39 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - quarter Flat $122 337%337%337%337% $36 100% $36 40 Solicitor/Peddler Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) - year Flat 2 $365 1009%1009%1009%1009% $36 $72 $730 -$658 100% $36 $72 -$658 41 Each employee operating under Master License (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.)Flat 20 $81 224%224%224%224% $36 $723 $1,620 -$897 100% $36 $723 -$897 42 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Each Vehicle-Inspection/permit Flat 200 $61 169%169%169%169% $36 $7,234 $12,200 -$4,966 100% $36 $7,234 -$4,966 43 Taxi/Public Transp Vehicle - Master License-Application/certificate Flat 2 $1,750 61%61%61%61% $2,890 $5,781 $3,500 $2,281 100% $2,890 $5,781 $2,281 44 Taxi/Pub Transp Vehicle - Master License-Annual renewal Flat 3 $810 75%75%75%75% $1,085 $3,255 $2,430 $825 100% $1,085 $3,255 $825 45 Taxicab/Public Transportation/Vehicle Service Driver (Does not include DOJ Fingerprint and Rolling Fee.) new and renewal Flat 200 $81 299%299%299%299% $27 $5,425 $16,200 -$10,775 100% $27 $5,425 -$10,775 no data Re-evaluate massage establishment fees once the new program and program guidelines are implemented no data no data no data Page 15 Attachment D Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 46 Taxi/Pub Transp Veh - Transfer fee Flat 12 $40 88%88%88%88% $45 $543 $480 $63 100% $45 $543 $63 47 Temp Street Closure - Class A: Parades, Runs, Street Fair, etc. Varies 10 $100 - $1,260 n/an/an/an/a $486 $4,855 $4,855 100% Hourly $4,855 48 Traveling Show Flat 2 $2,250 n/an/an/an/a n/a 49 Permit Inspection Fee Flat 2 $90 25%25%25%25% $364 $728 $180 $548 100% $364 $728 $548 50 Permit Inspection Fee 201-400 attendees Flat 1 $110 26%26%26%26% $425 $425 $110 $315 100% $425 $425 $315 51 Permit Inspection Fee 401-600 attendees Flat $125 26%26%26%26% $486 100%$486 52 Permit Inspection Fee each additional 200 attendees Flat $20 33%33%33%33% $61 100%$61 53 Report Copy Fee Flat 1400 $10 37%37%37%37% $27 $38,277 $14,000 $24,277 100% $27 $38,277 $24,277 54 Clearance Letter Flat 130 $30 111%111%111%111% $27 $3,508 $3,900 -$392 100% $27 $3,508 -$392 55 Photo Reprint, color or black and white Flat 10 $35 74%74%74%74% $47 $473 $350 $123 100% $47 $473 $123 56 Research Fee (includes audio and video taping)hourly 100% 57 Subpoena Copy Fee Statute 100% 58 Location Crime Statistics Fee Flat 15 $39 39%39%39%39% $101 $1,518 $585 $933 100% $101 $1,518 $933 59 Parenting Project Program Flat 25 $120 49%49%49%49% $243 $6,069 $3,000 $3,069 100% $243 $6,069 $3,069 60 Parenting Project Materials Flat 5 $35 58%58%58%58% $61 $303 $175 $128 100% $61 $303 $128 61 Vehicle Impound Fee Flat 260 $125 46%46%46%46% $274 $71,174 $32,500 $38,674 100% $274 $71,174 $38,674 62 Vehicle Reposession Receipt Flat 25 $15 55%55%55%55% $27 $684 $375 $309 100% $27 $684 $309 63 Audio copy request Flat $120 100% $120 64 Alarm registration - new Flat 286 $35 129%129%129%129% $27 $7,758 $10,010 -$2,252 100% $27 $7,758 -$2,252 65 Alarm registration - renewal Flat 2145 $35 194%194%194%194% $18 $38,791 $75,075 -$36,284 100% $18 $38,791 -$36,284 66 Attendant Lot Parking Fee Structure 67 0-1 hours no charge 68 1-3 hours flat $2 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69 3-4 hours flat $4 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70 Over 4 hours flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71 Daily Maximum flat $8 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 72 Emergency Response Fee actual cost $50-$12,000 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 100% hourly rates n/a n/a Delete from fee schedule - covered by fees #1 - #3 Page 16 Attachment D Service Name Fee Descriptio n Annual Volum e Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Police Police Police 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 73 Fingerprints 74 DOJ Fed rate $52 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75 FBI Fed rate $24 n/an/an/an/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 76 False Alarm Response Fees - Excessive 77 3rd Residential False Alarm Flat 313 $100 47%47%47%47% $211 $66,056 $31,300 $34,756 100% $211 $66,056 $34,756 78 3rd Bank/Commercial False Alarm Flat 157 $100 27%27%27%27% $372 $58,353 $15,700 $42,653 100% $372 $58,353 $42,653 79 4th False Alarm Flat $150 100%150% of 3rd 80 5th and each Subsequent False Alarm Flat $200 100% 200% of 3rd 81 Police Service Fees 82 Community Service Officer hourly 200 $68 78%78%78%78% $87 $17,363 $13,600 $3,763 100% $87 $17,363 $3,763 83 Police Agent hourly 100 $131 58%58%58%58% $226 $22,642 $13,100 $9,542 100% $226 $22,642 $9,542 84 Police Officer hourly 200 $121 76%76%76%76% $160 $31,957 $24,200 $7,757 100% $160 $31,957 $7,757 85 Police Reserve hourly 100 $51 84%84%84%84% $61 $6,062 $5,100 $962 100% $61 $6,062 $962 86 Police Sergeant hourly 60 $144 59%59%59%59% $243 $14,565 $8,640 $5,925 100% $243 $14,565 $5,925 Total User Fees $443,545 $338,389 $105,156 $443,545 $105,156 % of Full Cost 76% 24%100% 31% Fees#82 thru 86) for events where less than 80% of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization, a 20% discount shall apply. For events where 80% or more of the proceeds go directly to a "non-profit" organization; or events declared as co-sponsored by the City of Palo Alto, a 25% discount shall apply. Page 17 Attachment D Animal Services Attachment D Program Fee Description Annual Cost Current Recovery Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Range Revenue at Current Rate Recommended Subsidy 1 Adoptions Varies $147,104 52%52%52%52% $77,137 $69,967 50-70% $77,137 $69,967 2 Animal Boarding Varies $46,771 72%72%72%72% $33,732 $13,039 16-90% $33,732 $13,039 3 Disposal of Dead Owned Animals/Euthanasia Varies $128,706 74%74%74%74% $94,821 $33,885 50-90% $94,821 $33,885 4 Impoundment Varies $221,460 68%68%68%68% $151,114 $70,346 50-90% $151,114 $70,346 5 Licenses and Pet Identification Varies $112,964 90%90%90%90% $101,956 $11,008 100% $101,956 $11,008 6 Miscellaneous Sales, Pet Supplies Varies $52,572 86%86%86%86% $45,291 $7,281 80-100% $45,291 $7,281 7 Veterinary Services Varies $98,435 65%65%65%65% $64,404 $34,031 50-100% $64,404 $34,031 8 Annual Permits Varies $34,481 46%46%46%46% $15,877 $18,603 14-80% $15,877 $18,603 9 Spay and Neuter Clinic Varies $344,714 82%82%82%82%$284,161 $60,552 80-100% $284,161 $60,552 12 Animal Testing Varies $33,963 0%0%0%0%$0 $33,963 60-80%$0 $33,963 13 Vaccinations/Microchip Varies $98,261 71%71%71%71% $69,580 $28,681 100% $69,580 $28,681 14 Trap Rental/Home Quarantine Inspection Varies $38,693 61%61%61%61% $23,602 $15,091 8-60% $23,602 $15,091 15 Cremations Services Varies $30,738 87%87%87%87% $26,639 $4,099 73% $26,639 $4,099 16 Field Services Varies $580,309 3%3%3%3% $20,112 $560,197 0-10% $20,112 $560,197 Total User Fees $1,969,171 $1,008,427 $960,744 $1,008,427 $960,744 % of Full Cost 51% 49%51%49% City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Police Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal ServicesPolice Department - Animal Services 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Page 18 Attachment D Fire Attachment D Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy 1 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Flat 225 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $249,380 $67,500 $181,880 100% $1,108 $249,380 $181,880 $0 2 Automatic fire sprinkler installation/modification (per building)Per head 30000 $1.50 54%54%54%54% $2.78 $83,523 $45,000 $38,523 100% $3 $83,523 $38,523 $0 3 Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2) NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Flat 12 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $13,300 $3,600 $9,700 100% $1,108 $13,300 $9,700 $0 4 Other automatic fire extinguishing systems (hood and duct, FM200, Inergen, CO2) NOTE: If system has a release panel, Fire Alarm fees apply as well.Per nozzle 350 $6.50 54%54%54%54% $12.07 $4,226 $2,275 $1,951 100% $12 $4,226 $1,951 $0 5 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Flat 140 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $155,170 $42,000 $113,170 100% $1,108 $155,170 $113,170 $0 6 Fire Alarm Systems; install/modify (per building)Per device 5000 $6.50 114%114%114%114% $5.73 $28,627 $32,500 -$3,873 100% $6 $28,627 -$3,873 $0 7 Standpipe system wet, dry or combination, per riser Flat 12 $175 23%23%23%23% $752 $9,029 $2,100 $6,929 100% $752 $9,029 $6,929 $0 8 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Flat 1 $220 25%25%25%25% $889 $889 $220 $669 100% $889 $889 $669 $0 9 Hydrants private on-site; install/modify Per hydrant 3 $50 50%50%50%50% $101 $303 $150 $153 100% $101 $303 $153 $0 10 Underground fire service line (includes inspection and re-inspection - 1 each occurrence)Flat 11 $300 27%27%27%27% $1,108 $12,192 $3,300 $8,892 100% $1,108 $12,192 $8,892 $0 11 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Flat 4 $300 36%36%36%36% $844 $3,375 $1,200 $2,175 100% $844 $3,375 $2,175 $0 15 Verification of Fire Protection System Maintenance and Certification Flat 300 $75 45%45%45%45% $167 $49,950 $22,500 $27,450 100% $167 $49,950 $27,450 $0 16 A Level I Facility - Minimal Storage (defined as having no hazardous materials over CFC Permit amounts as specified in CFC section 105)Flat 87 $230 71%71%71%71% $324 $28,208 $20,010 $8,198 100% $324 $28,208 $8,198 $0 B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal., City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 17 B Level II Facility - Quantities exceeding CFC permit threshold, but less than 50 gal., 500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. Category also includes Dry Cleaning, Fixed Medical Gas, Auto or Aircraft Repair and Service Stations Flat 140 $470 97%97%97%97% $487 $68,122 $65,800 $2,322 100% $487 $68,122 $2,322 $0 18 C Level III Facility - Quantities exceed 50 gal., 500 lbs. Or 200 cu. Ft. and not categorized as Level II Flat 200 $825 95%95%95%95% $865 $172,939 $165,000 $7,939 100% $865 $172,939 $7,939 $0 19 D Business Plan (HMBP) Flat 251 $285 93%93%93%93% $307 $77,024 $71,535 $5,489 100% $307 $77,024 $5,489 $0 20 E Petroleum Abovegroung Storage Tank Flat 16 $500 58%58%58%58% $858 $13,721 $8,000 $5,721 100% $858 $13,721 $5,721 $0 21 E Provisional (6 month term)Delete 0 $165 n/a n/a 22 F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure, otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. (See CEQA for additional fees.)Flat 47 $300 37%37%37%37% $816 $38,370 $14,100 $24,270 100% $816 $38,370 $24,270 $0 23 F Additional approval for permit to construct, temporary closure, permanent closure, otherwise modify a Hazardous Materials storage/use facility. Additional hours over 2 Per hour 30 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $5,379 $4,500 $879 100% $179 $5,379 $879 $0 24 Late Fee for Hazardous Materials Storage Permits Fine 0 25% of haz mat fee n/an/an/an/a n/a 100% 25% of haz mat fee Page 19 Attachment D Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 25 Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection.Flat 12 $300 81%81%81%81% $368 $4,421 $3,600 $821 100% $368 $4,421 $821 $0 26 Fees charged for additional re-inspections after the first re-inspection - each hour over 2 Per hour 6 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $2,004 $900 $1,104 100% $334 $2,004 $1,104 $0 27 After hours inspection fee (before or after normal business hours; weekends and holidays included, and is to be paid in advance of inspection)Per hour 100 $165 48%48%48%48% $344 $34,381 $16,500 $17,881 100% $344 $34,381 $17,881 $0 28 Christmas Tree Lot/Pumpkin Patch Flat 5 $150 25%25%25%25% $603 $3,013 $750 $2,263 100% $603 $3,013 $2,263 $0 29 Care Facility (including community, child day care and residential care for the elderly) Fire and Safety Inspections (CFC 111.4). Excludes residential elderly care facilities with six or fewer persons. Flat 91 $150 27%27%27%27% $546 $49,676 $13,650 $36,026 100% $546 $49,676 $36,026 $0 30 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance 7-25 clients Delete 0 $65 n/a n/a 31 Care Facility Inspection including fire clearance >25 clients Delete 0 $125 n/a n/a 32 Outside Cooking Booths Flat 11 $165 30%30%30%30% $546 $6,005 $1,815 $4,190 100% $546 $6,005 $4,190 $0 33 Use and Occupancy Fire Inspection Flat 100 $125 23%23%23%23% $537 $53,743 $12,500 $41,243 100% $537 $53,743 $41,243 $0 34 Standby fire watch or after-hours at fire or incident scene Per hour 0 $165 49%49%49%49% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 35 California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 111.4.3)Flat 7 $600 36%36%36%36% $1,670 $11,689 $4,200 $7,489 100% $1,670 $11,689 $7,489 $0 36 High Rise Building; certificate of compliance inspection for each high rise building which is required by State law to be inspected and certified annually as meeting minimum compliance with applicable State of California fire and life safety standards for existing high rise buildings. (CFC 111.4.3) - each hour after 4 Per hour 3 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $1,002 $450 $552 100% $334 $1,002 $552 $0 37 Consultation fee Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 38 Alternate Means and Methods Application Flat 1 $300 28%28%28%28% $1,073 $1,073 $300 $773 100% $1,073 $1,073 $773 $0 39 Hazardous Materials investigation Per hour 0 $150 84%84%84%84% $179 $0 $0 $0 100% $179 $0 $0 $0 40 Appeals to decisions Per hour 0 $250 75%75%75%75% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 41 Additional hours over plan review/inspection (hourly minimum to be billed)Per hour 0 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $0 $0 $0 100% $334 $0 $0 $0 42 Site Disaster Planning Per hour 250 $150 45%45%45%45% $334 $83,495 $37,500 $45,995 100% $334 $83,495 $45,995 $0 43 Hydrant Flow Fee Flat 0 $200 59%59%59%59% $341 $0 $0 $0 100% $341 $0 $0 $0 Page 20 Attachment D Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 44 Hazardous Materials Data Entry Fee Per hour 50 $65 36%36%36%36% $179 $8,964 $3,250 $5,714 100% $179 $8,964 $5,714 $0 45 Aerosol Products Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 46 Amusement buildings Flat 0 $365 76%76%76%76% $481 $0 $0 $0 100% $481 $0 $0 $0 47 Automobile Wrecking Yard or Junk Yard Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 48 Bowling alley and pin refinishing involving the use of flammable liquids Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 49 Candles and open flames in assembly areas Flat 114 $135 44%44%44%44% $306 $34,901 $15,390 $19,511 100% $306 $34,901 $19,511 $0 50 Carnivals and fairs Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 51 Cellulose nitrate storage/nitrate film Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 52 Confined Space Flat 0 $125 10%10%10%10% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 53 Combustible fiber/material storage Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 54 Dust producing devices Flat 0 $105 8%8%8%8% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 55 Excavate within 10 feet of flammable or combustible pipeline Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 56 Explosive or blasting agents Flat 2 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $244 $510 -$266 100% $122 $244 -$266 $0 57 Fireworks display Flat 0 $525 80%80%80%80% $660 $0 $0 $0 100% $660 $0 $0 $0 58 High-piled combustible storage Flat 1 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $122 $255 -$133 100% $122 $122 -$133 $0 59 Hot Work (Welding and Cutting) operations Flat 53 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $11,226 $9,010 $2,216 100% $212 $11,226 $2,216 $0 60 Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209%$122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100%$122 $4,032 -$4,383 $060Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings Flat 33 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $4,032 $8,415 -$4,383 100% $122 $4,032 -$4,383 $0 61 Malls, Covered Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 62 B Place of public assembly (temporary)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 63 C Open flame/flame producing devices Flat 4 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $5,071 $300 $4,771 100% $1,268 $5,071 $4,771 $0 64 D Liquid or gas-fueled powered equipment Flat 0 $75 6%6%6%6% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 65 Magnesium working Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 66 Occupant load increase (temporary public assembly)Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 67 Open burning Flat 0 $200 16%16%16%16% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 68 Operate a tank vehicle to transport flammable/combustible liquids Flat 0 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $0 $0 $0 100% $122 $0 $0 $0 69 Organic coatings Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 70 Ovens, industrial baking or drying Flat 4 $255 209%209%209%209% $122 $489 $1,020 -$531 100% $122 $489 -$531 $0 71 Parade Float Per hour 0 $95 7%7%7%7% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 72 Place of public assembly (annual or each occurrence)Flat 196 $200 34%34%34%34% $594 $116,516 $39,200 $77,316 100% $594 $116,516 $77,316 $0 Page 21 Attachment D Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 73 Pyrotechnical special effects material Flat 0 $170 523%523%523%523% $33 $0 $0 $0 100% $33 $0 $0 $0 74 Refrigeration Equipment Flat 0 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $0 $0 $0 100% $212 $0 $0 $0 75 Spraying/Dipping Flat 18 $170 80%80%80%80% $212 $3,813 $3,060 $753 100% $212 $3,813 $753 $0 76 Tent or air-supported structure having an area in excess of 200 square feet; or canopies in excess of 400 square feet (includes a public assembly permit of $125.00 for all tents)Flat 30 $365 61%61%61%61% $603 $18,080 $10,950 $7,130 100% $603 $18,080 $7,130 $0 77 Tire recapping/tire storage Flat 0 $480 38%38%38%38% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 100% $1,268 $0 $0 $0 78 Corrosives Flat 62 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $10,354 $15,810 -$5,456 100% $167 $10,354 -$5,456 $0 79 Cryogenic Fluids Flat 49 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $8,183 $12,495 -$4,312 100% $167 $8,183 -$4,312 $0 80 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Flat 181 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $30,226 $46,155 -$15,929 100% $167 $30,226 -$15,929 $0 81 Flammable Solids Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 82 Compressed Gas (inert)Flat 32 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,344 $8,160 -$2,816 100% $167 $5,344 -$2,816 $0 83 Flammable Gas Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0 84 Oxidizing Gas Flat 35 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $5,845 $8,925 -$3,080 100% $167 $5,845 -$3,080 $0 85 Pyrophoric Gas Flat 2 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $334 $510 -$176 100% $167 $334 -$176 $0 86 Toxic, highly toxic, moderately toxic, health hazard Gas Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0 87 Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $087Unstable Reactive Gas Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153%$167 $0 $0 $0 100%$167 $0 $0 $0 88 Health Hazard (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 89 Organic Peroxides Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0 90 Oxidizers (liquids & solids)Flat 19 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $3,173 $4,845 -$1,672 100% $167 $3,173 -$1,672 $0 91 Pyrophoric Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 6 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $1,002 $1,530 -$528 100% $167 $1,002 -$528 $0 92 Radioactive Materials Flat 29 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $4,843 $7,395 -$2,552 100% $167 $4,843 -$2,552 $0 93 Toxic, highly toxic, health hazard materials (includes pesticides, fumigants, and etiologic agents)Flat 45 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $7,515 $11,475 -$3,960 100% $167 $7,515 -$3,960 $0 94 Unstable Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 1 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $167 $255 -$88 100% $167 $167 -$88 $0 95 Water Reactive Materials (liquids & solids)Flat 0 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $0 $0 $0 100% $167 $0 $0 $0 96 Liquefied Petroleum Gases Flat 12 $255 153%153%153%153% $167 $2,004 $3,060 -$1,056 100% $167 $2,004 -$1,056 $0 97 Emergency Response Fee (Hazmat -PAMC 17.24.050)Sliding 0 $1,080 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly 98 Engine Company Second Re-inspection (After inspection and re-inspection only) Per hour 0 $195 0%0%0%0% $0 $0 $0 $0 hourly Page 22 Attachment D Service Name Fee Description Annual Volume Current Fee Current Recovery %Full Cost Annual Cost Annual Revenue Annual Subsidy Recovery Level Fee @ Policy Level Annual Revenue Increased Revenue Subsidy City of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo AltoCity of Palo Alto Fire PreventionFire PreventionFire PreventionFire Prevention 2012201220122012 CurrentCurrentCurrentCurrent RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual Per UnitPer UnitPer UnitPer Unit AnnualAnnualAnnualAnnual 99 Installation or Closure without approved plans and/or permits (Fire Protection/HazMat; double original fee)Penatly 0 $725 n/a $725 100 Preventable False Alarm (CFC 401.3.1)Penatly 0 $180 n/a $180 Total User Fees $1,553,690 $886,140 $667,550 $1,553,690 $667,550 $0 % of Full Cost 57% 43%100% 43% 0% Page 23 Attachment D Community Services Attachment D Total Direct Expense Total Indirect Expense Total Full Cost Total Fee Revenue Total Other Revenue Total Revenue Total General Fund Subsidy Direct Costs % Recovery Full Cost % Recovery Children's Theatre 1,235,046$ 515,804$ 1,750,850$ 360,304$ 80,000$ 440,304$ 1,310,546$ 36%25% JMZ-Sciences 767,528$ 239,633$ 1,007,161$ 500,698$ -$ 500,698$ 506,463$ 65%50% JMZ-Exhibits & Zoo 408,874$ 180,183$ 589,057$ 6,721$ 3,000$ 9,721$ 579,336$ 2%2% Art in Public Places 105,629$ 45,124$ 150,753$ 2,625$ -$ 2,625$ 148,128$ 2%2% Community Theatre 29,460$ 522,435$ 551,895$ -$ 18,449$ 18,449$ 533,446$ 63%3% Summer Concerts 73,270$ 18,849$ 92,119$ -$ 2,000$ 2,000$ 90,119$ 3%2% Visual Arts-Youth 293,085$ 75,397$ 368,482$ 200,074$ 38,000$ 238,074$ 130,408$ 81%65% Visual Arts - Adults 169,697$ 43,655$ 213,352$ 61,694$ -$ 61,694$ 151,658$ 36%29% Art Exhibitions 135,481$ 34,853$ 170,334$ -$ -$ -$ 170,334$ 0%0% Music & Dance - Youth 56,845$ 14,624$ 71,469$ 62,864$ -$ 62,864$ 8,605$ 111%88% Music & Dance - Adults 61,895$ 15,923$ 77,818$ 24,314$ -$ 24,314$ 53,504$ 39%31% Arts Facilities 842,882$ 506,476$ 1,349,358$ -$ 15,802$ 15,802$ 1,333,556$ 2%1% Total Arts and Sciences 4,179,693$ 2,212,956$ 6,392,649$ 1,219,294$ 157,251$ 1,376,545$ 5,016,104$ 33%22% Aquatics 514,702$ 224,132$ 738,834$ 501,164$ -$ 501,164$ 237,670$ 97%68% MSA 326,515$ 110,157$ 436,672$ 289,391$ -$ 289,391$ 147,281$ 89%66% Recreation - Adults 278,827$ 98,389$ 377,216$ 187,686$ -$ 187,686$ 189,530$ 67%50% Recreation - Teens 306,622$ 76,472$ 383,094$ 114,540$ -$ 114,540$ 268,554$ 37%30% Program Publication 100,807$ 24,874$ 125,681$ -$ -$ -$ 125,681$ 0%0% Recreation - Youth 614,001$ 151,508$ 765,509$ 754,294$ 754,294$ 11,215$ 123%99% Rec - Special Needs 56,072$ 13,836$ 69,908$ 6,942$ 1,500$ 8,442$ 61,466$ 15%12% Recreation - Facilities 1,025,410$ 296,684$ 1,322,094$ 431,955$ -$ 431,955$ 890,139$ 42%33% Special Events 92,289$ 22,773$ 115,062$ 15,821$ 15,821$ 99,241$ 17%14% Total Recreation 3,315,245$ 1,018,825$ 4,334,070$ 2,301,793$ 1,500$ 2,303,293$ 2,030,777$ 69%53% Golf 2,388,173$ 542,126$ 2,930,299$ 2,624,748$ 95,393$ 2,720,141$ 210,158$ 114%93% Open Space 1,724,555$ 421,921$ 2,146,476$ 34,630$ 9,135$ 43,765$ 2,102,711$ 3%2% Parks 4,398,314$ 1,203,052$ 5,601,366$ 25,639$ 336,538$ 362,177$ 5,239,189$ 8%6% Total OS/Parks/Golf 8,511,043$ 2,167,099$ 10,678,142$ 2,685,017$ 441,066$ 3,126,083$ 7,552,059$ 37%29% Total Cubberley 1,349,431$ 1,064,354$ 2,413,785$ -$ 840,075$ 840,075$ 1,573,710$ 62%35% Total Human Services 1,278,249$ 428,554$ 1,706,803$ -$ -$ -$ 1,706,803$ 0%0% TOTAL CSD 18,633,661$ 6,891,788$ 25,525,449$ 6,206,104$ 1,439,892$ 7,645,996$ 17,879,453$ 41%30% Page 24 Attachment D ANIMAL SERVICES Fee Palo Alto Cupertino  (Humane  Society of SV) Fremont Menlo Park  (Peninsula  Humane) Mountain View  (SVACA) San Mateo  (Peninsula  Humane) Santa Clara (SVACA) Sunnyvale (Humane  Society SV) Adoptions ‐ Dogs $125  pp $; Adult: $175;  Companion  prices if adopt  2 $171‐$175 Under 7‐$120;  7+ ‐ $75;  under 6 mos ‐  $135 $150  Under 7‐$120;  7+ ‐ $75; under  6 mos ‐ $135 $150  Puppies: $350;  Adult: $175;  Companion prices if  adopt 2 Adoptions ‐ Cats $125  Kittens: $175;  Cats: Currently  waived $124‐$136 Under 7 ‐ $80;  7+ ‐ $50;  under 6 mos ‐  $105 Under 6 mos ‐  $150; All Other ‐  $100 Under 7 ‐ $80;  7+ ‐ $50; under  6 mos ‐ $105 Under 6 mos ‐ $150;  All Other ‐ $100 Kittens: $175; Cats:  Currently waived Impound Dog ‐  Licensed $30 (1st  offense) up to  $165 (11th+  offense) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95  (1st); $110  (2nd); $160  (3rd);  $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  Impound Dog ‐  Unlicensed $50 (1st  offense) up to  $200 (11th+  offense) $30 (1st  offense) up to  $165 (11th+  offense) $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  Impound Cat $30 (1st  offsense); $45  (2nd offense);  $60 (third  offense) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95  (1st); $110  (2nd); $160  (3rd);  $92 (1st  offense); $184  (2nd offense);  $276 (3rd  offense) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐ $205  (subsequent  offenses) $35 (Altered/1st  offense); $100  (Unaltered/1st  offense); $125‐$205  (subsequent  offenses) Altered: $90;  Unaltered: $95 (1st);  $110 (2nd); $160  (3rd);  1 9/9/2013 Attachment D ANIMAL SERVICES Fee Palo Alto Cupertino  (Humane  Society of SV) Fremont Menlo Park  (Peninsula Humane) Mountain View  (SVACA) San Mateo  (Peninsula  Humane) Santa Clara  (SVACA) Sunnyvale  (Humane  Society SV) License ‐  Dog/Neutered $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $12 (12 mos);  $17 (24 mos);  $21 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos); $55  (36 mos) $22 (12 mos); $32  (24 mos); $42 (36  mos) $20 (12 mos);  $55 (36 mos) $22 (12 mos);  $32 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) License ‐  Dog/Spayed $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) $12 (12 mos);  $17 (24 mos);  $21 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos); $55  (36 mos) $22 (12 mos); $32  (24 mos); $42 (36  mos) $20 (12 mos);  $55 (36 mos) $22 (12 mos);  $32 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $20 (12 mos);  $30 (24 mos);  $40 (36 mos) License ‐ Dog/   Unaltered $40 (12 mos);  $60 (24 mos);  $80 (36 mos)$150 (12 mos) $25 (12 mos);  $35 (24 mos);  $42 (36 mos) $50 (12 mos); $145  (36 mos) $100 (12 mos) $50 (12 mos);  $145 (36 mos) $100 (12 mos) $150 (12 mos) Neuter Dog ‐  Resident $100‐$250  based on  weight $110‐$130 based on  weight $110‐$130  based on weight Neuter Dog ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $135‐$325  based on  weight $85‐$135 based  on weight $91  $80‐$140+ based on  weight $135‐$155 based on  weight $80‐$140+ based  on weight $135‐$155  based on weight $85‐$135 based  on weight Spay Dog ‐  Resident $120‐$270  based on  weight $120‐$140 based on  weight $120‐$140  based on weight Spay Dog ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $160‐$345  based on  weight $110‐$170  based on weight $91  $90‐$150+ based on  weight $145‐$165 based on  weight $90‐$150+ based  on weight $145‐$165  based on weight $110‐$170  based on weight Neuter Cat ‐  Resident $65 $60 $60  Neuter Cat ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $90 $60 $54 $50 $75 $50 $75 $60  Spay Cat ‐  Resident $95 $70 $70  Spay Cat ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $130 $95 $54 $60 $85 $60 $85 $95  2 9/9/2013 Attachment D COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Classes/Camps Residents: $6‐ $865; Non‐ Residents: Fee  plus up to 50% Fees are formula  driven based on  instructor's hrly  rate, number of  classes, min.  number of  participants,  indirect and  equipment/supply  costs, add 20% for  non‐residents Not in fee schedule.  Fees  are published in each  Activities schedule.  Fees  are set to cover all direct  costs including  instructors, materials,  contracted services, City's  costs of arranging  programs, use of facilities  and "necessary  overhead". $5 additional  charge for non‐residents Varies ‐ City has  independent  contract  agreements  with instructors  who provides  guaranteed  income to the  course Fees for most  classes/activities  are set based on  targeted cost  recovery of  direct and/or  indirect costs for  each  class/activity Not included  in Muni Fee  schedule ‐  Priced in each  Rec Activity  Guide; Higher  fees for non‐ residents Set  administratively  by Parks/Rec  Director; non‐ residents pay  lower of 25% or  $50 more per  class than  residents Tennis Primetime: Residents ‐  $9/hr; Non‐resident ‐  $11/hr; Non‐Primetime:  $8/hr. Yearly Key ‐  Residents: $50;  Non‐residents:  $100 $8  Resident ‐  $6/hour; Non‐ resident ‐  $8/hour Aquatics ‐ Lap Swim Set by Director Daily : Non‐ Resident $4‐$6 $5  Daily: Non‐Resident $4‐$6 $6  10 Swim: Resident $40  10 Swim: Non‐ Resident $60  25 Swim: Resident $87.50  25 Swim: Non‐ Resident $109  25 Swim:  Sr./Resident $30  25 Swim: Sr./Non‐ Resident $38  3 9/9/2013 Attachment D COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Aquatics ‐  Recreational  Swim Varies by pool,  activities and  residency Set by Director Child ≤2$0‐$4 Spectator $3  Child ‐  Resident $2,50‐$5 $3 $3  Child ‐ Non‐ Resident $2.50‐$6 $4 $4  Adult ‐  Resident $3‐$6 $4 $5  Adult ‐ Non‐ Resident $3‐$8 $5 $6  Family ‐  Resident $10 $139‐$180 Family ‐ Non‐ Resident $18 $174‐$220 4 9/9/2013 Attachment D COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale GOLF ‐ 18 Holes Wkday: Resident $36‐$40 Up to $31 $33 $25 $35  Wkday ‐ Regular or  Non‐Resident $38‐$42 Up to $38 $38 $37 $35  Wkday ‐  Resident/Sr. $27‐$30 Up to $21 $27  Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17) $12‐$16 after 1pm  Sept 1‐April 30 Up to $16 $14/  resident  only Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident $46‐$51 Up to $47 $45 $34 $44  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Regular $48‐$53 Up to $54 $53 $50 $48  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident/Sr. Wkend/Holiday ‐  Jr.(≤ 17) $15‐$18 after 1 pm  Sept 1‐April 30 $17/resident only GOLF‐ 9 Holes Wkday: Resident $23‐$25 $15 $15  Wkday ‐ Regular or  Non‐Resident $23‐$25 $17 $15  Wkday ‐  Resident/Sr.$14‐$16 Wkday ‐ Jr.(≤ 17) $11‐$13  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident $26‐$29 $17 $17  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Regular or Non‐ Resident $26‐$29 $19 $19  Wkend/Holiday ‐  Resident/Sr.$17‐$19 5 9/9/2013 Attachment D FIRE Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Fire Flow Test $215 $250 $211  Fire Suppression/  Sprinkler  Inpection $325 plus  sprinkler heads Varies by type  of facility $96/hour plus  fee based on  sprinkler heads Varies by type of  facility $85/hour; 3 hour min. Varies by type of  facility $535‐$1,474  depending on  facility & sprinkler  heads Varies by  facility/size Preventable False  Alarm $195‐ $1,622/hour ‐  charged after 2  in 12 month  period After second  incident: Engine ‐  $508; Inspector ‐  $332 $134 for 3rd and  subsequent  occurences $385  $253 ‐ After 3rd  time in 180 day  period 3rd‐4th: $200;  5th‐7th:$350;  8th‐10th:  $500; 11th+:  $750 Fireworks $565 each  occurrence $96/hour $1,084 $154/hour $292 per  occurrence plus  standby personnel  at time of show $571 each  occurrence $229  Licensed  Community Care,  Residential or  Child Day Care  Inspections $160/annual or  each license  renewal Based on  assessed risk  level Pre‐license  Inspection: $164  plus $368‐$484  based on occupancy $154/hour $100 per  inspection $134‐$404  depending on  max  occupancy Haz Mat  Emergency  Response Up to $1,170  each incident or  100% full cost  recovery Job cost based  on employees'  salary plus  overhead Hourly rates Hourly rates for  personnel/engine Hourly rates for  personnel and  equipment Hourly rates for  personnel/truck  company Actual costs 6 9/9/2013 Attachment D POLICE Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Massage Estab. ‐  New $750  $395 includes  fingerprint $300 plus  background Sole proprietor ‐  $135 plus  background $900  $444 plus hrly  rate for  personnel Sole proprietor  $313 $924  Massage Estab. ‐  Renew $450 $93 $150  Sole proprietor ‐  $135 plus  background $450 $74 biyearly Sole proprietor ‐  $210 $857  Massage  Therapist ‐ New $300  $298 includes  fingerprint $60 plus  background $450  $336 plus  hourly rate for  personnel $209  Massage  Therapist ‐  Renew $150 $62 $30 $98 biyearly $45  False Alarm Registration: $38;  3rd alarm: $108;  4th: $162; 5th+:  $216 $160  Registration:  $40 (new);  Permit renew:  $20; $60 fine if  more than 3  alarms in 120  days or 5 in 365  days Registration:  $25; Standard:  $175; High Risk:  $350 Registration:  Residential ‐ $20;  Commercial ‐ $80;  2nd alarm: $100;  3rd alarm: $150; 4th  alarm: $250; 5th+  alarm: $500 2nd and  subsequent:  $104 Registration: $24;  Fines: $63 (3rd);  $90 (4th); $115  (5th +); additional  for bank hold up  alarm Registration:  Residential ‐ $35;  Business ‐ $70;  3rd‐4th alarm:  $200; 5th‐7th  alarm: $350; 8th‐ 10th alarm: $500;  11th+ alarm:  $750 Taxi Driver ‐  Permit $88/up to 4 years,  plus fingerprint $323, includes  fingerprint $306  $75, including  fingerprint $180 $90 $160 $205 Taxi Driver ‐  Renewal $194 $108 $50 $130 $37 $144  Taxi ‐ Vehicle  Inspection $66/year $28 $200 (biennial) $108 $53 $116  Fingerprinting DOJ and FBI  established fees $52 plus DOJ/FBI $45 plus DOJ  and other  agency fees City's cost plus  DOJ/FBI $72 $32 plus DOJ/FBI $66 7 9/9/2013 Attachment D POLICE Vehicle ‐  Impound  Release $135 $196  Vehicle Code  Infraction: $200;  Misdeameanor  or Felony: $300 $150 plus additional  $120 if  misdemeanor or   felony and  addiitonal $150 if  repeat offender  (within 12 mos) Impound: $76;  Stored: $76 $52 $238  7 9/9/2013 Attachment D PUBLIC WORKS Fee Palo Alto Cupertino Fremont Menlo Park Mountain View San Mateo Santa Clara Sunnyvale Encroach Residential: $430;  Non‐residential:  $460‐$920 Major: $488;  Minor: $244 Varies based on  type and size Major: $825 plus  3% of cost;  Minor: $470;  Residential:  $1,069; Non‐ residential: $1,955 $312 plus 6%  of project cost Processing Fee ‐  $186; engineering  and inspection ‐  higher of $179 or  8% of construction  cost Varies based on  size/duration Cert of  Correct/  Compliance $3,240 $1,620  Deposit/Actual  Cost Correction: First  3 sheets: $750;  Each Addl: $100;  Compliance:  $900 Compliance: $700 $107/hour Correction ‐ $2,509  per certificate;  Compliance ‐ staff  salary X 2.25 Correction: $301;  Compliance: $534 Bldg  construct/  street impact  Higher of $240 or  5% of contract  work .58% of project  valuation Flat rate plus % of  construction costs  (% varies based on  dollar amount)$910  Flat rate plus % of  construction costs (%  varies based on dollar  amount) Street Trees $100  15 gallon:  $155; 24" box:  $330 $85  15 gallon tree:  $100 15 gallon:  $11.07/linear ft. 24" box: $350 $155 $251  Street Cuts Service lateral  connection:  $1,080/ trench; $5‐ $16/sq.ft of trench  depending on  pavement  condition Minor ‐ $609;  Major:  $1,583; Over  15 days or  $30K = 5% of  project Costs Deposit plus fee  based on linear ft. Fees based on  staff hourly  billing rates Varies based on  sq.footage $312 deposit;  $107/hour Varies based on  sq.ft. and thickness  of asphalt Deposit plus fee  based on linear ft. 8 9/9/2013 Attachment D ATTACHMENT C Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy The Community Services Department (CSD) offers a variety of programs within its various divisions such as recreational activities, arts and sciences classes, and open space interpretive programs. The following Class Cost Recovery Policy is to be used as a guideline to establish cost recovery targets for fee-based classes and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks. Included in CSD’s Strategic Plan is an initiative to “focus energy and (budgetary) resources on sustaining and enhancing core services”. Through implementation of this Class Cost Recovery Policy, the department aims to establish cost recovery levels while providing core services and meeting the social needs of the community. Policy The policy takes into consideration: (1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) target level of cost recovery, and (3) fee setting considerations. Cost recovery levels are inclusive of direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include both department and City overhead. Although each program has set minimum and target cost recovery levels, other fee setting considerations may factor into the pricing of registration fees. Fee setting considerations may either increase or decrease fees and place cost recovery outside of the minimum and target levels. These factors include, but are not limited to, market rates, programs for those with special needs, new programs still being established, and population served. However, within each of the three divisions offering fee-based classes, the division-wide cost recovery should meet minimum cost recovery levels. Once a program is determined to be within the purview of the Class Cost Recovery Policy, program fees are to be established using the Class Cost Recovery Model and adjusted as needed. The model is included in the pages to follow. Each fee-based class or camp is placed in one of four Cost Recovery Groups. The groups range from Community Benefit to Personal Benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost recovery spectrum. Programs rated as Community Benefit will cost recover less, while programs rated as Personal Benefit will cost recover more. This cost structure is in line with the department’s mission statement: “Engaging individuals and families to create a strong and healthy community, through parks, open space, recreation, social service, arts, and sciences.” The four Cost Recovery Groups are: • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Attachment D Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four groups. Each group has a cost recovery range inclusive of a minimum cost recovery and a target cost recovery level. This detail is reflected in pages to follow. On an annual basis, programs are to be reviewed to ensure the established cost recovery levels are met and adjustments made. Recovered Costs Direct costs are expenses incurred in correlation to a class being offered. These costs would not be incurred if a class were not offered. Typical direct costs are instructor fees and supplies and materials. Department indirect costs cover overhead costs incurred by the department for administrative support, program supervision, utilities, and some maintenance. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless whether a class is offered or not. City indirect costs encompass citywide overhead, administrative, and facility maintenance costs. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless of whether a class is offered or not. Department indirect cost is estimated to be 15% of direct cost while both department and City indirect costs are estimated to be 35% of direct cost. These estimates are subject to change as programs are reviewed and to reflect changing overhead costs. Attachment D Class Cost Recovery Model This model is to be used by Program Coordinators, Supervisors, and Division Managers to plan, evaluate program cost recovery, and determine expenses, revenues, and course registration fees. Attachment D Class Cost Recovery Guidelines In conjunction with the Cost Recovery Model, the following guidelines are to be used to place classes and camps into one of the four Cost Recovery Groups. Process: 1) Set a cost recovery range for each Cost Recovery Group, with minimum and target recovery levels. 2) Evaluate and place each existing program in a Cost Recovery Group. 3) Determine guidelines to be used to place future new programming into a Cost Recovery Group. Parameters: 1) Apply to fee-based class and camp programs. 2) Generally, cost recovery for children’s programs will be less than adult programs. 3) Some programs may cost recover less than the minimum level. However, other programs will need to make up for the difference. 4) Approximately 15% above Direct Costs covers Department Overhead, subject to adjustment. 5) Approximately 35% above Direct Costs covers both Department and City Overhead, subject to adjustment. 6) Other fee considerations should be taken into account, such as, but not limited to, market pricing, competition from other service providers, new program being established, and population served. Cost Recovery Groups, Cost Recovery Minimum, and Cost Recovery Targets: Group I: Community Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Less than Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Direct Cost Group II: Majority Community benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 115% Direct Cost Group III: Equal Community and Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 115% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Up to 135% Direct Cost Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 135% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 135% Direct Cost Attachment D Characteristics of Community Benefit vs. Personal Benefit programs The four Cost Recovery Groups represent a cost recovery “spectrum”. Programs classified as being of Community Benefit will cost recover less than programs classified as being of Personal Benefit. Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four cost recovery groups. • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Below are characteristics to define Community and Personal benefit, opposite ends of a cost recovery “spectrum”. The opposite ends are represented by Group I and IV. As most programs have aspects of both benefits, they are placed within the spectrum in either Group II or III. Community Benefit Characteristics Personal Benefit Characteristics Youth and Teen Development Leisure Time Experiences Safety Financial Enhancement Early Childhood Development Stress Reduction Environmental Stewardship Mental / Physical Health for adults Fitness/Healthy Lifestyle for youth Professional Development Connecting / Involving People w/ Community Competitive Sports for adults Service Back to Community Personal Enhancement Encourages Volunteerism Weight Loss Cultural Understanding Fitness for adults Cross-Generational Understanding Fashion/Beauty/Personal Enhancement Unique Experiences not provided by other organizations Classes already provided by other organizations for adults Life Skills for Self Independence Life-Long Learning Diversity of Experience Skill Building Community Policing – Public Involvement Social Networking / Contacts for personal gain Sustaining our Resources Attachment D Attachment D CSD DEPARTMENT WIDE TOTAL Resident %  when  available or  applicable Non‐Resident %  when available or  applicable Number of classes and camps offered Adult 203               Child 582               Total 785               Enrollments in classes and camps Adult 2,688          76%24% Child 12,062        90%10% Total 14,750        89%11% ARTS &SCIENCES DIVISION Children's Theatre: ▪Show Attendance 27,907         ▪Show Participants 1,087           Community Theatre: ▪Show Attendance 45,635         ▪Number of Performances 175               ▪Enrollments in Music and Dance 941               Jr. Museum & Zoo: ▪Enrollments in classes and camps 2,575          87%13% ▪School Outreach Classes ‐ Est. # of Children 9,701           Art Center: ▪Total Attendance 62,055         ▪Exhibition Visitors 29,717         OPEN SPACE, PARKS, GOLF ▪Total visitors at Foothills Park 171,413       ▪Hours of Athletic Field Use 44,226         ▪Gardening Program Participants 292              100% 0% ▪Rounds of Golf 65,653        12% 88% RECREATION CLASS ENROLLMENTS ▪Dance 886               ▪Aquatics 196               ▪Middle School Athletics 1,455          95%5% ▪Private Tennis Lessons 240               ▪Other Recreation 3,532           CUBBERLEY ▪Total Number of Hours Rented 29,282         ▪Total Number of Rental Bookings 9,348          92%8% Community Services Department (CSD) Recreational Activities Participant Data  Fiscal Year 2012 Page 1 of 2 Attachment D Attachment D City Location Room Sq. Ft. Resident Non-Resident Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Ballroom 2,800 $152/hr $228/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Sequoia 2,378 $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr Mountain View Senior Center Social Hall $115 - $231/hr $289 - $405/hr Mountain View Community Center Auditorium $114 - $120/hr $182 - $197/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Community Room 1,125 $110/hr $165/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Juniper 1,085 $55 - $75/hr $75 - $100/hr Mountain View Senior Center Multi A $75 - $150/hr $174 - $289/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Fireside Room 650 $88/hr $132/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Willow 680    $35 - $50/hr $50 - $70/hr Mountain View Senior Center Multi B $23.25 - $46/hr $93 - $127/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Patio 6,300 $90/hr $135/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Large Patio $125 - $170/hr $170 - $230/hr Palo Alto Lucie Stern Center Kitchen $32/hr $48/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Kitchen 480    $25 - $40/hr $50 - $70/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Dance Studio 1,650 $47/hr $47/hr Menlo Park Arrillaga Family Center Maple Dance Studio 2,030 $75 - $100/hr $100 - $135/hr Mountain View Community Center Room 3 (Dance) $38 - $48.50/hr $113 - $131/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium A $92/hr $92/hr Palo Alto Cubberley Center Gymnasium B $110/hr $110/hr Menlo Park Onetta Harris Center Gymnasium 6,732 $59/hr $76/hr Mountain View MV Sports Pavilion Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr Mountain View Whisman Sports Center Gymnasium $110/hr $139/hr Palo Alto Rinconada & Mitchell ParksGroup Picnic Sites $43 - $119/day Not Available Menlo Park Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $5/hr $10/hr Mountain View Various Parks Group Picnic Sites $103/day Not Available Youth All others Palo Alto Various locations Athletic Fields $3 - $27/hr $46 - $216/hr Menlo Park Various locations Athletic Fields $8 - $34/hr $22 - $100/hr Mountain View Various locations Athletic Fields $2/hr $25 - $88/hr Facility Rental Rates Comparison (Fiscal Year 2013) Page 2 of 2 Attachment D FINANCE COMMITTEE Page 1 of 39 Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 5, 2013 Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Conference Room at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair), Schmid, Shepherd Absent: Chair Burt announced that Agenda Item Number 1 would be heard last and Agenda Item Number 3 would be heard first. Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1. (Former Agenda Item Number 3) Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. Walter Rossmann, Director of the Office of Management and Budget reported on policy considerations for a Draft User Fee Policy and a report from the consultant regarding the Cost Recovery Levels of fees in September 2013. The Finance Committee (Committee) directed Staff to return in November 2013 with a Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy, which was attached to the report. There were no updates to the Draft Policy since September 2013. The Committee also requested Staff discuss the cost components for fees. He mentioned that the Council would establish those fees as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 proposed Municipal Fee Schedule. In calculating the amount of a fee, Staff reviewed the salary and benefits schedule and considered the amount of Staff time required to complete an activity. Next Staff added a percentage for compensated absences, and then added the overhead for the department. Non-salary costs, if any, were also added to the calculation. The Cost Recovery Level was the cost for the service versus the fee for the service. The Committee requested Staff provide that information prior to presenting a final User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy. The Committee was able to see the entire context of fees and Cost Recovery Attachment D MINUTES Page 2 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Levels when Staff presented the final User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy in the summer of 2014. Fees above Cost Recovery Levels still needed to be adjusted. As part of the Budget process, Staff needed to determine the costs to the City and how to implement any changes. A potential consideration for cost was to increase all fees across the board. Staff was able to modify the Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy, as directed by the Committee, and then request that the Committee make a recommendation to the Council. Council Member Berman noted the final version of the Policy would be presented to the Committee for review and approval in the fall of 2015. Mr. Rossmann said the report should state the fall of 2014. Council Member Berman asked if Staff recommended the Committee review the User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy and decide whether it was sufficient to send to the full Council for discussion. Mr. Rossmann answered yes. Council Member Berman requested Staff comment on the difference between Service Recipient and Service Driver in the report. Mr. Rossmann utilized the example of a resident remodeling his home. The Service Recipient was a resident who applied for a building permit. The Driver per se was the Building Code. The Building Code provided safe construction and fire protection through construction requirements. The recipient benefited from the Building Code. Council Member Berman inquired about the meaning of a “false alarm” within the context of discouraging certain actions. Mr. Rossmann explained that police and fire responses to false alarms cost the City money. The City wanted to restrict that behavior and build other safeguards into the systems. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to direct Staff to bring forward to the City Council the Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy for Council discussion. Council Member Berman felt the Policy was incredibly helpful toward the context of different fees to be recovered from the community. The groupings provided policy guidance without being absolute. Modifications were able to be made toward fees for different services. Attachment D MINUTES Page 3 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd noted that the Council did not establish Core Values. The community wanted to provide subsidies for some activities and, therefore, wanted to analyze fees for those activities. She requested removal of the example on page 56, Item Number 2, regarding a massage establishment permit applicant. She agreed with not including square footage as a cost component on page 54. Mr. Rossmann clarified that the actual work space and persons working in that space were components. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated the City was not charging for square footage and often times community centers did not provide modern technology; however, having community centers was part of the common good. Council Member Schmid noted retiree health costs were not included in the components listed, and asked how they were included in the Cost Recovery calculation. Mr. Rossmann distributed the cost over each salary as a benefit to recapture the cost. Council Member Schmid inquired whether retiree health costs were allocated to current employees. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer explained that the salary was multiplied by the percentage of the first pension rate to determine the cost. The portion of retiree healthcare costs to be collected was part of the policy decision. Council Member Schmid requested Number Two of the Cost Recovery Policy Statement be revised for clarity purposes because none of the five bullets under Community Services adequately described Community Services' goals. He suggested another bullet be added to capture the flavor of Community Services' goals. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add a suggestion such as “the widespread participation of a diverse community in healthy activities or educational activities” as a Policy consideration. Council Member Berman stated most of Community Services programs appeared to fall within the 0 to 30 percent Cost Recovery Level. Attachment D MINUTES Page 4 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Council Member Schmid indicated the average Cost Recovery for Community Services programs was 30 percent. Mr. Rossmann added that the summary information included rent of facilities during the time that the facility was partially closed. Realistically, the Cost Recovery Level was probably between 30 percent and 70 percent. The report was slightly misleading in the way data was presented by the consultant and was correct with respect to individual programs; however, some facts were hidden in the report which decreased the Cost Recovery Level. Community Services in general fell into the middle range. Council Member Schmid wanted the statement to provide the positive sense of Community Services. Mr. Rossmann said he would revise the statement. Council Member Schmid commented that the policy did not explain why recovery levels for Community Services programs varied from 1-99 percent. Mr. Rossmann explained that Cost Recovery Levels were calculated by groupings and provided a method for addressing that issue. Staff was struggling with the lack of complete and old information from FY 2012, which contained certain assumptions. Council Member Schmid stated the Committee's objective was to revise or correct the Policy Statement before it was applied. Mr. Rossmann wanted to incorporate the Committee's considerations into the staff report to the City Council so that the Council was aware of those considerations. Mr. Perez added that the Committee could direct Staff to perform surveys to determine the community's value of each program. Chair Burt felt the process should be repeated to reach the goal between scoping the policy and reviewing examples to determine whether they were consistent with the prospective policy. He questioned the Community Value Decision to highly subsidize adult Arts and Recreation Programs, not youth Arts and Recreation Programs. On the other hand, other programs specifically for youth were highly subsidized. The totality of youth services in the community was not tilted as badly. Within particular categories it was tilted in an odd way. The Committee requested Staff attempt to capture the values that the Council wanted to embrace under these categories, in particular around Community Services. Attachment D MINUTES Page 5 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Rossmann reported that Staff wanted to prospectively determine fees by reviewing costs and estimating activity levels, especially in the classroom environment. A class with 20 students provided a lower cost per student than a class with 10 students. Typically the level of youth participation in classes was much higher than adult participation; higher participation led to higher revenue. The Cost Recovery Level was also higher because the cost was constant. Chair Burt understood the Cost Recovery Level for youth programs was lower. Mr. Rossmann indicated it was 80 percent. Chair Burt agreed that higher participation led to a higher Cost Recovery Level. Mr. Rossmann explained that Staff determined fees by prospectively reviewing budgeted costs and the estimated activity level. The report was very useful and provided insight; however, he was hesitant to use it as the guiding factor from a Cost Recovery Level perspective. Chair Burt agreed the report would inform rather than stipulate how the Committee set the structures. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 2. Development Impact Fees: Approval of List of Public Facilities Capital Needs. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer reported that Development Impact Fees (DIF) were designed to allow agencies to recapture the additional cost of services required as a result of new development. A DIF was only applied to Capital Costs. A Nexus Study was required to demonstrate that the proposed fee was appropriately scaled to match the likely increase in cost. Staff proposed two new fees: a Public Safety Fee and a General Government Facility Fee. Only Transportation Fees were updated because other Development Fees were at the appropriate levels within the preliminary review. The Capital Needs List was to be used to calculate and update proposed new fees. The Finance Committee (Committee) needed to review and approve the Capital Needs List. Council approval of the Capital Needs List was not required; however, the Committee was able to recommend the Council review it. The Capital Needs List contained more projects than the Infrastructure Committee Project List Attachment D MINUTES Page 6 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 because the Infrastructure Committee focused on projects that were prioritized but had no funding. The Committee was able to include projects that could conceivably be performed within the designated time period. The List included projects funded primarily through the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Budget on a pay-as-you-go basis. The cost of a project was able to be reduced by any revenue identified for that project. If a project was partially funded through the five-year plan, then the Capital Needs List contained only the delta. If the City received new funding for projects included on the Capital Needs List, the project cost needed to be adjusted at a later point in time. Nate Perez, Vice President, David Taussig and Associates (DTA), explained that DIF’s were not utilized to cure existing deficiencies or for operations and maintenance. They were only utilized for Capital Projects. The standard for projects was a useful life of five years or longer. DIF’s were a function of California Law, which demanded a certain level of proportionality and nexus. The methodologies proposed for the Nexus Study could be difficult, but the nexus depended on the given fee category being analyzed. Chair Burt requested Mr. Nate Perez comment on the voluntary aspect of fees. Mr. Nate Perez indicated the term "voluntary" was a term used to mean art. The exactions were made legal by Assembly Bill (AB) 1600. The Bill was oriented to the development community. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the collection of DIF’s were voluntary for the City. Mr. Nate Perez replied yes. Chair Burt asked if “voluntary” applied to the City or to those paying the fees. Mr. Nate Perez stated the voluntary comment referred to the development community, who were responsible for paying the fees in order to obtain a building permit. Staff requested DTA provide a comparative survey of peer cities in the South Bay Area. Cities preferred to charge DIF’s at an average level; however, none committed to reducing fees to an average level. Among South Bay cities, fees averaged between $30,000 and $40,000 for a single-family dwelling unit. He felt that the City's fees did not inhibit the City's attractiveness to the development community; a small change in any one of the fees changed that. The City's fees were slightly high, but were manageable. The Water Fee was a significant amount and negatively Attachment D MINUTES Page 7 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 impacted the City. Vice Mayor Shepherd requested clarification of Water Fee. Mr. Nate Perez meant the Water Sewer Hookup Fee for new homes. Impact Fees typically included Housing Fees, Transportation Fees, Water and Sewer Fees, and Capital Facilities Fees. The City was very competitive with respect to Capital Facilities Fees. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked why the Affordable Housing Fee was not included in the list of fees. Mr. Nate Perez explained that it was an In-lieu Fee. A developer who constructed one single-family home was not necessarily conditioned to pay an Affordable Housing Fee. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood developers paid the fee when they built homes. Mr. Nate Perez indicated cities had different triggers for fees. Some cities required fees for each project, some required fees for projects of more than 50 parcels. Chair Burt recommended information from Santa Clara not be included in the presentation, as it skewed the data. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired about the process for collecting Capital Facility Fees. Mr. Nate Perez stated that was similar to the General Government Fee he proposed for a Municipal Services Building. He thought that would be a good fee for the City to begin collecting. Chair Burt requested Staff comment on the drivers for the amount of the Water Sewer Hookup Fee. Mr. Lalo Perez did not have specific details, but recalled the Council reviewed it approximately five years ago to establish the range and accept the percentage. Chair Burt wanted the City to have Park Fees comparable to Park Fees collected by other cities and not be inhibited by a High Water Hookup Fee. Mr. Nate Perez suspected that the high cost of the new water system and Attachment D MINUTES Page 8 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 the extension of water pipes was a driver of the fee. Perhaps some elements of the City were not served quite as well as other elements. Mr. Lalo Perez believed the cost resulted from building up the reservoirs, but he said he would review the matter. Chair Burt felt the City had two major capital categories: rebuilding the Hetch-Hetchy system and emergency water supplies. Mr. Lalo Perez noted the City did not have funding when the fee was established. Chair Burt asked if the City could charge new hookups for an existing system. Mr. Nate Perez replied no. The allocation occurred in the setting of the fee level because the numerator was the cost of the new system, and the denominator was the number of new homes or new nonresidential square footage. Chair Burt inquired whether the City could charge for the new system after it being built. Mr. Nate Perez reported once the system was built, the City could charge the homes and the demographics contained within the study. The projections within the study were based upon the number of homes and nonresidential square footage. Chair Burt asked if the City could implement a fee if construction of the system was based upon a future projected need. Mr. Nate Perez answered yes. Mr. Lalo Perez requested time to confirm the correct information regarding the hookup fee, given the amount of the fee. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked Staff to explain the Fire Facility Fee charged by Menlo Park. Mr. Nate Perez assumed it was utilized for additional fire capital improvements. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the fee would be used for capital improvements to Menlo Park's fire stations. Attachment D MINUTES Page 9 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Nate Perez responded yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd indicated Palo Alto did not charge that fee. Mr. Lalo Perez proposed a General Government Fee that could capture those types of things. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the fee was used for development. Mr. Nate Perez replied that the fee could only be utilized for new development. In light of Palo Alto's unique nature, he was suggesting maximum fees. The City Council always retained the authority to charge lower fees. The Citywide Transportation Fee, approximately $3,000 per single family home, was able to be slightly increased. He suggested two new fee categories to help cover some costs of capital improvements. He said a Public Safety Fee could be utilized for a new Public Safety Building, some new fire stations, some new rescue vans, and things such as that. A General Government Fee was utilized for a Municipal Service Center. Funds generated by those fees were able to be used to assist the City in meeting some costs. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired if the proposed increase to the Community Facility Fee could be used to pay for some fire and police capital improvements. Mr. Lalo Perez answered no. It was meant for community centers. Mr. Nate Perez was not comfortable putting municipal buildings in the Community Facility category. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted funds generated by fees would be appropriated and then used for the CIP Budget. She asked if those funds were differentiated from General Fund dollars allocated to CIP. Mr. Lalo Perez responded yes because Staff identified the source of funding that came from a fee. Mr. Nate Perez reported some communities did not have as many fees as others. The draft Capital Needs List was meant to be expansive and inclusive and was prepared using the best information Staff had. If there were no projects on the Capital Needs List, then there could be no fees. As circumstances changed, projects had the potential to be removed from and added to the Capital Needs List. Attachment D MINUTES Page 10 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Council Member Berman thought it was better for the Capital Needs List to be as inclusive as possible Mr. Nate Perez was not able to target a fee level and then work backwards to determine funding for improvement projects. He tried to be inclusive of projects, calculated some draft fees, and circulated draft fees to the Committee for its impressions. Council Member Berman stated fees would not provide sufficient funds to build a new Municipal Services Center or Public Safety Building; yet, the two projects were being considered in determining the amount of fees. He inquired about the process for setting fees. Mr. Nate Perez explained that the bottom line numbers were the numerator, and the number of shared new homes and nonresidential square feet over the next 20 years was the denominator. He thought fees should be controlled, mitigated, and moderately increased to provide more revenue without jeopardizing the City's relationship with the development community. Chair Burt wanted to consider setting a fee level that would cause new development to pay for its proportionate share of the cost of the additional capital improvements needed to sustain the community. That was the fair framework and was the objective discussion. Mr. Lalo Perez reported that was the Council's practice in the past. There were different discussions as to having a percentage of the fee be the fee itself, and that depended on the type of fee. Chair Burt recalled that the discussion of a Park Impact Fee was based on two acres per 1,000 people, and that was embedded in the Comprehensive Plan as an objective. The Council was not able to have a Policy Objective of what they thought was correct for the community. He thought a 10 percent increase in car trips could cause a 20 or 30 percent increase in congestion. The question then became whether new developments paid for 10 percent of the total number of car trips or for the 30 percent increase in congestion. The guidance was that the City could not charge fees based on the 30 percent of congestion. He was interested in framing the levels of fees in that manner. Mr. Nate Perez indicated the Transportation Fee would be reviewed for trips and congestion. The City currently based its Park Impact Fee on five acres per 1,000 people and the Parkland Dedication Fee was technically different Attachment D MINUTES Page 11 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 than the Park Impact Fee. He noted that one or the other could be charged. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if funds from a Parkland Dedication Fee were utilized to purchase parkland, rather than maintenance of parks. Mr. Nate Perez explained a developer above 50 parcels paid the Dedication Fee or gave up the land. An individual homeowner paid the Park Impact Fee. For Capital Facilities and General Government Fees, the Nexus Study reviewed the increase in persons served and calls for service from police and fire. Chair Burt noted the Committee's Agenda Item was to review the Capital Needs List. Council Member Berman inquired about the lack of new police vehicles under police facilities. The category contained only the Public Safety Building, while the fire category contained multiple projects. Mr. Lalo Perez reported the majority of police vehicles were embedded in fleet replacement. The amount of funds estimated at the time fire vehicles were enrolled in fleet replacement did not align with the cost. Council Member Berman asked if the cost of replacing police vehicles was contained within the Budget. Chair Burt assumed the City retained fire trucks far longer than police vehicles. Mr. Lalo Perez indicated fire engines were typically retained 15 years, as opposed to three years for police vehicles. Chair Burt stated projects enduring less than five years did not qualify under the capital definition. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the Capital Needs List contained only one parking garage, when many parking improvements were needed to reduce neighborhood overflow. Mr. Lalo Perez clarified that the Capital Needs List contained two parking garages. Staff did not have a study to verify the number of garages needed; therefore, they used the best information they had. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether the City could collect a fee to construct a Public Safety Building when the amount of fees generated would Attachment D MINUTES Page 12 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 not pay to construct it. Mr. Lalo Perez reported the Capital Needs List could not contain items that the Council knew would not be constructed. The City needed a Public Safety Building; he thought it could be funded through other means and Staff had a reasonable cost estimate. Vice Mayor Shepherd referenced the $16 million cost for the Civic Center plaza deck, and inquired whether the Capital Needs List included a project to seismically retrofit the building. Mr. Eggleston indicated Staff was not planning a project to seismically retrofit the building. Mr. Lalo Perez understood the building was retrofitted through the elevator shafts in the early 1990s. He was unaware of additional requirements since that occurred. Chair Burt remarked that a higher level of seismic retrofitting was required for buildings providing essential services than for buildings providing general services. Mr. Lalo Perez believed the work in the 1990s took care of the tower but not necessarily the wing. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the retrofit included City Hall. Mr. Lalo Perez did not believe so, but said he would have to check on that. Chair Burt felt there were two possible thresholds. One was whether the upgrade in the 1990s met the current requirements for general services. The second threshold was whether the upgrade met the highest seismic standard for essential services. Mr. Lalo Perez said he would review construction records. Chair Burt was interested in including seismic retrofitting as a long-term capital need. Mr. Lalo Perez agreed it would be a reasonable project to include if an additional retrofit was needed to meet current standards. Mr. Nate Perez stated new residents would obviously benefit from that project. Attachment D MINUTES Page 13 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Council Member Schmid referenced the quote from the Act regarding inclusion of public improvements and public services; however, Mr. Nate Perez indicated the Council could only utilize funds for capital investments. He requested clarification. Mr. Nate Perez reported a category of public services under water and sewer would qualify for the DIFs. For the City's purposes, public services were not able to be included on the list. Council Member Schmid noted that the Staff Report did not state that public services were excluded. Vice Mayor Shepherd questioned the inclusion of $750,000 for computers. Council Member Schmid reiterated that the Act included public services. Mr. Nate Perez stated use of DIFs was restricted to capital improvements. Council Member Schmid asked why grade crossings were not included on the Capital Needs List. The Council voted to fund a detailed study. Chair Burt indicated the Council did not make a policy decision to include grade crossings in long-term capital plans at the current time. Council Member Schmid remarked that the Capital Needs List was inclusive to 2035. Chair Burt explained that the Capital Needs List was inclusive of work identified as a prospective project. Council Member Schmid felt grade crossings could become a viable project before the Nexus Study was presented in the spring of 2014. Chair Burt agreed the Council could move the grade separation issue from a possibility to an intention. He expected that at that point in time, it would be included in the Capital Needs List. Council Member Schmid believed development would enhance the need for the program. He requested Staff review the timeline. Vice Mayor Shepherd questioned the inclusion of computers on the Capital Needs List. Attachment D MINUTES Page 14 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Nate Perez reported Information Technology (IT) upgrades were identified as projects. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the Item was listed as an acquisition of new computers, not IT upgrades, and asked if the description needed to be changed. Mr. Lalo Perez stated that he would work on that. If the Committee preferred to refer the Item to the Council, it could probably be presented to the Council in January 2014. He mentioned that David Taussig and Associates and Staff could present the Nexus Study to the Council or return to the Committee. If the Nexus Study returned to the Committee, then Staff needed to implement a faster track. The final study was to be presented to the Council for approval in April 2014. Next, Staff was going to discuss how to incorporate DIFs into the proposed 2015 Budget process during the Budget hearings in May 2014. DIFs were to be presented to the Council in June 2014 and implemented in July. Council Member Schmid expressed concern about the focus on the Capital Needs List rather than on the elements of the nexus that were apparent in Attachment A. A number of critical questions needed discussion. The Council discussed that the assessment of four workers per 1,000 square feet could be a misstatement. That assessment was a critical part of the nexus study. The study had a tremendous impact on parking structures, roadways, and transportation. Chair Burt asked to which study Council Member Schmid was referring. Council Member Schmid commented that the Transportation Fee and Traffic Impact Fee implied certain assumptions about development. Vice Mayor Shepherd believed Council Member Schmid was referring to a study to change the assessment of four workers per 1,000 square foot. Council Member Schmid referenced the Planning Director's statement in January 2013 that the City needed to update the Traffic and Parking Study because the numbers were outdated. Chair Burt was unclear to which study he was referring as the Planning Director's statement was a specific study in a specific timeframe. He agreed there was an issue. He understood the City historically framed Impact Fees as dollars per square foot. The Council was not sure that was the correct metric. If the Council implemented a Business License Tax linked to number of employees, then businesses with differing employees per square foot Attachment D MINUTES Page 15 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 needed to pay the same amount per square foot but would suffer radically different impacts. Council Member Schmid reported the table contained four or five assumptions about things that had tremendous impacts on the nexus. He asked when the Council would have an opportunity to discuss that within the timeline. Mr. Nate Perez requested updated demographics from the Planning Department three times. He mentioned that the demographics would be front and center in the Nexus Study. He had competing demographic data sources, which he vetted and adjusted to reflect Council Member Schmid's concerns. He noted that he could provide a review of demographics as well. Council Member Schmid expressed an interest in an actual number and a methodology to vet that number. Mr. Lalo Perez noted DTA recommended updating the Citywide Transportation Fee. He inquired whether Council Member Schmid's concern would be part of the Nexus Study review, even though Staff did not propose updating all fees. Mr. Nate Perez indicated Council Member Schmid was concerned that utilizing the existing Transportation Fee Study with new demographics would result in a different fee without changing the improvements. Council Member Schmid was asking DTA to review both the improvements and the demographics. Council Member Schmid inquired whether that would be part of the March 2014 presentation to the Council. Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Committee's decision. The intent of the timeline was to update the Capital Needs List as soon as possible to be able to collect fees from projects creating incremental impacts. The Committee was able to direct Staff with respect to a different timeline. Council Member Schmid was concerned that the information would be overshadowed by the proposed Budget. Chair Burt concurred that there was an issue. He asked if the Nexus Study could be presented to the Committee before the Council. Mr. Lalo Perez indicated Staff could present it to the Committee prior to the Council. Attachment D MINUTES Page 16 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Chair Burt wanted the Committee to review the Nexus Study without delaying the timeline. Mr. Lalo Perez needed to ensure Staff could meet the timeline and would notify the Committee in the January 2014 update. Mr. Nate Perez noted that providing a Capital Needs List before the Nexus Study seemed bizarre. Chair Burt expressed concern with respect to new residents versus commercial space and employees. He was not able to recall whether certain fees were apportioned. Public Safety and Transportation Fees were able to be fully apportioned to new employees. He thought new employees living outside Palo Alto would probably not utilize parks, community centers, and libraries as much as residents. Utilizing the same ratio between Residential and Commercial Fees most likely did not apply equally for each category. Mr. Nate Perez concurred that the same ratio did not always apply equally. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff recommended the Committee to approve the Capital Needs List. Mr. Lalo Perez answered yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt the Item should be presented to the Council on the Consent Calendar to make the Council aware of the Capital Needs List and its contents. She asked if the Capital Needs List would be final when it was presented to the Council. Mr. Lalo Perez reported the Capital Needs List would be final once the Council approved it. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether projects could be added to the Capital Needs List once the Council approved it. Mr. Lalo Perez believed the timeline would be delayed if projects were added to the Capital Needs List. Chair Burt noted the Staff recommendation implied it would be presented to the Council. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff wanted to present the Item to the Council as an Action Item. Attachment D MINUTES Page 17 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Lalo Perez indicated that was the Committee's decision. If it was a Consent Item, the Council could provide Staff with comments or remove it from Consent Calendar. Chair Burt explained that if the Committee voted unanimously, the Item would be placed on the Consent Calendar; although, the Mayor and City Manager were able to move it to an Action Item. Council Member Schmid felt the Item was too important for the Consent Calendar and that the Council needed to review the list to prepare for the Nexus Study. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Shepherd to recommend the City Council approve, on the Action Agenda, the Development Impact Fee Capital Needs List. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested the Staff Report to the Council feature the proposed new fees. Chair Burt referenced the fact that the City had not charged fees for major remodels. The definition of major remodel was revised a few years ago. He wished to have a valid distinction made for remodeling. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood an Impact Fee applied to a new family building a new place to live in Palo Alto. Chair Burt indicated that was not a definition, but it was useful for discussion. He noted the comparisons to other cities did not include a percentage of the value of the constructed property. That was a better indication of whether fees were at or below the mean. He inquired whether that metric would be appropriate for comparing fees. Mr. Nate Perez added that he could utilize the appraised value to provide that information. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 3a. (Formerly Agenda Item Number 1) Audit of Contract Oversight: Trenching and the Installation of Electric Substructure. Houman Boussina, Acting City Auditor reviewed the Utilities Department's $1.9 million contract with Casey Construction to determine if the Utilities Department effectively managed its contract in accordance with contract Attachment D MINUTES Page 18 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 terms, the Municipal Code, and relevant policies and procedures. Contracting was an important area that could be high risk if adequate controls were not implemented for all phases of the procurement process. The audit found the City did not appropriately award the contract to Casey Construction because the Utilities Department and the Administrative Services Department (ASD) did not effectively address a significant variance between the City's estimated cost and the selected contractor's flawed bid, which may have resulted in additional costs of approximately $281,000. In the estimate it was assumed that another contractor would have performed a similar amount of work during the given period of time. While the City awarded the contract to the lowest bidder, it did not award the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, as defined by the Municipal Code. The Auditor did not feel Staff accurately communicated to the Council why Casey's Construction bid was significantly lower than other submitted bids, including being lower than the City's estimate. Staff attributed the difference between its estimate of contract costs and Casey's Construction bid to be a lack of demand for construction projects. After the City opened bids, Casey Construction realized it made a mistake in the bid. Casey Construction initially wished to retract its bid and was willing to forfeit a $71,000 bid bond. According to Casey Construction, City Staff gave Casey Construction assurance to proceed with the contract by indicating that Casey Construction could utilize optional time-and-material line items. Casey Construction billed the City primarily utilizing those optional bid line items. The primary bid line items were lump-sum or unit-priced items and were intended to be the main method for pricing all work under the contract. The contract was not appropriately reevaluated or renewed. In 2009 the Utilities Department and ASD entered into a one-year contract for $652,000. The City paid Casey Construction approximately $1.9 million during the three- year period of August 2009 through August 2012, including approximately $1.7 million without a valid contract. The City did not formally execute a new contract document for each extension year as required by the contract. There was no evidence that Staff had formally assessed the performance or the contract compliance of Casey Construction. The Utilities Department did not enforce contract billing terms that were the basis for awarding the contract to Casey Construction and the Auditor found significant variances between contract estimates and actual costs. Only 19 percent, or $365,000 of $1.9 million was based on the contract's primary bid line items; 74 percent of contract billings was based on the contract's optional bid line items. Staff authorized payment of invoices even though these line items were not intended to be the main method of pricing work. Additionally, Staff authorized payment of seven percent of contract charges for items not identified by any line item in the contract. The Utilities Department did not appropriately manage the contract to ensure the City's projects were completed in accordance with plans and cost estimates. There was no Attachment D MINUTES Page 19 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 documentation showing quotes were reasonable and consistent with contract terms that were appropriately approved. The Utilities Department's Staff reviewed invoices but the review process did not ensure compliance with contract terms. The Utilities Department did not maintain documentation indicating the billings were consistent with quotes. The Utilities Department did not maintain documentation indicating projects were appropriately inspected and closed out, evidencing approval and completion of planned work. The audit had six recommendations addressed to the Utilities Department and/or ASD. Most recommendations called for implementation of policies and procedures to correct deficiencies noted. James Keene, City Manager suggested the Finance Committee (Committee) first ask questions of the Auditor. Chair Burt requested Staff respond to the Auditor's findings and then the Committee would question both the Auditor and Staff. Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer accepted the recommendations and said formalizing recommendations into policies and procedures were appropriate. In accepting proposals, there was a great deal of complexity. Vendor's pricing methods were cyclical and there was a large difference between the lowest bidder and the second lowest bidder. During the time period the contract was awarded, the economy declined and Staff reported bids were 20 to 30 percent lower than Staff estimates. He said the magnitude of the difference between the lowest and second lowest bids was not an issue and an admission of error was a concern that needed to be discussed and resolved. One problem was that ASD did not document discussions with Casey Construction. It was resolved that Casey Construction would honor the bid, which was stated in a memo from Casey Construction. Additional information surfaced regarding the implementation of time and material usage; however, he needed to review the information and determine when that occurred. He felt ASD should have followed up with the Utilities Department. Typically ASD turned the contract over to the Utilities Department for management once the bid was awarded. He agreed with the Auditor's recommendation on that point. Valerie Fong, Utilities Director reported that the Casey Construction contract was unusual in that it was dependent on services, and actual work performed was not defined in advance. The Utilities Department Staff reviewed other existing contracts and did not find the same procedural gaps. The Utilities Department Staff established new processes for checks and balances to manage requests for work from customers, contractor estimates, contractor performances, and contractor invoicing. In addition, the Utilities Department centralized retention of documents and was increasing Staff. In Attachment D MINUTES Page 20 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 addition, she met with engineering and operations Staff to impress upon them the importance of contract management. Employee training was implemented with respect to Requests for Proposals (RFP) and project management. Mr. Keene agreed that the issues were due to awarding and managing contracts. ASD acknowledged that additional elements needed review. He thought this was more of an issue of contract management than contract award. The Auditor's Office indicated a preference for the Purchasing Department within the Utilities Department to exercise more control over the award. The environment for contracts in 2009 and 2010 was unique because of the economy. The Auditor's Office indulged in possibilities of alternatives without basing those alternatives on fact. Staff was not able to refute those possibilities because they did not follow an appropriate accountable process. Staff also failed to manage and document the contract because the contract was awarded on one-time basis and implemented on another basis, which was inexcusable. Council Member Berman felt Staff needed a policy such that when the lowest bid was a certain percentage below the second lowest bid, it was reviewed more closely. If a bidder did not have the expertise to submit an accurate bid, then it did not have the expertise to perform the work. Casey Construction seemed to have problems understanding the project from the beginning, which should have alerted Staff. Staff needed to be more candid about information when asked by Council to approve a contract. He noted Staff's response indicated Staff did review Casey's Construction performance. However, the audit indicated there was no evidence of formal assessment of performance or contract compliance. He inquired whether Staff had any evidence of a review. Ms. Fong relayed that Staff requested a great deal of work from the contractor and they performed well. Tom Ting, Electric Engineering Manager reported Staff most likely held a verbal discussion of whether to renew the contract. Council Member Berman asked if a contract performance review would be written in the future. Mr. Ting indicated the Utilities Department Staff would work with the Purchasing Department to formalize a process to review a contractor and to ensure they meet all expectations in the future. Mr. Perez wanted to standardize the review process across the organization Attachment D MINUTES Page 21 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 with a checklist and a requirement for documentation. Chair Burt requested an explanation of the contract renewal process. Mr. Ting did not have any documentation of the process and discussions. Chair Burt asked the amount of the contract renewal. Mr. Ting stated the total contract amount was $1.9 million. The first year of the contract amounted to $652,000, and the second year was approximately the same amount. Chair Burt calculated a renewal amount of approximately $1.3 million. Mr. Keene added that the contract was paid over a two year period. Chair Burt inquired about the length of time Staff investigated the contract. Ms. Fong indicated the audit was conducted over the past few months. Chair Burt asked if the problem was brought to the Utilities Department's attention in that same timeframe. Ms. Fong answered yes. Chair Burt wanted to understand how the review was performed. Ms. Fong reported the difficulty was that the Utilities Department Staff involved with the contract had retired or left the City's employ. The Utilities Department Staff contacted former employees, who recalled that a second invitation for bid (IFB) was developed but not issued because of contract terms. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff had any documentation. Mr. Perez explained that the purchase request became the purchase order because the contract was approved by the Council. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether auditors were able to review the documents. Mr. Boussina reported that the auditors did not find evidence that there was an effort to formally renew the contract at the anniversary dates. Attachment D MINUTES Page 22 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if City files contained any documents. David Ramberg, Assistant Director of Administrative Services Department said once a department selected a bidder, then they entered a purchase requisition into the Systems, and Applications, Products and Data Processing (SAP). The requisition then moved to the Purchasing Department’s work queue, where the Purchasing Department turned the purchase requisition into a purchase order. The purchase order affected the renewal of the contract. Next, the purchase order was printed and placed in the contract file. The Casey Construction contract file included the City Manager Report (CMR), all bid documents leading to the selection of Casey Construction, and renewal documents. The Purchasing Department did not complete a request for a refresh of the bond certificate. Other SAP transactions were completed to produce the purchase order, which effected renewal of the contract based on the Council’s authority for three years. The process usually occurred prior to the anniversary of the contract. The months of May and June were extremely busy for Staff in processing these types of documents because many contracts were renewed at the end of the fiscal year. Chair Burt noted that Staff suggested the problem occurred because of some Staff leaving the City's employ; while news reports indicated new employees were the cause of that problem. He requested clarification of that point. Ms. Fong said the engineering person who retired recalled drafting an IFB to rebid the contract and the agreement to honor the original bid. New Staff managed the contract. The Utilities Department continued to have Staff turnover. Chair Burt asked who handled the contract renewal. Mr. Ting stated the current Contract Manager was employed at the time of the renewal. The engineering manager who helped the Contract Manager retired. Chair Burt reiterated that the Contract Manager remained employed with the City while the Engineering Manager who supervised the Contract Manager retired. Ms. Fong added that Staff on the operations side of the Utilities Department also had some lapses. Chair Burt inquired whether the project manager knew how the contract was renewed. Attachment D MINUTES Page 23 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Ting said yes and that Staff typically did not have a single meeting to discuss a contract. Engineering Staff discussed contractors with operations Staff throughout the year to determine if the contractor was performing and if Staff wished to renew a contract. Chair Burt noted the contractor's quality of performance was good. Staff did not provide an explanation of the decision to move from a fixed-price contract on a project with an undefined scope of work to a time-and- materials contract. Council Member Berman remarked that the Staff response indicated fixed cost items were utilized during the first six months of the contract. When that method of invoicing became difficult, Staff decided to change to time- and-materials pricing. He recalled a statement that the City used fixed cost and time and materials; he asked if utilizing fixed costs was difficult. Mr. Ting indicated the prior contract was a time-and-materials contract. As mentioned in the audit, it was difficult to keep a contractor motivated to work on a time-and-materials contract. Staff attempted to utilize a fixed price by developing bid items to define generic types of work. He thought the contract would price out many of the bid items. In most cases the contractor priced work as if the work was in a green field installation, meaning there were no other utilities. In a typical project the contractor had a defined scope of work and they priced the work out. The Casey Construction contract was meant to be used as a blanket contract for any project involving customer service, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), or for emergency and maintenance work. Engineering and Operation Managers were able to call the contractor for a price estimate for some type of work. The difficulty was having Staff request a contractor to provide a price for work performed in different situations. Under the Casey Construction contract and the circumstances, Staff negotiated time-and- materials prices for additional work with Casey Construction. Chair Burt wanted to know the process for renewing the contract and how the nature changed. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted to know when the nature changed. Council Member Berman noted the basis changed apparently six months into the contract. Mr. Keene stated the six-month statement was uncertain. Chair Burt asked when the basis changed. Attachment D MINUTES Page 24 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Ting reported the basis changed prior to the renewal, during the first year of the contract. As Staff worked with the contractor, they had issues working with fixed bid items. Ms. Fong indicated those difficulties prompted the former engineering manager to reissue an IFB on a time-and-materials basis. At that point, she understood the contractor agreed to honor its original bid. Council Member Schmid inquired about ASD's involvement in the contract renewal; they wanted to know what happened once the basis changed. Mr. Perez explained that in the current process ASD was not involved in contract renewal unless an issue arose. Council Member Schmid asked if ASD was aware of the change in the contract. Mr. Perez stated ASD was not informed that there were issues with the contract. Mr. Ting remarked that it was the Utilities Department's responsibility to return to a bid. Time-and-materials pricing was an option within the initial bid. In hindsight, the Utilities Department needed to bid on the contract on a time-and-materials basis. Mr. Keene reported the Utilities Department acknowledged that someone made a determination not to perform under the conditions of the bid award and to change to a time-and-materials contract. Staff did not comply with the terms of the bid, and the Auditor's point was legitimate. When there were opportunities at renewal to clarify the point, it did not happen. Ms. Fong added that Staff replaced the contract with a time-and-materials contract. Council Member Schmid noted a bid line contract was not a fixed contract. The contractor performed a unit of work, but in any project the unit of work was going to be different. Therefore, a bid line contract had flexibility. Mr. Boussina concurred and said the contract specifically contained unit- priced line items. Unit price contracts are a variation of fixed price contracts. The contract was not a fixed price contract in the sense that there would be a total cost for an entire project. Attachment D MINUTES Page 25 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Chair Burt asked if the bid line contract was a formula for billing the City. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the contract had flexibility throughout the term of the project. Mr. Boussina replied yes. The contract accounted for the different types of work. There were many different types of unit prices and many bid line items. Many of these items were unit-price or fixed-price line items because the contract attempted to cover many different types of work. Council Member Schmid asked if the estimated loss of $281,000 accounted for variations in the project. Mr. Boussina reported the estimated $281,000 assumed that the next bidder would have billed the City in the same way and would have performed the same amount of work in the same period of time. That was the best estimate the Auditor could determine. If the documentation was available, then it would allow the Auditor to redirect all billing performed to retrospectively estimate the cost using unit price line items and the Auditor would be able to provide that data to the Committee. Vice Mayor Shepherd said Staff was trying a new system in an effort to control costs and believed it was typical for the City to have an engineer's estimate. She asked if the contract was the first one between the City and Casey Construction. Ms. Fong indicated the City had other contracts with Casey Construction. Vice Mayor Shepherd was unsure whether Staff made a decision not to utilize time-and-materials billings. She inquired about the City's job file and whether inspectors signed off on invoices. Mr. Perez explained that Staff had two steps for contracts. Mr. Ting clarified that the document Vice Mayor Shepherd had was not an invoice; it was an estimate from the contractor. Staff provided a contractor with a scope of work and requested an estimate for the work. Vice Mayor Shepherd did not believe a quote was needed under a contract, and asked how a quote became involved. Mr. Ting reported the contract was not typical because there was not a fixed scope of work. The contract was used for several different projects as they arose. Attachment D MINUTES Page 26 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the report did not contain a copy of the contract. Chair Burt asked if Staff received a quote for each project based upon the formula in the bid, even if the contract was properly handled under the bid line scenario. Ms. Fong responded yes. If Staff had a better defined list of bid items, they could have used the bid items in that way. Chair Burt inquired whether the contractor would have provided a quote for each project. Vice Mayor Shepherd added that a contract had phases and dates. Chair Burt explained that Staff provided the volume of work and said the contactor bid was based on a metric system as a means of rating. The quote needed to be articulated in a way that was consistent with the fixed bid. He asked if his explanation was accurate. Mr. Boussina answered yes and said he understood that projects were not defined at the beginning of the contract. He added that the contract specified a process of submitting quotes and receiving approval. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff had an invoice to match the quote. She also asked if Staff received invoices prior to issuing payment. Mr. Boussina responded yes and said finding four indicated the Auditor was not able to match the work performed with approved quotes and added that a much higher level of detailed controls was needed, especially for a time- and-materials contract. David Yuan, Contract Manager for Utilities reported that a sample bill reflected the work order, the street address of the work, the time cards of contractor employees, and the billing hours charged. Throughout the contract, Staff received more than 200 work orders. Staff had documents and time cards for each work order. Mr. Ting explained that each engineer utilizing the contract had their own job file and each estimator could have his own job file. Staff changed the process such that the Contract Manager would have one centralized file. Mr. Perez indicated that the Utilities Department deemed an invoice ready for payment and entered it into SAP. SAP determined whether the contract Attachment D MINUTES Page 27 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 was valid and whether funds were available to pay the invoice; then Staff paid the invoice. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt Staff should have a quote for each invoice. Mr. Perez stated that the accounts payable division did not have a copy of the contract. The Utilities Department and ASD each needed a copy of the contract. He expected the Utilities Department to determine whether the invoice complied with the contract and was ready for payment. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt it was important for the Utilities Department to approve the invoice. Mr. Yuan added that the IFB contained 69 line items. Forty-three line items were fixed price, and the remaining 26 line items were time and materials. It was a hybrid contract. Chair Burt inquired whether the fixed bid line items totaled 90 percent of the dollar amount. Mr. Boussina answered yes. Mr. Yuan explained that the contract allowed for both fixed and time-and- materials items. Chair Burt requested that the Auditor explain his contention regarding the 90 percent of funds being paid for with fixed bid line items, even though the number of line items was 70 percent. Mr. Boussina reported the IFB document clearly stated bid items 1-43 were the primary method of pricing all work as a result of the bid. The bid was constructed with estimates in terms of linear foot and how much work the City wanted. The estimates for fixed price line items were multiplied by the bid submitted. Mr. Keene asked if he meant for all bidders. Mr. Boussina replied yes. He stated that time-and-materials line items based on one hour resulted in a minimal effect on the total amount of the bid. Chair Burt inquired whether 90 percent of bid funds were expended for fixed line bids, even though 30 percent of the line items were time-and-materials bids. Attachment D MINUTES Page 28 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Ting noted the time-and-materials items were meant to enhance fixed line items. Chair Burt did not believe the percentage of line items related to time and materials was relevant. From a dollar standpoint, 90 percent of funds paid for fixed line items. The contract estimated the number of total feet for the year. If the estimation of feet was different, then the amount charged increased or decreased. The original Staff cost estimate was $1 million, and $800,000 was the amount presented to the Council. He asked what caused the estimate to change because he suspected the change in the estimated cost was related to the estimated amount of work, as opposed to the dollars per metric. Mr. Ting explained that the original $1 million estimate was based on historical expenditures. Between releasing the bid and preparing the CMR for the Council, there was a change in the amount of work. Mr. Perez reported Staff should have told the Council the contract was bid at $1 million, but Staff expected to expend only $800,000 based on activity. Ms. Fong recalled Staff instituted different contract management practices wherein anyone who requested payment had to double check the invoice against the contract. Mr. Ting indicated the Utilities Department Staff worked with engineers to ensure they were familiar with contracts, bid items, and time-and-material items. When engineers requested an estimate from the contractor, they checked it against the contract for accuracy. The City now paid the actual cost of doing the work. Vice Mayor Shepherd inquired whether Staff audited current contracts and whether any contracts were noncompliant in accordance to the manner they were presented to the Council for approval. Mr. Ting answered no. Chair Burt asked if Staff reviewed current contracts. Mr. Ting replied yes, Staff began to review all projects. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if all contracts were compliant with CMRs. Mr. Keene asked if Vice Mayor Shepherd was referring to all Utilities Attachment D MINUTES Page 29 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 contracts approved by the Council. Vice Mayor Shepherd noted the Council approved a CMR with a contract, and inquired about the number of active contracts. Ms. Fong reported Utilities had approximately 200 active contracts. Chair Burt stated the Casey Construction contract was an irregularity; he asked how many other fixed-line bid contracts were in existence and whether Staff reviewed them. Mr. Yuan indicated the Casey Construction contract was the only fixed line bid contract with a time-and-materials option. Vice Mayor Shepherd explained that typically all contractors had a time-and- materials item at the bottom of fixed-bid contracts to capture miscellaneous items. She wondered whether Staff reviewed all active contracts and determined that contracts functioned in the manner they were presented to the Council for approval through the CMR process. Mr. Yuan remarked that Staff reviewed all construction contracts, not all contracts. Ms. Fong added that the Utilities Department also had commodities contracts and energy efficiency contracts. Mr. Keene explained that the Casey Construction contract was bid as a fixed- bid contract. The audit and Staff's response made it clear that the contract was not executed as a fixed-bid contract. The contract was paid as a time- and-materials contract over a three-year period for a total of approximately $1.9 million. The initial question was whether the change to a time-and- materials contract was fair to other bidders. The second question was whether the City received real value and whether the contractor delivered on the work performed. Council Member Berman referenced the handwritten note, “ok to pay,” on the invoice provided as a sample and inquired about the process for determining whether the invoice was acceptable and whether there was documentation to support that acceptance. Mr. Ting reported that the engineer project manager received the invoice, checked it against the scope of work, and reviewed it with operations. The operations supervisor ensured that the work was performed and that inspectors checked the work and the invoice against contractor time cards. Attachment D MINUTES Page 30 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 The Operations Department signed off on it and returned it to engineering to review the invoice against the scope of work and the quote. Council Member Berman asked if Staff had a paper trail of those steps. Mr. Ting indicated operations had a paper trail and engineering had another. The Utilities Department did not have a central location for all drawings, scopes of works, estimates, and invoices at that time. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if Staff now had paperwork to support each line item in an invoice. Mr. Ting stated the invoice should have the service order attached to it. The service order package needed to have associated drawings and the scope of work attached to it. Council Member Schmid asked if the projects were all development projects. Mr. Ting reported the majority were customer service projects. Other projects involved maintenance and CIP projects. Council Member Schmid indicated a good number of projects were paid by developers who had the option of performing the work themselves or having the City perform it. Developers placed confidence in the City to operate at an efficient and effective level. Chair Burt recalled that prior to the financial crisis, the City had a consistent pattern of receiving bids higher than City estimates. After the financial crisis began, the pattern changed to bids being significantly lower than City estimates. The Council discussed whether to take advantage of the lower bids in order to accelerate projects. A very low bid was a cause for further scrutiny to ensure contractors did not make up the low bid over the course of the contract. He asked how the City lost approximately $281,000, when the bid was so much lower than other bids. Mr. Boussina explained Casey Construction admitted they made a mistake in the bid. Vice Mayor Shepherd understood the timing of the Casey Construction admission bid was different. Mr. Perez clarified that Casey Construction made the admission prior to the contract being awarded. Attachment D MINUTES Page 31 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Keene asked if Staff knew why Casey Construction made the admission. Mr. Boussina stated that notes indicated Casey Construction misunderstood certain line items. In one instance, Casey Construction thought the City was building a parking lot; the bid was below estimates because of certain line items. Mr. Keene inquired whether Casey Construction had knowledge of the other bids when it made the admission. Mr. Boussina presumed Casey Construction did not because they learned that they made a mistake when the bids were opened and their bid was significantly less than other bids. Mr. Keene needed to know how Casey's Construction was informed to think they made a mistake and how that determined whether Staff should have rejected the bid. Chair Burt requested an explanation of the additional cost of $281,000 once Casey Construction agreed to honor its bid. Mr. Boussina explained that the analysis was retrospective, meaning they used line items that Casey Construction chose to bill the City with because they billed the City using line items that were more expensive than the second lowest bidder. Casey Construction was minimal in using, or did not use line items that were significantly below the second bidder. Mr. Keene took issue with this part of the audit because it involved estimation. The analysis presumed that the second bidder would have remained static in the same environment. He said the second bidder could have utilized different pricing if they had won the bid. Chair Burt inquired whether Casey's Construction bid could have resulted in up to $281,000, as the Auditor did not know what the other bidders would have invoiced. Mr. Boussina agreed and said if Casey Construction had billed the City based on unit price items, the result would have been different. The $281,000 was the best estimate he could provide given the available information. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Committee was ready to proceed to suggested actions. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the Committee should discuss each finding. Attachment D MINUTES Page 32 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Chair Burt responded yes. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if the Committee would then discuss the City Manager's Action Plan. Chair Burt inquired about the best way to discuss those topics. Mr. Boussina said the narrative response contained a great deal of background information. Council Member Berman inquired about the process for follow-up discussion regarding implementation of the City Manager’s Action Plan. Chair Burt explained that typically the Committee only discussed items that either the Auditor or the Committee had specific issues with. Mr. Perez discussed Finding 1.1, which says: “Auditor Recommendation: The Utilities Department and ASD should implement policies and procedures to appropriately address significant variances between City estimates and contractor bids before awarding contracts, in order to ensure staff awards contracts to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, as required by the Municipal Code. City Manager’s Action Plan: When there are significant differences between the lowest bid and staff estimates or other bids, City Staff will set up a meeting with the lowest bidder to ensure that its bid is correct, that it can perform the work as described, and to ensure compliance with Municipal Code 2.30.440. Staff will document this discussion with the bidder to include: 1) date of the meeting; 2) attendees at the meeting; 3) description of the questions related to the bidders' submittals; 4) summary of the discussion; 5) staff and contractor agreement/resolution of questions; and 6) next steps.” Staff was not aware of a specific percentage to utilize when monitoring the difference between the lowest and second lowest bids. He asked if the Auditor was aware of a standard percentage. Mr. Boussina replied no. He was aware of various procedures and flow charts. Mr. Perez said he would inquire further regarding a standard percentage. Different rules applied for different types of contracts. Council Member Berman requested clarification of that statement. Mr. Perez planned on developing a standard and presenting Staff's actions to the Committee. In construction contracts, a self-check mechanism was the Attachment D MINUTES Page 33 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 ability to file a protest. The Municipal Code provided a process for protests that led to the City Council. Council Member Berman asked who filed a protest. Mr. Perez responded other bidders. A protest had to be filed within seven days with the Purchasing Manager, and the Purchasing Manager provided a response. If bidders disagreed with the Purchasing Manager's response, then the protest moved to him within ten days of the Purchasing Manager's response. He then reviewed and responded to the protest. If bidders disagreed with his response, then the protest was presented to the Council. Council Member Berman did not recommend relying on the market to determine the decision of a responsible bid. Mr. Perez wanted to implement a formal process. In addition to the proposed next steps, Staff was implementing an independent review by a firm that specialized in best practices for purchasing. During the Budget process, Staff eliminated funding for training programs regarding contract project management. Training needed to be reinstituted, and Staff requested resources to implement those processes. Council Member Schmid noted issues were raised with respect to bids in at least three projects. Creating a standard was going to be difficult. Mr. Perez added that contractors admitted to making mistakes in bids, and those mistakes cost the contractors. The contractors hoped to make up the loss on the next project. Council Member Berman felt Casey Construction did not agree to accept a loss on the contract. Chair Burt was unsure whether the Committee heard the whole scenario. Mr. Perez indicated Staff did not have documentation to demonstrate whether or not Casey Construction agreed to accept a loss. Staff needed to formalize steps for contractor discussions. Council Member Schmid inquired whether ASD accepted responsibility for Finding 1. Mr. Perez answered yes. Mr. Keene added that ASD would establish criteria to signal problems that Attachment D MINUTES Page 34 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 needed to be investigated to ensure the City received a responsible bid. Mr. Perez reported Staff would establish a threshold for elevating concerns to him, and then he would refer potential problems to the City Attorney or the City Manager. That process was currently in place; however, it was not a formal process. Vice Mayor Shepherd discussed Finding 1.2, “Auditor Recommendation: The Utilities Department and ASD should ensure the accuracy of key information stated in staff reports submitted to City Council, including those which request authorization for the award of contracts. City Manager’s Action Plan: The Utilities Department prepares the staff report based on the most current information that is available including notation of any changes of staff estimates. ASD reviews staff reports requesting award of Utility contracts. As part of this review ASD validates the summary of solicitation information. ASD will continue to perform this function and will put an extra emphasis as a result of this finding to match key figures in the solicitation summary to the actual solicitation documents.” Having the engineer's estimate, bids and Staff comments were useful to the Council in discussing the awarding of bids. She inquired whether Staff routinely provided that information to the Council. Mr. Perez reported Staff's goal was to provide all information to the Council. At times information was omitted because of Staff turnover or lack of training. The key was to emphasize that detail in training. Vice Mayor Shepherd suggested Council Members request the information if it was not provided. Ms. Fong noted that the City Attorney Staff reviewed most of Staff's memoranda. The City Manager read the information and requested additional information, clarification, or revisions. She also read the information and requested clarification or revisions. Utilities Staff wanted to be transparent. Council Member Schmid noted contracts were usually presented on the Consent Calendar and inquired whether the Auditor was satisfied with the Council's oversight of awarding contracts. Chair Burt did not believe that was a fair question for the Auditor as it was a policy decision. The Council made the decision whether to remove an Item from the Consent Calendar. Council Member Schmid asked the Auditor whether during the audit he was Attachment D MINUTES Page 35 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 satisfied with the process of Council oversight. Mr. Boussina was not able to comment on the Council's processes. It was difficult for the Council to recognize all challenges and pitfalls of a contract. In this particular audit, he felt the Staff Report was not accurate and transparent in order to provide the Council with an opportunity to raise concerns about the contract. Molly Stump, City Attorney explained that City Attorney Staff was in the queue to review all CMR’s with respect to legal issues, enforceability, and compliance with laws. She did not wish to give the impression that the Attorney's Office reviewed factual matters presented by a department. City Attorney Staff relied on other Staff in the work process for review of certain items. Mr. Perez noted an online system directed CMR’s to the City Attorney for review. Purchasing was not a mandatory reviewer. The departments needed to designate Purchasing as part of the review of a contract. Mr. Perez discussed Finding 1.3, “Auditor Recommendation: ASD should prioritize implementing a system to electronically record and track vendor bids as part of any future system implementation for ASD Purchasing. City Manager’s Action Plan: Staff is in the early phase of reviewing online bid options and will issue a request for proposal for such a service.” He agreed with the Finding. The Chief Information Officer was a member of the Task Force and identified additional tools for the bid process. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked how Staff would reconcile the finding of a weak Scope of Services. Mr. Perez indicated that was a difficult challenge. For the most part, ASD relied on technical experts to prepare the Scope of Service for a contract. Mr. Perez discussed Finding 2.4, “Auditor Recommendation: The Utilities Department and ASD should review existing policies, implement new policies, and develop procedures to ensure the City’s contracts are appropriately re‐evaluated and renewed in accordance with applicable contract terms and the Municipal Code. City Manager’s Action Plan: Policies and procedures will be reviewed, revised, and implemented to evaluate contractor work every 12 months, at a minimum. This may include periodic meetings with the contractor during the year to discuss issues with performance, contract compliance, or invoicing. The evaluation criteria shall include: 1) Performance; 2) Compliance with the contract; 3) Responsiveness to work scheduling; 4) Accuracy of estimates; 5) Accuracy Attachment D MINUTES Page 36 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 of invoicing; and 6) Responsiveness to City issues. ASD staff will create a contract monitoring checklist to aid in regular contract administration. The checklist will prompt for review of contract terms, contractor deliverables, project milestones, payments, and overall performance. The information collected via the checklist will aid in performance review when contract renewal is sought.” Staff said they would create a monitoring checklist and sets of criteria for contracts. Council Member Berman recommended Staff emphasize contract compliance. He noted that the contractor's performance may have been good; however, the contract was obsolete at the moment the basis changed to time and materials. The contract did not need to be renewed because it was not the contract approved by the Council. Performance did not overshadow contract compliance. Ms. Fong said she would more closely monitor compliance. Chair Burt inquired whether that was adequately captured in the Action Plan. Mr. Perez said he could expand the definition of Contract Compliance. Mr. Keene explained that Staff would return to the Committee to provide an update regarding implementation of the Action Plan. There were opportunities for additional follow-up discussions. Mr. Perez reported that this step would accomplish the accountability process. Ms. Fong discussed Finding 3.5, “Auditor Recommendation: The Utilities Department should work with ASD to review existing contract performance management policies and develop procedures to ensure staff appropriately administers the City’s contracts. Procedures should address the following areas: 1) Monitoring of contractor billings to ensure, 2) accuracy and compliance with contract terms, and 3) Ensuring contracts are appropriately and timely modified, if required. City Manager’s Action Plan: Utilities staff is formalizing the process by which work is requested of the contractor, approved, inspected, reviewed for completion, and invoices reviewed and approved for payment including: 1) Roles and Responsibilities for Substructure Contract; and 2) Flow Chart Diagram. Utilities is in the process of hiring a Coordinator Utilities Project to assist Engineering in administrating contracts, verifying invoices and processing payments. Utilities will be requesting similar positions in Operations and Customer Support Services in the 2014 mid‐year budget. Utilities will also develop a tracking mechanism to monitor contractor work, reconcile invoices, and verify payments which Attachment D MINUTES Page 37 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 includes: 1) Service Order number; 2) Scope of work and link to project as‐ built drawings; 3) Contractor work estimates; 4) Project change orders and explanations; 5) Invoices and payments; 6) Explanations for estimate/actual cost variances; 7) Name of project engineer; 8) Name of project inspector; 9) Name of contractor crew foreman; 10) Comments on project issues or contractor; and 11) Performance. ASD will conduct a review of the entire purchasing process citywide to review current best practices and lay out a plan for improvement to align with current best practices where needed. This review may include a third party. The departments will collaborate to bring contract management training to appropriate staff. This training will be rolled out to all departments.” She also discussed Finding 4.6 “Auditor Recommendation: The Utilities Department should work with ASD to review existing contract performance management policies and develop procedures to ensure staff appropriately administers the City’s contracts. Procedures should address the following areas: 1) Roles and responsibilities for the Contract Administrator and any additional training requirements for staff; 2) Monitoring of contractor performance; 3) Ensuring payments are made only for services and materials included in the contract scope; and 4) Ensuring there is an adequate process and documentation to show planned work has been completed. City Manager’s Action Plan: Recommendation 5 & 6 are similar. See response to recommendation 5.” She did not believe the Auditor took issue with some of the proposed steps. Utilities Staff was formalizing a process and determining the roles and responsibilities with respect to implementation of contract terms. She was in the process of hiring a Contract Utilities Administrator, identifying contract administration positions in operations and customer support service areas and developing better tracking mechanisms to monitor contractor work. She was developing procedures to explain cost variances and to document discussions with contractors. Council Member Schmid asked if Staff would have a centralized file for records. Ms. Fong reported Utilities Staff would maintain complete files for projects and the Purchasing Department would maintain invoices and payments. Mr. Perez was reviewing the need for a resource to perform spot checks. Staff was exploring the cost of additional controls and would provide a recommendation. Council Member Schmid inquired whether the City Manager could obtain documents from departments to answer any questions he might have. Mr. Perez wanted to ensure all departments maintained centralized files so Attachment D MINUTES Page 38 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 that records were available. Training would teach Staff which documents should be retained in a file. Council Member Schmid asked if ASD would be responsible for departments reaching the same standards as those being implemented for the Utilities Department. Mr. Keene indicated the Task Force was designed to respond to problems across the organization. Staff wanted an integrated online system that would allow ASD to view Utilities files. Until a system was identified and implemented, Staff would develop practices to routinize the channels and connections. Vice Mayor Shepherd was happy to see the changes. If systems and operations worked smoothly, the time between approval and payment of invoices was expected to be short. She inquired whether the Purchasing Department would have the authority to return invoices to departments. Mr. Perez answered no. The Purchasing Department did not have information to determine whether an invoice was appropriate for payment. Ms. Fong reported the Utilities Department would have the responsibility of ensuring invoices were accurate. Vice Mayor Shepherd felt there was a needed to be a process for the Purchasing Department to validate whether or not an invoice was accurate. Mr. Perez indicated the Purchasing Department would not know if the invoice complied with the contract terms. Ms. Fong reiterated that Utilities was responsible for contract compliance. Vice Mayor Shepherd asked if there was an initialing system to indicate an invoice was approved and checked against the contract. Ms. Fong replied yes. Mr. Perez agreed that Purchasing could check for initialing. Mr. Keene reported quality control was the department's responsibility. Ms. Fong remarked that ASD had to rely on the experts for development of a Scope of Service. Utilities Staff was improving with respect to development of scopes of service. Attachment D MINUTES Page 39 of 39 Finance Committee Regular Meeting Minutes 11/5/13 Mr. Keene did not want anyone with oversight responsibility to feel they were disempowered from asking questions. Staff expected to discuss aspects of contracts, bids, invoices and such. Mr. Perez indicated ASD had an oversight role and fulfilled it. Vice Mayor Shepherd wanted invoices approved in such a manner that Staff knew who approved it. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Chair Burt to recommend the City Council accept the Contract Oversight Audit: Trenching and Electric Substructure. Chair Burt felt Staff's responses were significant. He said implementation of those policies and procedures would provide better systems. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Lalo Perez, Director of Administrative Services and Chief Financial Officer announced the next meeting was scheduled for November 19, 2013. Agenda Items included the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report with the external auditor, Status of the Capital Program at Year End and Adoption of Changes to the Municipal Fee Schedule to Comply with Propositions 26 and 218. The Agenda for the December 3, 2013 meeting included the First Quarterly Financial Results for 2014, results of the Palo Alto Street Sweeping, and Cleaning Pilot Program. Tentative Agenda Items were the Long Range Financial Forecast and the Inventory Management Audit. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Attachment D GFOA Best Practice   Attachment G Attachment E Page 1 of 3          Attachment E Page 2 of 3 Attachment E Page 3 of 3 Attachment F Page 1 of 2 Presented on Nov. 17, 2014 to the City Council USER FEE COST RECOVERY LEVEL POLICY March 2015 BACKGROUND The City provides a variety of services to the public which benefit the entire community or individual residents or businesses. For certain services such as regulatory fees, arts and science classes, or recreational activities, the City traditionally has recovered partially or fully the cost for providing these services, which would have been otherwise paid from the General Fund. Propositions 13, 218, and 26 have placed both substantive and procedural limits on cities’ ability to impose fees and charges. Collectively these constitutional amendments provide safeguards against taxes being imposed without a vote of the people. POLICY STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to set Municipal Fees based on cost recovery levels in lieu of fully subsidizing fee-related activities with General Fund dollars. The cost recovery levels are reflective of the following policy statements. 1. Community-wide vs. Private Benefit: Funding services such as Police patrol services only through taxpayer dollars is appropriate for services that benefit the entire community. When the service or program provides a benefit to specific individuals or businesses such as the issuance of building permits, it is expected that individuals or businesses receiving that benefit pay for all of the cost of that service. 2. Service Recipient vs. Community Benefit: For regulated activities such as development review and Police issued permits, it is appropriate that the service recipient such as an applicant of a building permit or a Pushcart Vendor permit pay for the permit although the community at large benefits from the regulation. 3. Consistency with City Goals and Policies: City policies and Council goals related to the community’s quality of life are factors in setting cost recovery levels. For example, fee levels can be set to promote healthy habits, facilitate environmental stewardship, or discourage certain actions (e.g. false alarms). 4. Elasticity of Demand for Services: The level of cost recovery can affect the demand for services. A higher level of cost recovery could ensure the City is providing services such as recreational classes or summer camps for children and youth without over stimulating a market with artificially low prices. Such low prices, which are a reflection of a high General Fund subsidy, may result in huge waiting lists and attract participants from other cities; however, high cost recovery levels could negatively impact the demand for such services from low income individuals, special needs individuals, and seniors. Attachment F Page 2 of 2 Presented on Nov. 17, 2014 to the City Council 5. Availability of Services from the Private Sector: High cost recovery levels are generally sought in situations where the service is available from other sources in order to preserve taxpayer funds for other General Fund funded City services. Conversely, services that are not available from other sources and are typically delivered when residents experience an emergency basis typically have low or zero cost recovery levels. Based on these policy statements, the table below overlays certain cost recovery levels grouped in low (0-30%), medium (30.1% to 70%), and high (70.1% to 100%) cost recovery percentage ranges. It is important to note that these groupings provide policy guidance and are not absolute. Some policy statements may weigh more heavily than others, which may result in a different cost recovery level grouping for particular fees. For example, fees for recreational activities are expected to be set in general at the medium cost recovery level. However, fees for recreational activities for which there is a high demand may have a high cost recovery level due to high enrollment levels per class. It is important to note that Municipal fees will be reviewed annually by the Finance Committee and subsequently by the City Council as part of approval of the Municipal Fee Schedule. Cost Recovery Level Group Cost Recovery Percentage Range Policy Considerations Low 0% - 30%  No intended relationship between the amount paid and the benefit received  Fee collection would not be cost effective and/or would discourage compliance with regulatory requirements  No intent to limit the use of the service  Public at large benefits even if they are not the direct users of the service  Affordability of service to low-income residents Medium 30.1% - 70%  Services which promote healthy activities and educational enrichment to the community  Services having factors associated with the low and high cost recovery levels High 70.1% - 100%  Individual users or participants receive most or all of the benefit of the service  Other private or public sector alternatives provide the service  The use of the service is specifically discouraged  The service is regulatory in nature 1 Adopted by Council 11/26/07 CMR 421:07 Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy The Community Services Department (CSD) offers a variety of programs within its various divisions such as recreational activities, arts and sciences classes, and open space interpretive programs. The following Class Cost Recovery Policy is to be used as a guideline to establish cost recovery targets for fee-based classes and camps within the divisions of Recreation & Golf, Arts & Sciences, and Open Space & Parks. Included in CSD’s Strategic Plan is an initiative to “focus energy and (budgetary) resources on sustaining and enhancing core services”. Through implementation of this Class Cost Recovery Policy, the department aims to establish cost recovery levels while providing core services and meeting the social needs of the community. Policy The policy takes into consideration: (1) minimum level of acceptable cost recovery, (2) target level of cost recovery, and (3) fee setting considerations. Cost recovery levels are inclusive of direct and indirect costs. Indirect costs include both department and City overhead. Although each program has set minimum and target cost recovery levels, other fee setting considerations may factor into the pricing of registration fees. Fee setting considerations may either increase or decrease fees and place cost recovery outside of the minimum and target levels. These factors include, but are not limited to, market rates, programs for those with special needs, new programs still being established, and population served. However, within each of the three divisions offering fee-based classes, the division-wide cost recovery should meet minimum cost recovery levels. Once a program is determined to be within the purview of the Class Cost Recovery Policy, program fees are to be established using the Class Cost Recovery Model and adjusted as needed. The model is included in the pages to follow. Each fee-based class or camp is placed in one of four Cost Recovery Groups. The groups range from Community Benefit to Personal Benefit, representing opposite ends of a cost recovery spectrum. Programs rated as Community Benefit will cost recover less, while programs rated as Personal Benefit will cost recover more. This cost structure is in line with the department’s mission statement: “Engaging individuals and families to create a strong and healthy community, through parks, open space, recreation, social service, arts, and sciences.” The four Cost Recovery Groups are: • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Attachment G 2 Adopted by Council 11/26/07 CMR 421:07 Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four groups. Each group has a cost recovery range inclusive of a minimum cost recovery and a target cost recovery level. This detail is reflected in pages to follow. On an annual basis, programs are to be reviewed to ensure the established cost recovery levels are met and adjustments made. Recovered Costs Direct costs are expenses incurred in correlation to a class being offered. These costs would not be incurred if a class were not offered. Typical direct costs are instructor fees and supplies and materials. Department indirect costs cover overhead costs incurred by the department for administrative support, program supervision, utilities, and some maintenance. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless whether a class is offered or not. City indirect costs encompass citywide overhead, administrative, and facility maintenance costs. Some of these costs would probably be incurred regardless of whether a class is offered or not. Department indirect cost is estimated to be 15% of direct cost while both department and City indirect costs are estimated to be 35% of direct cost. Theses estimates are subject to change as programs are reviewed and to reflect changing overhead costs. Attachment G 3 Adopted by Council 11/26/07 CMR 421:07 Class Cost Recovery Model This model is to be used by Program Coordinators, Supervisors, and Division Managers to plan, evaluate program cost recovery, and determine expenses, revenues, and course registration fees. Attachment G 4 Adopted by Council 11/26/07 CMR 421:07 Class Cost Recovery Guidelines In conjunction with the Cost Recovery Model, the following guidelines are to be used to place classes and camps into one of the four Cost Recovery Groups. Process: 1) Set a cost recovery range for each Cost Recovery Group, with minimum and target recovery levels. 2) Evaluate and place each existing program in a Cost Recovery Group. 3) Determine guidelines to be used to place future new programming into a Cost Recovery Group. Parameters: 1) Apply to fee-based class and camp programs. 2) Generally, cost recovery for children’s programs will be less than adult programs. 3) Some programs may cost recover less than the minimum level. However, other programs will need to make up for the difference. 4) Approximately 15% above Direct Costs covers Department Overhead, subject to adjustment. 5) Approximately 35% above Direct Costs covers both Department and City Overhead, subject to adjustment. 6) Other fee considerations should be taken into account, such as, but not limited to, market pricing, competition from other service providers, new program being established, and population served. Cost Recovery Groups, Cost Recovery Minimum, and Cost Recovery Targets: Group I: Community Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Less than Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Direct Cost Group II: Majority Community benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 115% Direct Cost Group III: Equal Community and Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 115% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: Up to 135% Direct Cost Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit • Cost Recovery Minimum: 135% Direct Cost • Cost Recovery Target: 135% Direct Cost Attachment G 5 Adopted by Council 11/26/07 CMR 421:07 Characteristics of Community Benefit vs. Personal Benefit programs The four Cost Recovery Groups represent a cost recovery “spectrum”. Programs classified as being of Community Benefit will cost recover less than programs classified as being of Personal Benefit. Division managers, along with input from program coordinators and supervisors, determine the value of a class or camp for placement within one of the four cost recovery groups. • Group I: Community Benefit • Group II: Majority Community Benefit • Group III: Equal Community Benefit and Personal Benefit • Group IV: Majority Personal Benefit Below are characteristics to define Community and Personal benefit, opposite ends of a cost recovery “spectrum”. The opposite ends are represented by Group I and IV. As most programs have aspects of both benefits, they are placed within the spectrum in either Group II or III. Community Benefit Characteristics Personal Benefit Characteristics Youth and Teen Development Leisure Time Experiences Safety Financial Enhancement Early Childhood Development Stress Reduction Environmental Stewardship Mental / Physical Health for adults Fitness/Healthy Lifestyle for youth Professional Development Connecting / Involving People w/ Community Competitive Sports for adults Service Back to Community Personal Enhancement Encourages Volunteerism Weight Loss Cultural Understanding Fitness for adults Cross-Generational Understanding Fashion/Beauty/Personal Enhancement Unique Experiences not provided by other organizations Classes already provided by other organizations for adults Life Skills for Self Independence Life-Long Learning Diversity of Experience Skill Building Community Policing – Public Involvement Social Networking / Contacts for personal gain Sustaining our Resources Attachment G CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 6, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission Staff is requesting the City Council select the candidates to be interviewed for the Human Relations Commission, Public Art Commission and Utilities Advisory Commission. Interviews are scheduled for Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 6:00 P.M. Each Council Member will receive a selection sheet to use in determining who will be interviewed. Copies of all applications are attached. Some applications may be redacted at the request of the applicant. A full set of non-redacted applications will be emailed to Council Members directly. Enclosed are: 1) Eight applications submitted for the Human Relations Commission for three terms (Bacchetti, Chen and Morin), ending on April 30, 2018; and 2) Six applications for the Public Art Commission for three terms (Kavanaugh, Miyaji and Tobak) ending on April 30, 2018; and 3) Six applications submitted for the Utilities Advisory Commission for two terms (Melton and Waldfogel), ending on April 30, 2018. Recommendation The requested action is for each Council Member to fill out the selection sheet indicating which of the candidates they will be interviewing. The City Clerk will announce who will be interviewed at the same meeting. Candidates who receive four or more votes will be scheduled for an interview. Applicants Human Relations Commission 1. Theresa Chen (incumbent) 2. Anita Gat 3. Shelly Gray 4. Diane Morin (incumbent) Page 2 5. Sea Reddy 6. Alice Smith 7. Valerie Stinger 8. Mark Weiss Public Art Commission 1. Eric Beckstrom 2. Loren Gordon 3. Christine Kelly 4. Ben Miyaji (incumbent) 5. Caroline Mustard 6. Mila Zelkha Utilities Advisory Commission 1. Michael Danaher 2. Timothy Gray 3. Natalia Kachenko 4. Walter Loewenstein 5. Judith Schwartz 6. Lisa Van Dusen ATTACHMENTS:  ATTACHMENT A: HRC Chen, Theresa (PDF)  ATTACHMENT B: HRC Gat, Anita (PDF)  ATTACHMENT C: HRC Gray, Shelly (PDF)  ATTACHMENT D: HRC Morin, Diane (PDF)  ATTACHMENT E: HRC Reddy, Sea (PDF)  ATTACHMENT F: HRC Smith, Alice (PDF)  ATTACHMENT G: HRC Stinger, Valerie (PDF)  ATTACHMENT H: HRC Weiss, Mark (PDF)  ATTACHMENT I: PAC Beckstrom, Eric (PDF)  ATTACHMENT J: PAC Gordon, Loren (PDF)  ATTACHMENT K: PAC Kelly, Christine (PDF)  ATTACHMENT L: PAC Miyaji, Ben (PDF)  ATTACHMENT M: PAC Mustard, Caroline(PDF)  ATTACHMENT N: PAC Zelkha, Mila (PDF) Page 3  ATTACHMENT O: UAC Danaher, Michael (PDF)  ATTACHMENT P: UAC Gray, Timothy (PDF)  ATTACHMENT Q: UAC Kachenko, Natalia (PDF)  ATTACHMENT R: UAC Loewenstein, Walter (PDF)  ATTACHMENT S: UAC Schwartz, Judith (PDF)  ATTACHMENT T: UAC Van Dusen, Lisa (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, Acting City Clerk Page 4 Employment Present or Last Employer: Occupation: Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Page 2 Human Relations Commission Stanford University Medical Center Research Associate, Scientist Starting in 2011, I have given a series of bilingual (Mandarin Chinese/English) seminars at the Senior Friendship Day, an ongoing Wednesday morning program of Palo Alto School District, co-sponsored by Avenidas and the City of Palo Alto Recreation Department. Many of the attendees of the program are newly arrived foreign-born seniors speaking Mandarin Chinese only. The topics of discussion included the introduction to American culture, etiquettes, American history, Palo Alto city government and heath care services including a session on Affordable Care Act. The information and knowledge gained by the participants have helped new comers to better integrate into the community. Starting early 2014, I joined the outreach efforts of Claudia Keith, Chief Communication Officer of the city to establish connection to the local Chinese community. This is in conjunction of city's broad effort to solicit community inputs and feedbacks. For the past 18 months, I have volunteered with members of local churches at Hotel de Zink and Breaking Bread Hot Meal programs sponsored by InnVision Shelter Network in collaboration with the churches to serve the homeless population in the community. In addition to my volunteer work in Palo Alto, I also give seminars on health issues and health care systems at Chinese churches in Cupertino, Milpitas and San Jose. I am interested in bringing a diverse population of residents together to help the advancement of our community. As an immigrant myself, being in this country my life has been benefited immensely by the surrounding communities. During this time, I have had an opportunity to pursue graduate education in a world-class university and settled with my family in Palo Alto, one of the best cities to live in this country. I In the recent years, there is a dramatic increase in Asian population in Palo Alto starting from the new millennium reaching 27.1% in 2010 (data from Census Bureau). The total of foreign-born population reached 31%; many of them are recent immigrants with various culture background and possess a variety of talents. It is my passion to facilitate the process so they are able to quickly adapt to the new environment to be contributing members of the community. I believe the strength of a community bases on the diversity of the population. Being a community member who settled ahead of many of the new comers, I would like to contribute to the process. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Page 3 Human Relations Commission I found the issue on affordable housing for the middle- and low-income families is of particular interest to me. Last year, the Commission established an affordable housing subcommittee consisting of Commissioner Ray Bacchetti and myself. We gathered facts on income level, job category, housing cost, inbound/outbound commuters. From the 2007-2014 Housing Element, we got an overall understanding on existing and past policies and practices for the city to obtain and maintain affordable housing. The data indicate that the current housing shortage as a result of market-driven economy is driving the city away from a diverse and inclusive society. For example, due to the recent economic boom in the Silicon Valley, affordable housing has been difficult to obtain. The supply of available housing lags way behind the demand. Almost a third of the households in the city paying a cost-burden of rental expense (more than 30% of income). According to the 2011 data by the US Census Bureau, Center for Economics Studies, among nearly 90,000 jobs in Palo Alto, only 8.4 % were occupied by the residents of the city. A large proportion of the employees who commute to work because they cannot afford the rent in the city that include a quarter of the workforce who is at the extreme low income level. For workers who are at the middle/lower high income level and are willing to pay a cost-burden, they are unable to find decent housing due to short supply. The shortage of affordable housing not only reduces the socioeconomic diversity but also contributes to the increase in traffic and parking problems in the city. In late 2014 our subcommittee completed a draft report and together with our Commission Chair O’Nan brought this matter to discuss with city’s planning officers. I am very proud and excited to take part in this process that serves this group of socioeconomic disadvantaged population and help building a diverse and inclusive community. I would like to see the Commission fulfill its mission by ensuring all members of our diverse community receive fair treatment and equal access to public resources and are aware of available of private resources. I believe we can accomplish this by: 1. Better understanding the needs of the community as it undergoes significant demographic changes. The Commission now schedules visits each year to organizations who serve the needy. To expand our efforts, my suggestion is to seek more direct connections with these populations by attending meetings and events of clients served by these agencies. For example, we can connect with the Asian community by joining special events such as Chinese New Year. I believe we can better serve the diverse groups of our residents by establishing relationships with them and listening to their needs. 2. Exploring and recommending new ways for the city government to connect with various diverse groups and individuals of the community. The successful Senior Summit we recently held is an example. The discussion there brought groups and expertise together and ideas derived from the meeting may foster new ways for solving problems facing senior community. For new immigrants, making multimedia education materials available for them to learn about Palo Alto can help the city connect with them. I suggest our Commission to come up more ideas to foster new ways of connections to these and other key demographic groups. ) Employment Present or Last Employer: Keller Williams Realty, Palo Alto Occupation: Licensed salesperson ) Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have volunteered at the OFJCC, Chabad of Greater South Bay, Second Harvest Food Bank and private and public schools. In my real estate practice, I have collected coats and sweaters for the past three years for One Warm Coat, and volunteer each year at RED Day, Keller Williams Realty's annual day of service. I volunteer for the Cultural Committee of Keller Williams Realty, Palo Alto. I'm a member of Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco. 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The HRC deals with all types of human relations matters as the City of Palo Alto interacts with its citizens. I think there is great compatibility between the HRC and my experience, which at its most simplistic, is two.:.fold: 1) experience gained through my career as the head of Human Resources for 10 years in Silicon Valley, doing all manner of work with and through employees, customers, vendors, M&A professionals, and the Board of Directors and, 2) experience gained through my career in real estate in the mid-Peninsula for the past 4 years, working with buyers who are young professionals, with and without families, and sellers who hark from the boomer and senior community. These are very diverse groups demographically and working with each presents its own set of challenges to solve. I am passionate about affordable housing, both ownership and rentals, and senior issues. I juggled all the Commission's "factors of concern" in high-tech and still work with those parameters today in my real estate career. Page2 Human Relations Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. An issue that came before the Commission recently that I am interested in is low income housing. The Commission generated a report on that issue for the City of Palo Alto in October 2014. I am interested in this issue because it intersects with my chosen career and my natural empathy with people who are squeezed out, sometimes after a lifetime of enjoying life on the Peninsula. I meet people like this every day. Many of those who work in our beautiful city are unable to live here because they are priced out of the real estate market. Yet, an extremely high percentage do the daily commute into our city, adding to pollution and congestion. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Affordable housing is a difficult issue to address in more than theory. If the HRC could achieve one goal I'd like it to be to identify and understand the roadblocks that keep the city from acting when potential affordable housing sites are identified. Why would I like to see the HRC achieve this goal? Because it's important, has not been solved and needs to be tackled. By understanding the choke points beyond which no movement seems possible, we could make goals to identify ways to break through the roadblocks. Page 3 Human Relations Commission 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these tlocuments, please describe that experience. Experience with these llocuments is not re11uiretl for selection. J·luman Services Needs Assessment LJ.!�E� Muni C•de 9. 72 -Mandat•ty Resp•nse Progrnm J.,J.!�H'.; Commllnity Services Element <>f the Comprehensive Plan .\...JN.\\ Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section i254.21 states, in part, "No �;tat<� or loc;al agency shall post the home acldress or telephone numller of any elected or appointf)d official on the lnterrmt without first obtaining the Written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. T11is consent form willnot l>e redacted and will l>e attacl1ed to the Application and posted to t11e City's website. The full code c�\n b�) rer.1d h�m:i: !Jf�HS. Read the code, and check only ONE option below: il I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's wellsite thH attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand rny rights under Government Code Section 6254.2'1. I may revoke this permission at any time Ily providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR .S I re11uest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers. and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's wellsile. I am providing the following alternatC:l inforrm1tion and rnquest that they use the following contact Information instead. Address: 505 Hamilton Ave, Suite ·100, Palo Alto CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650·906�0640 0Home 1t,!Jotfic�l Phone: 650�424-8500 E-mail: anita@anitagat.com Signature: Page4 Hwrmn Relfiliom; Commission Personal Information Name: Shelly Gordon Gray Address: 4250 El Camino Real, Apt. A104 Cell Phone: 650 248-6975 Home/Office: 650 856-1607 Email: sgordon@g2comm.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? XXYes No (.'IT'·( 1·..c ' n ' ' i·" ., , 1 . ';1uj r\t. U. C;\ CITY CLEi<K'S OFFICE 15 MAR -3 AM IQ: 22 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes XX No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? XXYes No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for? Yes XX No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Yes XX No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? XX Email from City Clerk List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses or professional registration: Answer: I am a public relations professional for 20+ years, with expertise in writing, crafting compelling prose and messages for business clients that persuade company stakeholders and journalists to cover clients' products and services. Development in presentation and performance; ability to engage and persuade specific audiences to take action, from educating, motivating and entertaining audiences to persuading city councils in Bay Area to take favorable action on behalf of Sierra Club initiatives. Studies and performance in theater including improv, play acting, solo performance and standup comedy. Public relations business owner for 15 years with clients in healthcare and technology, from small businesses and startups to larger medical systems and private enterprise like Sutter Health and IBM. Fierce advocate for clients, in relentless pursuit of positive results that has helped clients boost revenues, improve reputations, and, in the digital and social media world, drove website traffic and promoted conversations based on PR and media relations initiatives. Attended San Jose State University as graduate student in communications and public relations. Employment Present or Last Employer: G2 Communications Inc., public relations and marketing firm, since 1997 Occupation: Principal of G2 Communications Inc. -PR/communications professional, email marketing/ communications Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Answer: Have been a volunteer for over 40 years, and continue to participate in global and local causes-most recently in the Sierra Club -promoting legislation to stop industrial clear cutting of private forests in CA. Led initiative to compel city councils to sign resolutions in favor of stopping clear cutting. Presented at city council meetings throughout Santa Clara (including Palo Alto) and San Mateo Counties. Met with individual city council members to gain support; met with mayors to get buy-in and have initiative put on city council meeting agendas. Pre!;ented at council meetings. Used theater and presentation skills to make case and win support. So far% a dozen city councils have signed resolutions or supported legislation through their legislative agenda priorities for the year. I served for 2 years as a volunteer mediator with the Palo Alto Mediation Program. Co­ mediated at least% a dozen cases. In one case, parties resolved conflict within 20 minutes of starting mediation, due to my thorough and effective case development work with both parties. Was a founding member of Global Women's Leadership Network - a program for training women throughout the world to take on bold initiatives to empower women to end their own hunger and poverty. A long-time volunteer with the Hunger Project -fundraiser, conference producer -chaired a conference in Monterey County, featuring Leon Panetta, then Congressman of Monterey County. Volunteered at homeless shelter/Project 90 program for San Mateo County. Helped residents create resumes and prepare for job searches. Some clients had never held paying positions. Helped them ferret out life skills to turn into skills for compensation. Have held volunteer positions for several spiritual centers based on Buddhist and Kriya Yoga (Yogananda's work) traditions. Volunteered for reading program at East Palo Alto elementary school, helping nonnative students improve reading -pronunciation and comprehension skills. Volunteered with women's leadership program called At the Well, helping recruit women in leadership positions to present and give inspirational talks. Facilitated 12 step program for women in Redwood City women's correctional facility. Volunteered with Monterey County Commission on the Status of Women -produced women's award program, recognizing top 10 most influential women in the county. Produced and recruited participants for day-long workshops and events, including workshop for community couples network, communications workshop, fashion workshops, weekend personal development workshops. Created and led PR workshops for Foothill College and in private settings. Served on the journalism department advisory board for De Anza College. Women & Money Salon: Lifting the Fog -Co-founded an organization focused on educating women on becoming financially literate. Explored time banking and other alternatives to the traditional transaction economy, creating personal banks, and recruited women to share their experiences of financial empowerment. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Answer: My experience as a PAMP volunteer taught me patience, compassion and understanding of conflicts between neighbors, and landlords/property managers and tenants. Worked with people in vulnerable positions who needed advocacy while providing equal representation to both parties to conduct mediation sessions with equanimity. Also volunteered as PAMP representative for charter school conflict between Los Altos school board and parents, which was resolved. Attended monthly meetings and ongoing training sessions and met with a mentor to improve mediation skills. Also attended nonviolent communication group for 6 months, learning distinctions of no violent discourse. Work with homeless shelter residents and the women's jail inmates has helped me develop compassion for people who, in most cases, came from dysfunctional families and made poor choices that affected their circumstances in negative ways. All of this work can be directly applied to the work of the HRC, and supporting people in the community, in need of services that they may not have access to on their own. I can be a voice for elderly, disabled, homeless, fixed or low income residents, all in need of support. In Palo Alto, and Silicon Valley people suffering economic, emotional, physical challenges are largely invisible and under-represented. My personal development and concern about global and local inequities is what attracts me to the HRC. I hope to join the Commission and work in partnership with City Council and nonprofit agencies to provide the services to meet the most critical needs, while also helping the agencies improve program outcomes. I'm particularly interested in working with the HRC to develop a study and solutions to help women in abusive relationships (see last question). Interested in helping solve homes problem in Palo Alto through increasing shelter healthy food and job training resources. Also working with seniors in need and low income residents to live comfortably and safely in their homes is of interest. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. Answer: Interested in the microenterprise assistance program and giving low income families the financial support to start and grow their own businesses. Big proponent of micro lending and micro finance that has proven to lift people out of poverty. Was introduced to microfinance a decade ago through the Hunger Project wliich began offering micro loans to women in developing countries. Learned about Mohammed Unnus's work in microfinance, solving humanitarian problems through business solutions. Produced a fundraiser for the Global Women's Leadership Network by sponsoring a filmmaker who had produced a film about Mohammed Yunnus's social entrepreneur work. Also volunteered with Opportunity Fund, a Silicon Valley organization that funds small business projects for low income families. Had a chance to talk to some of the recipients of the O/F loans and record their inspiring stories for publication. Past member of the Silicon Valley Microfinance Network and helped the organization find a facility to hold their meetings in our area. (Despite the name, the organization was holding meetings in San Francisco, since they couldn't find a local sponsor.) Also had the opportunity to provide PR services for a philanthropy consultancy, which included a former VP for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The two consultants helped foundations better understand the goals and effectiveness of grantees' social change programs in order to achieve greater results. In the role I played, I successfully positioned the consultants as media sources for national newspaper articles covering the nonprofit world. In the process I learned a lot about the greater need for oversight in the foundation/grantee relationship that could be of benefit to the HRC's role in supporting local nonprofits who receive city-funded grants. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Answer: I would like to see the HRC explore the issue of domestic violence in Palo Alto. Domestic violence is erroneously associated with low income couples and families. But domestic violence crosses economic strata and couples of affluence are no exception. A domestic violence organization, Women of Means Escape Network, assists women of affluence living in Los Altos Hills, who are, in many cases financially dependent on their husbands and don't have the resources to leave their abusive relationships. Just like the homeless, these women are hidden from our view. They suffer in silence because of shame, because their husbands are successful executives, or because of fear of violent retaliation. A friend of mine who headed the Commission on the Status of Women for Santa Clara County, surveyed women in the county to identify their top concerns and then seek support for services from the County Board of Supervisors. Domestic violence was the number one issue affecting these women. While I have not worked directly with resource agencies for women in abusive relationships I did host a presentation for affiliates of the Global Women's Leadership Network. It was given by a young woman who created a task force at Stanford to address the problem of violence toward female students on campus. I would like to see the HRC form a task force or committee to investigate this problem in our community and provide a safe haven for women to come forward who have been/are being abused by their partners. I would be interested in spearheading such a committee. Based on research results I would take the lead to identify resources, such as shelters, but also look at the methodology developed by the Women of Means organization (I happen to know the founder and served on their Board of Advisors in the past) to create a similar resource for women in need, in Palo Alto. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72- Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Answer: I do not have experience with these documents. 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, “No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual.” The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City’s website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City’s website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City’s website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: __ Home / __ Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ________________________________________________________ Date: _____________ Page 4 Human Relations Commission 3/4/15 4250 El Camino Real, Apt. A104, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 248-6975 650 856-1607 sgordon@g2comm.com Shelly Gordon Gray Personal Information Name: Diane J.N. Morin Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home /�Office Phone: E-mail Are you a Palo Alto Resident?t!JYesONo CITY Of PALO CLERK'S -2 AM 11 : 5 5 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?t'!)Yes O No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you. have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?Ovest°!JNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yest.!J No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? 0community Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: Email from Mr. David Carnahan 0Daily Post �City Website OF Iyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Commissioner, Human Relations Commission Attorney: Certified Family Law Specialist, former District Attorney, Member of Legislative Committee for Family law Executive Committee Mediator: 20 years of experience in Family Law as part of Law Offices (practice) Collaborative Practitioner: 15 years of experience in Family Law as part of law practice. -Mediation (3 week long classes over 1 O years and recent intensive 5 day training through Center for Mediation in Conflict in Marin Co.), Mediation Roundtable participant (entire Bay Area), member of two collaborative Practice Groups (San Mateo and Santa Clara, in which I am Executive Secretary). Page 1 Human Relations Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Law Offices of Diane J.N. Morin occupation: Attorney, Certified Family Law Specialist, Mediator, Collaborative Law Describe your involvement in community volunteer and civic organizations: I have taken as much advantage as of the opportunities to be part of community activities through my appointment as Human Relations Commissioner. found there has been a steep learning curve for the first two years, but it was a challenge I enjoyed. I have attended meetings focusing on issues regarding the "unhoused"/homeless, regarding the issues surrounding the proposed sale of Buena Vista, the meetings involving the Comprehensive Plan and numerous other activities. Recently, I was excited to attend the "Senior Summit", organized by Commissioner O'Nan, which invited various community organizations (city, county, private,public and non-profit) collaborate to share information and visions regarding existing and future needs of seniors in our communities. I was a member of the HRC subcommittee to review·the HSRAP funding and grant proposals and CDBG grant proposals and assisted in updating information the HRC received from organizations that are partly supported by HSRP funding, such as SALA, DreamCatchers, lnnVision Shelter Network, Community Technology Alliance, Avenidas, the MayView Community Health Center and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. As part of the review and reporting of their grant funding, I met with many of the staff and leaders of these groups over the past 3 years. I attended CAHRO, the California Association of Human Relations Organizations and the more meetings of the local sister city and County (Santa Clara) HRC commissions. 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have lived in Palo Alto for approximately 25 years, the longest period of time I have lived in any City in my life. I am self-employed and interested in community activities and organazations both as they directly affect my life and also as they relate to conflict management and alternative dispute resolution. This directly relates to my profession as a California and International divorce attorney, as a collaborative attorney (professional) and as a mediator. I am almost 65 years old, bi-cultural, tri-lingual and was raised in another country, so I am deeply interested in issues of diversity and communication between people from different backgrounds and cultures. For example, as a single parent, I raised my daughter in Palo Alto to appreciate other cultures and as a result, she speaks French and Chinese fluently, and enjoys communicating with people from all walks of life. As I am now considered a "senior", and plan to remain in Palo Alto, I am crucially interested in all issues concerning affordable housing and maintaining a reasonable standard of living for different groups in Palo Alto. As we all know, it is almost impossible for young people to afford to rent or buy property in Palo Alto and concomitantly difficult for many older residents to be able to continue to afford to live in Palo Alto. I am interested in learning about what the problems/possible solutions are to addressing the problem of having Seniors continue to live here and how to have continued diversity in income and cultures in the citizenry of Palo Alto. Moreover, as I work in both Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, I am interested in finding connections in equivalent organizations, i.e. Human Relations Commissions at the city and county level. Page 2 Human Relations Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. My interest was caught by most of the issues that came before the Commission during the past 3 years that I have served. have learned from my fellow commissioners and others who are skilled in management and community service. Of particular interest to me is the issue of seniors and how to survive on limited income in Palo Alto. The increasingly high income standard of living in our community makes it a desirable place to live, as it has so many resources and attracts energetic people and businesses, with innovative ideas; however, I fear it is becoming less welcoming to those with little or no income, which includes people with valuable life experiences and wisdom. This may undermine a culture of compassion which is invaluable if we want more connection between people in the community, i.e. that the citizens of Palo Alto feel included in the fabric of the town and that it is truly felt by most be be "our Palo Alto". Hence, I am interested in affordable housing, as it relates to seniors who already live in our city and to maintaining a diversity of people--income and cultural diversity and a compassionate citizenry. Issues concerning public safety (the police department, the issues of vehicle habitation etc.), will always interest me due to my interest in dispute resolution, and as a District Attorney and as a homeowner in Palo Alto. For example, in reading my prior application (4 years ago) for the HRC, I note that I listed this as a goal. I have been involved in the concerns that came before the Council in the past 3 years regarding vehicle habitation. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? For the first two years that I was on the Human Relations Commission I feel like I needed to devote considerable time to internalizing both substantive information (to understand CDBG and HSRAP as one among many examples) and to learn how to communicate with those connected to HRC. I now want act on the commission. I would like to see the HRC achieve several goals, chief among which: (1) To follow-up on the "Additional Special Needs" assessment/report that was drafted over the past year chiefly by Commissioners O'Nan, Sacchetti and Chen. Several specific areas were identified as increasing areas of need, such as affordable housing, ways to interconnectagencies that already have HSRAP or CDBG funding, such as Avenidas and MidPeninsula Housing, so that those living in the city subsidized housing can have easier transportation to the La Comida meals;( 2) to continue to work with agencies that focus on seniors and their needs, such as those that attended the "Senior Summit" last month, to address Palo Alto's growing percentage of citizens who are seniors or super­ seniors in the next twenty-years. I wish to be a part of the innovative thinking, on the part of the HRC on the above issues. Additionally I would like to follow-through with a goal of finding counterparts in local city and county governments, i.e. the HRC's in Santa Clara County and other cities (Mountain View) to see what other programs exist regarding dealing with problems we are.facing, i.e. the growing senior population, vehicle habitation, the homeless , and the more vulnerable component of our populations such as those with mental disabilities. Commissioner Savage and I have been attempting to publicize the existence of the HRC to the public to increase its value to the Council and to be seen as relevant to the community at large (as a conduit to city government). Lastly, I wish to continue to work on subcommittee on public safety , issues, which currently includes Commissioner Savage and Stone, as this is a subcommittee in which I feel mv oast exoerience is uniaue and relevant. Page 3 Human Relations Commission ·., 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72-Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK My experience with these documents comes from working, for the past three years as a Human Relations Commissioner. For example, I met occasionally with Chief Burns or members of the Staff on a quarterly or bi-yearly basis as part of the HRC subcommittee that would report back to the HRC regarding new developments or concerns. In the past, I occasionally interacted with the Department of Public Safety when I worked (in San Jose and Palo Alto) as a Deputy District Attorney. At that time, for example, I came to know Chief Burns and other police officers. in 2014, I participated in several of the public meetings associated with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: .Q I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR l!J. I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 2225 E. Bayshore Rd., Ste. 200, Palo Alto, CA 94303-3220. Cell Phone: 650n99-8355 112lottice Phone: 650/473-0822 E-mail: dianejn.morin@gmail.com Date: �l) VliUtvt ee [a 1-t w� &�aus � J fr(\ Personal ·information CITY OF f't\LO M.TO. CA CITY CLrnK'S OFFICE Name: St:A SEELAM REDDY Address: 747 STANFORD AVENUE, PALOAL TO CALIFORNIA 94306 Cell Phone: 650-465-3535 0Home 10 omce Phone: 650-857-0240 E-mail: PALOAL TOLIFE@GMAIL.COM Are you a Palo Alto Resident?f81Yes(JNo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City 94'alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes"9No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?0Yesl8)No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8)No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yes(81 No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Ocommunity Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly [aDaily Post !:a city Website 0Flyer Other: ANNOUNCEMENT DURING MONDAY NIGHT MEETINGS List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Executive Management Certificate, Claremont Graduate School, June 1994 M.S in Industrial Engineering, Texas Tech University, Dec 1974 B.E in Mechanical Engineering, Osmania University, May 1973 Effective Negotiating by Karrass Effective Presentations Boeing Learning Center Several management training courses at Northrop, Hughes and Boeing and VMware Page 1 Human Relations Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: THE BOEING COMPABY; VMWARE as a consultant contractor Occupation: Program Manager, Project Manager, Applications Manager, Customer Engagement Manager Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: 1.0 Candidate for City Council Nov 2014 election 2.0 Several volunteer activities at VMware -feed thanksgiving dinners etc 3.0 Several volunteer activities at Boeing and Hughes 4.0 Vice-President of Boeing Seal Beach Hispanic organization 5.0 Frequent speaker on Integrity and Ethics 6.0 Support Elizebeth Learning Center in Los Angeles 7.0 Student body activities in Hyderabad during undergraduate studies 8.0 Hired a deaf person on the job at Hughes 9.0 Managed a small company Ludlum assembly and test at age 24 10. Managed groups of teams for a 8000 people organization at Hughes organizing Y2K 11. Managed a diverse group of professionals at Hughes 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commiss�on that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a people oriented person with a lot of exerience. I want to help city of Palo Alto to be the best it can be. I want service oriented Palo Alto City hall Page 2 Human Relations Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meetirig you can view an archive here: LINK. 1.0 Homelessness 2.0 Affordable housing 3.0 Integrity based hiring and managing 4.0 Relationship with Stanford 5.0 Relationship with School board and Teachers 6.0 Helping anti-suicidal efforts to help teens 7.0 Building bridge between growth and no growth 8.0 Limiting expansion of offices 9.0 Improving quality of hires 10. Improving staff performance 11. Performance reviews 12. Partnering with service providers and partners 13. Improving services 14. Connect with seniors 15. Connect with youth 16. Connect with stay-home moms 17. Resolve conflict 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 1.0 Building integrity 2.0 Building diversity 3.0 Respect difference of opinion 4.0 Bring service focus 5.0 Hire smart people and not relatives or people that I know and favor 6.0 Be ten time better 7.0 Strive for excellence Page 3 Human Relations Commission 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9. 72 -Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Line manager for 20 years at Ludlum, Aerojet, Northrop, Hughes, and Boeing dealing with people and reporting to executives; working with partners Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 181 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 747 Stanford Avenue Cell Phone: 650-465-3535 181Home 1Domce Phone: 650-857-0240 E-mail: paloaltolife@gmail.com Seeta111 {Sea) 'P 'Reddy Signature:-----------------------Date: March 3, 2015 Page4 Human Relations Commission Seelam (Sea) P Reddy Sea Seelam Reddy is a 41 year resident of US and a naturalized citizen since 1984. He moved to the bay area in January 201 2 to work for VMware as a contract consultant in mergers and acquisitions engineering and IT integration and divestitures. Sea, chose to retire in Palo Alto after careful consideration for his retirement. He lived in India until age 20 , in Texas until age 25 and moved to California in 1977 . Sea lived in Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Irvine and Newport Coast and owned homes/condos/townhouses. He claims that there is no place like Palo Alto and specially College Terrace. His fondness for continued involvement with technology firms and start-ups drew him to Palo Alto. He chose College Terrace area after he fell in love with the Library we have and beauty of small town and village like life. Sea has graduate degrees from Texas Tech University-1974 and Claremont Graduate University-1994 in addition to a bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering from Osmania University -1973, Hyderabad India. Also, Sea attended University of Southern California, Missouri State University taking graduate level computer science and systems engineering classes while he was working in the industry. Sea lived in southern California since 1997 till 2010 and worked for Aerojet Ordnance, Northrop, Hughes and Boeing before he retired in 2010 after 22 year with Hughes/Boeing in satellite services, manufacturing and defense high technology area. He claims that he worked for some of the best companies there and was involved in DIRECTV startup at Hughes HCI. He worked on several mergers and acquisitions IT integration and divestiture activities; most prominently forming United Launch Alliance ULA for Boeing and Lockheed Martin with 50% ownership Sea was a candidate for Palo Alto city council in the November 2014 and campaigned for Innovation and integrity. He did not take campaign donations. His views can be read in his campaign website www.Palolaltolife.org Sea has a large family in the bay area. He has three children, Vanessa, 35 , a graduate of UC Berkeley and Dartmouth and now works in Basel Switzerland working for Genentech/Roche; Leila 33, a graduate of Concordia University, a small school in Irvine and now lives in Goodyear Arizona pursuing Child Care management and real estate and a son Andrew, a chemical engineer from University of Michigan and working in Los Angeles. Sea's nephew Hershey Avula was student body president at Stanford in 20 08 and his brother #2 Seelam JM Reddy came to live in the bay area in 1980 and 2003 and now lives in Pleasanton. His sister lives in Fresno and her husband is a doctor practicing since 199 2. See has continued desire to serve the community and would like any inputs via email or knocking at his door on 747 Stanford Avenue or mornings at Starbucks or at Equinox. He welcomes email at Paloaltolife@gmail.com Regards, Sea Seelam Reddy, 747 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306, USA. 650-465-3535 cell 65 0-857-0240 landline 949-857-2000 cell 650-384-0060 VoIP I am diabetic; so please take �s to 10 years off the living; but I am not giving up. I am 5 10 ; 19 5 pounds; I feel like 22. https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=niVVIOP2pms I am retired from Boeing after having worked 22 years in LA, Manhattan Beach, Irvine, Newport Beach/Newport Coast. Now I live in Palo Alto after trying Fremont which I hated. I moved here to the bay area Jan 20 12 . I worked at VMware in Palo Alto for nearly 23 months. I have three children; two I raised 34 , 32; one not; he is 26 . I am about 62 (do not have my birthday because I was 3rd child; was not a girl; my parents did not write my birthday). My aunts; say I am 2-3 years younger than my 2md brother. Endorsements for Sea=Seelam Reddy 2014 Palo Alto City Council 2014 Election Endorsements for Sea=Seelam Reddy 2014 Palo Alto City Council 2014 Election Endorsements for Sea=Seelam Reddy 2014 Palo Alto City Council 2014 Election Endorsements for Sea=Seelam Reddy 2014 Palo Alto City Council 2014 Election Endorsements for Sea=Seelam Reddy 2014 Palo Alto City Council 2014 Election expe� ifaodi �o�.t.? ��e s.��lafri•.hab�l�them <311. in.(3 compete9t (l9cf efficieot,fl')anhet. I Sg�ld t,al�.��9U}Ot�ef:. WOl"�§ituati9os(b�t •l'cj lik'3tt) relate onegf rnYpvvnieXP�ne�ces in. runriing for ?��e bec(l��e it!pllclJ�§ on,.��w §f?e,l�rn'·f c�n�iqacy i,ylll b� 509sicl¢red, <• / ·3 '( ..••. • .••. •• . . .......... . • 1n ��9,ZJcr()Qior �<)�nlaip�y�11.ey�RIJool}o��{.vyeih,a�issu,atthattirnewith •. l\g.�E'os�dschoo1s· .. would beo�eg1r�····h�het�e�to builp �oµ5es .. on.t1J()�e.5m�§,'etc;� .. �e��1se .na(]d��g�:,apo��·at�h�t •. 9�!3d� .. ttie·di$tfiet'\YC>.u.1.�:1��nt1fr:c:n}l�renlforthe .•. 9i�eaAnNraljnt��··prograrJ1.l\nd, .• ��·.��cja[Jr9p1�m . a�si.stan,t•·��p�rintef1d�tii\V'10,2t1Je.:t�a£��rs.wer�••�11t1�P�Y.�i�h·�ecause. sh�·.r>ubliq�Y"Jleo .����t••oio�e .• : tha��one lss��·•T:he !��sher? u.n1<l.9 �9ree(ji,yit�.m}' .. p.osi��ns B.� allt��.issUe$ .. b�t�oult1•n?te11dp�se me e\l�lJ thpug� tti�y.ooly pqrti�fiyagre(d witl;rtbe views ofthe can<:lidates tl'ra�ih�y: cl id endorse •.•... ;:_:--_,-,,-,:-:; ---_;c-:-"-,:-:-> ___ -->-: ,0 -'. __ ;-,-,:-_ "_-__ < __ (-;c:_::;,--/i>,->_-__ ,-,� /-',-;< -__ , -_-;-_: ;:/-->-'.<-->,----->>'<:'.'i-<''O"----->--/ ,_-__ ,,_-;----)------:�'._, __ ----,>_-,_-,----�-: '/ -'' ·o�cam�e.Ipq�lica11yi���t��Jti�tjlcrio£itcf;�otb�··p()stlpg.l��p$igns•.<F,ou9t�i�·Y�11ey·a1re�dy.•pans •• s.igns•• ong�bli£•6,{�a$Ml11'tn�;en�,�tl����g���.£�n�itlafe�V{ptJ(thoµ�h·.1.was onl}(fl]f3�hu11dred.vote� �¢hi��·�t1e�f19?r��rne�ts,�?t•t9�;1a�ry •• s.igJ1S,W�r�.�l)lqf��or.1·\Na,1�eq•·�o�t·�itR�dl�t�ict.Ptiortp•.· the.el�c�ionan(ji�r'lly�ad Pe�pl�f t�U;�e•t�at eve.n�th�ugh.th�y.agfeed mo.r�·•vvitfi•·mY9ositions on· .. tn7 �ey.issu�s, fheyw7re g°:ih� wit�the.teacher's .endorsements. >•·········· ..... ·... . . : .. ·••··.··•··.····•• y· ..• So, pl�aseJook (It Seel�l)1's pp�ition� an CJ decide. if that is Ylllatyou want or not.'. .. yoµr endorse111ent will m13tter. Mark: Gotdhamer Seelam P Reddy 747 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 paloaltolife@gmail.com Work References Name Contact info Phone years known Company Brent Mckay Manager, Infrastructure 2012 -2+ years VMware Tung Liao Manager at Hughes · 1989 -25 years Hughes, HCI Denise Patrick M&A ULA Program mgr 2000 -14 years Boeing Radha Radhakrishnan Senior VP at Boeing 1998-16 years Boeing & Hughes Personal Information Name: Valerie Stinger ) GJTY OF r�1XLO ALTO. CA CITY CLEf{K'S dFtlCE . Address: 721 Christine Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 15 HAR -3 PM I! 0 7 Cell Phone: IE) Home t00ffice Phone: 650-493-6043 E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?IEJYesONo ) Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City <ilf..li>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes"'9 No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?�YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8)No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?l:IYes� No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Ocommunity Group IZJ Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0 Daily Post Deity Website 0 Flyer Other: ______________________________ _ List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: B.A., Economics, Goucher College MBA, University of Santa Clara Palo Alto Library Advisory Commission, 2005-2011, Chair, 2008 Page 1 Human Relations Commission ) ) Employment Present or Last Employer: Consultant, Biotech; Consultant, Developing Economies Occupation: Retired Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: For the last 15 years, I have been involved in Palo Alto activities and global programs. On the local level, serving on the Library Advisory Commission was the most involving and satisfying concentrated effort. I was actively involved researching and compiling the LSMAR, the strategic plan for our city libraries; communicating with neighborhoods and Council members; implementing the strategy, that is working with architects, public art selection, and city committees. During the bond campaign, I volunteered to support passage of the bond issue. The engagement was positive. Besides an updated library system for the city, it was a personal lesson on how much focused energy democracy requires, even to pass one bond issue for one community. On an international level, I have worked and volunteered in developing economies, with HIV/AIDS awareness, gender issues, and small/micro entrepreneurship. I developed a program to provide basic business training and access to HIV/AIDS counseling and testing, which was implemented in Lesotho and Southern Sudan. These trainings were directed to the poorest of the poor, to facilitate their initiative for their economic well-being. I also developed a curriculum for women in the Middle East and North Africa. Additionally, during this period, I worked on the business planning for numerous organizations and coops in Africa and the former Soviet Union, helping them move from a subsistence level to economic independence 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? The Human Relations Commission provides an avenue, for me, to be involved in the promotion of civic values on my home turf. My hope for Palo Alto is that the resources and infrastructure exist to give a diverse population a fair chance and a framework to act on his/her own initiative. My professional and volunteer experience give evidence, I hope, to the planning, implementation, and collaboration skills I would bring to the Human Relations Commission. My interest in the Commission is broad. I am proud to live in Palo Alto. It is important to me that, as the city grows, we continue to care for diverse populations and budget to provide human services. I do, in addition, have specific interest in one area, the Senior Summit. I am currently in the throes of caring for my 92-year old mother and can project from my singular experience to the broader community. The experience is horrific. We have an aging demographic segment and we need a community vision and strategy to optimize services. The HRC can bring attention and focus to this segment's needs. The HRC can prioritize and provide visibility to the agencies with expertise serving this segment. Page2 Human Relations Commission ) 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. See above, please. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? •Continue to review and amend, as needed, the City's Human Services Needs Assessment and Resource Allocation Process to ensure that it addresses the next five year period. •Continue to assess the budgeting process so that funding for services is maintained even in fluctuating economies. Page3 Human Relations Commission ) ) 4. Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72 -Mandatory Response Program LINK Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: l8J I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 1Domce Phone: E-mail: SignatureVa I e ri e Digitally signed by Valerie Stinger St •1 n g er DN: cn=Valerie Stinger, o, ou, email=vhs101@yahoo.com.c=US Date: 2015.03.03 00:22:51 -08'00' Date: 03MAR2015 Page4 Human Relations Commission Personal Information Name: /V\ A °""I;\ W E ( � j-(1 ·1 c IJ h Address: I f- ' < ? "I 0 ,1 h 1 'I I:: Cell Phone: 650.305.0701 IZ!Home 10 ornce Phone: E-mail: Are you a Palo Alto Resident?IXJYesONo 0 /1 , I\ Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢-Ji'alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?LJYesl,.aJ.No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?tzlvesO No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0 Yes�No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?OYesllJ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Human Relations Commission? Ocommunity Group �Email from City Clerk D Palo Alto Weekly Other: David Cart¥�an 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: \ _ �_)u1\ TD01/r f uP, � [)ouj !J A/ Houf\ 1 LJ�s T1 ll�l!U6 11. fv 1 c h tJl. 0 ,(· r p.. d M sT E v r: ;v s J .rJ +-! o,,,. i /: 1 + � ;i u,. t (fJ h A c1 � :t , \,v 11 I� ·r 11 t 0 K (,, I b A TD l)lf I f di'\ 0(V c H bu p,._ ( .1 Ht� [,I) 1 Vf G I (_ IJT 1. nr,; LIJ., �� SuS1t1 O'N'11lEf \\(0Mft,v;v17y Aovrit'' L f 1 ·1 /) ;J v 'I , "") . -f � i; 1 T f ( v.� J r sf h /" r l '} r 51 /1J c t l 11 t l 1 � s f rz 1J s I iJ lz /VI 0 F Tl 1Z1vdLv I 4 /v ·) 0 (1J / 6� I fV l :� 1 1"" \) 0 /t � ( h C 0 1Z tJ Lv t r Ct <;"1 f/ tJ fZ' /v f je·]flf, f (CL Page 1 Human Relations Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: President, Earthwise Productions of Palo Alto Occupation: concert promoter I artist manager I blogger Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I've fairly consistently been involved in civic engagement since 1977, when Cheryl Putt Preising my classmate tapped me on the shoulder at brunch and suggested I run for Terman Junior High Student Body President. A rJ 0 M-/ �u j Irv' E <) ff 4 JZ 71li 1 { 4 fu' 11 L Tr fl,.. {/ l ft' i ( .1-. /f /;,� I Mf fVl 111 / 1 r !/ Full--p flJ F rf 1 77J [SJ r /IJ(r ff J pl 7 rv u f; Th f /\ / '7 w 1 ( q /{ fi1c 1 () r ,�u � 0 /J /{; � I l ,· I v 6 ' { () T \ 1 A; n f I A s r 6v L r IN 1 ft i I ( ( ( � l j) 4-- {, 1/,,,;-U1 f of 01'/ tJfZle �cl111A1 / b41l]lf D1 f 1. What is it about the Human Relations Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? 101y (� �· (JGU<.f ;'r� ff J( G 0�e,J( f\;\\01 j?J� �fl;9 ffuv hf a rYJ 1'1 '"' L r w47c?1 f. !) & ,, A ()1vT ( /J .IV f ( /iJ 00 !"/ 1fVifJ utv/1t��Ro flldl(( )1Jf lz7/, i. 5foli{4 At;Vu'(h J r f\JtJJ,, i'l-1101Y ·1o <-1 G�oJ/J oC /u o ) T u 1) £ /11 1 1 IA/ h'ti h e D fV\ -0 n < 17 fr YJ \f1l z ) iJ � Page2 Human Relations Commission 4.Human Relations Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. Human Services Needs Assessment LINK Muni Code 9.72-Mandatory Response Program LINK _'t Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan LINK -_.L. OlNN 4 h1trzo cut f J f t11i lo0 !lvQT?lLkJ o,J Af 1 f J u 1? J 1 ( A ;> i:J � f'l a i q fi I\ I ( b 0 j) o""' 1T f'qf f v ' v y 6 f r.:,utzr 01 cfi4vS THFzof'"I 1 .4-/\Jt> L!\JO/f��cTlfi CJ\lP--PtJVr L�l]!Jfi�r/71p ""'" 1rio111-( ou/\ ullff�.v,ri, ,p/> 1'ou1'l.Pl/lo AVTo) Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 181 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 1-7,.SS. Oak C�ive #21 i, Palo Alto, CA 9438� Cell Phone: 0Home 100ffice Phone: E-mail: /}A ( /�\ 'f!V\ MA LV Signature: ____ v_ \�---------------Date: 3/2/15 i; i/ rr r� '10 r"' Page4 Human Relations Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. J wupKf.D (;J l r) j) tf{ l<T 7 11 [lljVl}l tz/ 1J JU I) /l)nu c Ii Pr !Z t >'T Ir-' tl 11. L (J 1/Li u f( '-/J/j f' PtJ G (Ohu� V, W 7r;i1 A ( 0 /-·{ T· J H Pi tt t , 11 f 1 ;t1 11J e ll "11· 1 uvJ !Jl 7Jf11 ! ," ''1 l1;1t8Tr:_ !'f JJ6,1/ '\ /1 4 /VD 5� 2 r) El;(.,-/ t fJ . .J?-.. '-1 l' IJ l T r1y (;"'" li"tJ /v' 'T f 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? This is my response tew1, 2, ane 3 eombirt�4iflt� � t{V\ t/pv'v>h ok w�'-f-t dv 1orivufdJ «-V\ \,,.0\A.. t •i\ .. , prr(r:vr� Software995 Support Nov 4, 2014 To me 'Bern King' 'Esther Berndt' 'Esther Wojcicki' 'Leah Garchik' 'Mike Havern' 'Mike Krigel' 'Mike Park' 'Akira Tana' 'Paul and EJ Hong' 'Paul Hong' 'Paula Kirkeby' 'Brian Keith Evans' 'Peter Drekmeier' 'Greg Zlotnick' 'Matt Maltz' 'Nick Sturiale' 'Brian Moore' 'Steve' 'Eric Cohen' 'ERIK ROSENBERG' 'Erik Allen' 'Sarah Cameron Sunde' 'Sunny Dykwell' 'Jim Newton' 'Jim Yardley' 'Terry Acebo Davis' 'Jonathan Yardley' 'Eric Fanali' 'Eric Walczak' 'Ross Eltherington' 'Eric Hanson' 'Brian Gaul' Mark, I just voted. I voted for a single candidate for council. I voted for you. Last night, a friend of Sam's committed suicide. This is very troubling. There are serious issues in Palo Alto. Of all the candidates, I think you are best suited to address them. Sincerely, Scott Rothstein 735 La Para Avenue P::iln Altn C'.A Page 3 Human Relations Commission Personal Information Name: Eric Beckstrom Address: 325 Middlefield Road Cell Phone: 650-847-8351 0Home 10ottice Phone: 650-847-8351 E-mail: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?(81Yes0No ouy OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 HAR 16 PM I: 10 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City Qf.ealo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? L.IYes IQ.I No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?l8)Yes0No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OveslE,tNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?OYeslEJNo How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer Other: Friend who serves on PA Historic Board, Margaret Wimmer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: See attached Resume. ArchitecUPlanner for 26 years in many cities, SF, NYC, London, Stockholm, Lund, Rockport, Stowe Recent Master Studies in Sustainable Urban Design-Lund University, Sweden Page 1 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Beckstrom Architecture/Planning + Consulting Occupation: Architect Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see resume. Involved in many community groups, from SF Urban tree planting, Immigrant Family Resource Center-SF, Gang Resource Center-SF, Bay Chamber Concerts-Rockport, Waldorf Schools, etc. Also workshops with groups, from Peking University, Lund University, Swedish Business group, etc. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Public Art is integral to the quality of public life. Active interest since studes at the SF Institute for Urban Studies housed at the SFArt lnstitute-1984. Silicon Valley/Palo Alto thrive for a number of reasons. The public space in Palo Alto is unique with small lots, sidewalks, mature trees and a very diverse population. The chance encounters in the public realm actually provide a foundation for the health of the community: culturally, economically, socially. I would be honored to assist the commission in its mission and endeavors. Page2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The 101 Bike Bridge will perhaps be the most 'public' of Palo Alto public art elements. It combines the closeup, active engagement of pedestrians and bicyclists who will use it to go to the Baylands along with the thousands of 101 users who will pass under in a matter of seconds. So perhaps this work illustrates very different qualities of engagement. Public art can perform a 'dance' of engagement at all hours of the day. What is that we want these forms to address? Perhaps it is celebration of shared public space. Celebrations can be quiet and intimate or loud and for the masses. Palo Alto is 'connected' to the rest of the world with the 'tech' ancestry here. This tech ancestry is ironically intimately connected to people through feel at their fingertips on keyboards to their visual imagination through pixels on screens. The innovation gestation setting of Palo Alto is alive precisely because of its rich public space web which allows networking. This networks thrives in a city of sidewalks, small lots, mixed uses, large and small streets under a canopy of mature and diverse trees. The nature element brings living sculpture to ground these technological endeavors. The sidewalk culture is intensely important here on so many levels. Therefore some cities may have public art in typical·civic settings which may in fact have very little actual public engagement whereas Palo Alto 'lives and breathes' with its sidewalk culture. This Sidewalk culture expands into large nature areas such as the 'Dish' and now the Meadowlands with this amazing opportunity of the 101 pedestrian bridge to bookend both sides of Palo Alto. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I am fascinated by group intelligence and process. What does it take to allow and support active discussions to sieve out the most relevant qualities of any endeavor? It is an honor to see the thorough and thoughtful thinking of the PA Arts commission in the podcasts. As the Commission goes forward how can it assess what places and works of art engage to the highest level? What is that highest level and how can the PA Arts Commission support projects that engage all of our senses? In today's digital age what is the role or challenge of public art? What are the tactile qualities that allow the public to pause and reconsider their sense of their own community and their role in it? An approach which I have used in other settings allows structured and varied discussions to allow the salient issues to reveal themselves. Everyone has artistic passions and perspectives, how to give voice to this in the process of furthering Public Art's role? In my past board experience I was mainly called to serve on committees which form the basis of arts: Economic committees, Strategic committees, etc. I would hope to share this other thinking to support and engage with the other members of the Commission. Thank you. Page3 Public Art-Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK I have read through the document. It covers a lot of ground/landscape. Perhaps a shorter synopsis of the same document on one page might be interesting. It is obvious from the podcasts that the PAC members embrace and comprehend the essence of this document. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: f8I I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR D I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: D Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature:_�_,._ __ � ______________ Date: 3;/s-f?o� Page4 Public Art Commission 2011-2015 2002-2004 1987-88 1986-87 1984 1981-85 2014-present 2014-present 2003-2013 2000-2003 1995-2000 1991-95 1990-91 1990 1988-90 1988 1985-88 1987 1985 1982/83 Summer 1981 1980 Summer 1979 Summer 2014 2013-14 2011 2003-2013 2002-2005 2005 1998 1999-2002 1998-2002 1997-99 1996-97 1995 1993-95 1993-94 1994 1995 1993-95 1982 1976-81 1975-1981 ERIC A. BECKSTROM, Architect President, Beckstrom Architecture/Planning+ Consulting Inc. Palo Alto, CA Registered: CA C25632, ME ARC2779 , NCARB #46,854, , VT 2188{1apsed) Web-www.BeckstromArchitecture.com; email-Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com EDUCATION 2015 Lund University, Lund, Sweden, Masters Program Sustainable Urban Design-SUDES/HDM Waldorf Foundation Studies (Pedagogical/Teacher training), 2-year program. Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York, Bachelor of Architecture (5-year) The Architectural Association, School of Architecture, London, England San Francisco Center for Architecture and Urban Studies, San Francisco, California Oklahoma State University, Architecture, Mechanical Engineering and Philosophy EMPLOYMENT HISTORY President, Beckstrom Architecture/Planning+ Consulting, Palo Alto, CA/ Rockport, ME. Consultant, AWA-Ana Williamson Architect, Menlo Park, tA Principal, Beckstrom Architecture & Planning, Rockport, ME. Grew firm to 6 people. Principal, Cushman+ Beckstrom, Inc. Architecture & Planning, Rockport, ME/ Stowe, VT. Grew firm to from 3 to 12 people. Associate Partner/ Architect A.I.A., M. B. Cushman Design, Inc., Stowe, VT. Architect, David S. Gast & Associates, San Francisco, CA. Arkitekt, Rosen bergs Arkitektkontor AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Arkitekt, Can Arkitektkontor AB, Stockholm, Sweden. Intern Architect, Pei, Cobb, Freed & Partners, New York, New York. Intern Architect, Hellmuth, Obata, and Kassabaum, New York, New York. Intern Architect, Omrania U.K. Ltd., London, England. Historical Researcher, Waterfront Development Corporation, London, England. Intern Architect, Lister, Drew & Associates, Walton-on-Thames, England. Stonemason, Mike Shelton Construction, Tulsa, Oklahoma Actor/Biker#2, Walt Disney Movie 'Tex', http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084783/ House Framer-wood, Doug Lee Construction, Tulsa, Oklahoma Motorcycle/Bicycle Mechanic, Cyle Kart Racers, Tulsa, Oklahoma ACTIVITIES Innovation Workshop Leader, VINNOVA/foretagarna Business Association, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, CA Guest Lecturer, Lund University Industrial Design, Architecture, Business School, Lund, Sweden Guest Lecture/Graduate project jurist, Peking University, Beijing, CN Board Member, Bay Chamber Concerts, Rockport, ME. President/Board Member, Ashwood Waldorf School, Rockport, ME Water Workshop-Steiner Institute, Herbert Dreiseitl, LA Architecture/Form/Ecology International Conference Participant, Jarna, Sweden. Expert Witness, Vermont Environmental Board, Cell tower relocation, case success. Garfield Hyde Park Neighbors Alliance, GHNA, Neighborhood Advocacy Group, VT. Mountain Choraliers Choir, Lamoille County, VT. Building Committee, Lake Champlain Waldorf School, Shelburne, VT. Board Member, Good Samaritan Family Resource Center, SF, CA. Member, Precita Valley Neighbors, SF, CA. Neighborhood relations, park renovations. Board Member, Mission Neighborhood Inner City tuition free Waldorf School, SF, CA. Board Member, Precita Valley Community Center, Youth/Gang Prevention Center, SF, CA. Organizer, Friends of the Urban Forest, SF, CA. -street planting-60 street/40 houses. Member, A.I.A. Task Force on the Environment, San Francisco, CA. Movie, Biker 2, 'Tex' Disney movie; Screen Test for Francis Ford Coppola -'The Outsiders' Motocross Racer, 250cc and 125cc, Intermediate class Eagle Scout. ERIC A. BECKSTROM Personal Information Name: Loren Gordon t�L'( Of PALO A!JO. f' :\ 1.,/ l y CLEHr\'S OFFICE Address: 428 Maple Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-269-6489 I 5 MAR -3 PM 4: 1 7 �Home 10ottice Phone: 650-321-2189 E-mail: lilikg428@gmail.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?IZ!YesONo Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.J;>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? LJYes �No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IZJYes ONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?O YeslZJNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto? Ov es IZJ No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Public Art Commission? Ocommunity Group D Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: Jim Migdal 0 Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I have a Bachelor's degree from the University of Colorado and a Master's degree of Business Administration from the University of San Francisco. I'm drawn to the art world because both my mother and sister are artists. In my first job after college, I worked for a San Francisco investment bank (Montgomery Securities) that had an extensive collection of modern art and antiques. In November 2014, I co-hosted an art show in my home. I love to be surrounded by paintings, photographs, sculpure, or art of any kind. My experience includes volunteer work at SFMOMA in the past and a current position on the Membership Executive Council at the Cantor Arts Center. Page 1 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Bank of America (Montgomery Securities) occupation: Human Resource Mgmt., Vice President, Corporate Finance and Syndicate a Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I served on the Addison PT A executive board as the co-chair of Outreach and Education. I have held many positions at my children's elementary school (Charles Armstrong School) including organizing and chairing fundraisers and supporting teachers. I currently volunteer at the Brentwood School on behalf of All Students Matter, volunteer for the California Transplant Donor Network, serve on the executive board of Gamble Garden and on the Membership Executive Council of the Cantor Arts Center. For the past six years, I have been involved with Gamble Garden, an estate owned by the City of Palo Alto. I have twice co-chaired the Spring Tour, Gamble's largest fund-raising event and served on the board for five years. This Palo Alto experience has made me aware of our citizens' interest in open space, public parks, gardens and beauty. Working with individual homeowners who share their gardens with the public during the Spring Tour, I learned there is a feeling that beautiful landscape, natural tranquility and outdoor sculpture is important to our community. Art and beauty matter. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am passionate about sharing works of art with the public. Recently, Richard Serra's Sequence sculpture left the Cantor Arts Center to find its new home inside the SFMOMA. When I visited the Cantor last week, I heard many people comment on missing the sculpture. The presence of this piece simply brought them joy. It was an outdoor installation that was accessible to everyone for free. I heard similar comments from those who visit Gamble Garden. They just enjoy being outdoors surrounded by interesting and beautiful trees and plants. I'm interested in joining the Public Art Commision because I deeply care about art for all. I support maintaining the pieces in the collection and bringing in new art. I'm very excited to experience art in the University Avenue underpass and still smile every time I walk by one of Greg Brown's murals. Page 2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I have not attended a Commission meeting. Thank you for making the meetings available online. I found the December 18th meeting regarding the public art master plan for Palo Alto interesting. Barbara Goldstein presented the plan and outlined how she and Gail Goldman intend to engage the public. I would love to be a part of this process. We are fortunate to have this team working for our city. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? We are fortunate to have space for land art. It is wonderful to discover Patrick Dougherty's stickwork sculpture and incredible to walk over to check out Andy Goldsworthy's Stone River. I would like to see more natural land art in Palo Alto. Those who live our town enjoy our mild weather and make time to be outside. Palo Alto is one of the best places to live in our nation and deserves a destination art piece that you'd find in urban areas such as San Francisco. It would be interesting if this piece was natural. We could accomplish this by partnering with corporations, using funds (percent for art) from several new projects, and creating an event around the new installation. I realize that finding the right artist, location and funding can take years. However, we live in a well-connected city and we can get this accomplished. Another goal I have is to engage the youth of our community. I believe in getting youth more involved in public art. The commision could invite young artists to submit works for temporary shows in public buildings or ask for a young writer to write an article or blog about a new installation. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Thank you very much for making this plan available. I have reveiwed it. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: � I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: Loren Gordon Signature:----------------------Date: 03-03-15 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: San Jose State University Occupation: Lecturer in School of Art & Design (Industrial Design Program) Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: While my son was at Walter Hays I was a room parent for 2 years in a row. I also served on the Core Values committee of the school. I was the Events Chair of the PTA for Synapse School for 2 years in a row. I volunteer regularly in my kids' classrooms at Synapse School. I like to leverage my skills to be helpful to my community. For example I designed Synapse School's Middle School Catalogue working closely with the Director of Outreach and the Head of School. I also worked closely with Synapse Board Members to design the Strategic Plan for the school. You might say I am "on-call" for all school design projects. My youngest daughter is in a co-op nursery school and I help in the classroom on a regular basis. I volunteer for my boys' Palo Alto Little League teams and volunteer in many of my kids' activities. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? As an artist, designer, teacher and a parent of 3 young children, I would like to see art become a value that is more integrated into local culture. We have been home owners in Palo Alto since 2007 and prior to that we lived in San Francisco. I love this community and strongly believe that it's a wonderful place to live, work and a supportive community in which to raise a family. What I miss about city life is the daily exposure to arts and culture. In Silicon Valley we have the resources to make this happen. Some of our neighboring communities have had exciting exhibits that pushed the boundaries of what we usually see such as the Los Altos I SFMOMA collaboration. I am interested in finding ways to integrate art and design into our lives for the community and for my children. As an artist, designer and teacher I am accustomed to critiquing and discussing art and design with empathy. I am also trained and experienced in evaluating effective concepts by somewhat objective standards and requirements. I love to look at and discuss art! I think I would be great at helping to select artists and work closely with them on development and installation. Page 2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I'm excited abbut the variety of public art works in development this year. From the Barbara Grygutis sculpture at Stanford Research Park to the University Avenue tunnel and the Adobe Creek Bridge design these are exciting ways to integrate public art into everyday life. I am specifically interested in the University Avenue project because it brings together world class contemporary artists with a highly functional project in a highly trafficked area. This will be exciting to watch. I am also interested in learning more about the Public Art Master Plan that is currently in development. I'm excited to see that a plan is being developed and would love to be on the team who implements it. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? 1. I would love to see more public, innovative artwork in accessible places. There are some amazing pieces hidden around town such as the Stanford GSB Monuments to a Change as it Changes by Peter Wegner and the Patrick Dougherty piece at the Art Center. We need more of this in our community and I'm hopeful that with the new Master Plan there will be the means and motivation to make it happen. 2. I would also love to see more functional design pieces integrated into the community such as the bicycle racks in downtown Palo Alto. With a little investigation, I know we could find opportunities to add art and design to functional projects that could improve the primary purpose while delighting the observer. Page3 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Retired (Last employer -Siemens Corporation) Occupation: Contentment pursuits (Project Leader) Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been a member of the City of San Jose Arts Commission from June 1992 to February 2015. I served as chair of the commission from 2003 to 2006 and chair of Public Art Committee of the Arts Commission in 2006-2007. I also chaired the Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport Public Art Master Plan Steering Committee in 2004. I was named Metro Newspaper Public Art Person of the Year in 2004. I have served on the City of Palo Public Art Commission since June 2013 and currently serve as the vice-chair. I was co-president of the Parents Auxiliary at Children's Musical Theater of San Jose and served on the board of directors in 1991-1992 and 1997-1999. As a docent at the Japanese American Museum of San Jose, I lead tours of the museum to guests that request a guided tour. I am a volunteer Marriage Commissioner for the County of Santa Clara and have performed over 4,500 marriage ceremonies. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have been involved in public art for over 20 years and it is a passion of mine. I believe public art is the soul of a city and great cities have great public art. The Public Art Master Plan process that is just starting is of great interest to me and I believe my experience in this area will be very helpful in the development of the plan. Page 2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: The percent for public art by private development ordinance that was enacted in January, 2014. At least a dozen projects have come before the Public Art Commission for review and comment. These projects are a way to add powerful and innovative pieces of public art to the Palo Alto landscape. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commissic)n achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Completion of the first Public Art Master Plan (PAMP) for Palo Alto. The PAMP is an important document to help shape the future of public art in Palo Alto. Input from the city council, city staff and the community will be used to formulate the PAMP. The Public Art Commission can be the interface between the city council, city staff and thH community and the consultants that will be writing the PAMP. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you h�1ve experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this documE!nt is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LIN_6 The Municipal Arts Plan (MAP) is the Public Art Commission's "roadmap" for public art. Recent discussions have included updating the MAP to more reflect recent developments in technology and how the PAMP can influence public art in Palo Alto. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part. "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on. the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and checl< only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR (g] I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 1313 Newell Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 0 Home10 Office Phone: E-mail: Ben.Miyaji@gmail.com March 2, 2015 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Mobile Art Academy Occupation: Education Director and co-founder Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I do not have any long lasting involvement, but recently spent a day at the VA in Menlo Park at their day long art workshop, working with vets showing them how to paint on their iPads! I have also volunteered help at the different schools I have worked with - Menlo School, Los Altos Christian School etc. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I have a huge regard for the immense impact this city has had on the world in terms of the tech industry and Stanford scientists. I see it as a hub of the american renascence. However I feel that their is a gap between the subjects of art and technology that needs to be bridged so they join forces in creative ways. I want to help make that happen, not just with mobile digital art, but with good art in any fine art genre. I want to help enhance the city with art to express the true creativity that exists here. I feel I have experience in making things happen in the art world, of forging ahead with new ideas, especially in the meeting of art and technology. Page2 Public Art Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I am not familiar with the commission as such, but was interested in issues that Jim was telling me about. I tried going to the link, but when I did that I lost all the info I had typed into this document, so I will leave it at that! 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to see the creative spirit of Palo Alto expressed more visibly in the community. I would like to encourage the many start ups and large tech companies to join us in sponsoring great modern art that belongs here to Palo Alto. I would like to see us create a young artist incubator and bring in some avant large artistic creations that makes Palo Alto a leading artistic center for the world, just as it is a leader in tech. Page 3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK I have no experience with this document. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: D I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR l8J I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: 668 Ramona Street, Palo Alto Cell Phone: 650 289 8148 0 Home 10omce Phone: E-mail: caroline@mobileartacademy.com Date: 2/24/2015 Page4 Public Art Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Inn Vision Shelter Network Occupation: Nonprofit Administration Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I am a Commissioner on the Santa Clara County Homeless Healthcare Governing Board and I serve on the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, a nonprofit developer of affordable housing. I am a member of the City of Palo Alto Sustainable Climate Action Plan Advisory Group as well as the City's Comprehensive Plan Update Leadership Group. I am a member of the League of Women Voters and a Fellow of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce's Leadership Palo Alto 2014 program. I am volunteer at Ohlone Elementary School in Palo Alto, among other activities. 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Please see attached page. Page2 Public Art Commission ...... ' . • • • 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. I am interested in seeing how the Public Art in Private Development Ordinance which was passed in January of last year will contribute to the funding of more temporary and permanent public art throughout the City. In addition, I am looking forward to the creation of the City's Public Art Master Plan and am excited to see this effort engage the public through community outreach and public participation. I hope this process helps staff and the Commission synthesize any emerging themes around how public art can enhance quality of life, foster economic development and create vital public spaces during a year when our City will be thinking about "place making" in a variety of ways. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Public Art Commission achieve, and why? How would.you suggest accomplishing this? A primary goal would be to work towards the creation of the Pubiic Art Master Plan now that the City has selected a consultant to facilitate that process. As a Commissioner, I would support staff in their review of the consultant's research and planning efforts, provide perspective, feedback and suggestions as needed, and support in efforts to have a broad spectrum of Palo Altans engage in the community outreach component. A second, short term goal includes supporting the implementation of an online database of the City's public art collection with mobile app for accessing educational info about the artwork. And finally, I am interested in continuing to support Artists in Residence, exploring how we might be able to replicate the kind of residency program that brought about the Greg Brown murals we know today. · Page3 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commission Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and wil be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: .D. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 181 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10 Office Phone: E-mail: mila.zelkha@gmail.com Page4 Public Art Commission 4. Public Art Commis$ion Members work with the document listed below. If you have experience with this document, please describe that experience. Experience with this document is not required for selection. Municipal Arts Plan LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the of Palo Website - .. - California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form wil not be redacted and wil be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR � I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home1[Joffice Phone: E-mail: mila.zelkha@gmail.com Date: s- Page4 Public Art Commission oF Di\ L . ·o ' I M t1. �· d}fi 1. What is it about the Public Art Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest t0:you, and why? I, like other Palo Altans, have had the good fortune of living my days with the art of Greg Brown. His public murals are some of my earliest memories of civic pride. Having grown up in Palo Alto, I became close friends with a band of brothers that included Greg's son. Hovering in mid-air or catching us off guard with his booming laugh, hanging out with Greg at his home meant that we were surrounded by both art and joy. We could be ourselves with Greg and celebrated even if we tried on a tough exterior ... an egg shell was an egg shell and yet with Greg it could be a sweetheart leaning in with affection. As we grew up and paired off, Greg gave us each a work of art - a series of wedding portraits for each couple. The drawing Greg drew of me ... about to ride a roller coaster at the boardwalk ... my eyes are closed and hopelessly in love. What a gift I have been able to enjoy, living with this art every day over the years, an experience that opened my eyes to see in a way I never had before and that is very different than that of visiting something once in a gallery or museum for a few moments. In 2003, the Palo Alto Art Center held an exhibition of Greg's work titled "Unlikely Saints". Neighbors, friends, and Palo Altans of all kinds were found in Greg's work­ people who we interact with every day -the owner of the art supply store, the pharmacist realistically presented with an electric radiance that only Greg could capture. I believe however it is the public art of Greg Brown, especially of his murals done through the City of Palo Alto's Artist in Residence program several decades ago, is what has had and will continue to have a lastiD.g impact on our entire community. Public art that we can live with -that gives us pause and inspires us -is a most valuable gift because it is really the gift of unlocking something inside of us -one where our eyes open, showing us how we love life, how to see. I would like to serve on the City of Palo Alto's Public Art Commission to share the profound experience of living with art to all who come to this wonderful city, to take the time in our ordinary days to see more, feel more, and love & celebrate all of the unlikely saints out there and our potential. e1rry OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Personal Information Name: Michael Danaher Address: 1355 Hamilton Ave I 5 HAR 16 AM ': 43 Cell Phone: 650-714-8530 0Home 118]office Phone: 650-320-4625 E-mail: mdanaher@wsgr.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?l8JYes0No Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City QLE.'alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes Rl!No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? l&Jves D No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an Investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8]No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property In Palo Alto?0Yesi&!No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group 0Daily Post 0 Email from City Clerk D City Website 0Palo Alto Weekly DFlyer other: discussion with commission member List relevant education, training, experience, certificates 'of training, licenses, or professional registration: · B.A. Yale J.D. Stanford Member of California Bar Page 1 Utlllty Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Wiison Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Occupation: Attorney Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: After stints in government service, my wife and I returned here in the BO's. While our children were in school my community service was youth-oriented, including at least 14 seasons of AYSO coaching, Assistant Scoutmaster of my son's Boy Scout troop, support person for my wife's Girl Scout troop and a period of teaching math enrichment to the more advanced math students at Duvenick. I also served for a number of years as president of the Palo Alto Adult Soccer League. After our son and daughter left home I have devoted more time to support of · environmental groups and clean energy and energy efficient projects, as discussed below. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am a life-long environmentalist and spend time every day on the climate crisis and possible responses. I was one of the leaders in building our cleantech team at the law firm; we are now among the most active in the country. I (and my colleagues) devote substantial time to helping create, build, finance and expand companies with new technologies and business models for alternative energy and resource efficiency. Through working with companies, attending conferences, and discussions with colleagues and with entrepreneurs, scientists, investors, business leaders, energy companies and others, I am exposed to critical thinking and new initiatives on almost all the fields under the purview of the UAC, including energy supply, technology and business model innovation for renewable energy and the Implications for utilities, technologies and strategies for energy efficiency in the built environment, water use, demand side management and more. I've also worked with businesses in the telecom/datacom sector and have some familiarity with FTTH technologies. In addition to domain exposure, I've been fortunate to gain substantial business experience. As a corporate attorney at the firm for 28 years, I've worked with hundreds of companies, · attended thousands of board meetings, budget reviews and strategic reviews, learned from working with some of the talented people in tech, and learned too from watching so many mistakes being made. Along the way I've become a student of boards and their decision-making processes. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Like many, I'm deeply concerned about the water shortage and think about it whenever I turn on the tap. I lived here during the 1976-7 drought but this may be the new normal, either because we're in a cyclic "megadrought," climate change or both. I'm aware of some of the actions the Utilities department has taken but I'm interested in hearing about the long-term strategy, both supply-side and demand-side. I'm also interested in investigating whether, as part of a long-term supply-side strategy, there may be opportunities to purchase water rights from farmers, perhaps from farmers who could use the money to invest in efficient water technology. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? It would be presumptuous at this stage for me to suggest goals. I am so impressed with the quality of the Utilities department work and so proud of how innovative and enlightened Palo Alto has been. From its clean energy programs, to incentives and consulting services for energy efficiency in new construction, to support for new technologies and more, Palo Alto is a model of best practices. I have much to learn before I can make proposals. I do have areas of inquiry. I'll mention two. First, I'd like to understand, from the Utility department perspective, the relative efficiency of grid-scale renewable energy, community solar, roof-top solar and energy efficiency Initiatives, and to understand how Palo Alto and its residents can get the most bank for their money. Second,.most utility companies are restricted by PUC rules including limits on what investments they may include in their rate-base. I'd like to understand how much flexibility Palo Alto has relative to most utilities and whether there are leadership opportunities for Palo Alto to demonstrate new approaches. Page3 Utlllty Advisory Commiss!on 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I I have read most of these but that is all. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the Citv of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, In part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: fil I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I fequest that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10omce Phone: E-mail: Signature; ---1...µ...;·..:..1. .;;;;J;....__e......;.d._____;:::,_D-=\=-.::;a;.;..,.,,,;;.._ '--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-:_-:_-:_-:_-::;;;...._ __ Date: 3/15/2015 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission Personal Information Name: Timothy Gray Address:4173 Park Blvd. Cell Phone: 650 493-3000 l8J Home 1Doffice Phone: 650 858-2738 E-mail: Timothygray@sbcglobal.net Are you a Palo Alto Resident?i8]Yes0 No GllY OF fDALO Al.JO.CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 HAR -2 AH Ill: 34 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City ¢.li>alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?WYes�No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for?IE}YesONo California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; · 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?0Yesl8JNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?0Yesl&!No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission'? 0community Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0 Palo Alto Weekly 0Daily Post OcityWebsite 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Certified Public Accountant, Consultant to Large Companies throughout the nation, avid interest in Environmental impact of community energy policies, customer of Palo Alto Natural Gas Vehicle station, Palo Alto Home Owner, and Participant in Palo Alto Green. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: Treasury Advocates, Self Employed, Occupation: Consultant to San Mateo Medical Center and other hospitals. Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Active advocate of fairness, transparency, and integrity in local government. Frequent speaker at City Council Meetings. Former candidate for Palo Alto City Council. Palo Alto Utilities customer for 20 years. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I am interested in pursuing and maintaining zero emission in the least costly basis. I am interested in being an advocate for the residential customers. This would include making sure that all transactions between the Utilities Enterprise and the Palo Alto General Fund are fairly reflected in arm-length transactions, are transparent, and fairly reflect the economics of the transactions. As a former journalist, I have experience in communicating information of community interest. As a Corporate finance leader, I am practiced in communicating complex economic transactions in sim le and understandable terms that deliver a common understandin to stake-holders with all levels of experience. My corporate career has been dedicated to promoting a customer-focus approach to service in all areas of professional performance. Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. The conversion of Palo Green into a new way to engage citizens in purchasing green energy and generally speaking, opportunities to purchase carbon offsets. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? I would like to prove and communicate to the Utility customers that they are receiving the lowest rates possible as a result of innovative and efficient operations of the Utility Enterprise. I would be very interested in finding the economic balance that would allow the City to move forward with undergrounding utility lines, and to promote the roll-out of greater access to the fiber-optics network in an economically responsible way. Advocate for efficient Utility operations to preserve local ownership of the Utilities, and to deliver an "ownership dividend" to residential and corporate customers. To the extent possible, I would advocate for policies that increased solar and promoted alternative energy sources, within reasonable economic contraints. I would champion co · · to within very pragmatic parameters. Page3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK I have general awareness of these concepts, but have not studied or had experience with these plans. Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: JEI. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR 0 I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact . . . Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 100ffice Phone: E-mail: Page4 Utility Advisory Commission ) 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I view this as an opportµnity to contribute to my local community integrating conservation, community, culture and commerce in developing sustainable practice 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Implementing elements of lean management that integrates set of activities designed to achieve re;3sonable waste reduction and energy conservation using minimal resources and funds Consolidating commission commitment to empowerment, education, and environmental awareness programs, 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK . The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Page 2 Utility Advisory Commission ) Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: 0 I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR ® I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Palo Alto resident Cell Phone: n/a 0 Home I 0 Office Phone: E-mail: Signature: Date: Page3 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: £ le.&�v � c f->ou.>e. Re?ec� J:"'"'c;..f.� t...e. Co i.v;,Jcut Occupation: Re.?� £"'-'f�>A-€-f4"-' a:ul '1-rVJl,,eg,_ r��r1µ.",.+- Describe your involvement In community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: M-�� 0 e4 �, ? "'-·cvL.,. vv � e � f' LttA,V qv{, d 'f N "'f f;-, (,Lo.. fl o I 't "t {j 1. What Is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that Is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? f\. � � lvk-F "� � i., \A_L � 6 � e... uJ Gl-fi; � l > 5-c-c.� � e_ 11\,-e.�1 � l"LwL -e.l e_0i: .. 11 c. ·l�· w •1 fiv ewlyilw.-47J7 � sa.keJ.J cu.l+-1.(,"'e.�t.v-eeka-��i.u.� trYV\, 1'· c, � 1' .J.e-J,.lo� �� Page2 I ltlllht Arlul10nn1 �nmmi1010inn 2. Please describe an Issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular Interest to you an� describe �hy you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these 11 documents Is not required for selection. Personal Information Name: Judith Schwartz Address: 2330 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-906-9927 (both home and office) E-mail: Judith@tothept.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident? X Yes_ No 15 HAR -3 PM 4: I 0 Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto, who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members? Yes X No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? X Yes No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?_ Yes X No Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?_ Yes _X No How did you learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Other: _posting on NextDoor and regular emails from PAUAC List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: I am a nationally recognized expert in consumer engagement, utility communications, dynamic pricing, strategies to support low-income families, and energy literacy programs. My company, To the Point is a strategic marketing and systems consultancy working on the leading edge of human-centered design, communication and marketing programs, systems analysis, and applied technology since 1987. Since 2007, I have been on the forefront of sustainability issues, grid modernization, alternative energy, and the digital home. Working at the nexus of public policy, technology, communications, and business; I bring an unusual perspective that crosses functional disciplines to cut to the heart of the problems and solutions. Municipal utilities (electricity, water, gas) are my clients, subjects of research studies I've prepared, and participants in symposia and workshops that I've organized. Therefore, I am very familiar with the distinct governance, financial, and management issues that affect public power organizations. I am happy to provide a list of relevant publications and video productions. My husband and I moved to Palo Alto in March 1982 when I went to work for Apple Computer. My high­ tech career focused on deploying and introducing disruptive technologies including personal computers, Internet, ERP, and other novel application areas. I was previously the president and co-founder of a water treatment start up that was ahead of its time. The utility industry can be viewed through a similar Jens of policy, technology, and behavioral transformation. Employment Present Employer: To the Point Occupation: Consultant Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Currently serve on 2 boards: Family and Children Services of Silicon Valley (Palo Alto) and the Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid (a national organization); Past board member for the Silicon Valley Arts Council, Palo Alto Womans Club, Friends of Huddart and Wunderlich Park, and an advisory board member for CHAPS, an equestrian group underwriting riding scholarships for foster children and veterans. • Experience with over 30 nonprofits as board member, senior staff, consultant, pro-bono contributor; Past advisor to board, staff, and volunteer development organizations serving Silicon Valley; Designed fundraising programs and promotions for capital, operating, membership campaigns for museums, social service agencies, and community groups; 30-year track record of building strategic alliances, partnerships, and encouraging individual employees and colleagues to collaborate and do their best work. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? In my work in this sector, I have seen the pivotal role commissions play in guiding utilities and how challenging it can be to educate commissoners on the subtleties of the issues. I have developed stakeholder education programs, collaborating with regulators; utilities such as EWEB, SDG&E, Hydro One, National Grid, PG&E, Pepco; leading scientists, analysts, consumer advocates, and technology companies. A panelist at the FERC Technical Conference for the National Action Plan for Demand Response, I was the Strategic Communications Consultant to the NAPDR Coalition of Coalitions which included APP A. I was a member of the leadership team for the Department of Energy Smart Grid Consumer Engagement Working Group identifying best practices in customer and stakeholder outreach. I was a member of the CPUC Technical Working Group on Smart Grid Goals, program manager for the IEEE PES Community Summit Program, and have written or co-authored publications for the Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative, Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid, National Action Plan on DR, the Institute for Electric Efficiency, and DEFG. I would bring to the UAC a deep understanding of what it takes to involve, listen to, and communicate with communities and varied stakeholder groups. Residents are more likely to support activities and investments by their utility if they can see how the organization is serving their own goals and priorities rather than simply the utility's objectives. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Briefing. As the City Sustainability Officer noted, "the easy parts have been done and it is now time to challenge ourselves to meet the long-term goals for GHG reductions." Specifically noted as targets were CA 80% reduction by 2050; 80% by 2030 along with cities like Fort Collins; and the California moonshot goal to be climate neutral within 10 years or less. My participation and leadership in industry conferences, research, and working groups have given me a realistic view of the tradeoffs and efficacy among technology and financial investments, policy changes, and behavioral change. Claims and aspirational goals often do not match up with reality. As someone who crafts coherent stories and frameworks, I feel that I could capably assess what is being proposed for Palo Alto. I was particularly taken by the "How good is good enough and what is realistic to achieve that level?" discussion as I think that cuts to the heart of the matter for all of the resources and services managed by Palo Alto. I was heartened to hear that RMI consultants leading the design charrette felt so many elements were already happening in our City. However, I see a gap between that assessment and my own perception as a City resident who is both knowledgeable and concerned about these issues. The public engagement goals sound great and I would love to see more people in the community actively involved. I believe that one needs to look at the big integrated systems picture in order to address "mitigation vs adaptation" and "vision vs operations." 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? There are a great many people and businesses in Palo Alto who are interested in responding to climate change and in creating and/or adopting technologies that enable more efficient use of energy, gas, and water to save money, reduce waste, and detect outages/leaks. We are one of the epicenters of EV adoption and with the recent requirement that new homes must include EV charging capability, it is likely this trend will accelerate with the range of attractive new EV s and hybrids coming on the market. That is likely to increase penetration of rooftop solar in Palo Alto as electric vehicles will make those investments more viable. In addition to this increase in intermittent supply and load, another risk for Palo Alto's electricity supply is the single transmission power line through the Colorado substation. In the event of a major disruption at the substation, power could be cut to the city for an extended period of time. These factors combined with the utility's increasing dependence on contracts for solar generation, means the City will need a mix of advanced storage at different scales and demand side technology solutions to cost-effectively manage this impending challenge. Goal: Build upon community aspirations and economic and sustainability goals to obtain support for investment in new infrastructure and programs that will allow a portfolio of options that matches the diverse priorities of city residents and commercial customers. How: We can accomplish this by learning from other jurisdictions, embracing proven best practices for stakeholder and community engagement that are achieving these goals in other cities across the country. We also can leverage the technology experts and innovation that are part of our community to encourage optimum solutions and "next practices." For example, managing drought conditions can better executed with the same kinds of technologies and outreach techniques that are proving successful with electricity and gas delivery. Palo Alto leaders like to envision our city as an exceptional example of green, sustainable, smart city. I believe the reality can match the vision if we are open to the voices and experiences of others who are further down the path. We can share those lessons with our City Council, utility staff, and citizens so they can be reassured that activities new to Palo Alto are reasonable steps, that we are setting realistic expectations, and we are in a position to validate requests for investment. 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: ..3, I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0 Home 10ottice Phone: E-mail: Signature C)�� v Date: 3 McU<l1 c;iO 1'5 Page 4 Utility Advisory Commission Name: Lisa Van Dusen Address: 1111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cell Phone: 650-799-3883 0Home t 00ffice Phone: E-mail: lvandusen@mac.com Are you a Palo Alto Resident?J,81Yes0 No CIT t UF PALO /'dJO. Ct-1 CITY CLEF\l\'S OFFICE 15 HAR -3 PM 5: I � Do you have any relatives or members of your household who are employed by the City �alo �. who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?UYes �No Are you available and committed to complete the term applied for? IEJvesO No California state law requires appointed board and commission members to file a detailed disclosure of their financial interests, Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest, Form 700. Do you have an investment in, or do you serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to; 1) engage in business with the City, 2) provide products or services for City projects, or 3) be affected by decisions of the board or commission you are applying for?OveslEJNo Excluding your principal residence, do you own real property in Palo Alto?J.81Yes0No How did you Learn about the vacancy on the Utilities Advisory Commission? Ocommunity Group 0 Email from City Clerk 0Palo Alto Weekly Other: friends 0Daily Post Deity Website 0Flyer List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Please see attached. Page 1 Utility Advisory Commission Employment Present or Last Employer: SV2 -Silicon Valley Social Venture Fund Occupation: Director of Partner Engagement & External Relations Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: Please see attached. 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? Please see attached Page2 Utility Advisory Commission 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK. Please see attached. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? Please see attached. Page 3 Utility Advisory Commission 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Please see attached. Consent to Publish Personal lnfonnation on the City of Palo Alto Website California Government Code Section 6254.21 states, in part, "No state or local agency shall post the home address or telephone number of any elected or appointed official on the Internet without first obtaining the written permission of that individual." The full code is attached. This consent form will not be redacted and will be attached to the Application and posted to the City's website. The full code can be read here: LINK Read the code, and check only ONE option below: J8l. I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to the City's website the attached Board and Commission Application intact. I have read and understand my rights under Government Code Section 6254.21. I may revoke this permission at any time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City Clerk. OR Q I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home address, phone numbers, and email address from the attached Board and Commission Application prior to posting to the City's website. I am providing the following alternate information and request that they use the following contact information instead. Address: Cell Phone: 0Home 10office Phone: E-mail: Signature: ___ YJ_,� __ C_._lfa-n __ �-----------Date: 3/3/15 Page4 Utility Advisory Commission City of Palo Alto -Utilities Advisory Commission Application Addendum from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 List relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, or professional registration: Education: • A.B. Brown University • Certificate in Innovation Leadership (Leading by Design), California College of the Arts • Stanford Continuing Studies, UC Berkeley Extension: coursework in clean tech innovation, accounting and other topics Relevant work experience: • SV2 Silicon Vallev Social Venture Fund (2013-present): Director of Partner Engagement & External Relations. Responsible for developing and stewarding key strategic relationships throughout Silicon Valley; ensuring meaningful SV2 Partner/donor engagement and education; spearheading key initiatives, including impact investing, revenue diversification, and leadership cultivation. Participated in Environment Grant Round (current Grantee, FoodShift, is focused on changing paradigms for food waste and food recovery). (I have recently been notified that I will be recognized by the Silicon Valley Business Journal with the 100 Women oflnfluence -Silicon Valley 2015 Award which will be conferred in May 2015). • Leadership Palo Alto (2012-2013): Co-directed the re-launch and redesign of this civic leadership development program. • Precourt Institwe tor Energv (2011): Stanford University, special projects. • Wave One Palo Alto, Chief Operating Officer (2009-2010): Helped lead initiative to transform small commercial buildings and their tenants in Downtown Palo Alto into sustainable facilities and organizations through a full spectrum of sustainable practices. • Embarcadero Media, Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online (1989-2008): Director of Sales & Marketing, then Marketing Director, and finally Co-founder and Director, Palo Alto Online. While directing Palo Alto Online, was responsible for setting rates, generating revenue, and reaching tipping points for both site usage and profitability. Both the Palo Alto Weekly and Palo Alto Online received numerous top awards for excellence related to my work from the California Newspaper Publishers Association, Peninsula Press Club and Association of Alternative Newsweeklies during my tenure. • Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto (1983-1989): Founding Executive Director, then Sales & Marketing Director. Spearheaded successful effort to win the Midpeninsula cable franchise for a local consumer cooperative, and later played key leadership roles regarding contracts with Pacific Bell and Heritage Cablevision, rates, and programming. Cable Co-op was an early test bed for new data communications technologies and was one of the first providers of broadband cable data services to a public school in the country. Extensive experience in working with the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto member-subscribers. Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 1 lvanduscn@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Describe your involvement in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations: I have been extensively involved in community activities, volunteer and civic organizations throughout my life, especially in Palo Alto and Silicon Valley, since I began working and living in Palo Alto in the 1980s. The following partial list details the extent of my engagement with civic life -both current and past. Current: • City of Palo Alto Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Advisory Council (SICAP) • Carbon Zero Institute. Board of Directors [LINK] • Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, Emeritus Board (previous service included two terms on the Board of Directors and Communications Committee Chair for the Capital Campaign) • Planned Parenthood, member Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Peninsula Breakfast Committee (previously member of the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate) • First Person: creator and host of online video interview series featuring people who live boldly in Silicon Valley • Mentor: I provide advice and support numerous social entrepreneurs and young professionals, including many alumni of Leadership Palo Alto • Artist and illustrator: illustrated Objects & Oddities, illustrator for 826Michigan.org Previous: • Woman's Club of Palo Alto, Co-founder/producer of Landmark Leaders Speaker Series, 2012-13 & 2013-14 • Boy Scouts of America, Troop 57: Committee Chair and Board of Review Chair • Crystal Springs Uplands School (Co-chair of annual campaign, member of Capital Campaign Committee) • Leadership Midpeninsula, Class of 2001 • Walter Hays Elementary School, Environmental Co-chair (as the first in this role in PAUSD, instituted student recycling team leaders program, no garbage lunch initiative, collaborated with City Bicycling Team, and helped develop and deliver 5th grade curriculum on waste reduction) • Free The Children, founding member of California advisory board • Friends of the River (formerly on foundation board, advisory board, white water rafting guide working on river conservation and wise water policy advocacy) • Volunteer (fundraiser/canvasser) several national, state, and local political campaigns 1. What is it about the Utilities Advisory Commission that is compatible with your experience and of specific interest to you, and why? I would be honored to serve on the Utilities Advisory Commission for several reasons: • As a lifelong sustainability evangelist: I would work tirelessly to help achieve measurable goals for Palo Alto's Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), using all of the current tools available to the UAC and helping to develop new ones when necessary. As a member of the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan Advisory Council, I would seek to maintain and enhance communications between the UAC and the Advisory Council to assist in creating, recommending, and implementing utility-related solutions. One area that interests me particularly is reducing our reliance on natural gas to work toward a carbon neutral energy stream. Utilities Advisory Commission-Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 2 lvandusen@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 • As a long-time customer of CPAU: I would seek to ensure safe, reliable and affordable utilities service for all members of our community. I believe it is critical to have the "user vantage point" clearly in mind as the UAC navigates some difficult challenges ahead. In addition to my own experience as a ratepayer, I became familiar with the concerns of facilities managers and commercial ratepayers through my work with Wave One, which involved water, electricity, natural gas, garbage, compost and recycling services. The insights I gained and the relationships I developed through my work with Wave One could be helpful to UAC. • As a former telecommunications professional: I would endeavor to find solutions that will meet the needs of ratepayers, our community as a whole, and the CPAU. Because Cable Co-op was a member-owned cooperative, I have had extensive experience in finding new ways to align consumer needs with business goals. In addition to setting rates and enhancing customer service, my experience in constructing and maintaining the cable plant, particularly in concert with other companies, could prove useful as the City proceeds with the proposed fiber project and other telecommunications initiatives. I personally negotiated agreements with multi-unit dwellings, businesses and other commercial customers for cable service, which provides some context and understanding related to CPAU. My work with Cable Co-op also helped me to develop a vision of how vibrant, local telecommunications services can benefit our community. 2. Please describe an issue that recently came before the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it. If you have never been to a Commission meeting you can view an archive here: LINK • Community Solar program: I believe that a Community Solar Program could be an effective way to accelerate adoption of solar for residential property owners. The combination of lower costs, paired with neighbors learning and pursuing this opportunity potentially in clusters, could result in speedier adoption and hopefully overall lower cost. • Expansion of CLEAN program: I first became acquainted with the Clean Coalition several years ago and have followed their work since. The opportunity for more ratepayers to become producers of renewable energy seems like a win for all parties involved. I believe there is substantial untapped potential for participation here. 3. If appointed, what specific goals would you like to see the Utilities Advisory Commission achieve, and why? How would you suggest accomplishing this? • Realistic Carbon Pricing and Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax or Other Alternatives: I believe the UAC should re-examine how the City prices carbon at present and whether that price should be adjusted in light of current science and research. In addition, I am interested in exploring a revenue neutral carbon tax or other alternatives, such as a collection of complementary "fee-bate" programs that could be used as tools for reaching or perhaps exceeding the "moonshot" proposed by the City's Chief Sustainability Officer, Gil Friend. The importance of realistic pricing and strong price signals cannot be overstated. The more we can bring prices into alignment with the true costs of greenhouse gas externalities, the more we can accelerate the transition to sustainability, and the more all CPAU customers will be more motivated to achieve carbon neutrality or even to become "net carbon negative." There are many exciting paths forward for Palo Alto, and I would particularly like to see the UAC do as much as possible to assist the City Council and the community as a whole to realize our sustainability goals. (I attended Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 3 lvanduscn@mac.com 1650-799-388311111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 the Citizen's Climate Lobby session on Pricing Carbon on February 20th in San Francisco, and was pleased to learn more about some of the options available to the City.) • Supporting and effectively communicating the need for appropriate rate increases as necessary: As water and other rates rise, I would seek creative approaches to educating everyone in our community about the need for rate increases. Through service on the UAC, I would seek to help articulate and communicate both the reasons for higher rates and the opportunities (through education, greater efficiency, rebates, and other approaches) to maintain not only satisfactory but high levels of service, while avoiding a "deprivation mindset." I would seek to work with civic groups, other organizations, and a wide range of citizen and commercial rate-payers to help shape plans for any necessary rate increases and then to work with them to communicate justifications for those increases within their respective networks. • Encouraging new sources for locally generated renewable energy: I would encourage collaboration with the Clean Coalition, and commercial and residential property owners to facilitate increased solar and other renewable energy production. In addition, I would work to continue to shepherd the anaerobic digestion plant forward in a prudent fashion as an energy-generating solution that addresses our organic waste challenges and opportunities. • Learning and cooperative action: Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would seek to learn from and work cooperatively with everyone involved in shaping policy for CPAU. This includes not only the members of the UAC and the leadership and staff of CPAU, but also the City Council, City Staff, and advisory groups, such as the S/CAP Advisory Council and CEAP. The goals that our community has set for itself will be achieved most effectively when we work together. If I have the honor of serving on the UAC, one of my personal objectives will be to learn as much as I can from the prior and continuing work of other members of the UAC, so that the initiatives that I would offer and support would be pursued within the context of existing plans and knowledge. I would also take a personal interest in promoting effective communication between the S/CAP Advisory Council and the UAC. 4. Utilities Advisory Commission Members work with the documents listed below. If you have experience with any of these documents, please describe that experience. Experience with these documents is not required for selection. I have looked through all of the documents below, but do not claim to understand their nuances. I will, however, do everything possible to educate myself and to become familiar with all documents that would be relevant to serving on the UAC. The Utilities Strategic Plan LINK The Long Term Electric Acquisition Plan LINK The Gas Utility Long-term Plan LINK Urban Water Management Plan LINK Ten-Year Electric Energy Efficiency Plan and Ten-Year Natural Gas Energy Efficiency Plan LINK Utilities Quarterly Update for the most recently reported quarter LINK Signature: Date: 3/3/15 Utilities Advisory Commission -Application from Lisa Van Dusen -3/3/15 4 lvandusen@mac.com 1650-799-3883 11111 Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 01/20/2015 216- 328 Special Meeting January 20, 2015 Study Session ........................................................................................330 1. Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Program Summary ..................................330 Special Orders of the Day ........................................................................338 2. Recognition of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Grand Opening Volunteers ........................................................................338 City Manager Comments .........................................................................338 Oral Communications ..............................................................................339 Consent Calendar ...................................................................................339 3. Resolution 9486 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Authorize the City Manager or his Designee to Purchase Greenhouse Gas Allowances to Satisfy the City's Cap-and-Trade Compliance Obligations for the Gas Utility in an Amount Not to Exceed $4,000,000 per Year and for the Electric Utility in an Amount Not to Exceed $250,000 per Year.” ............................................................340 4. Approval of Utilizing CALNET3 State Contract for Telecommunications in the Amount of $400,000 Annually for a 3.5 Year Term from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018 ................................................................340 5. Approval of a Contract with C.F. Archibald Paving Inc. in The Amount of $2,220,134 for the FY 2015 Asphalt Paving Project, the 2nd of 4 Contracts in the FY 2015 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP PE- 86070) .........................................................................................340 6. Approval of a Contract Amendment to Sierra Infosys Inc. (C10135998) in the Amount of $120,000 for the Support and Maintenance of SAP Industry-Specific Solution for Human Resources Modules, Business Mapping and Reporting ...................................................................340 7. Park Improvement Ordinance 5298 entitled “Park Improvement Ordinance of the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Bowden Park (First Reading: December 15, 2014, PASSED: 9-0).” .........................340 MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 329 Action Items ..........................................................................................341 8. Approval of Concept Plan Line and Implementation Plan for the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard and Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Projects ........................................................................................341 9. Adoption of Procedure to Vote Before Holding Closed Sessions .............352 10. Policy and Services Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month Effective January 1, 2017 ............................................................................................353 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ........................356 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. ............................356 MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 330 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:06 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Study Session 1. Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Program Summary. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official, reported in 2010 the City began the process of updating its Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Plan). A Plan was needed to qualify for regional funding sources. The community wanted a pedestrian component to the Plan. The Plan was a vision of where facilities should be located; however, those locations could always be changed. Concept Plan Lines were the first attempt to locate facilities. A dozen projects were in progress. Staff wanted to address concerns of the community in developing the Plan. The community wanted more east-west connections. The City received a grant to consider trail connections across Matadero Creek; however, the community was not interested in that project. As a result, Staff created the Matadero Midtown Project. There were significant corridor projects along Charleston- Arastradero Road. The City needed to improve infrastructure in order to encourage the employees of private partners to ride to work. Google funded many projects in south Palo Alto. For community outreach, Staff organized weekend bicycle ride-alongs, staffed a table at the farmer's market in the spring, launched online GIS interactive mapping tools, and held traditional meetings. Community interest determined which projects Staff refined and which projects Staff dropped. The goal of the Bicycle Boulevard Program in 2015 was to present Concept Plan Lines for all 24 projects to the Council for consideration and approval. Once the Council approved Concept Plan Lines, Staff would invest many resources in turning them into designs. Grants were available for shovel-ready projects, meaning the City had to complete the engagement process and environmental studies and have plans ready to build. Staff would present a Concept Plan Line for the Charleston-Arastradero Project in February 2015 to the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and in March or April to the Council. The City had secured $9 million in grant funds for the Adobe Creek-Highway 101 Bike Bridge. That would probably be the largest single project over the next five years. The Churchill Avenue Project would qualify for the Active Transportation Program; therefore, Staff was investing resources to ensure that project was ready for the competition. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 331 Residents living along Matadero Creek were interested in the Matadero Creek Trail Project. Staff worked with Midtown residents to develop a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) who would help shape the project and identify design alternatives. The Planning Director would review CAC applications in the next weeks and name committee members. In 2014, the Bikeways Bill stated that a project with an engineering stamp could be implemented if the governing body adopted a resolution of design guidelines other than the State standards. The National Association of City Transportation Officials had developed a different design policy for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Staff would present a Resolution to the Council for adoption in the spring. The Concept Plan Line for Middlefield Road would extend bicycle lanes to the southern border of Mountain View. Staff had identified significant capital improvements and potential real estate improvements needed for that project. Staff was identifying capacity improvements at Cubberley and Montrose in order to add left-turn lanes into those facilities in response to community comments. Staff did not want to remove parking, but space was needed to add bike lanes. Staff was reviewing areas to highlight green bicycle lane facilities to identify conflict zones. The Concept Plan Lines were not 100 percent engineering detailed, but they provided enough detail that people could understand the concepts. If the Council approved those Concept Line Plans, then the City would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to turn them into true design plans that were shovel-ready for grant competitions. The Safe Routes to School Program drove the need for change in the Bicycle Boulevard Program. Walk and Roll Maps for every school in Palo Alto were used to prioritize Bicycle Boulevard Projects. Palo Alto utilized more experimental bike materials than any other city in the region. Staff invited vendors to propose new products so that Staff could understand the lifecycle benefit costs of materials and select materials that would provide the longest cost-benefit impact. The City was a leader in the design and deployment of bicycle corral parking around the region. Some of the first bicycle traffic signal facilities were installed at Alma Street and Lytton Avenue. By having those materials and facilities, the community could see and understand them and provide input. Many times programmatic work in education was much more effective than building facilities. Staff adopted a national approach in providing consist messages to cyclists. The City partnered with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to develop ads, which were showing up in other parts of California. The City did not have technology to track bicycle and pedestrian activity within the community. People physically counted cyclists and pedestrians and sometimes cars at intersections. The City received a $100,000 grant to pay for bicycle and pedestrian video-based counters which would be cost effective for deployment around the City. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 332 First, new technology would be utilized to count bicycles and pedestrians. The next generation of software would be able to count vehicles. In 2015, all 24 Concept Plan Line Projects would be presented to the Council for approval. The Churchill Avenue Project was funded through the design phase. The Maybell Project did not have design funding at the current time. Engaging the community for all 24 projects simultaneously would not be productive; therefore, Staff would choose key projects to move forward. Greer Road was a great project to consider advancing to a bicycle boulevard design phase. Within Barron Park, residents were concerned about the lack of safe facilities for pedestrians. South Palo Alto was a prime location for designing with partners. Northern Palo Alto needed east-west connections, beginning with the Homer-Channing Enhanced Bike Lane. Council Member Kniss asked if the glass beads were the same as those used in the sidewalk on California Avenue. Mr. Rodriguez advised that the beads were not glass, but preformed thermoplastic. James Keene, City Manager, clarified that beads used in sidewalks along California Avenue were completely different from those used in bike projects. Council Member Kniss asked if the beads had sharp edges. Mr. Rodriguez answered no, because they were located in the roadway. Council Member Kniss noted that continuous streams of bicyclists did not stop at stop signs along Churchill Avenue in the morning, and asked Mr. Rodriguez to comment on that. Mr. Rodriguez recognized that bicyclists did not always obey stop signs. Staff discovered that a critical mass of cyclists often did not stop. The Police Department enforced and issued citations for failure to stop. The Police Department also recognized it was more unsafe for a large group of cyclists to try to stop. Staff attempted to identify corridors where relaxed enforcement was needed. Most residents knew which streets to avoid by time of day. Council Member Kniss mentioned that some residents along Bryant Street did not want colors on the street. Mr. Rodriguez explained that Staff felt there would be value in having a consistent look and feel for bicycle boulevards around town; however, the community did not support that concept. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 333 Residents in the Old Palo Alto part of Bryant Street did not want greenback sharrows. Staff had removed them from the project. Vice Mayor Schmid liked the ten-step plan for projects. While some people did not want road markings, they did make people aware of bicyclists. Integration of the Plan with the infrastructure program would provide the Plan with a long-term funding source. The Staff Report stated numbers were increasing, but there were no numbers. Staff would obtain counts with the use of new technology. It would be nice to have a sense of the impact bike projects made. He did not find many pedestrian features in the Plan, and questioned whether elements should reflect the needs of walkers and joggers. The map contained a great deal of information. Perhaps maps could be segregated by completed projects, projects in progress, and future projects. Council Member DuBois encouraged Staff to be sensitive to context when placing sharrows or markings in neighborhoods. He inquired about the process for determining the number and location of signs. Mr. Rodriguez indicated the process varied by corridor. Concept Plan Lines did not state where every sign would be placed. In the design phase, Staff would consolidate signs and place them in highly visible areas. Council Member DuBois requested the current status of the Matadero Creek Project. Mr. Rodriguez reported the CAC application deadline was the prior week. The Planning Director would review recommended applications in the next few weeks. In February, Staff would begin meeting with the CAC to educate them on projects and background. He hoped the CAC would assist Staff with sharing presentations for and shaping information with the community. Council Member DuBois commented that the City needed to balance the needs of cars with bikes; some residents held the perception that Staff was worsening traffic on purpose. He could not locate Middlefield on the bike lane map, and asked if it was part of the Plan. It would be more logical to keep bikes on Ross Road and Bryant Street rather than Middlefield Road. Mr. Rodriguez advised that Staff was closing gaps and extending bike lanes in the corridor and planned to extend bike lanes to Mountain View. Staff did their best to balance the needs of vehicles with bikes and considered all perspectives in plans. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 334 Council Member DuBois stated the City could not legally keep bicycles off streets. Perhaps the City could designate some streets for primarily vehicle use. The City should alert people to bike boulevards and their location, so they could stay off dangerous streets. Mr. Rodriguez explained that each project was greatly individualized. The City did not have a strong signage network yet, but was implementing signage in pieces. Staff could institute simple fixes immediately, but could not sign a project until the facility was in place. Progress was more important than perfection. Council Member DuBois suggested moving a section of the Plan from Alma Street to a less busy street. He requested more information regarding the pedestrian/bike counting technology. He was interested in new technologies to measure vehicle traffic, specifically cut-through traffic at more locations. Mr. Rodriguez indicated Staff's vision was to tie individual projects to other programs. Any project had to provide an open data source so that data could be collected and shared. The City needed community support to begin moving projects forward. Council Member Wolbach remarked that Staff was moving from experimentation to data collection to mass implementation. He inquired whether data indicated sharrows were ready for mass implementation. Both consistency and context were important. Mr. Rodriguez was utilizing a common sense approach. A sharrow was an approved traffic control device. He wanted to collect data over a year's time with respect to greenback sharrows. As long as the City had engineering approval and a resolution adopting nontraditional California Design Center policies, Staff could implement and were implementing tools. Staff was working on a Resolution to present to the Council in the spring. Some projects should be submitted to an experimental phase before implementation. Council Member Wolbach noted Boulder, Colorado, had 3 percent more bicycle commuters than Palo Alto. He asked if the City could emulate any of Boulder's programs to increase the number of bicycle commuters. Mr. Rodriguez did not want to compare Palo Alto to other cities, but wanted other cities to compare themselves to Palo Alto. Council Member Wolbach encouraged the Council and Staff to notice what was occurring in other cities and to discuss whether projects from other cities could be translated to Palo Alto. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 335 The Plan and Safe Routes to School were closely integrated. He inquired whether increasing adult bike use for commuting to work was important in the Plan. Mr. Rodriguez reported an average of 40-45 percent bike ridership for kids to school. Those numbers translated to cars not on the road. He would rather sacrifice someone's commute for 2 minutes to ensure student pedestrians and bicyclists were safe. Council Member Wolbach wanted to know how the City could increase biking to work as a parallel component to biking to school. Mr. Rodriguez felt the City needed to lead with more transportation demand strategies. Development of a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) was a good opportunity to change the development of projects. Getting kids to bike would lead to adults biking. Mr. Keene added that another component was communicating and imprinting the network as it evolved so that users knew how to use it. The City had a public communications campaign for implementing projects. Most bike commute cities were college towns. The City was on the cusp of having moms and commuters using bikes. Council Member Burt commented that while Palo Alto was a college town, Stanford University was not included in the City's data. On the other hand, Palo Alto's climate and topography was much better than Boulder's. Palo Alto should be more bike-friendly. Copenhagen was a better city for comparison with Palo Alto, and Copenhagen had a bike commute rate of 50 percent. If 20 percent of commuters in Palo Alto shifted to bicycles, it would have a drastic impact on traffic and parking. He suggested Staff utilize a metric of the types of favorable impacts on traffic and parking resulting from milestones in mode shift. Shifting away from car use would benefit the entire community. Without the Safe Routes to School Program, the commute hour would be gridlock. Biking was an essential method for maintaining a high quality of life in the community. Mr. Rodriguez and others supporting him deserved a great deal of credit for being extremely productive. The Council and Staff should respond to community input and attempt to identify solutions. The City lacked off-road biking corridors and paths. The Matadero Creek Project had challenges, but it would be important as an alternative to bike travel on busy streets. The Plan map should be legible and include definitions of facility classes. While grant funding did not drive projects, it did enable projects. The health benefits of biking were important. Biking was often faster than taking a car. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 336 Council Member Filseth inquired about literature regarding measurement of the impact of sharrows. Mr. Rodriguez could provide studies regarding the effectiveness of sharrows if the Council was interested. Sharrows were not detrimental as an extra measure of guidance. There was not a quantifiable number indicating sharrows were safer than other measures or safer than the lack of signage. Studies did indicate some safety benefit from the use of sharrows. Council Member Filseth inquired about the strategy for Alma Street/El Camino Real relative to bikes. Mr. Rodriguez reported Staff's goal was to improve parallel routes on Park Boulevard and Bryant Street and direct people to those routes. In the prior 4 1/2 years, the City had received $19 million in grants for projects. If the City did not invest in design, then it could not compete for grants. Council Member Filseth was surprised by the amount of discussion of sharrows. If Staff could provide studies demonstrating their effectiveness, it could change public opinion. Council Member Scharff noted Google had partnered with the City regarding bike infrastructure. He inquired whether Staff had contacted Facebook regarding the trail to Menlo Park. That trail would be a good commute route. Mr. Rodriguez advised that outreach to Facebook had diminished since Facebook moved away; however, Staff could resume contact with Facebook. Council Member Scharff felt an off-road trail along Matadero Creek would be great for the community. He preferred the off-road trail along Churchill Avenue, but access to it from Alma Street was awkward. He asked if that could be corrected. Mr. Rodriquez explained that Alma Street was a challenge. He hoped the City and Caltrain could make grade-separation improvements along Alma Street. Any project there would have to include Caltrain. Council Member Scharff liked the contraflow lane from the Homer tunnel. Projects were innovative and actual improvements. Council Member Berman was impressed by Staff's community outreach efforts and response to community input. Success of the Plan would improve the quality of life for all Palo Alto residents by decreasing the amount of traffic. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 337 He was also impressed by the use of technology to obtain data. He inquired whether Staff had any plans to encourage cyclists to utilize bike lanes rather than sidewalks. Mr. Rodriguez explained that the Vehicle Code was contradictory in stating that cyclists 12 years old and younger were allowed to ride on sidewalks and that cyclists over 12 years of age could ride on sidewalks if they were uncomfortable riding in the street. Staff had been experimenting with different types of messages to encourage cyclists to walk their bikes on sidewalks. Giving cyclists an alternative to riding on sidewalks was important. Council Member Berman agreed the Vehicle Code was ambiguous. He asked if experimental materials were provided free of charge to the City. Mr. Rodriguez answered yes. The City paid for the cost of traffic control to deploy materials. Council Member Berman felt the projects would provide positive impacts. Mayor Holman was pleased Staff was experimenting with improvements. She asked if Concept Plan Lines would be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Rodriguez reported Staff would present select projects to the Parks and Recreation Commission in an effort to streamline the outreach process. The Parks and Recreation Commission had supported the Plan overall and provided a great deal of input to the Plan. Mayor Holman asked if the green color of sharrows was universal or if the community could provide input. Mr. Rodriguez advised that the color complied with Federal Highway Administration standards. A different shade or color could be used if the community and the Council preferred. Rob Robinson indicated the packs of bicyclists were regulated by train traffic. Park Street carried 50 percent more bicycle traffic than Bryant Street. The bicycle counts were amazing. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 338 Special Orders of the Day 2. Recognition of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center Grand Opening Volunteers. Eric Howard, Library Assistant Director, read a message from the Library Director. The Grand Opening was a success with at least 5,500 people attending. Of the 77 volunteers, 45 were teens and 32 were adults, and all worked a total of approximately 345 hours. Volunteers would be needed for the opening of Rinconada Library on February 14, 2015. He showed a video of the Grand Opening festivities. He thanked the volunteers for their efforts. Council Member Berman was impressed by the enthusiasm of the volunteers and their offers of assistance at the Grand Opening. Mayor Holman noted the volunteers encouraged attendance at the Grand Opening. Approximately 1,000 new library cards were issued prior to the Grand Opening and more than 300 at the Grand Opening. She appreciated the volunteers' efforts and support. Mr. Howard invited the public to attend the reopening of Rinconada Library. James Keene, City Manager, added the reopening was scheduled for February 14, 2015. Mayor Holman understood Rinconada Library would be another success in the Library Program. Mr. Howard reported the ceremony would begin at 11:00 A.M. and activities would extend until 4:00 P.M. with closing scheduled for 6:00 P.M. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, announced the City's Mobile Emergency Operations Command Center (MEOCC) would be the featured exhibit at the Western Region Conference of Association of Public Safety Communications Officials in April 2015. The State Department of Housing and Community Development certified the City's Housing Element as compliant with State law earlier in the day. As part of Our Palo Alto, Peter Kageyama would speak about ways to engage the community and to celebrate Palo Alto on February 19 and 20, 2015. Mayor Holman inquired about the time and location for Mr. Kageyama's talk. Mr. Keene advised that almost all events would occur at Mitchell Park Community Center. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 339 Mayor Holman thanked Planning Director Gitelman and Staff Member Tim Wong for their work on the Housing Element. Oral Communications Ken Horowitz advised that Hudson Pacific Properties placed bids for more than 3 million square feet of commercial space. The Council needed to know this information in relation to the Mayor's concerns about retail space converting to office space. Winter Dellenbach was heartened by Supervisor Simitian's proposal regarding Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Supervisor Simitian was interested in discussing the long-term viability of the mobile home park as deed-restricted affordable housing. The City should be involved in discussions. Daniel Gold discovered the need for affordable housing in Palo Alto through participation in Airbnb.com. The City should not enforce its cease and desist letter to him while the City was discussing issues related to Airbnb rentals. Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan was pleased the City would most likely be retaining Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Bob Moss believed the City should reevaluate the need for hiring consultants. The lack of Staff time or experience was not a sufficient reason. Don Anderson congratulated Supervisors Simitian and Cortese for their proposal of $8 million for the purchase of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. The City Council should also propose funds. Consent Calendar Herb Borock spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 5. He remarked that Emily Renzel had expressed concern about the proper procedure being followed. The following week's Agenda contained an item for approval of a grant that would pay part of the contract. The environmental section of the Staff Report seemed to be in progress. He recommended the Council remove Agenda Item Number 5 from the Consent Calendar and direct Staff to delay the implementation of the contract until the Council had reviewed the entire project. Vice Mayor Schmid stated several public comments concerned paving of the sailing station parking lot. He inquired whether the Council would vote on that. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 340 James Keene, City Manager, explained that Agenda Item Number 5 pertained to a general contract related to a range of asphalt and construction components. He would not recommend removing the item from the Consent Calendar. As Mr. Borock noted, components of the project could be eliminated. City Staff would not proceed with the sailing station component until questions were resolved. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3-7 including City Manager comments relating to the section of the contract on Agenda Item Number 5 pertaining to the Sailing Station Parking Lot. Mayor Holman asked if Staff would have a process for Agenda Item Number 5 for the following week's discussion. Mr. Keene believed that information would be available and could respond to public comment. 3. Resolution 9486 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Authorize the City Manager or his Designee to Purchase Greenhouse Gas Allowances to Satisfy the City's Cap-and-Trade Compliance Obligations for the Gas Utility in an Amount Not to Exceed $4,000,000 per Year and for the Electric Utility in an Amount Not to Exceed $250,000 per Year.” 4. Approval of Utilizing CALNET3 State Contract for Telecommunications in the Amount of $400,000 Annually for a 3.5 Year Term from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2018. 5. Approval of a Contract with C.F. Archibald Paving Inc. in The Amount of $2,220,134 for the FY 2015 Asphalt Paving Project, the 2nd of 4 Contracts in the FY 2015 Street Maintenance Program Project (CIP PE- 86070). 6. Approval of a Contract Amendment to Sierra Infosys Inc. (C10135998) in the Amount of $120,000 for the Support and Maintenance of SAP Industry-Specific Solution for Human Resources Modules, Business Mapping and Reporting. 7. Park Improvement Ordinance 5298 entitled “Park Improvement Ordinance of the Council for the City of Palo Alto for Bowden Park (First Reading: December 15, 2014, PASSED: 9-0).” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 341 Action Items 8. Approval of Concept Plan Line and Implementation Plan for the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard and Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Projects. Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Officer, reported that Maybell Avenue had been designated as a bicycle boulevard for several years. The goal of the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project was to extend the bicycle boulevard and connect it to other facilities. Staff wanted to extend the bicycle boulevard across El Camino Real onto El Camino Way to East Meadow Drive and to improve connections along Georgia Avenue and Donald Drive. Staff held four community meetings for the Maybell Avenue Project. Overall, the community supported the project, because the proposed facilities aligned with the vision of the Barron Park neighborhood. Community members preferred green facilities be located on El Camino Way, but not on Georgia Avenue and Donald Drive. El Camino Way contained a combination of residences and commercial spaces. Staff proposed the use of greenback sharrows. A bicycle lane could be added to the southbound approach without removing parking. On Maybell Avenue, the existing bike lane could be preserved, and sharrows could be utilized for the other direction. Staff was not proposing removal of any existing all-way stops along Maybell Avenue. Some areas of bicycle/pedestrian/automobile interaction could be improved; therefore, Staff proposed creating an intersection table. Barron Park did not have any sidewalk facilities, and community members indicated a desire for pedestrian and bicycle space. Existing pavement space could be stamped or colored to designate space for pedestrians and bicyclists. Marking that space would be determined in the design phase. Sharrows were a near-term option, and texturing or coloring pavement and raising the intersection were long-term options. At Georgia Avenue and Donald Drive, Staff heard concerns about speeding. Staff proposed traffic calming measures including speed tables and use of white sharrows. Staff proposed removing fences along and widening or realigning the Gunn High School spur path to make it safer. At Churchill Avenue, Staff proposed extending the existing Embarcadero Trail from Castilleja Avenue to El Camino Real and improvements at Castilleja Avenue where the bicycle boulevard intersected with Churchill Avenue to eliminate confusion at the El Camino Real intersection. There was a great deal of community interest in safety for pedestrians, specifically implementing turn restrictions at key intersections. The community suggested increasing intersection visibility, moving bicyclists from the bike lane on Churchill Avenue to the trail behind Palo Alto High School, and adding crosswalks as traffic calming devices across Churchill MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 342 Avenue. Beginning with the El Camino Real intersection, Staff envisioned extending streetscape improvements. This project would connect to the Stanford University Perimeter Trail Project at the Churchill Avenue intersection. Staff wanted to add a crosswalk on the north side of the El Camino Real intersection. The community was happy to learn one option was a new right-turn lane from Alma Street onto north El Camino Real. Staff wanted to ensure the Council concurred with that type of capacity approach. The City would need approval from Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), Stanford University, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for that turn lane. At the intersection of Palo Alto High School and Castilleja Avenue, Staff proposed removing the crosswalk on the east side because of morning traffic congestion turning into Palo Alto High School. The bike lane would remain, but bicyclists would exit the bike lane ahead of the intersection. Staff proposed two new crossing guards to manage traffic at the intersection of Castilleja Avenue and Churchill Avenue. Because the community wanted to ensure crosswalks were highly visible, Staff proposed pedestrian-activated flashing beacon systems. Staff also proposed time-of-day parking restrictions along the frontage of Churchill Avenue between Castilleja Avenue and Mariposa Avenue. Staff also proposed a low, decorative rail along the north side of Churchill Avenue to restrict dangerous bicycle movements. The community suggested installing lighting. Sharrows could be added to El Camino Way in the next few months. The bicycle lane could also be added over the summer. Along Maybell Avenue, specific time-of-day parking restrictions could be implemented in the next few months. Along Churchill Avenue, the bike ramp exit to accommodate westbound bicyclists could be constructed for $5,000-$7,000 in 2015. Time-of-day parking restrictions along the south side of the street could also be implemented quickly. Staff requested the Council's approval for the projects. The Churchill Avenue Project was funded 100 percent through the design phase. With Council approval, Staff would begin discussions with Caltrans and begin larger design details. The Maybell Avenue Project was funded through the Concept Plan Line only. With Council approval, Staff would like to return in one to two months with a contract to complete design of the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. Staff would begin the environmental assessment process for projects. Mayor Holman interrupted the discussion for recognition of two guests. Council Member Wolbach recognized Daniel and Nico, two Scouts who were earning merit badges. Council Member DuBois indicated El Camino Way was heavily parked almost all day long. The street was narrow with cars parked on both sides. Removing parking there would force people to park in neighborhoods. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 343 He inquired whether children could be allowed to bike on the sidewalk for that block. He did not see any crosswalk updates at the end of El Camino Way. Mr. Rodriguez reported the City had built a crosswalk with bulb-outs to extend the sidewalk into the street and installed a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon system at El Camino Way and James Road. At the El Camino Way and Meadow Drive intersection, Staff proposed significant improvements. Council Member DuBois was referring to the intersection with El Camino Real. Mr. Rodriguez stated Staff would texture and improve crosswalk facilities at the El Camino Way and Meadow Drive intersection. Council Member DuBois remarked that the El Camino Way to El Camino Real crosswalk seemed very similar to the one at Churchill Avenue and El Camino Real. Mr. Rodriguez explained that if the Council approved the Concept Plan Line, then Staff would immediately enter into contract negotiations with Caltrans to improve the intersection. Staff wanted to design that intersection with the intersection at Charleston/Arastradero Road. Council Member DuBois requested Staff respond to public comment regarding the crosswalk at Gunn High School. Mr. Rodriguez noted hundreds of kids used the crossing at Georgia Avenue to the Gunn Spur Path daily. A raised crosswalk would reduce speeds of both cars and bicyclists. Council Member DuBois asked if side paths along Churchill Avenue were located on PAUSD property. Mr. Rodriguez answered yes. The City would need PAUSD approval to encroach on its property. Council Member DuBois inquired whether improvements could be refined or changed after implementation. Mr. Rodriguez advised that changes would occur in the design phase. The City could change striping and signage after construction. Curb and gutter changes were more costly and harder to change after the design phase. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 344 Council Member Filseth asked if El Camino Way was sufficiently wide to add a bike lane. Mr. Rodriguez believed a bike lane could be added if the travel lane and the parking lane were reduced. That would also force cars to drive slower. Council Member Filseth inquired about the width of travel lanes if a bike lane was added. Mr. Rodriguez indicated existing travel lanes would be reduced from 12-13 feet to 9 1/2 feet. Council Member Filseth asked if El Camino Way would consist of a parking lane, a bike lane, and 9 1/2-foot travel lanes. Mr. Rodriguez replied yes. Some time-of-day parking restrictions existed on El Camino Way between James Road and El Camino Real. During the design phase, Staff would study the ramifications of extending those time-of-day parking restrictions to Meadow Drive. Council Member Filseth felt moving the crosswalk and the right cutoff into Palo Alto High School at the intersection with Churchill Avenue was a great idea. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff was seeking Council approval to proceed with the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard and the Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Projects. He requested clarification of preliminary environmental assessment for the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project through Concept Plan Line development only. Mr. Rodriguez sought Council feedback on the Concept Plan Lines. The Churchill Avenue Project was more refined than the Maybell Avenue Project because Staff needed time to develop a specific design for the Maybell Avenue Project. Staff proposed two options for the Maybell Avenue Project: sharrows only or stamped or colored asphalt. The Council could choose one of those options or direct Staff to return with different proposals. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the City had funding for the Churchill Avenue Project. Mr. Rodriguez responded no. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff wanted Council approval of the near- term improvements. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 345 Mr. Rodriguez advised that Staff could install near-term improvements over the summer if the Council liked them. Council Member Scharff requested Staff reiterate near-term improvements for the Churchill Avenue Project. Mr. Rodriguez replied construction of the bicycle exit ramp and parking restrictions on the south side of Churchill Avenue between Castilleja Avenue and Mariposa Avenue. Council Member Scharff stated other improvements would be designed as shown even though funding had not been identified. He asked if there were near-term improvements for the Maybell Avenue Project. Mr. Rodriguez proposed either the sharrows option or a southbound green bike lane for the El Camino Way section. Council Member Scharff reiterated the Council's policy choices for near-term improvements on Maybell Avenue were 1) doing nothing, 2) install sharrows, or 3) implement a southbound bike lane. Mr. Rodriguez clarified those near-term improvements would be installed on El Camino Way. The other near-term improvement for the Maybell Avenue Project could be selective time-of-day restrictions for use by bicyclists and pedestrians only. Council Member Scharff felt the Council could approve the Churchill Avenue Project near-term improvements. Community concerns regarding improvements for the Maybell Avenue Project were unclear. He inquired whether it was too early to implement parking restrictions. Mr. Rodriguez explained that Staff would begin community outreach if the Council approved parking restrictions. If there was strong opposition, Staff would not implement parking restrictions. In the design phase Staff would report why they did not implement the parking restrictions to the Council. Staff needed time to refine the design concept and work on hours of restrictions with the community. Council Member Scharff liked Staff's proposals for the Churchill Avenue Project. He requested the location of the smooth transition to the trail at the intersection of Churchill Avenue and Palo Alto High School. Mr. Rodriguez advised that a bicyclist traveling from Alma Street would take the exit ramp and loop back. Council Member Scharff stated no one would do that. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 346 Mr. Rodriguez remarked that the ramp was a community concern as well. Staff could construct a second ramp closer. Staff proposed a paved section that would connect back towards Embarcadero Road. Council Member Scharff felt that would be a better alternative. Mr. Rodriguez could do that over the summer if the Council approved it. Council Member Kniss believed the green line on the map was the new bike route. Mr. Rodriguez explained that would be the route for traveling east toward Alma Street. Council Member Kniss asked if there would be dual bike lanes. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that an existing bike lane was located on the north side of the street. The proposal would add a bike lane. Council Member Kniss inquired whether a right-turn lane was proposed at El Camino Real. Mr. Rodriguez answered yes. Council Member Kniss asked if Caltrans funded improvements to El Camino Real. Mr. Rodriguez reported Caltrans did not pay for anything. If the City wanted an improvement, the City had to design and fund it. Council Member Kniss felt many streets would benefit from crossing lights, and asked how residents could request crossing lights. Mr. Rodriguez was always interested in new crosswalks or lights to enhance existing crosswalks. Residents could contact the Transportation Division and make a request. The City set aside funds annually for improvements such as flashing beacons. Council Member Kniss inquired whether State law designated a crosswalk without markings as a crosswalk. Mr. Rodriguez replied yes. A crosswalk at an intersection did not have to be marked to be defined as a legal crosswalk. From a cost perspective, flashing beacons were difficult to apply across the City. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 347 Council Member Kniss asked if the County of Santa Clara (County) would fund City improvements in the County's jurisdiction. Mr. Rodriguez commented that the County was easy to work with. Council Member Burt recalled Mr. Rodriguez's comment that Staff needed to engage the community regarding time-of-day restrictions in the Churchill Avenue Project. He inquired whether the City could reduce the width of a parking strip as an alternative to a time-of-day restriction on parking. Mr. Rodriguez reported that was a policy decision. Council Member Burt encouraged Staff to consider that as an alternative for the north side of Churchill Avenue as the bike lane was narrow. During the commute hour along Churchill Avenue, vehicles often pulled into and blocked the bike lane to receive traffic citations. That was a dangerous situation for bicyclists. He suggested moving curbs back to create bike lanes. He inquired about the importance of greenback sharrows versus white sharrows on Maybell Avenue and whether that issue would be part of community outreach. Mr. Rodriguez was not recommending greenback sharrows. Council Member Burt found strategic signage to be valuable. Signage proliferation was bordering on pollution. Overall the projects were exciting. Penny Ellson suggested sharrows be placed along Maybell Avenue from Thain Way to Donald Drive. The shared-use path also needed sharrows in both directions. Student cyclists exiting the Palo Alto High School driveway turned left onto the existing multiuse trail which placed them on the wrong side of the road at the Alma Street intersection. She liked the Castilleja Avenue intersection striping as it would encourage bicyclists to properly exit the driveway. Robert Neff remarked that the proposed treatments on Churchill Avenue were appropriate for bicyclists leaving Palo Alto High School. The City should work with PAUSD to redesign the driveway. The proposal was a better way for bicyclists to move along El Camino Way towards Gunn High School. Bob Moss believed adding a bike lane or sharrows to El Camino Way would make it difficult to share the street with vehicles. Vehicles would find it difficult to pass bicyclists with the requisite 3 feet of clearance along Maybell Avenue. He suggested Staff conduct traffic counts of bikes, pedestrians, and MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 348 vehicles prior to installing improvements and during a six-month trial period of improvements. Council Member Berman requested Mr. Rodriguez respond to Ms. Ellson's comments. Mr. Rodriguez advised that proposals did not address the multiuse pathway. He agreed that signage was needed so that bikes and pedestrians were in the correct location. Sharrows next to that was a good idea, and Staff could include that in the design. Council Member Berman asked if Staff had received community feedback concerning that. The side of the street without sharrows seemed to be mostly commercial space. Mr. Rodriguez reported the curb-to-curb width of El Camino Way was 40 feet. The cross section contained 7-foot parking lanes, two 10-foot travel lanes, and a 6-foot bike lane. Council Member Berman felt the changes along Churchill Avenue were good, and asked if the changes would take some of the PAUSD property. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that the property was owned by Stanford University. Staff would negotiate with both Stanford University and PAUSD. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff had funding for Churchill Avenue improvements but not for Maybell Avenue improvements. Mr. Rodriquez replied yes. The Maybell Avenue Project was funded through the Concept Plan Line stage. Staff could negotiate a contract for full design and present it to the Council for approval. Council Member Berman asked if that would occur through the Budget process or a Budget Amendment Ordinance. Mr. Rodriguez proposed utilizing funding from the Bicycle Program. The Council funded that with $1.2 million per year for five years. Council Member Berman encouraged Staff to return to the Council quickly for funding. Mr. Rodriguez remarked that children on bikes typically remained in a designated bike lane rather than riding in the roadway or on sidewalks. Vehicles also respected a bike lane. Hopefully changes would alter students' behavior. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 349 Vice Mayor Schmid noted some public letters mentioned removal of parking spaces on Maybell Avenue in front of the handicap school, and asked if that was part of the proposal. Mr. Rodriguez proposed time-of-day parking restrictions west of Amaranta Avenue which would not affect operations at the school. Vice Mayor Schmid inquired whether those restrictions would interfere with cars in the right lane dropping off kids. Mr. Rodriguez advised that people would not be able to park there to load and unload kids. Vice Mayor Schmid believed cars attempting to move from the center to the restricted parking area would have to compete with kids on bikes. Mr. Rodriguez explained that that was happening at the current time. If restrictions were instituted, Staff would work with PAUSD to ensure parents used other driveways to drop off students. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if a crossing guard would be needed at that intersection to assist bicyclists with crossing the street. Mr. Rodriguez stated a crossing guard was not assigned to the Amaranta Avenue crossing, but Staff could include that as part of the project. Vice Mayor Schmid felt a bike lane would assist child bicyclists along El Camino Way during the commute hours. Data could be helpful in making a decision for that improvement. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) proposal would create bus stops just past intersections. He inquired whether BRT buses would restrict the right-turn flow such that traffic would back up into kids trying to cross streets. Mr. Rodriguez reported the BRT project could support implementation of improvements across both Charleston Road and El Camino Way. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) committed to working with Staff to design and implement improvements. The bus stop would be on the far side of the intersection, so it would not block right turns off El Camino Real. It could block turns onto El Camino Real. Staff would need to work that out as part of the design. Mayor Holman understood there would be dedicated bike access onto Castilleja Avenue from Churchill Avenue, and requested Mr. Rodriguez described improvements at that intersection. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 350 Mr. Rodriguez proposed a bulb-out on the southwest corner of the intersection. The sidewalk space where pedestrians waited to cross the street would be bumped out. There would be more green space, landscaping. On the other side of the street, Staff proposed only ramp improvements. A flashing beacon was proposed across Churchill Avenue. Mayor Holman mentioned that Castilleja Avenue was more narrow than El Camino Way. She asked if Castilleja Avenue could tolerate a bulb-out at that corner. She suggested improvements be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for comment prior to finalization. She asked if Staff considered recommending one street for bicyclists as opposed to other streets. Mr. Rodriguez would present the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard to the Parks and Recreation Commission, because it would travel along the frontage of Peers Park. Some of the improvements Mayor Holman referenced were part of the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Project which would be presented to the Council in the spring. Staff was considering extending and widening the park as part of the Park Boulevard Bicycle Boulevard Project. Mayor Holman supported the judicious use and placement of signage. She inquired whether any of the improvements would be implemented on a trial basis. Mr. Rodriguez indicated any of the near-term improvements could be considered as trial projects. They could be changed if the Council or the community was not happy with them. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project and the Churchill Avenue Enhanced Bikeway Concept Plan Lines and Implementation Plans and to move forward with near-term improvements to Churchill Avenue, near-term improvements to Maybell Avenue and additional near- term improvements to facilitate access to the bike trail from Churchill Avenue as bicyclists cross Alma Street. Council Member Scharff believed both projects were good. He was hesitant about implementing time-of-day parking restrictions, but Staff indicated they would not implement that if the community opposed it. Vice Mayor Kniss agreed Staff would notify the Council if improvements were not appropriate. Staff had been responsive to community feedback. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 351 Council Member DuBois requested his Colleagues propose an Amendment to capture the concerns along El Camino Way. He expressed concern about reducing the width and limiting parking. Mayor Holman referenced the statement in the Staff Report regarding time- of-day parking restrictions on Maybell Avenue with additional outreach to affected residents, and asked if that addressed Council Member DuBois' concerns. Council Member DuBois was concerned about El Camino Way. He inquired about options should the community oppose that proposal. Mr. Rodriguez was not proposing an immediate implementation of parking restrictions on El Camino Way. Staff recommended striping changes. In the design phase, Staff could determine whether the community was interested in a trial period for time-of-day parking restrictions. He confirmed there were no recommendations to remove the parking on El Camino Way. Council Member Berman suggested an Amendment to add sharrows on the Maybell Avenue Project from El Camino Real to Amaranta Avenue going west. He believed the community requested having sharrows going in both directions. Mr. Rodriguez clarified that public comment was to extend sharrows from El Camino Real to Donald Drive. Council Member Berman noted sharrows were already proposed from Amaranta Avenue to Donald Drive. Mr. Rodriguez explained those were sharrows without textured or colored asphalt for pedestrians. Council Member Berman wanted sharrows in both directions from El Camino Real to Donald Drive in addition to the shared pathway. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add consideration for sharrows going in both directions on Maybell Avenue from El Camino Real to Donald Drive. Council Member Burt would support the Motion. Over the last 20 years, the City had had a significant increase in the percentage of students who biked to school, and a significant decrease in the percentage of students who drove to school. Vice Mayor Schmid proposed an Amendment MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 352 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion “giving special attention to options on El Camino Way”. Mr. Rodriguez interpreted that language to mean if Staff proceeded with other options, then they would consider impacts in a future phase. AMENDMENT: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member XX to remove sharrows in both directions on Maybell Avenue. Council Member Scharff understood that before adding sharrows, Staff would perform outreach. If the community opposed sharrows, they would not be installed. Council Member DuBois felt it was overly specific to direct Staff to install sharrows in both directions, and preferred Staff conduct outreach prior to deciding whether or not to install sharrows in both directions AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Mr. Rodriguez reported the near-term options proposed for Maybell Avenue would not include sharrows. Staff needed more outreach and community input. There was plenty of time to conduct outreach before completing design of the project. Mayor Holman inquired whether Staff wanted the Motion to include language regarding community outreach. Mr. Rodriguez answered no. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 9. Adoption of Procedure to Vote Before Holding Closed Sessions. Council Member Scharff stated typically the Council did not have an opportunity to think about its reasons for moving into Closed Session. The proposal allowed the Council to have a contemplative moment and decide whether to move into Closed Session. All Council Members would be present on the dais to consider moving into Closed Session. The Policy and Services Committee reached a split vote on the issue. Herb Borock agreed with the proposal. Currently the Council had to vote not to move into Closed Session. The proposal would change the meaning of a tie vote. The Council could delay moving into Closed Session in order to obtain an objective Staff Report of the history of an item. The public could have that Staff Report in order to advise the Council. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 353 Vice Mayor Schmid remarked that the proposal forced each Council Member to take a public position of whether he had sufficient information to move into a Closed Session. The Mayor should have the prerogative to impose a time limit of 1 minute for Council Member comments. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to amend Council Procedures to require that Council vote before going into Closed Sessions. Council Member Kniss felt the proposal was a good idea. Council Member Berman and she had not voted on any item regarding John Arrillaga. Council Member Burt advised that the proposal would cause the Council to be thoughtful and affirmative before moving into Closed Session. He expected it would result in fewer Closed Sessions. James Keene, City Manager, added that the proposal would be an improvement of current practice and another advance in the City's focus on open government. The City of San Francisco was the only other jurisdiction requiring a vote to move into Closed Session. Mayor Holman inquired whether a vote for Closed Session and the Closed Session be on the same Agenda. Molly Stump, City Attorney, replied yes. The Closed Session Agenda Item would state vote to go into Closed Session. Normally that would occur with no comment and in less than 1 minute. Mr. Keene presumed the majority of the time the Closed Session would be held in the same meeting as the vote. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 10. Policy and Services Recommendation to Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month Effective January 1, 2017. Council Member Kniss reported nearly 15 years had passed since the Council gave itself a raise. Council Members performed an enormous amount of community service for little compensation. The public seemed to believe that Council service required members to be retired, wealthy, self-employed, or single. The amount of time required for Council service had caused Council Members to resign. For women in particular, service on the Council was difficult. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 354 Kathy Shen, People Strategies and Operations Director, advised that Mountain View changed its Council salary from $600 to $1,000 a month at the election in November 2014. Council Member Kniss asked if Palo Alto residents could have voted on a similar item. Molly Stump, City Attorney, indicated the Council could have put a compensation increase measure on the ballot. She believed the Policy and Services Committee considered that and decided to explore an Ordinance. Council Member Kniss reported Council salaries for other local jurisdictions. If the Motion was not approved, the Council should consider placing the item on the ballot in 2016. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to adopt the attached Ordinance increasing Council salaries, effective January 1, 2017, from $600 per month to $1,000 per month. Council Member Kniss noted the salary increase would not affect many of the current Council Members. Council Member Burt stated this was a modest step to democratize further Council participation. The salary increase would occur in 2017, so it would coincide with the reduction of Council Member seats and proportionally greater workload. This would have virtually no impact on gender participation on the Council. He supported the Motion. Council Member Wolbach clarified that reduction of Council Member seats would occur in 2019. This would be an increase for several current Council Members. Reducing the number of Council seats would mean more work for all Council Members. Currently Council Members earned minimum wage based on a conservative estimate of hours worked per week. It would be appropriate to have a salary increase coincide with the reduction of Council Member seats. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member XXX to change the implementation date to January 1, 2019. AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND Council Member Kniss preferred to retain the effective date of 2017 to encourage candidates in 2016. She asked if Council Member Wolbach referred to the County of Santa Clara or the federal minimum wage. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 355 Council Member Wolbach indicated the minimum wage was approximately $10 per hour. Vice Mayor Schmid would support the Motion. A cost of living increase was allowed under State guidelines. As an economist, he assumed there would be a marginal increase in the number of moderate income people who might consider running for the Council. Council Member Scharff would not support the Motion. It was difficult to deny 5-percent raises to employees if the Council gave itself a 40 percent increase. People wished to serve on the Council as a form of public service. Council Member Filseth was inclined not to support the Motion. The current compensation limited the pool size of candidates for the Council. However, the proposed increase was not likely to make a significant difference in the pool size of candidates. Health insurance benefits provided to Council Members constituted a raise in compensation. Council Member Berman would support the Motion. Raising Council Member salary to minimum wage was logical. Larger measures could better ensure more people campaigned for the Council. Council Member DuBois largely agreed with comments of Council Members Scharff and Filseth. Increasing Council Member salary was not a good idea. Council Member Wolbach requested the rationale to make the effective date January 1, 2017. If an increase was effective in 2019, the existing Council would be voting an increase for future Council Members. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that the time was partly a legal issue. There needed to be some Council Member stand for election or reelection between the time the proposal was made and it became effective. 2017 was the earliest time the proposal could take effect. Mayor Holman had supported some type of increase for quite a while. The proposal was a feasible and reasonable action to ensure diversity of the Council. The current hourly rate for Council Members was $3.49. She did not support full-time paid positions for the Council, but neither should service be a hardship. Council Members were not required to accept compensation from the City. The Ordinance did not address a compensation increase for the Mayor and Vice Mayor. Ms. Stump reported compensation for the Mayor and Vice Mayor could be found in two sections of the Municipal Code. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 356 Ms. Shen explained a City Council Protocol document listed additional compensation for the Mayor and Vice Mayor. That amount was different from the amount contained in the Ordinance. Staff would not include compensation for the Mayor and Vice Mayor in the Ordinance, but indicate that compensation in a Resolution. Ms. Stump indicated the proposed Ordinance eliminated the contradictory language and provided the stipend would be determined by Resolution. James Keene, City Manager, added that that would be a separate action. Ms. Shen stated the stipend for the Mayor was $150 per month and for the Vice Mayor $100 per month. Mayor Holman remarked that that would not affect the current Mayor. MOTION PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member DuBois attended the California League of Cities' New Mayor and Council Member Academy the prior week with Council Member Filseth. They received ethics training and met many Bay Area Council Members. Palo Alto was used as an example for good social media communications. Council Member Kniss was serving on the Employee Relations Committee of the California League of Cities. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District had had a stretch of Spare the Air Days. Council Member Burt attended the Senior Summit led by Staff and the Human Relations Commission. The Summit was productive and impressive. As a result of the Summit, agencies would have stronger collaboration and synergies. Mayor Holman also attended the Senior Summit and concurred with Council Member Burt’s impression of the event. She also attended the Day of Service honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. sponsored by Youth Community Services and the City of Palo Alto Recreation Department. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 P.M. MINUTES 01/20/2015 216- 357 ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. Regular Meeting February 09, 2015 Study Session ........................................................................................452 1. Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto ............................452 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions ..................................................458 City Manager Comments .........................................................................459 Oral Communications ..............................................................................459 Consent Calendar ...................................................................................460 2. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter .............................................461 3. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 461 4. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to Downtown Retail and Residential Uses ..............................................461 5. Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5303 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Increase Golf Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of $106,000, Provide Additional Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for Expenses, and Reduce the Operating Loss Reserve by $183,424.” ........462 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; Resolution 9491 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Re-aligning Terms on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; Allowing for Remote Board and 02/09/2015 116- 450 MINUTES Commission Interviews; Limit Applicants to One Board or Commission Each Recruitment.” .........................................................................462 7. Ordinance 5304 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month, Effective January 1, 2017 (First Reading: January 20, 2015 PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no).” .....................................................462 8. Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement Between the City and Stanford University ..........................................462 9. Resolution 9492 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for: Management, Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire Chief Association (FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association (UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to Update the Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Organization ......................................................................462 10. Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of Community Services Department .....................................................462 Action Items ..........................................................................................463 11. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26, 2015) ...........................................................................................463 13. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance ..................475 14. Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and Kniss Recommending Adoption of Resolution 9493 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Urging CalPERS Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies.” ..................................................................476 12. Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Adoption of Resolution 9494 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Setting New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on December 15, 2014.”......................................................................478 Closed Session .......................................................................................478 15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL ........................478 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 P.M. ............................479 02/09/2015 116- 451 MINUTES The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Scharff arrived at 6:57 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Kniss Study Session 1. Study Session on Railroad Quiet Zones in Palo Alto. Richard Hackmann, Management Analyst, explained that a quiet zone was a section of rail where train horns were not routinely sounded in or near at- grade crossings. Even in a quiet zone, a train horn could be sounded at the engineer's discretion. Quiet zones did not eliminate the use of train bells. Per the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), if any one of four supplemental safety measures was implemented, an at-grade crossing was automatically eligible to become a quiet zone. Any city with an at-grade crossing had the right to establish a quiet zone or zones. The right of the city to implement a quiet zone was not dependent on the rail operators impacted by the establishment of a quiet zone. The process to establish a quiet zone was mandated by the FRA and involved a noticing and comment procedure. Stakeholders such as Caltrain and freight operators would receive a 60-day notice of intent that the City was seeking to establish a quiet zone and subsequently a 21-day notice of establishment for those operating in the corridor. Following the 21-day notice, operators would be expected to adhere to the quiet zone. He played videos of a non-quiet zone and a quiet zone. Caltrain was willing to work with local municipalities if one sought to establish a quiet zone; however, if a quiet zone was established, then the city would assume liability for any incidents that occurred within the quiet zone. According to the FRA, the courts would ultimately determine who would be held liable if a collision occurred at a grade crossing located within a quiet zone. The City Attorney's Office concluded that the establishment of a quiet zone could increase the City's exposure to potential liability. If the City were to pursue one or more quiet zones, it was likely the City would incur costs for design and implementation of improvements. The principle policy issues of quiet zones were a real or perceived relationship between train horns and safety and the cost of improvements versus reduced horn noise. Staff requested Council input regarding the prioritization of quiet zones within all other Caltrain and High Speed Rail initiatives. 02/09/2015 116- 452 MINUTES Council Member Burt requested public comment prior to Council Member questions and comments. Mayor Holman suggested a few Council Members comment while public speakers submitted their speaker cards. Council Member Filseth inquired whether a municipality had been sued over an accident that occurred in a quiet zone. Molly Stump, City Attorney, could not respond in relation to accidents across the country. Within the region, she had not identified any lawsuit that raised that question. Council Member Berman inquired about potential costs for implementing a quiet zone at the Alma Street crossing. Mr. Hackmann advised that installation of median barriers would cost less than $100,000. Costs for quad gates would likely range between $500,000 and $1 million. Council Member Berman asked if quad gates were required. Mr. Hackmann explained that quad gates were one of four options. At Churchill Avenue, Meadow Drive, and Charleston Road, it would be difficult to install median barriers of the required length. The Alma Street crossing had median barriers. On the west side of Alma Street, the median barrier measured 90 feet. On the east side, the median barrier measured 55 feet and 9 feet because of a break for bicycles. If the median barrier was lengthened to 60 feet, the City could likely obtain an exemption because the break allowed a turning movement for bicyclists. A quiet zone could be implemented with minimal physical improvements; however, a safety analysis would be needed. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if the City was responsible for funding costs of crossing improvements. Mr. Hackmann responded yes. Staff could inquire whether Caltrain would provide funding. Caltrain had implied that a quiet zone was not a safety improvement; therefore, it was unlikely Caltrain would contribute funds to a project that did not improve the safety of the corridor. Vice Mayor Schmid inquired whether the $500,000 to $1 million cost for quad gates would be the cost for each crossing. Mr. Hackmann replied yes. That estimate included design, construction, and implementation. The City would need Caltrain approval to work within the 02/09/2015 116- 453 MINUTES Caltrain right-of-way. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the FRA would inspect and approve work before a quiet zone was established. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if barriers would be installed on both sides of the road. Mr. Hackmann responded yes. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if barriers would hamper traffic. Mr. Hackmann explained that vehicles caught on the tracks as gate arms lowered would have to drive under or through one of the gate arms. Vice Mayor Schmid referenced correspondence regarding liability insurance, and inquired about the cost for that. Ms. Stump reported the City maintained excess liability insurance of over $1 million. Neighboring communities reported the cooperative that carried the insurance wished to either carve out quiet zones or negotiate a separate policy for quiet zones. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if Staff had an estimate of the cost for such policy. Ms. Stump answered no. Staff could not negotiate an insurance policy without Council direction. The City's current insurance coverage included liability in excess of $1 million. A lawsuit involving significant property or physical injury and involving a train could fall within that range. Should the insurance carrier change the policy, then the City would have to contract for separate insurance or bear costs through self-insurance. Council Member Burt inquired whether median barriers were located uprail and downrail of an intersection. Mr. Hackmann indicated they were perpendicular to the intersection and would be located over existing yellow stripes. Council Member Burt asked if installation of both quad barriers and median gates was viable. Mr. Hackmann replied yes. The FRA supported that type of installation. Council Member Burt inquired about data regarding the safety of horns and dual gates versus no horns and quad gates and versus no horns and quad gates and median gates. 02/09/2015 116- 454 MINUTES Mr. Hackmann advised that Staff briefly researched the issue; however, it was difficult to analyze what had not happened. Council Member Burt assumed data existed for times before and after installation of changes. In aggregate that would be meaningful. Mr. Hackmann could provide some data for other locations. Council Member Burt assumed that such data had been collected at a higher level. Mr. Hackmann added that one of the complicating factors was the unique characteristics of quiet zones. Staff wanted to ensure data was obtained for corridors with characteristics similar to those in Palo Alto. Council Member Burt assumed data would pertain to national or international quiet zones. He asked if Staff discussed with Caltrain the contradiction between Caltrain's statement regarding liability and the FRA's statement. Mr. Hackmann requested Caltrain's legal team provide a written statement of Caltrain's position on quiet zones. Staff had not been able to obtain a written statement. Council Member Burt asked if Atherton installed quad gates. Mr. Hackmann responded yes. Council Member Burt asked if the City of Atherton established quiet zones along with installation of quad gates. Mr. Hackmann answered no. Council Member Burt inquired about the rationale for train engineers sounding the horn a second time after the train passed an intersection. Mr. Hackmann explained that the second blast should sound as the train traveled through the intersection. The first blast should sound 15-20 seconds before the train reached the intersection, and the second blast as the train approached the intersection. Engineers often held the second blast as the locomotive and a substantial number of cars traveled through the intersection. Council Member DuBois was interested in learning the cost of insurance coverage specifically for quiet zones. He inquired about the timeframe for the process. 02/09/2015 116- 455 MINUTES Mr. Hackmann reported the timeframe would depend on whether quad gates or median barriers were utilized. If the Council wished to move expeditiously, it could be done in 12-24 months with quad gates. Median barriers would result in a slightly shorter time period. The process required 60-day notice and 21-day implementation periods and FRA and CPUC approvals. Council Member DuBois asked if median barriers alone would not be sufficient at some crossings. Ms. Hackmann explained that the Alma Street crossing was the only location where median barriers would be allowed. Mayor Holman inquired about Atherton's funding of barriers. Mr. Hackmann believed Atherton self-funded installation of quad gates. Mayor Holman asked if Staff had any data that measured the change in noise at crossings over the past 5, 10, 15 years. Mr. Hackmann reported trains were required to sound a horn between 96 and 110 decibels in the corridor. For reference, 100 decibels equated to the sound of a jackhammer. Mayor Holman asked if the sound level of horns increased a few years previously. Mr. Hackmann did not know. James Keene, City Manager, advised that the estimated cost of quad barriers would total approximately $2-$4 million. Staff could obtain the potential cost increase for liability insurance. This project was not included in the Infrastructure Funding Plan and, therefore, would be a consideration for the future. Martin Sommer asked the Council to support a quiet zone and to extend it to University Avenue. Approximately 90 trains per day crossed at University Avenue between 5:00 A.M. and 1:00 A.M. He had contacted Caltrain, but it remained silent. Elizabeth Alexis, Californians Advocating for Responsible Rail Design (CARRD), advised that low frequency train horn noise was disruptive to sleep. The FRA wanted cities to establish quiet zones to make crossings safer. An FRA study reported 313 accidents had occurred in quiet zones since implementation, which was 25 fewer accidents than reported prior to 02/09/2015 116- 456 MINUTES implementation. No liability issues had been associated with quiet zones in those 313 accidents. Zouhair Mahboubi remarked that liability issues were uncertain. He understood the FRA would file an amicus brief in a lawsuit. Freight trains traveled and sounded horns all through the night. A quiet zone at the Alma Street crossing would be sufficient; however, other crossings should have grade-separated crossings. Robert Neff requested a description of Caltrain's requirements to improve safety at crossings in Palo Alto and the costs of establishing a quiet zone at the Charleston Road crossing. Olga Miroshnychenko concurred with comments regarding the health effects of train noise. Numerous studies concerning the importance of non- interrupted sleep were occurring. Council Member DuBois inquired whether quiet zones could be established at train stations. Mr. Hackmann advised that quiet zones were required to extend at least a half mile. A quiet zone could extend through a station; however, an engineer had discretion over use of a horn. Council Member DuBois believed horns were sounded at stations to alert passengers on the platform. Mr. Hackmann added that engineers utilized bells unless passengers were standing too close to the edge of platforms. Council Member DuBois remarked that Caltrain proposed placing horns underneath trains in order to muffle the sound; however, freight train operators were not proposing that. Caltrain's statement that quiet zones were not a safety improvement was interesting in that quiet zones included additional safety measures. The Council should focus on trenching at-grade crossings as a better, long- term solution and on a proposed transportation ballot measure in 2016 for funding of grade separations. He would not support quiet zones on their own. Council Member Wolbach wanted to find methods to economically and feasibly grade separate at-grade crossings. The City should explore quiet zones in the interim. 02/09/2015 116- 457 MINUTES Council Member Burt did not view quiet zones and grade separations as separate issues. Grade separations would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and would require many years to construct. He requested additional information regarding train noise as a health issue, the safety of quad gates, and the safety of quad gates plus median barriers at the Alma Street crossing. Track safety had two elements: safety and security. He wanted to learn more about the function of a wayside horn. The number of trains had increased and would continue to increase. Staff should provide information concerning the increased decibel level of train horns. Funding of quiet zones should not be purely local funding. He did not believe Atherton fully self-funded its quad gates. He would support evaluation of quiet zones. Council Member Filseth was less concerned about the legal exposure to the City after the discussion. Some crossings could not feasibly be grade separated or trenched. To the extent quiet zones would not have a large financial impact to the City, he would support them. Council Member Berman concurred with Council Member Filseth's comments. It was not possible to grade separate the Alma Street crossing. Perhaps Staff could investigate funding sources for quiet zones. Vice Mayor Schmid believed the City's priority should be trenching or grade separations in the long-term. In the interim, quiet zones seemed feasible, realistic, and affordable. Mayor Holman stated noise and sleep disruption were health issues and should be a focus in light of the Council Priority of Healthy City/Healthy Community. The Council should investigate alternatives for the Alma Street crossing as grade separation was not viable. She was interested in the costs and funding sources for quiet zones in other communities. Safety at the Churchill Avenue rail intersection would benefit from the installation of quad gates. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Council Member Burt expressed concern about having sufficient time for all Agenda Items. Agenda Item Number 11: Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26, 2015), would likely require more than the allotted time. He requested the Council consider continuing either Agenda Item Number 13 or 14. Mayor Holman proposed the Council take up Agenda Item Number 11 with Council Members offering a series of Motions and carry the remaining conversation to the second scheduled time. No later than 9:15 P.M., the 02/09/2015 116- 458 MINUTES Council should consider whether to take up Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14. James Keene, City Manager, noted Agenda Item Number 14 was time sensitive. Mayor Holman inquired whether the Council could agree to a check-in no later than 9:15. Staff was not present for either Agenda Item Number 13 or 14. Mr. Keene advised that he and the City Attorney would be present for Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14. Mayor Holman announced Staff requested Agenda Item Number 15 be removed from the Agenda. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, announced the City received a notice from the California Department of Housing and Community Development regarding funding available for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. VITA tax assistance for qualified individuals would begin February 7, 2015 at Mitchell Park Library. The Palo Alto Art Center and Palo Alto Art Center Foundation were selected for a two-year arts management, training, and consultancy program. The City was seeking applicants for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission. Mayor Holman inquired about the reopening of Rinconada Library. Mr. Keene reported Rinconada Library would hold its reopening on February 14, 2015. Oral Communications Jerry Underdal stated that to the extent legal and financial issues could be resolved, the Council should provide political support for retaining Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Various organizations explicitly called for support of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. Hundreds of families had benefited from existing affordable housing in Palo Alto. Government assistance was necessary to providing affordable housing. Bob Moss suggested Council Members read their packets early and provide questions to Staff in advance of meetings. 02/09/2015 116- 459 MINUTES Wynn Grcich reported the State allowed oil companies to dispose of waste water from fracking operations in aquifers holding potable water. Fluoride was poison. Fluoridated water should be banned from store shelves. Omar Chatty noted three people had committed suicide on Caltrain tracks. The cost to extend Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) along the Peninsula would be equivalent to the cost of grade separations for train tracks. The Council should disclose the vote regarding the Caltrain Electrification Project. Hamilton Hitchings was alarmed by the large number of office buildings constructed in Downtown and by the number of projects in the pipeline. He implored the Council to limit the number of office buildings being approved and to encourage development of multi-unit residences. He hoped the Council would reject the 441 Page Mill Road Project based on an accurate financial analysis. Rita Vrhel felt the Council should take as much time as it needed to consider each Agenda Item carefully and thoroughly as the Council was the final arbiter of many community concerns. Paul Machato advised that the City could not sweep the streets of Evergreen Park because of parked vehicles. Residents of Evergreen Park needed assistance with parking and street sweeping. Consent Calendar James Keene, City Manager, noted Agenda Item Number 10 concerned the appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of the Community Services Department. Rob De Geus, Community Services Director, believed the City of Palo Alto was a great place to visit, work, and live because of Council investment in community services, parks, arts, and recreation facilities. It was an honor and privilege to be appointed as Director. Mr. Keene reported the City conducted a national research for the position and received applications from candidates with years of experience. Interviews were conducted with department heads, the Executive Leadership Team, and a community panel. Mr. De Geus exited those interviews as the top candidate to lead the organization. Mayor Holman congratulated Mr. De Geus on his appointment and thanked him for his prior service. 02/09/2015 116- 460 MINUTES Council Member Burt appreciated the appointment of Mr. De Geus. In addition to his regular duties, Mr. De Geus acted as co-chair of Project Safety Net during its first year. Council Member Scharff had been impressed by Mr. De Geus' work. Mr. De Geus' commitment to youth was genuine. Council Member Berman related a Palo Alto Unified School District Board Member's praise of Mr. De Geus and the City's good fortune in employing him. Council Member Wolbach was impressed by Mr. De Geus' willingness to talk with him during a very busy and sad weekend recently. He could not imagine anyone better suited for the job. Vice Mayor Schmid was continually impressed with maintenance of City parks. Mr. De Geus' work with the Parks and Recreation Commission had been outstanding. Council Member Filseth was delighted to see talent within City Staff advance to a leadership position. Council Member DuBois recorded a no vote on Agenda Item Number 7. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 2-10. 2. Finance Committee Recommendation to Accept Macias Gini & O'Connell's Audit of the City of Palo Alto's Financial Statements as of June 30, 2014 and Management Letter. 3. Adoption of an Ordinance Authorizing the Closing of the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget, Including Reappropriation Requests, Closing Completed Capital Projects and Authorizing Transfers to Reserves, and Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 4. Approval of a Contract Amendment in the Amount of $63,000 to Contract No. C14149978 With Dyett and Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners for Additional Data Collection and Analysis Related to Downtown Retail and Residential Uses. 5. Authorization to Operate the Golf Course from March 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5303 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Increase Golf Course Revenues Estimate in the Amount of 02/09/2015 116- 461 MINUTES $106,000, Provide Additional Appropriation of $289,424 in Budget for Expenses, and Reduce the Operating Loss Reserve by $183,424.” 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation of Changes to the Board and Commission Recruitment Program Including Adoption of an Ordinance Re-aligning Terms on the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Transportation Commission; Resolution 9491 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Re-aligning Terms on the Storm Drain Oversight Committee; Allowing for Remote Board and Commission Interviews; Limit Applicants to One Board or Commission Each Recruitment.” 7. Ordinance 5304 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Increasing Council Salary From $600/Month to $1,000/Month, Effective January 1, 2017 (First Reading: January 20, 2015 PASSED: 6-3 DuBois, Filseth, Scharff no).” 8. Approval of Technical Amendments to the Below Market Rate Housing Agreement, Exhibit C-3 to the Mayfield Development Agreement Between the City and Stanford University. 9. Resolution 9492 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend and Correct Salary Schedules for: Management, Professional and Confidential Employees (M&P), Fire Chief Association (FCA), and Utilities Managers of Palo Alto Professional Association (UMPAPA); Adoption of an Ordinance to Update the Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Organization. 10. Confirmation of Appointment of Rob De Geus as Director of Community Services Department. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 2-6 and 8-10: 8-0 Kniss absent MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7: 7-1 DuBois no, Kniss absent 02/09/2015 116- 462 MINUTES Action Items 11. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Item Continued from January 26, 2015). Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported Staff was seeking Council direction. Staff viewed this as part of a dual track approach that the Council articulated for the Comprehensive Plan Update and some critical zoning questions that the Council wanted to discuss concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth management was a policy issue that had a place in the Comprehensive Plan Update. A mechanism such as a cap had a place in Zoning. Therefore, it was appropriate to discuss growth management in both those realms. The idea of an annual limit on office space came up in Comprehensive Plan Update workshops held in the summer of 2014. The idea was to moderate the pace of office/research and development (R&D) development because it generated job growth. The discussion should be framed by the problem to be solved. The City had the most potential to effect growth and change in the community through new development. The question was whether moderation of new development would effectively address growth in employment, growth in traffic, and growth in parking demand. The Staff Report provided examples from other jurisdictions that had utilized a pacing mechanism. The Staff Report also provided two different data sets. The first data set was derived from Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8, which established a Citywide cap on nonresidential development. Policy L-8 institutionalized a study performed in 1989. That study did not differentiate the types of nonresidential space and only reviewed nine planning areas mapped in the Comprehensive Plan. The second data set derived from the Congestion Management Plan reporting requirement. The disadvantage of the second data set was its lack of longevity; it was instituted in 2001. The Council could utilize other data sets that were not maintained by the City. Staff had produced some data related to the Downtown CAP and the Existing Conditions Report. Private industry reports related to jobs, rents, and vacancies were available. Survey data was submitted by Downtown businesses. Establishing a pacing mechanism or an annual limit was quite complex and raised many questions. She reviewed nine such questions outlined in the Staff Report. Staff offered two recommendations. One recommendation related to receiving Council input regarding ideas that could be assessed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The second recommendation concerned measures that could be enacted on a short-term basis. 02/09/2015 116- 463 MINUTES Council Member Scharff did not understand how the City could produce an interim Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for an Ordinance. Ms. Gitelman advised that it would be difficult to identify the level of environmental review required until Staff understood the Council's direction for a growth limit. Staff believed the Council would want to consider a long- term strategy that could be analyzed through the Comprehensive Plan Update along with interim measures. It would not be feasible to analyze interim measures that during the course of analysis Staff identified as requiring a full EIR. The Council could pursue interim measures which required a lesser level of environmental review. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would identify interim measures for the Council. If interim measures required 18-24 months to implement, then the Council should consider a long-term strategy within the Comprehensive Plan Update as the Comprehensive Plan would likely be completed in that timeframe. Ms. Gitelman indicated Staff's recommendation included topics that were long-term and could be analyzed within the Comprehensive Plan Update and other topics that were short-term and could be implemented with a lesser level of environmental review. James Keene, City Manager, remarked that a follow-up discussion for the Agenda Item was scheduled for March 2, 2015 should the Council require a second discussion. Staff could review EIR issues and report prior to the March 2 discussion. Council Member Scharff requested Mayor Holman reiterate the process for Council Member comments and questions. Mayor Holman requested Council Members first ask high-level questions. Following that, the public could offer their comments. Next Council Members could offer comments or Motions. She wanted to avoid having one Motion that covered many topics in case the discussion was continued to a second meeting. Council Member Scharff suggested Motions should direct Staff to explore ideas and report to the Council. Mayor Holman concurred. Council Member Scharff wanted to understand the parameters of what the Council should attempt to achieve. 02/09/2015 116- 464 MINUTES Ms. Gitelman suggested the Council direct Staff to explore some basic parameters or ideas that addressed the issue. Council Member Scharff noted Staff identified interim steps to slow the pace of development. One interim steps was funding for a Transportation Management Agency (TMA); however, the Council could not impose fees. He requested Staff explain how that interim step would work. Ms. Gitelman stated this was a topic about which Staff could return with more detailed information. Staff would have to perform a nexus analysis to determine the relationship between new development and the impacts addressed by the approach. Staff could explore what that looked like and how long it would take if the Council was interested. Council Member Scharff asked how a temporary reduction of allowable office density would work. Ms. Gitelman reported Staff could probably perform that without an EIR, but the Council would need to provide more details. Staff reserved the right to return with a more detailed analysis. Council Member Scharff inquired whether an interim measure would expire when the Comprehensive Plan was complete. Ms. Gitelman answered yes. Council Member Scharff wanted to know the objective of a development cap. Ms. Gitelman explained that pacing new development related to the community's perception that traffic and parking demand and development had increased much faster and the impacts were more severe in the post- recession economic period than in the past. The question was whether metering the pace of new development would address those underlying community perceptions. Employment densities and the use of existing building space was identified by many as the primary driver of traffic congestion. The City could regulate new development. The question for the Council was whether the idea was worthy of consideration given the concerns articulated by the community. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff identified community objectives other than traffic and parking. Ms. Gitelman believed the community's objectives were primarily traffic and parking and the pace of development. 02/09/2015 116- 465 MINUTES Council Member Scharff had heard community concerns about the pace of development along California Avenue and in Downtown. He asked if Staff had heard concerns about other parts of the City. Ms. Gitelman had heard concerns about Downtown, California Avenue, and the El Camino Real corridor. Mayor Holman requested Council Member Scharff ask his most pressing questions as other Council Members were waiting to speak. Council Member Burt remarked that this was the first time the Council was presented with the idea that increases in impact fees might be significant enough to alter the pace of new development. He inquired about the basis for that idea. Ms. Gitelman believed it would be possible to construct a nexus that would allow the City to increase impact fees by quite a bit. Until Staff conducted the study, they could not test that idea with any specificity. Developing a nexus for a much higher rate than could be politically accommodated was typical in preparing a nexus study. It would not be surprising to conduct a nexus study and learn a higher fee could be charged. Council Member Burt recalled in the latter part of 2014 the Council received an update regarding impact fees. At that time, the consultant did not indicate that the Council had a great deal of latitude with respect to increasing fees. Ms. Gitelman understood the scope of work for that consultant was limited to anticipated infrastructure improvements. In the Comprehensive Plan Update, there was an opportunity to identify additional capital improvements that possibly could be funded through impact fees. In addition, Staff was currently reviewing housing impact fees. As a result of that, there could be an opportunity to increase those fees such that they would affect the cost of development. Council Member Burt asked how the Council could obtain information about the amount of fee increases that would affect the pace of development in order to make a policy decision. Ms. Gitelman did not believe the Council would make a decision on any one mechanism at the current time. Staff was interested in which mechanisms the Council felt would be worthy of further exploration. 02/09/2015 116- 466 MINUTES If the Council was interested, then Staff could pursue it further. A nexus study for housing impact fees was underway, and Staff could present that in the next few months. Council Member Burt inquired about other community problems resulting from development and whether those problems could be addressed through a cap or other means. Presumably a cap would result in some sort of a competition among projects. The community expressed concerns about architectural quality and public benefits. He assumed those would be included in selection criteria for cap projects. Ms. Gitelman had not jumped to the conclusion of a competitive process. If it was a competitive process, then Staff would have the opportunity to ensure selected projects were of the highest quality. Those could go on the list of community concerns to be addressed. Council Member Burt referenced the December 8, 2014 Staff Report addressing the issue of whether an EIR would have to accompany an Interim Ordinance. He asked if Interim Ordinances had a good chance of not requiring environmental review. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney, explained that in general an Interim Ordinance of 12-18 months was more likely to be adopted without performing environmental review based on the premise that it would not actually change the physical environment. That was the basis for Staff's analysis that Interim Ordinances of short duration generally did not require a full EIR. Council Member Burt noted the Staff Report referred to a period of up to two years. If the Comprehensive Plan process required approximately two years for completion, then an Interim Ordinance could align with a permit measure. He asked if up to two years was the correct timeframe. Ms. Silver indicated no specific time period was stated in the statute. Council Member Berman noticed that an Interim Ordinance for a hard cap was one of multiple interim measures the Council could choose. The Staff Report referred to a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. He inquired about the level of additional traffic or parking impact that could be considered a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Ms. Silver reported that in terms of the Interim Ordinance definition of health and safety threat, the bar was fairly deferential to legislators. Courts had found severe parking and traffic impacts to be a sufficient finding. 02/09/2015 116- 467 MINUTES Mr. Keene asked if an Interim Ordinance applied in conjunction with parallel efforts by the governing body to move toward a long-term decision would aid a court in determining the Interim Ordinance was in reality an Interim Ordinance. Ms. Silver replied yes. There were two different statutory schemes for Interim Ordinances. One was the City Council's ability to adopt an Interim Ordinance, in which case the Council generally specified a timeframe. The other legislative scheme, a moratorium, contained more specific statutory requirements where the Council could only impose a moratorium for a maximum of two years. In those cases, the courts looked closely at the time period and the context of other actions taken by the Council in connection with General Plan updates. Council Member DuBois had heard community concerns about conversion of basement retail space to office space. He inquired about protections the Council could enact for retail in those situations. Ms. Gitelman indicated protections for retail were a whole other subject. The City could introduce a requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for office development, which many jurisdictions did. Imposing a requirement for a Use Permit for office development would create a potential to impose conditions related to office employment densities. Council Member DuBois asked if basement conversion would also be a Conditional Use. Ms. Gitelman was not speaking to basements specifically. If there was a conversion from one land-use category to another land-use category and if that new land-use category required a Use Permit, then it would have to submit to the process and the Council could impose conditions. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the City could enforce a new occupational permit when a new tenant moved into a building. Ms. Gitelman would need to analyze that in detail. Staff had not found an easy way to impose a new requirement on tenancy rather than use. Zoning was generally around land uses, not tenancies. Council Member DuBois asked if the Fire Code could be used in some cases. Ms. Gitelman would need to review those issues in more detail. Council Member Scharff suggested public speakers be allowed three minutes because of the importance of the topic. 02/09/2015 116- 468 MINUTES Mayor Holman agreed to allow public speakers three minutes. Vice Mayor Schmid recommended adding 20 minutes to the discussion, such that it would end at 9:35 P.M. Steven Baker commented that the proposal attempted to limit job growth because Palo Alto apparently had too many jobs and too much development. The issues should be addressed through increased impact fees, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies or additional public transit. Office growth should not be capped. Tiffany Griego, Stanford Research Park, shared quotes from Research Park tenants regarding business growth. The proposed cap would have unintended consequences that would compromise the ability to attract companies that created long-term economic viability. Research Park companies were willing to mitigate any negative impacts that their growth could cause. Whitney McNair, Stanford University Land Use and Environmental Planning Senior Associate Director, expressed concern that the effort to implement interim measures was rushed and without proper supporting analysis. A one-size-fits-all approach would be ill advised. Tools other than a growth cap were available. David Van Atta did not see any evidence that a cap in and of itself would lead to resolution of problems. The Staff Report was extremely well done in laying out the complexities of the issues. The Council should first identify the problem, and then determine how to resolve it with workable and fair solutions. Jean McCown, Stanford University, encouraged the Council not to take precipitous actions regarding Citywide development caps or interim measures without first defining the problems. After considerable engagement and consideration, the City adopted the Downtown CAP in 1985 and the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Limit in 1989. Those programs achieved their intended effects. Norman Beamer remarked that banning new office space should be the underlying theme of Council deliberations. In formulating policy, the Council should demand TDM Programs, demand adequate parking, eliminate exceptions to current zoning, and impose development fees to discourage development. Bob Moss stated that traffic, parking, and jobs/housing imbalance issues would continue even if no more office space was built. Every 1,000 square 02/09/2015 116- 469 MINUTES feet of office space cost the City approximately $2,500 more per year in services than it paid in taxes. The City should enact a retail-only requirement for existing retail spaces and should encourage broadband service that allowed workers to telecommute. Herb Borock advised that the Council had set a limit on office space in Downtown in the 1980s, but it was based on conditions existing at that time. Conditions had changed; therefore, there were reasons to change the limit. Some areas of town were impinging on neighborhoods and required action. The Council should review areas separately to determine limits specific to each area. Rita Vrhel supported an annual limit for office and R&D space. Residents opposed development because projects received exemptions for height, setbacks, parking, and zoning. Perhaps a two-year moratorium on office and R&D projects would provide the consistency Research Park requested. William Monroe did not believe a flat cap on development was the best solution. Office development should be used as a bargaining chip for housing and transportation changes. Cheryl Lilienstein commented that Caltrain was causing traffic congestion and was a longstanding problem. Traffic problems would continue because the population continued to grow while commensurate transit improvements did not occur and because Caltrain bisected the City. The City should halt office space development and ask developers interested in office space to apply pressure to Caltrain to trench the tracks. Dan Garber indicated the City should focus on cars and their traffic and parking impacts rather than a cap on or limited growth of office and R&D development. He did not support those strategies as solutions to a problem that had no definition. The impact of development on traffic was miniscule compared to the impact of the forecast population growth in the Bay Area. Setting limits on growth would drive small businesses from the City. Neilson Buchanan felt the discussion of a cap on growth had been successful in that it had elicited input from business people. The Council should focus on caps for specific land uses. A visionary and in-depth TDM Program was needed. Peter Stone, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, supported a full debate and assessment of proposals. Any interim measures would impact all businesses throughout Palo Alto. He urged the Council to proceed deliberately with regard to interim measures. 02/09/2015 116- 470 MINUTES Cedric De La Beaujardiere remarked that the Council would need information such as annual office growth in square feet, number of jobs, residential population changes, and changes in the number of housing units. He supported the use of impact fees and zoning changes. Mayor Holman noted the time of approximately 9:00 P.M. with the current item scheduled to end at 9:30. If the Council continued with the Agenda, the meeting would end at approximately 11:00. She suggested the Council take up Agenda Item Number 12. She inquired about the timeliness of Agenda Item Number 14. Council Member Berman advised that a large group of community supporters were planning to attend the Council meeting. The item coincided with an opinion-editorial piece in the Palo Alto Weekly and a nationwide event scheduled for the weekend. Mayor Holman suggested continuing the discussion of Agenda Item Number 11 and then taking up Agenda Item Numbers 12 and 14. Council Member Burt suggested moving Agenda Item Number 12 to the end of the Agenda as members of the public were present for Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14. Mayor Holman understood that would commit the Council to taking up Agenda Item Number 13 and would limit the time available for discussion of Agenda Item Number 11. Council Member Scharff inquired about the time to end discussion of Agenda Item Number 11. Mayor Holman answered 9:30. Mr. Keene felt that was appropriate. The Council could give Staff sufficient direction in that amount of time to prepare for the subsequent meeting on March 2. Mayor Holman reiterated her wish for Council Members to offer a series of Motions rather than one Motion covering multiple topics. Council Member Scharff recommended Council Members defer Motions in the interest of time. Council Member Wolbach commented that the negative impacts of offices were traffic, parking, housing demand, and loss of retail space. Palo Alto did not need a great deal more office space. Limiting office development limited supply without limiting demand, thus costs would rise and small businesses 02/09/2015 116- 471 MINUTES would be displaced by larger companies. He expressed concern about driving small professional offices out of the City. One cap for large offices and another cap for small offices was worthy of consideration. A cap should be paired with protections or incentives for small businesses. He did not believe a cap would significantly reduce office development, but it could provide a level of safety against a large spike in the near future. It could modestly address the harms of unbalanced planning. it could buy time to increase the housing supply, to fix parking problems, and to improve non- car transportation options. Specific plans were an excellent tool to help the community achieve the results it wanted. With respect to conversions, the Council should identify ways to make it easier to convert office and R&D space to housing and retail and to make it harder to convert retail and housing to office and R&D. Perhaps the Council should mandate TDM Programs for offices and for housing as well. Several of the largest companies in Downtown were doing good work with TDM Programs. A TMA could work with smaller companies to reduce car trips. The City's parking permit system was incredibly bureaucratic resulting in low utilization of parking spaces in Downtown. Perhaps private parking garages could lease their spaces to the public. The jobs/housing imbalance could not be addressed solely through increasing the number of housing units or solely through limiting office development. The jobs/housing imbalance was a central contributor to high median rents. The Council should explore a variety of options. Council Member DuBois agreed with Council Member Wolbach's comments regarding the relationship between commercial space and housing. The issues were maintaining the aesthetic appearance and function of Palo Alto while allowing growth. The City had to slow the growth of non-retail office space. The Staff Report indicated the Comprehensive Plan process was 12 months, but the Council did not need to be driven by that schedule. The new process should provide clarity and consistency for residents, developers, and Staff resulting in more efficiency. The community should not assume an annual cap would modify existing caps; the City should test an annual cap prior to removing the existing cap. He wanted Staff to evaluate a range of 10,000-40,000 square feet under an annual cap. A project competition with clear criteria was key, and points could be awarded to projects utilizing a lower Floor Area Ratio (FAR). If the Council considered geographic regions, then it should review parking shortfall and level of service intersections rated D and F as part of the geographic definition. He opposed rolling over unused allocations. The Council should consider evaluating the assumption of 1,000 square feet per employee. The Council should review exceptions in current Ordinances and consider closing some of them. 02/09/2015 116- 472 MINUTES MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to direct Staff to present the Comprehensive Plan Update to explore limiting Office/Retail and Development (R&D) each year within 10,000 to 45,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Schmid provided four reasons a growth cap was logical. The National Citizens Survey ranked parking, traffic, planning and the quality of development in the 40th percentile for the second consecutive year. Residents paid $3 for every $1 paid by commercial enterprises; yet, the commercial sector was growing two or three times as fast as the residential sector. Residents paid three times as much sales tax as workers. Between 2001 and 2015, commercial office space grew by 517,000 square feet. Retail space declined by 37,000 square feet. The Council and the community should address the issues and decide what Palo Alto should be in the next 10-15 years. Mayor Holman noted the time was 9:30; however, she would allow Council Member Filseth to speak to his second. She inquired whether the Council should offer Motions to table the pending Motion and to continue the item. She asked if there should be separate Motions for both items. Molly Stump, City Attorney, stated yes. Council Member Filseth believed many of the issues were affected by the jobs/housing ratio. TDM Programs were a partial solution. New concrete and steel building construction added 70-80 pounds of carbon dioxide per square foot of commercial space. Office development had multiple dimensions, and the Council needed to consider all of them. For a majority of Palo Alto residents, the incremental benefits of office expansion were outweighed by the incremental costs. Many buildings had an FAR that did not match the statutory FAR limit. The Council should proceed deliberately and discuss a time horizon component. Mayor Holman asked if two Motions were needed. Ms. Stump replied no. Only a Motion to Continue the item was needed. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to continue this item to March 2, 2015. Mayor Holman advised that Council Members who did not provide comments would be allowed to speak first on March 2. Council Member Burt was displeased by the process. He understood the half hour allotted for comments would be divided among nine Council Members 02/09/2015 116- 473 MINUTES rather than four. The Mayor requested Council Members not offer a complex Motion; yet, that had occurred. Tabling the Motion was premature. He believed the Council should hold a deliberative and thoughtful discussion prior to debating recommendations that were not well thought out. Mayor Holman explained that that could occur at the second meeting. Council Member Burt indicated that five Council Members had not discussed the substance of the topic. He preferred the Motion be withdrawn. These were important issues that would require a great deal of consideration and deliberation before providing Staff with guidance regarding interim measures and the Comprehensive Plan. The initial Motion was premature and out of order for the guidance that was provided. When the item reconvened, he wanted the Maker and the Seconder to reconsider their Motion before the Council held deliberative discussion. Mayor Holman reported the Council was tabling the Motion and continuing the meeting. AMENDMENT: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to continue this item to March 2, 2015 and the Motion on the floor be withdrawn. Mayor Holman felt the Motion and Amendment did not affect the proceedings. Council Members could vote the Motion down at the meeting on March 2. The Council could discuss the Motion and Amendment for the next half hour or continue with the Agenda. Council Member Scharff disagreed. Mr. Keene did not believe the Council should be divided at the initial phase of the discussion. Nothing was lost by approval of the Amendment. Council Member Burt clarified that the March 2 discussion would not be framed around a specific Motion if the Motion was withdrawn. AMENDMENT PASSED: 6-2 Filseth, Schmid no, Kniss absent Mayor Holman reiterated that Agenda Item Number 11 was continued to March 2, 2015 with the Motion on the floor being withdrawn. Earlier comments indicated a desire to move Agenda Item Numbers 13 and 14 forward. Council Member Burt understood the intention was to move Agenda Item Number 12 to the end of the Agenda. 02/09/2015 116- 474 MINUTES Mayor Holman agreed. The Council would take up Agenda Item Number 14. Council Member Berman suggested taking up Agenda Item Number 13 first would align with the timing of the Agenda. Mayor Holman had not understood that members of the public were present to speak to Agenda Item Number 13. 13. Colleagues Memo from Council Members Berman, Burt, DuBois, and Wolbach Regarding a City-Wide Minimum Wage Ordinance. Council Member Burt reported several cities in the subregion had enacted minimum wage Ordinances based on the subregion's significantly higher cost of living than the state as a whole. Income from the present minimum wage was significantly substandard for the amount required for survival in the region. The proposal was to refer action to the Policy and Services Committee for vetting. Council Member Berman added that the goal of the Colleague's Memorandum was to refer the topic to the Policy and Service Committee for a robust discussion. A minimum wage employee working 2,000 hours a year earned $18,000 a year. A recent local study showed that the average self- sufficiency standard in Santa Clara County in 2014 for two adults with one preschool and one school-aged child was almost $82,000 a year. The wage disparity in Silicon Valley had risen dramatically. The City should have a serious discussion about increasing the minimum wage in an attempt to alleviate some of that disparity. Chris Lundin, Multi Faith Voices for Peace and Justice and Saint Thomas Aquinas Catholic Parish, supported adoption of an Ordinance to raise the minimum wage. The current minimum wage was not sufficient. Paul George, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Director, hoped the Council would approve a thoughtful discussion of increasing the minimum wage. He read a letter signed by 200 Palo Alto Residents and endorsed by 13 organizations comprising the Raise the Wage Coalition. Ryan Larkin, First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto, asked the Council to approve an Ordinance that would bring the City's minimum wage closer to a number that would allow Palo Alto workers to live in Palo Alto. The California minimum wage, though higher than the Federal minimum wage, was not adequate. 02/09/2015 116- 475 MINUTES Wynn Grcich stated minimum wage earners worked double shifts in order to feed and house their families. If minimum wage earners lost their jobs, they often became homeless. Jeff Weaver asked the Council to exercise leadership in addressing the issue of minimum wage. Any debate should include all aspects of compensation. Studies reported no negative impacts from increasing wages for low-income families. Carol Lamont urged the Council to increase the minimum wage. It was a moral issue. Paula Rugg wanted minimum wage earners to continue in their jobs. She supported raising the minimum wage. The Council should align its actions with the Priority of Healthy City/Healthy Community. Aram James suggested the Policy and Services Committee hold a public hearing on the issue. A city could not function without minimum wage earners. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to refer the matter to the Policy and Services Committee supported by appropriate Staff as determined by the City Manager, to analyze and make recommendations to the Council on a Citywide Minimum Wage Ordinance. Council Member Scharff noted the Santa Clara County Cities Association made the topic a priority for 2015. Other Peninsula cities were considering raising the minimum wage. The Policy and Services Committee should consider Ordinances from other cities. Council Member Filseth did not believe raising the minimum wage would result in fewer service jobs. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 14. Colleagues Memo From Council Members Berman, Burt, Holman, and Kniss Recommending Adoption of Resolution 9493 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Urging CalPERS Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies.” Council Member Berman advised that the Resolution was a request for the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to divest its funds from the top 200 fossil fuel companies. Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action's 02/09/2015 116- 476 MINUTES (PICA) idea and Council Members' request was a logical extension of many of the City's policy decisions. Annie Kaskade stated divestment of fossil fuel investments was one of the most important actions cities could take. She encouraged the Council to proceed as quickly as possible in urging CalPERS to divest its funds from fossil fuel companies. Wynn Grcich did not believe people should invest in fossil fuel companies if they wanted climate change. Debbie Mytels, PICA, advised that removing investments from fossil fuel companies was an important symbolic step in recognizing that business could not continue as usual. To protect employees' pensions, CalPERS should divest their investments in fossil fuel companies. Susan Chamberlain, First Presbyterian Church, reported multiple studies showed that portfolios without fossil fuel investments could perform as well if not better than those with fossil fuel investments. Decreased demand for fossil fuels would result in stranded assets, and shares would become grossly over-valued. Rev. Eileen Altman, First Congregational Church of Palo Alto, had studied the issues of climate change. Policy changes were needed to address the threat to the climate. She encouraged the Council to adopt the Resolution. Shelton Ehrlich believed the Council should work to overturn the CalPERS model and invest retirement funds in 401(k) accounts. The Memo was misguided in its instrument to CalPERS and was pernicious in its impact on families. Cedric De La Beaujardiere supported the Colleague's Memo. Climate change was an issue. Individuals, companies, and local municipalities had to act. Steve Ramy presented letters of support from congregations of various local churches. Council Member Berman noted one of Palo Alto's values was protection of the environment. Palo Alto's vision was carbon neutrality. Palo Alto's investments should reflect its values. Studies had shown that divest fossil fuel investments would not have a negative impact. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to adopt the Resolution urging CalPERS Divestment from Fossil Fuel Companies. 02/09/2015 116- 477 MINUTES Council Member Wolbach remarked that climate change was a top tier threat to global economic, social, political, and agricultural stability. Palo Alto was vulnerable to flooding from sea level rise and at risk of water insecurity. Divestment sent a political and financial message. He favored divestment of fossil fuel investments. Mayor Holman had often said that values should determine spending. The same applied to investment of funds. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent 12. Public Hearing: Proposed Changes in Development Impact Fees: Adoption of Resolution 9494 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Setting New Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact Fee Levels as Approved by Council on December 15, 2014.” James Keene, City Manager, reported the Council had previously adopted an Ordinance that established Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility fees. A Resolution setting fees at a maximum amount of 75 percent was also required. He recommended the Council adopt the Resolution. Public Hearing opened and closed without public comment at 10:22 P.M. Vice Mayor Schmid inquired about the source for the assumed numbers of employees per 1,000 square feet. Numbers in the table were dramatically below the current assumptions. Lalo Perez, Chief Financial Officer, explained that those numbers had been revised and could be found on page 824. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to adopt the Resolution, setting new Public Safety Facility and General Government Facility Impact fees at 75 percent of maximum levels, as directed by Council on December 15, 2014 when it adopted the implementing Ordinance. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Kniss absent Closed Session 15. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY/LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (as defendant) Subject: Claim of Eileen A. Staats, filed January 5, 2015 (Telephone User Tax) Authority: California Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2) 02/09/2015 116- 478 MINUTES Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 02/09/2015 116- 479 Special Meeting February 17, 2015 Action Items ..........................................................................................482 1. Discussion and Potential Action on: ..................................................482 1A). Discussion and Potential Action on Procedures and Protocols ...............482 1B). Discussion and Potential Action on Meeting Management .....................487 1C). Discussion and Potential Action on Committees ..................................488 1D). Discussion and Potential Action on Staff Relations ..............................491 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 P.M. ..............................503 02/17/2015 116- 481 MINUTES The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Community Meeting Room at 5:05 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach arrived at 5:19 P.M. Absent: Scharff Vice Mayor Schmid inquired about procedures for a Committee of the Whole meeting. Mayor Holman explained that procedures for a Committee of the Whole meeting were similar to those for a Council meeting. Proceedings would be slightly less formal. Action Items 1. Discussion and Potential Action on: A. Procedures and Protocols B. Meeting Management C. Committees D. Staff Relations 1A). Discussion and Potential Action on Procedures and Protocols Roger Smith spoke to Item 1A. Public comment should be limited to two minutes. Agenda Items allowing public comment should be placed first on the Agenda. Each Agenda Item should have a time limit. If an item exceeded the time limit, it should be moved to the end of the Agenda. Herb Borock spoke regarding Item 1A. He reviewed procedures and protocols of past Councils. Mayor Holman noted a few Council Members had submitted Procedures and Protocols items for consideration by the Policy and Services Committee. James Keene, City Manager, advised that the meeting materials contained a summation of Meeting Management and Procedures and Protocols from the Retreat discussion. Staff received supplemental information from Vice Mayor Schmid and Mayor Holman. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported that Council Members had raised the issue of data analysis and research that had not been prepared and presented as part of the Staff Report. This issue could have legal, policy, and operational implications which the Council needed to discuss and 02/17/2015 116- 482 MINUTES possibly institute additional guidelines for. She was most concerned about the potential for legal issues to be implicated in a quasi-judicial matter. Typically Council Members acted as a legislative body that set policy, at which time the Council had broader discretion. From time to time, the Council acted as a quasi-judicial body and made decisions regarding a particular item to which existing laws should be applied. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, constitutional principles of due process applied. The parties appearing before the Council had a right to be heard and the right to obtain a decision based on the record before the Council. When new items were added to the record, they had to be added in a way that honored due process rights. The Council could discuss various ways to do that. Partly it would be a question of timing. The Council should consider additional elements of disclosure that were made when a due process item was called. Mayor Holman added that new information should be presented sooner. Ms. Stump stated that adding new information to the record the night of the decision had implications. Legally, the key implication was that the parties were receiving the information for the first time. The parties had a right to understand that the decision could in part be based on that new information. Therefore, parties needed time to understand, absorb, and respond to the new information. If new information was added at a meeting, the Council would need to reschedule its final decision to another night so that parties would have an opportunity to respond to the new information. The information could be presented earlier in the process, such that the Council could hear and resolve the item at the scheduled time. Mayor Holman reiterated that topics would be referred to the Policy and Services Committee. The City Attorney suggested writing a summary of potentialities, risks, and opportunities for submission to the full Council. Ms. Stump wanted to prepare a primer for the Council regarding the full issue of due process. She did not mean to imply there were unaddressed problems; however, due process was an important duty of the Council. Mayor Holman clarified that Staff was attempting to avoid problems rather than addressing existing problems. Vice Mayor Schmid assumed the City Attorney was not concerned about reinterpretation of old data or presentation of data that might have been presented in a different context. The City Attorney was concerned about new data that had not been publicized in a Council packet in the history of the Council. Ms. Stump explained that in the context of a due process matter, new data was narrower. New data pertained to the record before the Council. If a 02/17/2015 116- 483 MINUTES Council Member identified relevant data in work from the previous year and wished to rely on that data, the data should be placed in the record in a due process matter. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if Council Members could mention only information that Staff had presented. That would be a constraint. Ms. Stump clarified that due process concerned information on which the Council would base its decision. The parties were entitled to know all information the Council would consider in making its decision. A quasi- judicial proceeding was very different from policy making. In a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Council would take existing laws and apply them to a particular application or project before the Council. Negative policy implications from existing rules were often revealed through due process. The law did not allow the Council to change the rules and apply the new rules to the project. The applicant was entitled to know the rules and the information the Council would consider. If Council Members wished to consider information that was not part of the record, then all parties had to be provided with the information and be allowed to respond to it. Vice Mayor Schmid remarked that having the packet earlier would allow Council Members to raise issues publicly. He asked if Council Members could make information a part of the record simply by mentioning it. Ms. Stump concurred that the early packet release would allow items to remain on the Agenda while adding to the record. Staff and the Council should discuss ways to add information to the record. Adding information had implications for Staff. Council Member DuBois felt it was critical for City Commissions and Boards to understand due process as well. If a Board or Commission failed to question an issue, then it would be missing from the record. Ms. Stump advised that if a Council Member believed an important issue had not been fully reviewed by a Commission or Board, then that issue could be added at the Council level. Boards and Commissions should thoroughly review all issues. Staff should also thoroughly prepare issues. Council Member DuBois reiterated that Boards and Commissions should understand due process as well. Ms. Stump concurred. Mayor Holman suggested Council Members other than members of the Policy and Services Committee ask questions. Members of the Policy and Services 02/17/2015 116- 484 MINUTES Committee could ask questions at the Policy and Services Committee meeting. Mr. Keene presumed only 20 percent of the Council's work concerned due process. Perhaps Staff could implement a method to clearly distinguish legislative and due process items on the Agenda. The City Attorney was focusing on specific circumstances that could be problematic if the Council did not follow procedures. Ms. Stump concurred with 20 percent of the Council's work falling under due process. People brought their life experiences, general knowledge, and intelligence to bear on a record before them. Her comments reflected a new Council and Commission approach to research or data development. Council Member Burt commented that the Council was not restricted from presenting new information, but that information needed to be provided in advance to parties, the public, and decision makers. Ms. Stump agreed. As a policy matter, strong interests were served by ensuring information was provided to parties, the public, and decision makers. Legally, only people who had property interests at stake were entitled to that information. Council Member Burt requested his Colleagues express their interest in the Policy and Services Committee discussing recommendations for similar circumstances in a legislative hearing. Procedures were binding; protocols were agreed upon practices. Ms. Stump did not find a bright line between procedures and protocols when reading the document. The Council adopted the Procedures and Protocols document to guide its behavior. The document sometimes required interpretation. The document was a set of guidelines that the Council had to interpret and apply to itself. Council Member Burt questioned whether the Policy and Services Committee should explore a recommended practice for Council Members to share substantive materials relevant to a legislative discussion. Mayor Holman felt the Policy and Services Committee should discuss that. If a body of evidence had been discovered, it should be disclosed. Council Member DuBois suggested a Council Member using his personal experience rather than information could be tricky. Council Member Kniss remarked that the chances of being sued were good if the Council did not follow due process. Information from a quasi-judicial proceeding could be presented in a court of law. 02/17/2015 116- 485 MINUTES Council Member DuBois was discussing broadening beyond the due process. Ms. Stump stated Council Member DuBois wanted to go beyond what was being requested. Council Member Kniss would say far less in a quasi-judicial proceeding than in other proceedings. Vice Mayor Schmid preferred to be light-handed on the legislative issue. In order to respond to public comment, the Council had to be flexible in its responses. Council Member Burt did not understand Vice Mayor Schmid's concern. The discussion did not concern constraining Council Members' ability to respond. He questioned whether Council Members should share new data relevant to a legislative matter in advance. Vice Mayor Schmid was referring to a Council Member recalling a piece of information in response to public comment. Ms. Stump added that Council Members should share information with colleagues, Staff, and the public. That would allow Council Members to be more effective and inclusive. Mr. Keene reported Staff discussed advancing the release of packets so that the Council and public had more time to prepare for meetings. The Council should consider customs for Council interaction. The Policy and Services Committee could explore boundaries for providing information and for altering Council discussion to allow assimilation of information. Mayor Holman inquired whether Council Members could submit suggestions for Policy and Services Committee discussion subsequent to the meeting. Ms. Stump answered yes. Mr. Keene remarked that the Council governed itself by adopting procedures and protocols. If the Council wished to memorialize a decision, then it could be incorporated into the Procedures and Protocols document. Mayor Holman suggested the Council provide direction to the Policy and Services Committee regarding additional Committee of the Whole meetings. Council Member Burt noted the Council held straw polls at the Retreat to refer a number of items to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member DuBois reported pages 22 and 23 of the Retreat Minutes indicated the Council referred guidelines for telephone participation, review 02/17/2015 116- 486 MINUTES of rules regarding consent items, and clarification of the roles of Staff and Council Members in Agenda setting to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Holman added that her notes from the Retreat indicated all items under Number 1, Procedures and Protocols, on the handout were referred to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member DuBois clarified that items under Numbers 1 and 2 were referred to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Kniss recalled public comment regarding procedure and protocol changes. Council procedures and protocols evolved and changed and would continue to change. 1B). Discussion and Potential Action on Meeting Management Mayor Holman requested suggestions other than those discussed at the Retreat. Vice Mayor Schmid noted page 24 of the Retreat Minutes stated all Meeting Management items would be referred to the Committee of the Whole. Council Member DuBois did not believe the Council voted to refer all items to the Committee of the Whole. Council Member Wolbach recalled that the Council agreed not to make any decisions after Council Member Scharff left the Retreat. Mayor Holman again requested suggestions for Policy and Services Committee consideration. Council Member DuBois inquired whether a Motion was needed to refer topics to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Holman wanted to hold Motions until the end of the item. In light of full Council Agendas and the inability to schedule a second meeting for the Committee of the Whole, she requested Council Members not repeat comments, remain on point, and offer concise comments during meetings. Council Member Burt interpreted policies as rules and protocols as practices. If protocols could be practices, then Mayor Holman's request could be added to guidelines for the Council. That would not constrain Council Members' comments, but it could remind Council Members to avoid those issues. He suggested referral of that topic to the Policy and Services Committee; however, any discussion would be meaningful only with clarification of policy versus protocol. 02/17/2015 116- 487 MINUTES Mayor Holman stated that her comments were not intended to curtail anyone's right to speak or to participate in a meeting. It was a matter of being efficient and effective. Council Member Wolbach did not believe the Council decided to send any items to the Policy and Services Committee for consideration. He asked if the Council had decided not to refer items of Meeting Management to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Holman explained that she had requested Motions be offered at the end of the discussion. 1C). Discussion and Potential Action on Committees Council Member DuBois asked if Council Members had proposed any topics at the Retreat. Mayor Holman recalled three suggestions from the Retreat. In 2014, the Regional Housing Mandate Committee committed to continue review of housing sites and to provide comments regarding housing mandates and the Density Bonus Law to lobbyists. Currently the Regional Housing Mandate Committee was inactive. Without a Regional Housing Mandate Committee, the Council should assign those tasks to another body. She questioned whether the body should be the Policy and Services Committee, the Council, or an ad hoc Subcommittee of the Council. Council Member Berman asked if the Comprehensive Plan process would be appropriate for that discussion. Mayor Holman did not believe the legislative aspect was a part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Housing sites were typically Zoning issues. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, advised that Staff made a commitment in preparing the Housing Element to consider eliminating sites in the southern part of the City, adding new sites, or increasing densities. Staff included those issues in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Keene indicated the Council was faced with what it wanted to accomplish and how to accomplish it. The question of Committees fell under that discussion. The Council should question the role of Committees for the Council. A particular Committee was not needed to solve a particular problem. The Density Bonus Law could be handled through the Council legislative process. Council Member Burt had intended to add the Density Bonus Law to the legislative Agenda. The Council could handle the legislative aspect, and 02/17/2015 116- 488 MINUTES housing sites could be folded into the Comprehensive Plan. Some important issues could be referred to the City/School Liaison Committee for deeper collaboration and policy discussions with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board. Perhaps the City/School Liaison Committee could advise the Council with respect to Project Safety Net, planning for Cubberley Community Center, and searching for future school sites. Council Member DuBois had proposed forming Committees around Council Priorities. A Comprehensive Plan Committee could follow up on housing sites and Comprehensive Plan Elements. A Healthy City/Healthy Community Committee could be a part of the City/School Liaison Committee or separate. He proposed the Council outline priorities and provide direction to key advisory Commissions and Boards. Council Member Kniss expressed concern about the number of meetings requiring Council Member attendance. A Comprehensive Plan Committee would alter the existing model for the Comprehensive Plan Update. A Healthy City/Healthy Community Committee could be a part of the City/School Liaison Committee, but it could also tie into land use. She urged caution when considering new Committees and whether those had merit as a standalone Committee or woven into other Committees. Project Safety Net was appropriate for referral to the City/School Liaison Committee. Council Member DuBois suggested the Regional Housing Mandate Committee become the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Council Member Kniss believed the full Council should handle the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Berman agreed that it was not logical to form a Committee to perform work that the Council would later duplicate and expand. That would be a main factor for him in determining whether to create new Committees. He was intrigued by referring topics to existing Committees. Cubberley Community Center probably should not be referred to the City/School Liaison Committee as only two Council Members participated in that Committee. Vice Mayor Schmid concurred with the City/School Liaison Committee taking on specific issues. He was hesitant about forming new Council Committees, especially on important issues such as the Comprehensive Plan and land use. He liked the idea of Council Priorities being given to Committees, Commissions, and Boards. Commissions and Boards were good places to have clear Council direction to review certain issues. Given better Council direction, Commissions and Boards could help leverage Council time. 02/17/2015 116- 489 MINUTES Council Member Wolbach suggested the Council assign Boards and Commissions to lead Priorities. The Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC) could work on Healthy City/Healthy Community. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) could focus on the Built Environment and the Comprehensive Plan. He inquired whether the Council could accomplish that and provide clear direction as to where those Boards and Commissions should focus their time. The City/School Liaison Committee should have more substance. Perhaps a third Council Member could be assigned to that Committee. The City/School Liaison Committee could draft proposals regarding Project Safety Net, Cubberley, bike routes, traffic, shared use of fields and gyms, and land use issues. Council Member Berman indicated the Council should attempt to provide direction to Committees, Commissions, and Boards and carefully consider how to provide those directions and topics for review. Council Member Kniss commented that it was difficult to provide specific directions from nine different people. Attempting to alter the City/School Liaison Committee did not disparage it; however, the PAUSD Board had its own challenges and charges. That would be a very interesting direction, but the Council should be aware of sensitivity at that Committee. Council Member Burt advised that certain issues on the horizon lent themselves to having a greater dialog through the City/School Liaison Committee. Council Member Berman expressed concern about delegating too much of the Cubberley issue to the City/School Liaison Committee. The Council could circumscribe which issues it delegated. Committees did not make decisions but provided recommendations to the Council. The role of a Committee was to hold deeper discussions and vet topics to allow the Council to reach better decisions more efficiently. Few infrastructure issues would need to be vetted by a Committee. He questioned whether the Council would have less discussion of the Comprehensive Plan if a Comprehensive Plan Committee vetted it and made recommendations to the Council. Instead of creating Council Committees, perhaps the Mayor could appoint two liaisons. The Healthy City Healthy Community concept was new. He was unsure whether that should be referred to the Policy and Services Committee or created as an ad hoc Committee. Council Member DuBois suggested a Comprehensive Plan Committee would allow Council Members to work on the Comprehensive Plan more often. The Council could apply the model of the Housing Element and Regional Housing Mandate Committee to the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Perhaps the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan citizens group could change from 02/17/2015 116- 490 MINUTES communication to making recommendations to a Comprehensive Plan Committee. 1D). Discussion and Potential Action on Staff Relations Mayor Holman noted several suggestions and submissions were made at the Retreat and requested other suggestions. Council Member DuBois inquired about an update to the prioritization exercise. Mr. Keene provided a matrix of work plan projects that tracked with Council Priorities. Staff identified projects by Council Priority and added the level of effort and urgency for projects. Staff did not include some high-level projects and issues facing the Council. Council Members could add projects at the Council level of importance particularly relating to policy issues or public interest. Many projects were rated as high urgency, because they were connected to Council Priorities. He requested Council Members provide feedback within two weeks. Staff would incorporate Council feedback into the matrix. Council Member DuBois understood the purpose of the matrix was to survey Council Members. Mr. Keene was asking Council Members to rate the urgency of projects. Council Member DuBois asked if the City Manager was attempting to identify the average from the Council or the Council's agreement with Staff's urgencies. Mayor Holman stated individual responses would be good; however, Council Members needed to come together and determine if they agreed. Mr. Keene reported the ultimate purpose was to learn Council Members' individual view of projects. Council Members could array projects in each Priority, and Staff could report that to the Council. Council Member DuBois suggested Council Members rank order each Priority or distribute 100 points among Priorities. Council Member Kniss suggested Council Members provide a certain number of top strategies. Mr. Keene noted the Council had provided Staff with directions for every project on the list. He was asking the Council to rank order projects in order to provide information to Staff. 02/17/2015 116- 491 MINUTES Council Member Kniss commented that projects had very different cost amounts. The Fry's site would require a fair amount of expense; yet, it was a high priority. Mayor Holman asked if the City had received grant funds for the Fry's site. Ms. Gitelman replied yes. Mr. Keene explained that when Staff reviewed the Council's rankings and patterns, they could talk about costs and the Council could prioritize projects. Many infrastructure projects did not need much near-term Council interaction or policy decisions Vice Mayor Schmid remarked that the matrix contained all projects for 2015. Staff identified most of them as high or medium priority. The Council had a special focus of ensuring the decision process was working. He wanted to figure out how to leverage policy time. Maybe the Council should determine how to prioritize Agendas. The key part for the Council was Agenda setting. Council Member Burt suggested separating Staff tasks and Council actions into two columns. Some projects could be high importance rather than high urgency. He did not know how to contend with ongoing projects that did not need Council action. Maybe the Council should determine whether some projects fell under more than one Priority. Mr. Keene explained that the matrix served multiple purposes. One was to collect topics about which the Council could report activities to the community. Another was to determine where the Council should focus its time. The Council could use the matrix to determine the depth of focus on an issue. Council Member Filseth inquired whether this was the same list presented at the Retreat Mr. Keene clarified that Staff added some columns. Council Member Filseth recalled Council Member comments that some topics proposed for Council Priorities were important, but they were not contained in the list. The list did not include any projects for the Healthy City/Healthy Community Priority. Allocating projects to Priorities was not appropriate. Mr. Keene indicated Council Members would make judgment decisions in ranking projects. Mayor Holman asked if Council Members were agreeable to extending the meeting time to 7:30 P.M. 02/17/2015 116- 492 MINUTES Council Member Kniss suggested the Council discuss Healthy City/Healthy Community after Council Members returned from a conference where information would be plentiful. Mayor Holman concurred. She requested Motions to refer items to the Policy and Services Committee or to the Committee of the Whole. Council Member Wolbach suggested forming an ad hoc Committee to propose projects for Healthy City/Healthy Community. Mayor Holman requested Motions on how to affect outcomes. Council Member DuBois indicated three Motions were voted on under Procedures and Protocols. Mayor Holman asked Council Member DuBois to list the three items. Mr. Keene responded telephone guidelines for Closed Sessions, procedures for Consent Calendar items, and clarification of the role of the City Manager, Staff, Mayor, and Vice Mayor in setting of Agendas. Council Member Kniss clarified those items mentioned were to be referred to the Policy & Services Committee. A decision was not presently being made. Mayor Holman stated yes, those items were referred to the Policy and Services Committee. Council Member Wolbach clarified the first item as telephone participation for either Closed or Open Sessions. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to refer everything submitted by Council Members and the public under Procedures and Protocols to the Policy and Services Committee. The Policy and Services Committee would evaluate and make recommendations of those items to the Committee of the Whole or the Council. Three items voted on at the Retreat; 1) telephone participation guidelines for Closed or Open Sessions, 2) procedures for Consent Calendar items, and 3) clarification of the role of the City Manager, Staff, Mayor, and Vice Mayor in setting of Agendas), plus those items submitted prior to this meeting by the City Manager be referred to Policy and Services Committee, review of any other public submission with the caveat that those items which were determinant would be handled by the Policy and Services Committee, those that would generate full Council consideration would go to the Committee of the Whole or Council for deliberation and determination. Council Member Burt asked who would decide which items returned to the Committee of the Whole. 02/17/2015 116- 493 MINUTES Mayor Holman advised it would be a judgment call. Vice Mayor Schmid remarked that Committees usually determined placement on the Agenda if there was one opposing vote. Council Member Kniss asked if Mayor Holman was looking at the draft Minutes to pull information for the Motion. Mayor Holman stated no, she was looking at the submissions and the handout from the Retreat. Mr. Keene clarified that items referred to the Policy and Services Committee were: the three items listed under Procedures and Protocols on the summary from the Council meeting; submissions from Vice Mayor Schmid and Mayor Holman. Council Member Burt stated items under Meeting Management on the document from the Retreat appeared to include items that could potentially be Procedures and Protocols. Mayor Holman advised that Council Members could move to refer all submissions under Procedures and Protocols to the Policy and Services Committee except for items they felt could take more discussion. Council Member Filseth asked if the Policy and Services Committee would reject, accept, or send back to the Council for discussion each item. Mayor Holman explained that the Policy and Services Committee would make a recommendation to accept, reject or modify each item. Rather than both the Policy and Services Committee and the Council vetting controversial items, the Policy and Services Committee could provide an initial vetting or refer items to a Committee of the Whole for vetting. Council Member Filseth reiterated that each item would receive one of the three actions. Council Member Burt suggested a fourth scenario. The Policy and Services Committee could do some vetting and then recommend that the full Council hold a discussion. The Policy and Services Committee would help the discussion but not conclude it. Mayor Holman added that the Policy and Services Committee would perform preliminary work to assist the discussion of the Committee of the Whole or the Council. Council Member Kniss commented that it would be a vetting process. 02/17/2015 116- 494 MINUTES Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the Motion added submissions made after the Retreat. Mayor Holman answered yes. The three items referred at the Retreat were included in the current Motion. Council Member DuBois asked if the Motion included emails from citizens. Mayor Holman replied yes. Council Member Burt asked if the Motion directed the Policy and Services Committee to take up anything received from the community as an item without any screening as to whether it was appropriate. Mayor Holman reported the Council was free to consider or not consider any communication, whether oral or written, from the public. Council Member Burt remarked that "free to consider or not consider" was different from a Council direction "to consider." He understood the Council was giving directions to consider. One was to consider all things including every comment from the public. The other was to consider all things referred by the Council and may consider things that came from the public. Mayor Holman wanted to ensure the Council did not ignore submissions from the public. Vice Mayor Schmid offered language for the caveat of "if there is one dissenting vote or the group thinks it is appropriate to have a full Council discussion." Ms. Stump advised that the current policies, protocols or procedures included that rule. Committees always had the ability to place an item on the Action Agenda even with a unanimous vote. She understood Mayor Holman was suggesting something slightly different. Before fully vetting an issue, the Policy and Services Committee might feel the item would be better handled by the full Council. MOTION RESTATED: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to refer everything submitted by Council Members and the public under Procedures and Protocols to the Policy and Services Committee. The Policy and Services Committee would evaluate and make recommendations of those items to the Committee of the Whole or the Council. Three items voted on at the Retreat; 1) telephone participation guidelines for Closed or Open Sessions, 2) procedures for Consent Calendar items, and 3) clarification of the role of the City Manager, Staff, Mayor, and Vice Mayor in setting of Agendas), plus those items submitted prior to this meeting by the City Manager be referred to Policy and Services Committee, review of any 02/17/2015 116- 495 MINUTES other public submission with the caveat that those items which were determinant would be handled by the Policy and Services Committee, those that would generate full Council consideration would go to the Committee of the Whole or Council for deliberation and determination. Council Member Burt had proposed completion of Core Values adoption at the Retreat under Staff Relations, but it was a standalone item. Mayor Holman advised that that was referred to the Policy and Services Committee at the Retreat. Council Member Berman reiterated that the Council was sending everything to the Policy and Services Committee with direction for Policy and Services Committee actions. He had not reviewed the at-places information. Page 2 of one of the Number B documents, possibly the one provided that day, stated "increased office occupancy density beyond what is considered in the Municipal Code of 4 per 1,000." There was nothing in the Code about office density. The Code stated that there should be 4 parking spots per 1,000 square feet of office space. Members of the public often misrepresented that. Council Members should be clear about requirements contained in the Code. Mayor Holman understood that 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet was based on the presumed office occupancy density. That Number B document was a list of examples of things that Staff would bring to the Council as they saw emerging issues. Council Member Berman did not see the language about the list being examples. That statement assumed every employee drove their own single- occupant vehicle, which they did not. Mayor Holman stated the Policy and Services Committee could not change the Code. Council Member Wolbach asked if the Policy and Services Committee would recommend policy changes to request Staff watch for issues that could become problems and alert the Council of those issues before they became problems. Mayor Holman responded yes. Council Member Burt did not believe the Council took action on his suggestion for the Policy and Services Committee to consider having greater clarity with respect to the meanings of policy and protocol. 02/17/2015 116- 496 MINUTES Mayor Holman advised Council Member Burt, as Chair of the Policy and Services Committee, to raise the question at a Policy and Services Committee meeting. Council Member Burt explained that the Council would conduct its annual review of policies and procedures; however, he wished to obtain a sense of whether colleagues wanted the Policy and Services Committee to review that. Mayor Holman stated clarification was good. Council Member Burt recalled that the issue of Priorities being a few succinct words or one- or two-sentence narratives was mentioned when the Council set its Priorities. Mayor Holman asked if she had not captured an item under Priorities. Council Member Burt clarified that it was a follow-up question from the Council's Priority setting. Colleagues may not want to refer it. At the Retreat, the Council discussed attempting to capture the meaning of Priorities in a few words. A sentence or two could clarify the Council's intent. Mayor Holman suggested the Council vote on the Motion and return to Council Member Burt's thoughts. Council Member Kniss commented that the number of items referred to the Policy and Services Committee would be an enormous amount of work. She asked Council Member Burt if he believed the Policy and Services Committee could accomplish those tasks by June while meeting only twice a month. Council Member Burt anticipated the Policy and Services Committee meeting twice in some months. He did not assume that all items would be detailed by June, but hopefully many of them would. Mayor Holman agreed the Council was giving the Policy and Services Committee a great deal of work. For that reason, she added the caveat to the Motion that the Policy and Services Committee could identify and refer controversial issues to the Council or the Committee of the Whole without fully vetting those issues. Mr. Keene understood the Motion gave the Policy and Services Committee discretion to determine which issues it could focus on, which could be placed in a parking lot, and which could be referred back to the Council. Mayor Holman reported the list was not as extensive as it appeared because it contained duplicate items. 02/17/2015 116- 497 MINUTES Council Member Kniss asked if the Motion included Meeting Management. Mayor Holman responded no. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Mayor Holman requested a Motion for items under Meeting Management. Another Committee of the Whole meeting or referral to Policy and Services Committee was possible. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to refer Meeting Management items to the Policy and Services Committee and bring back to Council. Council Member Burt advised that some of the items were already in the discretion of the Mayor. He inquired whether the intent was to provide more clarity that that discretion existed. Mayor Holman stated clarity was good. It would be appropriate for Council Member Burt to state that when the Policy and Services Committee reported to the Council. Council Member Burt believed it would be more of a reminder of the discretion that existed. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to direct the Mayor to make a proposal to the Committee of the Whole and they would respond to the Mayor's proposal. Council Member Kniss asked if the Motion intended for Mayor Holman to distill a proposal to its essence and present it to the Policy and Services Committee. Vice Mayor Schmid clarified that Mayor Holman could not present a proposal to a four-member Committee because it would be a Brown Act violation. Council Member Wolbach would not support the Substitute Motion. The suggestions from the Mayor were already included in the referrals to the Policy and Services Committee with a report to the Committee of the Whole. Council Member Filseth interpreted the Motion and Substitute Motion as involving a screening process. The difference between Council Member Wolbach's Motion and Vice Mayor Schmid's Motion was who would do the screening, the Policy and Services Committee or the Mayor. Either one was appropriate. 02/17/2015 116- 498 MINUTES Council Member Burt reported the Substitute Motion was misguided, because it contained an implicit premise that Meeting Management items pertained to this year and this Mayor. Meeting Management items pertained to Council policies for how the Mayor would run meetings, but not about a given Mayor. SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED: 2-6 Kniss, Schmid yes, Scharff absent MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to refer to Policy and Services Committee consideration of proposals to replace the Regional Housing Mandate Committee with a Council Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, to form a new ad hoc Healthy City/Healthy Community Committee, and the City/School Liaison Committee explore with PAUSD taking a more substantial role. Council Member Kniss inquired whether those Committees would be subject to Policy and Services Committee review prior to their being created or altered. Council Member DuBois answered yes. Council Member Burt believed the Committee of the Whole should review formation of Committees, not the Policy and Services Committee. He asked if there would be a second meeting of the Committee of the Whole. Mayor Holman indicated a second meeting would be held once a date could be identified. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to refer the Motion to eh Committee of the Whole rather than the Policy & Services Committee. Council Member Wolbach asked if the item could be agendized for a regular Council meeting. Mayor Holman responded no, because Council Agendas were full. Council Member Burt felt an informal dialog would be more productive. MOTION RESTATED: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to refer to the Committee of the Whole consideration of proposals to replace the Regional Housing Mandate Committee with a Council Comprehensive Plan Update Committee, to form a new ad hoc Healthy City/Healthy Community Committee, and the City/School Liaison Committee explore with PAUSD taking a more substantial role. 02/17/2015 116- 499 MINUTES Council Member Burt suggested referring the Core Values discussion to the next Committee of the Whole meeting so that all Council Members could provide input. He inquired whether that could be added to the Motion. Mayor Holman preferred Council Member Burt offer a separate Motion. Vice Mayor Schmid noted the Motion did not propose a Built Environment Committee. Council Member Wolbach asked if the Motion proposed the Comprehensive Plan Committee as an ad hoc or Standing Committee. Mayor Holman recommended that be determined at the Committee of the Whole meeting. MOTION AS AMENDMENT PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman that a discussion of Core Values be moved to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to refer to the Policy and Services Committee Council Priorities be detailed in short narratives with directions to key advisory commissions and boards on how we want projects evaluated and criteria we would like them to use in their reports to the Council. Council to approve and send specific directions to Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning & Transportation Commission (P&TC), Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Parks and Recreation Commission (PARC). Council Member Berman inquired about a process for accomplishing the item and whether it was referred to the Policy and Services Committee or the Council. He was not comfortable supporting the Motion. Council Member Kniss would not support the Motion. Council Member DuBois would agree to amend the Motion to add referral to the Policy and Services Committee at the beginning. Council Member Berman would support the Motion and hoped it would not be controversial such that the Council duplicated the Policy and Services Committee discussion. Council Member Kniss would not support the Motion as it was extremely directive for Commissions and Boards. 02/17/2015 116- 500 MINUTES INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace “projects” with “initiatives”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace “specific directions” with “guidance”. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to replace “ARB, P&TC, HRB and PARC” with “appropriate Boards and Commissions”. Council Member Filseth commented that the Council needed to receive value and guidance from its Boards and Commissions. He would support the Motion. Council Member Wolbach inquired whether "narratives with directions" changed to "narratives with guidelines." Council Member DuBois answered no. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to substitute “narratives with directions” with “narratives with guidelines”. Mayor Holman expressed concern because it was not only Priorities but the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keene advised that the Policy and Services Committee would likely refer it back to the Council for discussion. The Council had to determine guidelines. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to refer narratives to Policy and Services Committee and the balance to the Committee of the Whole. Council Member Burt clarified that the Policy and Services Committee would discuss narratives for Priorities. The committee as a whole would discuss guidelines for Boards and Commissions including whether guidance regarding the Comprehensive Plan was included. MOTION PASSED: 7-1 Kniss no, Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to refer items under Staff/Council Relations to the next Committee of the Whole. Mr. Keene advised that many Staff Relation items were included in other Motions. 02/17/2015 116- 501 MINUTES Mayor Holman explained that the preamble to Attachment B, suggestions for Procedures and Protocols, identified that some of the suggestions were not necessarily Procedures and Protocols. Council Member Berman suggested changing the Motion to referral to "a" Committee of the Whole rather the “next”. Council Member Burt indicated the next Committee of the Whole could defer the item to a subsequent meeting if necessary. Council Member DuBois asked if Council Members should respond to the City Manager's request to rank projects. Mayor Holman recommended that be a separate item. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Mayor Holman requested suggestions for addressing the work plan provided by the City Manager. Council Member Kniss reported the room setup was not suitable for discussion as she could not see who was speaking. In addition, there was no projection of Motions for Council Member review and consideration. Mayor Holman agreed. Mr. Keene explained that the room setup was suitable for the single camera recording the meeting. He preferred Council Members sit around a table. Once multiple cameras were installed, the room setup would be better. Mayor Holman repeated her request for suggestions to address the 2015 work plan. Mr. Keene requested the Council make corrections to Priority categorizations and rank projects within Priorities. Staff would organize responses and report pattern information that could engender a subsequent conversation. Council Member Burt requested an electronic copy with a column for Priorities and comments. Mayor Holman requested blank lines be inserted after each topic for Council Member additions. MOTION: Mayor Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Burt that the Council return rankings and Priorities to the City Manager within 2 weeks, March 3, 2015, and the City Manager would compile the results and forward them to the Committee of the Whole. 02/17/2015 116- 502 MINUTES Council Member Filseth was uncomfortable ranking projects within Priorities because some projects did not relate to the Priority. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 P.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 02/17/2015 116- 503 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5575) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Electric Underground Rebuild & Re-Conductor Project, Phase III Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Cal Electro Inc. in the Amount of $514,000 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III Along and Near (A) San Antonio Road Between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads and, (B) Middlefield Road Between East Charleston and East Meadow Drive From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached construction contract (see Attachment A – Contract) with Cal Electro Inc. in a not to exceed amount of $468,000 for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III along and near (A) San Antonio Road between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads and, (B) Middlefield Road between East Charleston and East Meadow Drive (see Attachment C – Project Locations). 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Cal Electro Inc. for related additional, but unforeseen, work which may develop during the project; the total of which shall not exceed $46,000 (10% of the contract price). Staff is therefore requesting a total authorized amount of $514,000 to cover the contract amount of $468,000 plus a 10% contingency amount of $46,000. Background As part of its Capital Improvement Program, the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (“CPAU”) develops projects to rebuild the electric distribution system, replacing electrical equipment that is nearing the end of its useful life, or that has been identified, during regular inspection, as requiring replacement. This is to prevent outages as a result of equipment failure due to age or City of Palo Alto Page 2 deterioration and to ensure safe and reliable performance of the electric system. As part of this regular system evaluation, staff identified six (6) areas for an electric system rebuild (see Table 1 and Attachment C). Much of the equipment in these six identified areas was installed in the early to mid-1970s. Table 1: Project Areas and Descriptions Area Project WBS # Project Title Location Construction Phase A1 EL-09000 Middlefield Road Rebuild Middlefield Rd –- Loma Verde to Ensign Way I, III A7 EL-12000 Rebuild Underground District 12 Middlefield Rd – Oregon to Loma Verde II A8 EL-11007 Rebuild Greenhouse Condo Area Greenhouse Complex on San Antonio Rd II A9 EL-11001 Rebuild Torreya Court Torreya Court I A10 EL-11006 Rebuild Underground District 18 San Antonio Rd – E. Charleston to Middlefield III C2 EL-08000 E. Charleston 4/12 kV Cutover Middlefield Rd – Ensign Way to San Antonio II, III During the 2012/2013 fiscal year, staff completed the engineering and construction of the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase I which included portions of area A1 (EL-09000) and all of area A9 (EL-11001). These two jobs were bundled together into one package and put out for bid to ensure that the City receives competitive pricing and quality service. Similarly, city staff bid out and completed the construction for all of areas A7 (EL- 12000) and A8 (EL-11007), and a portion of C2 (EL-08000) during the fall of 2014 as part of the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase II. Discussion This project, Phase III, involves the removal and replacement of underground electrical cable and equipment along San Antonio Road between East Charleston and Middlefield Roads (area A10, EL-11006), and along Middlefield Road between East Meadow Drive and East Charleston Road (area A1, EL-09000 and C2, EL-08000.) The cable in these areas has been in service between 30 and 40 years, and needs to be replaced to maintain safe and reliable service to customers. New cable will be installed and the electric system re-designed to meet current City and industry standards. Phase III is the final phase of the electric system rebuild work identified for this area of Palo Alto. This project includes converting primary circuits from 4,160 volts (4kV) to 12,470 volts (12kV). Increasing the primary voltage reduces electrical system losses, standardizes requirements for material in inventory, increases operating flexibility, and improves voltage regulation. All of these electrical system changes are intended to reduce the number and duration of planned and unplanned outages for customers and increase the city’s overall electric system reliability and operational efficiency. City of Palo Alto Page 3 These projects were bundled and bid together to take advantage of the economy of scale in order to obtain lower prices for the work. The work to be performed under this contract includes the labor, equipment, and management of all field activities, in coordination with CPAU Operations staff, for the removal and installation of underground electric cable, transformers, and cable terminations. All materials to complete the project will be procured by the City. Table 2: Summary of Bid Process Bid Name / Number Electric Underground Cable Rebuild and Re- conductor Project, Phase III / IFB – 157228 Proposed Length of Project 3 months Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 13 Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 2 Total Days to Respond to Bid 21 Pre-Bid Meeting Yes Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 7 Number of Bids Received 1* Bid Price Range From $468,000 * Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff received only one bid in the amount of $468,000 submitted by Cal Electro Inc. and recommends that Cal Electro Inc. be accepted as the lowest responsible bidder by Council. The bid amount is approximately 1.5% below the engineer’s estimate of $475,000 and Cal Electro has successfully completed similar work for City of Palo Alto in 2012 on the Hewlett Subdivision project and also Phase II of the Electric Underground Cable Rebuild and Re-conductor Project in the fall of 2014. City staff contacted the other six (6) contractors that attended the pre-bid meeting and asked about their decision not to bid on this project. The contractor’s reasons for not submitting bids were they had other work; contractors joined to submit a single bid; and the IFB did not require prevailing wage. None of these responses would justify disqualifying Cal Electro Inc.’s current bid and re-bidding the project. Staff confirmed with the Contractor’s State License Board that the contractor has an active license on file and also checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found all to be satisfactory. Staff’s own experience with Cal Electro Inc. on similar work for City of Palo Alto has also been positive. Timeline Staff recommends that construction be scheduled to begin the week of April 13th, 2015 and that all such work be completed within 90 days. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Resource Impact Construction of the project is being contracted out as there is insufficient staff in the department to construct these projects. The contractor’s work will be inspected by Utilities Electric Operations staff. Funds for this capital improvement project are available from the following approved Electric Fund Capital Improvement projects: 2009 – 2011 WBS EL-08000 East Charleston 4/12 kV Conversion (C2) 2009 – 2015 WBS EL-09000 Middlefied Rebuild (A1) 2011 – 2015 WBS EL-11006 Rebuild Underground District #18 (A10) Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing city policies, including the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan to operate the distribution system in a cost effective manner and to invest in utility infrastructure to deliver reliable service. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15301 (repair or maintenance of existing facilities), and Sec. 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities). Attachments:  Attachment A: Contract (PDF)  Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF)  Attachment C: Project Locations (PDF)  Attachment D: Contractor Agreement Justification (PDF) CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C15157228 City of Palo Alto “Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III” Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT ATTACHMENT A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS………………………………………………..5 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..6 3.1 List of Documents……………………………………………………………………………………………..........6 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......6 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..7 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......7 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….7 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………7 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….8 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….8 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………8 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………8 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 9.1 Hold Harmless………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 9.2 Survival……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION………………………………………………………………………………………..9 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS…………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 13 NOTICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….11 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...11 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default………………………………………………………………………………..11 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..11 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….11 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….12 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..12 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract………………………………………………………………..12 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default……………………………………………12 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….12 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….12 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..13 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.5.2 Subcontractors…………………………………………………………………………………………………14 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………..14 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………..15 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies………………………………………………………………………………………….15 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………15 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….15 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..15 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS……………………………………………………………………………………15 17.1 Financial Management and City Access……………………………………………………………….15 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….16 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 19 NUISANCE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….16 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….16 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE………………………………………………………………………….16 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..18 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES ………………………………………………….18 SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION…………………………………………………….18 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on April 6, 2015 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and CAL ELECTRO, INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 390480. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On December 2, 2014, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project-Phase III (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project-Phase III (“Project”), located in Palo Alto, CA. ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of Five Hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Four Hundred Sixty Eight Thousand Dollars ($468,000.00). 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor 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. Contractor 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 will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: OR City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Jim Pachikara Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Cal Electro, Inc. 3710 Electro Way Redding, CA 96002 Attn: E. Robert Meissner, President 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally liable for any additional cost Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. The Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project, because the City, pursuant to its authority as a chartered city, has adopted Resolution No. 5981 exempting the City from prevailing wages. The City invokes the exemption from the state prevailing wage requirement for this Project and declares that the Project is funded one hundred percent (100%) by the City of Palo Alto. This Project remains subject to all other applicable provisions of the California Labor Code and regulations promulgated thereunder. Or The Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1810, and 1813 of the Labor Code. SECTION 26 NON APPROPRIATION. 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 the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, 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 Construction Contract 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 27 AUTHORITY. 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. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney CAL ELECTRO, INC. By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. February 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT BID SUMMARY Invitation For Bid 157228 Title Electric Underground Rebuild and Re-conductor Project, Phase III Date December 23, 2014 List of Bidders (Company Name) Bid Total 1. Cal Electro Inc.468,000.00$ ATTACHMENT B This project involves the removal and replacement of underground electrical cable and  equipment along Middlefield Road between East Charleston Road and East Meadow Drive, and  also San Antonio Road between East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. The cable in these  areas has been in service between 30 and 40 years, and needs to be replaced to maintain safe  and reliable service to customers. New cable will be installed and the electric system re‐ designed to meet current City and industry standards. The labor to complete this scope of work  was put together in an Invitation For Bid (IFB) to ensure that the City receives competitive  pricing. Cal Electro Inc. submitted the lowest bid of $468,000. The engineer’s estimate was  $475,000.   The contractor, Cal Electro Inc., will provide the labor, equipment, and management of all field  activities, in coordination with CPAU Operations staff, for the removal and installation of  underground electric cable, transformers, and cable terminations.  The contractor will also be  responsible for providing a construction schedule for approval by the CPA Project Manager and  Field Inspector.  For final acceptance from the City, the contractor is required to have a third  party test all cable installed per manufacturer requirements, and to submit as‐built drawings.   Contractor services for this project were planned. Current staffing levels needed for the  construction of this project prevents City staff from being able to dedicate crews to perform  this work.   An Invitation for Bid (IFP) was issued by the Purchasing Department for this work in December  2014. The IFB was out for bid for approximately two weeks, and attendance was required at a  pre‐bid meeting to discuss and answer any questions about the scope of work. Part of the  evaluation process required contractors to submit references and information of similar work  experience with other Utilities within the last 3 years. Only one bid was received by the City and  CPA staff determined that Cal Electro’s submittal is a responsible bid of $468,000. City staff  contacted the other (7) contractors that attended the mandatory pre‐bid meeting and  questioned their decision not to bid on this project. None provided an answer that would justify  re‐bidding the project and disqualifying Cal Electro’s current bid.   Cal Electro Inc. successfully completed similar work for City of Palo Alto Utilities on Phase 2 of  the Electric Underground Rebuild & Re‐conductor project in the fall of 2014 and also Rebuild of  Hewlett Subdivision Project during the summer and fall of 2012. Cal Electro also worked on  ATTACHMENT D many underground electric projects for other municipalities and utilities; including City of  Anaheim, City of Reno, City of Riverside, and PG&E.       The City of Palo Alto’s Utility Department was pleased with the performance of Cal Electro Inc.  during the last two projects in 2014 and 2012. Prior to notifying the contractor with the City’s  intent to award the bid, City staff met with the contractor’s representatives to confirm their  understanding of the scope of work and capability to complete the project.      The term of this agreement is approximately 90 days. The Utilities Department is anticipating  this project to start the week of April 13th, 2015 and to be completed by July 13th, 2015. Staff  prepared project designs and cost estimates prior to starting the bid process. These estimates  were used to validate the contractor bids that were received.       Staff does not anticipate the need for any amendments to the agreement at this time.    Attachment A – Copy of Contract  Attachment B – Bid Summary  Attachment C – Project Locations  Attachment D – Contractor Agreement Justification     City of Palo Alto (ID # 5540) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Water Trail Grant Title: Approval of a Construction Grant Agreement with The Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail in the Amount of $40,000 for Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station Accessibility Improvements and Adoption of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Capital Project Fund in Amount of $40,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve: 1. A construction grant agreement with the Association of Bay Area Governments and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail (Attachment A) in the amount of $40,000 for Palo Alto Baylands Sail Station accessibility improvements. 2. A Budget Amendment Ordinance to recognize grant funding in the amount of $40,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund from the Association of Bay Area Governments. Executive Summary The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) awarded the City of Palo Alto a $40,000 grant for accessibility improvements for the Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station in 2012. The grant was awarded to the City in connection with the Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station’s receipt of conditional designation as a stop on the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail. The grant process began in late 2010 when Water Trail staff toured possible locations for landing stops along the trail. Palo Alto Baylands was immediately put on their list of locations due to several factors: it is an existing facility, relatively minor work needs to be done to address compliance issues, and there are few locations which can serve the South Bay area. Open Space staff attended several Bay Area Water Trail planning meetings. When grant funding became available, the City was encouraged to apply to help offset costs of making accessibility upgrades desired by Water Trail staff. Background City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Baylands Sailing Station provides bay access to non-motorized canoes, kayaks, and other small boats that can be hand-launched. The Sailing Station, built in 1992, was designated as a conditional stop on the San Francisco Bay Water Trail in 2013. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail is a voluntary, planned network of access sites, or “trailheads.” These "trailheads" will make it easier for people using non-motorized small boats to safely enjoy the historic, scenic, cultural and environmental richness of San Francisco Bay through single and multiple day trips. The Baylands Sailing Station meets all the qualifications for a designated stop on the Water Trail (parking, restrooms, pathways, sailing station dock). Certain elements of the Sailing Station need accessibility improvements to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, and current accessibility standards. Upgrades that will need to be completed to change our status from conditional include: - Install ADA compliant handrails along the pier and ramps to the dock, - Replace the existing payphone with an ADA compliant payphone, - Installation of an ADA compliant water fountain, - Repair of broken and warped boards and resetting of raised nail heads on the pier, - Resurfacing of the dock ensuring a non-slip surface when wet, - Replace wooden dock edge with the addition of a wheel guides on all sides, - Replace outdated non-compliant signage with current compliant signage throughout the sail station facility, and - Paving the routes of travel from the handicapped parking stalls to amenities at the sail station. The San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail is a nine-county program under the leadership of the California Coastal Conservancy. It is administered in collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Agency and the California Department of Boating and Waterways. Discussion The purpose of this project is to make repairs, upgrades, and improvements to the existing launch facility at the Palo Alto Baylands Sail Station. Improvements will provide increased recreational opportunities to Palo Alto and greater San Francisco Bay Area communities and provide an accessible and useable trail head for the Bay Area Water Trail. This grant has a requirement for matching funds from the City of Palo Alto in the amount of $40,000. These funds will come from Community Services Department Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Open Space Trails and Amenities (OS 00001-80) and in-kind contributions of open space staff time and labor. The grant money and existing CIP funding will provide ADA compliance improvements, such as an upgrade of accessible parking to meet current standards and creation of firm surface routes of travel from parking to the water fountain, pay telephone, wash pad and pier. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Other than the ADA upgrades to current accessible parking areas and routes of travel from them to sail station amenities, these grant monies will not be used for repairs or upgrades to the sail station parking lot. Per discussions with City of Palo Alto Public Works, regarding and re- compacting of the sail station parking will be scheduled on a yearly basis to minimize the impacts of recurring potholes. The upgraded facility will greatly enhance the accessibility to the South Bay waters for recreational boaters of all physical abilities and skill levels as individuals and family groups. It will also make access to the South Bay marshes, sloughs, and estuaries much easier for exercise, bird and animal viewing, and general exploration. Increased accessibility will increase knowledge and awareness of San Francisco Bay. Approximately 500,000 people visit the Baylands each year. Improving the sailing station will benefit the diverse groups that enjoy the facility, including: small boaters; hikers, joggers, cyclists, wildlife enthusiasts, artists, and photographers. It will also increase the usability and enjoyment of the Baylands for the park visitors of all abilities. Timeline The schedule for utilizing the funds has not been developed yet. The grant funding must be utilized by July 2016. Resource Impact The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance will recognize the grant funds in the amount of $40,000. Acceptance of the grant funds requires matching City funds which will are budgeted from the existing Community Services Department CIP Open Space Trails and Amenities project (OS 00001-80). Policy Implications The grant and proposed improvements to the sailing station are consistent with Policy C-26 of the Community Services element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourages maintaining park facilities as safe and healthy community assets. Environmental Review The award of funding under the ABAG grant agreement is not a project for purposes of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; therefore, no environmental review is required. When the Sailing Station improvement project is undertaken, the project will be categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) and 15304 (Minor alterations to land). Attachments:  Attachment A - H2O grant agreement (PDF)  Attachment B: BAO XXXX - Water Trail Grant (DOCX) 1 5335/mb Revised September 20, 2013 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, INCREASING THE ESTIMATE FOR LOCAL REVENUE IN STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT (PE-86070) IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 IN RECOGNITION OF A GRANT AWARD FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) FOR ACCESSIBILITY IMOPROVEMENTS TO THE PALO ALTO BAYLANDS SAIL STATION 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. Built in 1992, the Palo Alto Baylands Sailing Station (“Station”) provides access to non-motorized canoes, kayaks, and other small boats that can be hand-launched. The Station was designated as a conditional stop on the San Francisco Bay Water Trail in 2013; and C. The Station meets all the qualifications for a designated stop on the Water Trail (parking, restrooms, pathways, sailing station dock). Certain elements of the Station need accessibility improvements to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, and current accessibility standards. D. The City of Palo Alto applied and was awarded a grant in the amount of $40,000 from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for upgrades that include: additional railings on the pier and ramps to the dock, changing the base of the pay telephone to remove wheelchair obstacles, installation of a compliant water fountain, removal of trip hazards on the pier, resurfacing of the dock, repairs to the dock edge, installation of a compliant hose bib (completed), improved compliant signage and paving access routes from parking to the pier. E. The grant has a requirement for matching funds from the City of Palo Alto and these funds will come from pairing the grant money with the existing Community Services Department Open Space Trails and Amenities Project (OS-00001) resulting in no new costs to the City. SECTION 2. The estimate for Local Revenue is hereby increased by the sum of Forty Thousand ($40,000) in the Capital Improvement Fund for the Open Space Trails and Amenities Project (OS-00001). SECTION 3. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 2 5335/mb Revised September 20, 2013 SECTION 4. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is required to adopt this ordinance. SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Public Works CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR April 6, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 The Office of the City Auditor recommends acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. At its meeting on February 10, 2015, the Policy and Services Committee approved and unanimously recommended the City Council accept the report. The Policy and Services Committee minutes are included in this packet. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment B: Policy and Services Committee Meeting Minutes Excerpt (February 10, 2015) (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR February 10, 2015 The Honorable City Council Attention: Policy & Services Committee Palo Alto, California Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 RECOMMENDATION The City Auditor’s Office recommends the Policy and Services Committee review and recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. SUMMARY OF RESULTS In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Auditor prepares an annual work plan and issues quarterly reports to the City Council describing the status and progress towards completion of the work plan. This report provides the City Council with an update on the second quarter for FY 2015. Respectfully submitted, Harriet Richardson City Auditor ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 (PDF) Department Head: Harriet Richardson, City Auditor Attachment A Page 2 Attachment A “Promoting honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent city government." Attachment A 2 Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Second Quarter Update (September – December 2014) Overview The audit function is essential to the City of Palo Alto’s public accountability. As mandated by the City Charter and Municipal Code, the mission of the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) is to promote honest, efficient, effective, economical, and fully accountable and transparent city government. We conduct performance audits and reviews to provide the City Council and City management with information and evaluations regarding the effectiveness and efficiency with which resources are employed, the adequacy of the system of internal controls, and compliance with policies and procedures and regulatory requirements. Taking appropriate action on our audit recommendations helps the City reduce risks and protect its good reputation. Highlights of Activities During the Quarter  The Office of the City Auditor underwent an external quality control review (peer review) of work completed between July 2011 and April 2014, which was coordinated through the Association of Local Government Auditors (ALGA). The peer review found that our office fully complied with Government Auditing Standards.  City Auditor Harriet Richardson participated in a peer review of the Seattle City Auditor’s Office to help fulfill our reciprocity requirement for participating in the ALGA peer review program.  Senior Auditor Mimi Nguyen conducted a webinar on the Office of the City Auditor’s inventory management audit for ALGA members. Audits Below is a summary of our audit work for the second quarter of FY 2015 (as of December 31, 2014): Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Franchise Fee Audit To determine if 1) the City accurately accounted for and oversaw the Media Center’s use of public, education, and government (PEG) fees, 2) the City established and defined roles and responsibilities to administer its cable communications program and state franchises awarded to Comcast and AT&T, and 3) Comcast and AT&T collected and promptly remitted the appropriate amount of franchise and PEG fees. 02/14 03/15 In Process Planning and field work are complete; the report is drafted for the second and third objectives; consultant is in the process of conducting field work on the third objective. Considering issuing two reports – one on the use of the fees and roles and responsibilities, and one on the collection and remission of fees. The draft report for the first two objectives is currently under review by relevant City departments. Attachment A 3 Title Objective(s) Start Date End Date Status Results/Comments Audit of Utility Meters: Procurement, Inventory, and Retirement To determine if proper procedures were followed with the procurement, inventory, and retirement of utility meters. 03/14 03/15 In Process Planning and field work are complete and the report has been drafted. We are awaiting the City Manager’s updated response to the report. The report is scheduled to be presented to the Policy and Services Committee on March 10, 2015. Parking Funds Audit To determine if the City’s parking funds are properly calculated, collected, accounted for, and used in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and governing documents. The audit will focus on the University and California Avenues and Residential Parking Permit Funds, and the Parking In-Lieu Fund. 05/14 04/15 In Process Planning complete; field work is about 75 percent complete. National Citizen Survey To obtain resident opinions about the community and services provided by the City of Palo Alto and benchmark our results against other jurisdictions that participate in the survey. 07/14 01/15 Complete We published the results of the survey on the Office of the City Auditor website on January 26, 2015. We will present the results of the survey at a Council study session in conjunction with the Annual Performance Report, which is currently underway. Annual Performance Report To provide summary information on spending and staffing, workload, and performance results, including historical trends and selected comparisons to other cities, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. 11/14 05/15 In Progress Requests for data have been sent to the departments and some responses have been received. We are exploring ways to realign the data in the report to tell a better story about the City’s performance on a citywide basis. Attachment A 4 Other Monitoring and Administrative Assignments Below is a summary of other assignments as of the second quarter of FY 2015 (as of December 31, 2014): Title Objective(s) Status Results/Comments Sales and Use Tax Allocation Reviews The OCA conducts sales and use tax monitoring in-house and also contracts with an outside vendor. Ongoing The OCA continues to submit inquiries to the State Board of Equalization. As of the end of the second quarter, the City received $43,385 in total sales and use tax recoveries, which includes $22,022 from OCA inquiries and $21,363 from vendor inquiries. Due to processing lags at the State Board of Equalization, there are 35 potential misallocations waiting to be researched and processed: 11 from OCA and 24 from the vendor. Quarterly Reporting Each quarter, the OCA provides Quarterly Status Updates and Sales Tax Digest Summaries for Council review. Ongoing Quarterly reports are published on the OCA website at www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/default.asp. City Auditor Advisory Roles Provide guidance and advice to key governance committees within the City. Ongoing The City Auditor is an advisor to the following: Utilities Risk Oversight Committee, the Library Bond Oversight Committee, the Information Technology Governance Review Board, and the Information Security Steering Committee. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline Administration On August 16, 2012, we launched the City’s Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Hotline. We did not receive any complaints during the second quarter of FY 2015. The chart below summarizes the status of complaints received in each fiscal year. Source: City of Palo Alto hotline case management system as of December 31, 2014 The hotline review committee, composed of the City Auditor, the City Attorney, and the City Manager, or their designees, meets as needed to review all activity related to the hotline. 7 3 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Status of Complaints Received in Fiscal Year Closed Complaints Open Complaints Attachment A Policy and Services Committee EXCERPT MINUTES Page 1 Policy & Services Committee Draft Minutes 02/10/2015 Regular Meeting Tuesday, February 10, 2015 Chairperson Burt called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Berman, Burt (Chair) DuBois, Wolbach Absent: Oral Communications None Agenda Items 1.Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. Harriet Richardson, City Auditor, presented the quarterly report for the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2015. There were three audits close to completion; the Franchise Fee Audit, the audit of Utility Meters Procurement Inventory and Retirement, and the Parking Funds Audit. The Franchise Fee Audit and the audit of Utility Meters Procurement Inventory and Retirement have been sent out for the initial review where edits and updates were accepted. Once the information was returned they would be sent out for final review and comments. Staff was anticipating returning to the Policy & Services Committee (Committee) with those audits by March, April at the latest. The Parking Funds Audit was reviewing the parking in lieu fees for University Avenue, California Avenue and residential parking permit funds. The Parking Funds Audit, as of December 2014 was 75 percent complete. Staff was anticipating an April return date for Committee review. Staff was considering issuing two reports for the Franchise Fee Audit because the work was split into two areas. Staff performed some of the audit and an outside consultant performed other areas of the audit. Staff released the results to the National Citizens Survey on January 26, 2015. The results would be presented to Council with the annual performance report. In 2014 Staff was requested to streamline the annual reporting process for the Services Efforts and Accomplishments Report (SEA). One change will be moving the data Attachment B Page 2 Policy & Services Committee Draft Minutes 2/10/2015 tables to the end of the entire report by department. There would be themes throughout the report to provide more of a citywide picture on performance such as stewardship and community services, financial, environment and sustainability. The three themes would be community, stewardship and public service. The Sales and Use Tax allocation reviews were performed by Staff and an outside consultant. By the end of the second quarter the City had received $3,000 in refunded misallocated Sales and Use Tax revenues. The consultant prepared quarterly reports on sales tax updates which provided an economic view of the happenings of the City. The Auditor’s Office administered the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline. There was little activity in recent months and no complaints were logged during the last quarter. Council Member DuBois confirmed the National Citizens Survey would not be released to Council until May 2015. Ms. Richardson stated that was correct. The results were published although generally there was a Study Session regarding the results and the annual report because they were both based on performance types of issues. Council Member DuBois asked when the data was collected. Ms. Richardson stated with the National Citizens Survey, the data was collected during the fall. The National Research Center conducted the survey for the City; they compiled the data and produced the report. Council Member DuBois asked if Staff was going to alter the report with customized fields for the 2014 report. Ms. Richardson stated no, the National Research Center completed the report. Staff compiled a summary of the information because the full report was lengthy. The summary was pulling the relevant issues to the forefront in an executive summary. Council Member DuBois was under the impression Council had asked for more data so they could decipher it themselves. Ms. Richardson explained Staff had the raw data and using a new software program; Tableau, they were able to interact with the data. Council Member Berman asked about the external quality control review (Peer Review). He recalled the City had fallen behind on it, although best practices it should occur every few years. He believed upon Ms. Richardson’s Attachment B Page 3 Policy & Services Committee EXCERPT Minutes 2/10/2015 employment it was a focus of hers. He asked for information on how and if the Peer Review was helpful to Staff. Ms. Richardson stated the Auditor’s Office had passed the Peer Review. She wanted to express the City had not fallen behind on having the Peer Review performed, but had fallen behind on the reciprocity requirement and updating the office policy and procedures. Staff performed two Peer Reviews in 2014 which caught the City up to date on their requirements. Council Member Berman asked if it was helpful to have outside Auditors’ review the department. Ms. Richardson stated the Peer Reviews were conducted through the Association of Local Government of Auditors. They have training programs for auditor’s in various jurisdictions throughout the country and those auditors were assigned different areas to complete a Peer Review. Since it was a reciprocal process Palo Alto did not pay for the service but they did cover the travel costs. The benefit to Staff was receiving different ways in which to complete processes for more efficiency. Chair Burt asked if the end dates scheduled were current. Ms. Richardson stated the Franchise Fee Audit may move out 30-days. She was working with the City Attorney’s Office for clarification. She clarified once completed it would only be part one of the two reports. She was confident the Utility Meter Audit would remain in March. The Parking Fund Audit remained good for April. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois that the Policy & Services Committee recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Auditor’s Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Attachment B City of Palo Alto (ID # 5612) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto / Stanford Citizen Corps Council Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council / Palo Alto Emergency Services Council From: City Manager Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution regarding the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council (CCC). Background Citizen Corps is a best practice and model advocated by the federal government to integrate volunteers, non-government entities, the private sector, and other groups with local programs related to homeland security and emergency management (HS/EM). The City first formed a Citizen Corps Council (CCC) in 2004 (CMR: 517:04 and Resolution 8491). The City later revised the structure of the in 2009 (CMR: 327:09 and Resolution 8974). The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 2.12 places executive authority for emergency services and public safety with the City Manager, who is the statutory director of emergency services and the Director of Emergency Services (Office of Emergency Services) who is the statutory assistant director of emergency services, and further establishes an Emergency Services Council (ESC). Municipal Code Section 2.12.030(5) specifies that the membership of the ESC may include: “Such representatives of civic, business, labor, veterans, professional or other organizations having an official emergency responsibility, as may be appointed by the director with the advice and consent of the city council.” These representatives are the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council (CCC), along with the City staff enumerated in that section. When the Mayor is present, the CCC becomes the ESC. Municipal Code Section 2.12.080 specifies that the ESC is to be involved in revisions to the City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). City of Palo Alto Page 2 The purpose of this Resolution is to revise the form of the CCC to streamline its operation and support its continued functioning. Discussion The CCC has been generally inactive since 2011, except for the annual Community Partnerships Awards that recognize Emergency Services Volunteers (ESVs) and other persons and groups who have contributed to the resilience of the Palo Alto and Stanford community. In January 2015, the Cities of Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale (a.k.a. North County) selected a consulting firm to develop a shared EOP (base plan). The firm will be paid from an emergency preparedness grant (with the City of Sunnyvale as the fiduciary). A draft EOP is expected by the end of June 2015. As stated above, this process will involve the ESC/CCC as a stakeholder. Membership The 2009 CCC had fourteen members: (1) Six City staff members: • The City Manager and designees (two members) • The Police Chief • The Fire Chief • The Director of the Public Works Department • The Director of the Utilities Department (2) Eight non-City-staff members from the following nine categories: • Neighborhoods: representative of the Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) or other entity (two members) • Businesses: representative of the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce or other entity • Stanford University: representative of the University, including all affiliated entities, such as the Stanford Department of Public Safety (Police), the Department of Environmental Health & Safety, SLAC or other entity • Stanford Research Park: representative of the Stanford Industrial Park (a.k.a. Stanford Research Park) • Stanford Shopping Center: representative of the Stanford Shopping Center • Medical: representative of the health care and hospital sector • Youth & Schools: representative of the Palo Alto Unified School District, or other entity related to youth/schools • Senior Citizens: representative of seniors • Volunteers (two members): representatives of City- or Stanford-Sponsored or Affiliated disaster-related volunteer programs Staff proposes streamlining the membership to emphasize the wording of Municipal City of Palo Alto Page 3 Code Section 2.12.030(5) to have "representatives of civic, business, labor, veterans, professional or other organizations having an official emergency responsibility" (emp. added). The proposed new membership would be: (1) Three City staff members: • The Director of Emergency Services (OES Director; City Manager ex officio) • The Police Chief • The Fire Chief (2) Eight non-City-staff members from the following four categories: • Community Resources: Emergency Services Volunteers (ESVs), the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), other schools, and non-government organizations (Red Cross, etc.) • Business and Infrastructure: Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, Stanford Shopping Center, other private sector entities • Medical and Human Services: Stanford Health Care (SHC) hospitals and clinics, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, VA Hospital, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) • Stanford University: Stanford University Department of Public Safety; Stanford Environmental Health & Safety Rather than locking in "sectors" as the 2009 documentation did, staff recommends that the Director of Emergency Services be given flexibility to appoint members to comport with the Municipal Code and to determine any work groups, projects, and so forth. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.12.080, the CCC/ESC will be involved with the new EOP and provisions that “shall provide for the effective mobilization of all the resources of this city, both public and private, to meet any condition constituting an emergency”. Resource Impact No Resource impact is anticipated. Policy Implications Approval of this Resolution is consistent with current City policies and regulations regarding homeland security and emergency management. Environmental Review (If Applicable) This staff report does not represent a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  ATTACHMENT A: Reso CCC Restructure 031215 (PDF)  ATTACHMENT B: 2004 Resolution (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 4  ATTACHMENT C: Proposed CCC Members (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 150304 sh 0170009 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council, an Element of the Palo Alto Emergency Services Council R E C I T A L S A. The City of Palo Alto formed the Citizen Corps council on December 13, 2004 (Resolution No. 8491) and amended it on August 3, 2009 (Resolution 8974) in order to help coordinate community resources to make our community safer and better prepared to deal with all hazards. B. The City's emergency organization is set forth in Chapter 2.12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which establishes the City Manager as the statutory director of emergency services and the appointed Director of Emergency Services as the statutory assistant director of emergency services. C. The Citizen Corps Council is part of the Emergency Services Council as provided by Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.12.030(5), stating that members include "Such representatives of civic, business, labor, veterans, professional or other organizations having an official emergency responsibility, as may be appointed by the City Manager with the advice and consent of the city council. D. The City wishes the Emergency Services Council and the Citizen Corps Council to continue and to give staff flexibility to sustain operations thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Structure of the Citizen Corps Council. Resolution 8974 is hereby rescinded and the structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council is hereby amended as set forth in this Resolution. SECTION 2. Mission and Responsibilities of the Citizen Corps Council. Citizen Corps Council responsibilities continue to include supporting the coordination of community and government resources to improve our ability to prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. SECTION 3. Membership. The voting membership of the CCC shall be appointed by the Director of Emergency Services and the advice and consent of the City Council per Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.12.030, with the City staff members called for in that section and representatives of “organizations having an official emergency responsibility” as determined by the Director of Emergency Services. // NOT YET APPROVED 2 150304 sh 0170009 SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Emergency Services _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services Proposed List of Citizen Corps Council Members In addition to the staff enumerated in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.12.030, the following eight community members are presented for Council's consent (in random order): Judy Kleinberg: Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce: CEO (and former Mayor of Palo Alto) Ron Ellis: Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD): Manager, Operations Josh Kalkhorst: Stanford Shopping Center: Director Keith Perry: Stanford University: Emergency Manager Laura Wilson: Stanford University Department of Public Safety: Director / Chief of Police Brandon Bond: Administrative Director of Emergency Management: Stanford Health Care (Stanford Hospital) Annette Glanckopf: Palo Alto Emergency Services Volunteers: Team Leader Sheri Klapper: Palo Alto Medical Foundation: Environmental, Health and Safety City of Palo Alto (ID # 5613) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Emergency Operations Plan Agreement Title: Approval of Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for Emergency Operations Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Office of Emergency Services Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Director of Emergency Services to sign the attached Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale regarding the new Emergency Operations Plan. Background The Cities of Los Altos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale are developing a new Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). To improve the operational efficiency and ability to jointly plan, mitigate, prepare, respond to, and recover from all hazards, these jurisdictions intend to share a common base plan EOP. Discussion The City of Sunnyvale is the fiduciary for the $100,000 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that has been used to retain an outside consultancy to develop the EOP. The involved jurisdictions have no financial obligation, but must complete "functional time cards" to show staff hours spent towards this effort (matching). This is a common element of such grants. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.12.080, the Palo Alto Emergency Services Council (ESC) and Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council (CCC) will be involved with the new EOP and provisions that “shall provide for the effective mobilization of all the resources of this city, both public and private, to meet any condition constituting an emergency”. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The Letter of Agreement is dated September 30, 2014, but was only provided to the City of Palo Alto recently, due to staff changes at the City of Sunnyvale and at the County of Santa Clara. Resource Impact No resource impact is anticipated. Policy Implications Approval of this Letter of Agreement is consistent with current City policies and regulations regarding homeland security and emergency management. Environmental Review (If Applicable) This staff report does not represent a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  ATTACHMENT A: 2014 Partner Cities EOP Letter Agreement (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5633) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services Contract and Budget Amendment Ordinance Title: Approval of Contract with Traffic Data Services, Inc for a Total of $100,000 to Provide On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services and Approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a contract with Traffic Data Services (TDS), Inc. (Attachment A) in the amount of $100,000 for On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services and approve the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the General Fund and the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund. Background The contract for the On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services provides for collecting Traffic Speed and Volume data, Peak Hour Manual Turning Movement Counts, School Pedestrian Classification Count, Video Bicycle and Pedestrian Data and Parking Occupancy Counts, information which is necessary for the Transportation Division to manage various projects and initiatives throughout the community. In particular, the work is required for several projects associated with traffic safety, Safe Routes to School data collection and data collection for parking projects. The proposed contract supports data collection that cannot be completed by the Department of Public Works or Transportation and would be in place until June 30, 2016. Discussion The City released a Request for Quotations (RFQ) for the On-call Traffic Data Collection services on November 24, 2014, and received five proposals in response to the RFQ. Transportation Division staff reviewed the proposals and recommended moving ahead with the selection of Traffic Data Services (TDS), based on lowest bid. The firms who participated in the solicitation and selection process are outlined below: City of Palo Alto Page 2 Proposal Description/Number On-Call Traffic Data Collection Services RFP Date November 24, 2014 Pre-proposal Meeting None Total Days to Respond to RFP: 29 days Number of Proposals Received: 5 Proposals Received from Location (City, State) Quality Traffic Data Los Angeles Traffic Data Services Campbell National Data Beverly Hills Sandis Civil Engineers Sunnyvale Quality Counts Walnut Creek City staff performed a reference check for TDS and concluded that they have a strong background in the types of data collection required to support the Transportation Division. They also have prior experience working for the City of Palo Alto and have demonstrated the ability to complete projects in a timely fashion. Timeline Immediately upon execution of a contract, staff will provide TDS with a list of locations of each type to be counted after review and written authorization to proceed. Resource Impact Funding for this contract will come from various sources. $35,000 of the amount is included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Capital Improvement Project PL-00026 (Safe Routes to School) budget. An additional $35,000 is from the 2015 Adopted Operating Budget for the Planning and Community Environment Department. Staff requests approval of the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance to appropriate $15,000 from the University Avenue Parking Permit fund balance and an additional appropriation of $15,000 from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve to be appropriated to the Planning and Community Environment Department for the Residential Preferential Parking program. Policy Implications The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that Traffic Safety be among the City’s top priorities. This contract is consistent with Comprehensive Plan “Goal T-4: An Efficient Roadway Network for All Users and Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Environmental Review Approval of this contract is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments:  Attachment A: Traffic Data Services Contract (PDF)  Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX) 1 Rev. July 11, 2011 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15157160 GENERAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on the 9th day of February, 2015, by and between the CITY OFPALO ALTO, a California Chartered Municipal Corporation (“CITY”), and TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE, a sole proprietorship, located at 1386 White Oaks Road, Suite 1, Campbell, California, 95008, Telephone Number: (408) 377-2998 (“CONTRACTOR”). In consideration of their mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide or furnish the services (“Services”) described in the Scope of Services, attached as Exhibit A. 2. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” - Scope of Services “B” - Schedule of Performance “C” - Compensation “D” - Insurance Requirements CONTRACT IS NOT COMPLETE UNLESS ALL EXHIBITS ARE ATTACHED. 3. TERM.The term of this Agreement is from February 16th, 2015 to June 30, 2016 inclusive, subject to theprovisions of Sections Q and V of the General Terms and Conditions. 4. SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement in a reasonably prompt and timely manner based upon the circumstances and directioncommunicated to CONTRACTOR, and if applicable, in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, attached as Exhibit B. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 5.COMPENSATION FOR ORIGINAL TERM. CITY shall pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept asnot to exceed compensation for the full performance of the Services and reimbursable expenses, if any: A sum calculated in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit C, not to exceed a total maximum compensation amount of One Hundred Thousand dollars ($100,000.00). CONTRACTOR agrees that it can perform the Services for an amount not to exceed the total maximum compensation set forth above. Any hours worked or services performed by CONTRACTOR for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth above for performance of the Services shall be at no cost to CITY. 6. COMPENSATION DURING ADDITIONAL TERMS. CONTRACTOR’S compensation rates for each additional term shall be the same as the original term. 7.INVOICING. Send all invoices to the CITY, Attention: Project Manager. The Project Manager is: Ruchika Aggarwal, Dept.: Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division,telephone: (650)329-3136. Invoices shall be submitted in arrears for Services performed. Invoices shallnot be submitted more frequently than monthly. Invoices shall provide a detailed statement of Services performed during the invoice period and are subject to verification by CITY. CITY shall pay the undisputed amount of invoices within 30 days of receipt. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 ATTACHMENT A Rev. July 11, 2011 2 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR accepts and agrees to all terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Agreement includes and is limited to the terms and conditions set forth in sections 1 through 6 above, these general terms and conditions and the attached exhibits. B. QUALIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants that it has the expertise and qualifications to complete the services described in Section 1 of this Agreement, entitled “SERVICES,” and that every individual charged with the performance of the services under this Agreement has sufficient skill and experience and is duly licensed or certified, to the extent such licensing or certification is required by law, to perform the Services. CITY expressly relies on CONTRACTOR’s representations regarding its skills, knowledge, and certifications. CONTRACTOR shall perform all work in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry, including all federal, state, and local operation and safety regulations. C. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in the performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR and any person employed by CONTRACTOR shall at all times be considered an independent CONTRACTOR and not an agent or employee of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to complete the work required under this Agreement. D. SUBCONTRACTORS. CONTRACTOR may not use subcontractors to perform any Services under this Agreement unless CONTRACTOR obtains prior written consent of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for directing the work of approved subcontractors and for any compensation due to subcontractors. E. TAXES AND CHARGES. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for payment of all taxes, fees, contributions or charges applicable to the conduct of CONTRACTOR’s business. F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONTRACTOR shall in the performance of the Services comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and orders. G. DAMAGE TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole expense, repair in kind, or as the City Manager or designee shall direct, any damage to public or private property that occurs in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY may decline to approve and may withhold payment in whole or in part to such extent as may be necessary to protect CITY from loss because of defective work not remedied or other damage to the CITY occurring in connection with CONTRACTOR’s performance of the Services. CITY shall submit written documentation in support of such withholding upon CONTRACTOR’s request. When the grounds described above are removed, payment shall be made for amounts withheld because of them. H. WARRANTIES. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all services provided under this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally accepted business practices and performance standards of the industry and the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR expressly warrants that all materials, goods and equipment provided by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall be fit for the particular purpose intended, shall be free from defects, and shall conform to the requirements of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to promptly replace or correct any material or service not in compliance with these warranties, including incomplete, inaccurate, or defective material or service, at no further cost to CITY. The warranties set forth in this section shall be in effect for a period of one year from completion of the Services and shall survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Agreement. I. MONITORING OF SERVICES. CITY may monitor the Services performed under this Agreement to determine whether CONTRACTOR’s work is completed in a satisfactory manner and complies with the provisions of this Agreement. J. CITY’S PROPERTY. Any reports, information, data or other material (including copyright interests) developed, collected, assembled, prepared, or caused to be prepared under this Agreement will become the property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use and will not be made available to any DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 Rev. July 11, 2011 3 individual or organization by CONTRACTOR or its subcontractors, if any, without the prior written approval of the City Manager. K. AUDITS. CONTRACTOR agrees to permit CITY and its authorized representatives to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years from the date of final payment, CONTRACTOR’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONTRACTOR agrees to maintain accurate books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for at least three (3) following the terms of this Agreement. L. NO IMPLIED WAIVER. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY shall operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. M. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR, at its sole cost, shall purchase and maintain in full force during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Insurance must be provided by companies with a Best’s Key rating of A-:VII or higher and which are otherwise acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager. The City’s Risk Manager must approve deductibles and self-insured retentions. In addition, all policies, endorsements, certificates and/or binders are subject to approval by the Risk Manager as to form and content. CONTRACTOR shall obtain a policy endorsement naming the City of Palo Alto as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy. CONTRACTOR shall obtain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or materially reduced in coverage or limits until after providing 30 days prior written notice of the cancellation or modification to the City’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall provide certificates of such policies or other evidence of coverage satisfactory to CITY’s Risk Manager, together with the required endorsements and evidence of payment of premiums, to CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement and shall throughout the term of this Agreement provide current certificates evidencing the required insurance coverages and endorsements to the CITY’s Risk Manager. CONTRACTOR shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall obtain and provide to CITY separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor that meet all the requirements of this section. The procuring of such required policies of insurance shall not operate to limit CONTRACTOR’s liability or obligation to indemnify CITY under this Agreement. N. HOLD HARMLESS. To the fullest extent permitted by law and without limitation by the provisions of section M relating to insurance, CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all demands, claims, injuries, losses, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss and including without limitation all damages, penalties, fines and judgments, associated investigation and administrative expenses and defense costs, including, but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, courts costs and costs of alternative dispute resolution), arising out of, or resulting in any way from or in connection with the performance of this Agreement. The CONTRACTOR’s obligations under this Section apply regardless of whether or not a liability is caused or contributed to by any negligent (passive or active) act or omission of CITY, except that the CONTRACTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify for liability arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY. The acceptance of the Services by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section survive the completion of the Services or termination of this Contract. O. NON-DISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONTRACTOR 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. CONTRACTOR 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. P. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before commencing and during the performance of the Services. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 Rev. July 11, 2011 4 Q. TERMINATION. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving ten (10) days’ prior written notice thereof to CONTRACTOR. If CONTRACTOR fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the City Manager may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice of termination. Upon receipt of such notice of termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately discontinue performance. CITY, CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR for services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of termination. If the termination if for cause, CITY may deduct from such payment the amount of actual damage, if any, sustained by CITY due to Contractor’s failure to perform its material obligations under this Agreement. Upon termination, CONTRACTOR shall immediately deliver to the City Manager any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other material or products, whether or not completed, prepared by CONTRACTOR or given to CONTRACTOR, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials shall become the property of CITY. R. ASSIGNMENTS/CHANGES. This Agreement binds the parties and their successors and assigns to all covenants of this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned or transferred without the prior written consent of the CITY. No amendments, changes or variations of any kind are authorized without the written consent of the CITY. S. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In accepting this Agreement, CONTRACTOR covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR further covenants that, in the performance of this Contract, it will not employ any person having such an interest. CONTRACTOR certifies that no City Officer, employee, or authorized representative has any financial interest in the business of CONTRACTOR and that no person associated with contractor has any interest, direct or indirect, which could conflict with the faithful performance of this Contract. CONTRACTOR agrees to advise CITY if any conflict arises. T. GOVERNING LAW. This contract shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of California. U. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all exhibits, represents the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the services that may be the subject of this Agreement. Any variance in the exhibits does not affect the validity of the Agreement and the Agreement itself controls over any conflicting provisions in the exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations and undertakings whether oral or written. V. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto 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 Contract 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 Contract. W. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the City’s Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at the City’s Purchasing Department which are incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONTRACTOR 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, Contractor shall comply with the following zero waste requirements:  All printed materials provided by Contractor 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 Contractor 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 Rev. July 11, 2011 5 Purchasing Office.  Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by the Contractor, at no additional cost to the City, for reuse or recycling. Contractor shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. X. AUTHORITY. The individual(s) executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. Y. CONTRACT TERMS: All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Contract. 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 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICE Approved as to form: DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 Manager 6 Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTRACTOR shall conduct the following types of traffic data collection: peak hour only turning movement counts, 12-hour manual turning movement counts, 7-day mechanical hose counts, video counts – vehicle classification, bicycle classification and school-pedestrian classification counts, parking occupancy, and floating car travel time. CITY shall provide the CONTRACTOR with a list of locations of each type to be counted on an as needed basis. The CONTRACTOR shall remain in service with CITY on an as-needed basis through the contract life or until the maximum compensation, which is estimated to be up to $100,000. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 7-Day Mechanical Tube Counts For each roadway segment subject to the Mechanical Hose Count method, the CONTRACTOR shall install a minimum of two road tubes and electronic counting equipment for each street segment travel direction for a 7-day period to collect vehicle volume, vehicle speed, and vehicle classification data. For a four-lane roadway, additional tubes shall be installed for roadway classification. The CONTRACTOR shall not conduct any traffic counts on days with forecasted negative weather conditions such as rain or on a week that includes a CITY-designated Holiday. The CONTRACTOR shall not perform any traffic counts on days where normal traffic patterns are affected by nearby construction projects or scheduled special events. Additionally, counts shall be conducted during regular school session according to Palo Alto School District calendar. The CONTRACTOR shall inspect the tube count locations periodically. Should the counting equipment be identified as not installed properly, become free of its installation, or impacted by vandalism, the CONTRACTOR shall remove the equipment immediately and reinstall it per the manufacturer’s recommendations at no additional cost to CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall not mount any electric counting equipment to trees. For each of the 7-Day Mechanical Tube Count Locations the CONTRACTOR shall provide the following:  Traffic count approach data aggregated to the 15-minute time intervals for the entire 7-days  Traffic count totals per traffic approach and for the total roadway segment for each day  The peak 2-hours for each AM, Midday, and PM peak including the eight 15-minute peak intervals for each of the 7 days  Classification of the types of vehicles on the roadway by the number of axels including the overall percentage of truck traffic by number of axels for each day and each of the peak 2-hour interval of each day  The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume based off of the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday counts If traffic flow is affected directly or indirectly by construction work or any other abnormal condition at the time data collection begins, or while traffic data collection is in progress, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately stop data collection and notify CITY of such construction work or abnormal condition. The CONTRACTOR shall submit documentation of such construction work or abnormal condition (i.e., police report, photo, video, etc.). Upon verification by CITY of such construction work or abnormal condition, CITY shall compensate the CONTRACTOR for services provided at the particular intersection at one-half the rate applicable to professional services provided at an intersection in which a traffic count of the same method occur DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 7 Rev. July 11, 2011 Peak Hour Manual Turning Movement Counts For each intersection subject to the Peak Hour Manual Count Method, the CONTRACTOR shall count each vehicular turning movement, and each pedestrian walk direction and bicycle movement at each intersection for the AM Peak Hour Period from 7:00AM to 9:00AM and the PM Peak Hour Period from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY the traffic count data for each turning movement aggregated to the 15-minute time intervals for each peak period and identify the peak hour period and its associated volume count for each. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the data in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and PDF electric format each containing in separate columns, the 15-minute interval totals for direction of travel/movement type. The file shall also include the peak hour and all movements in the peak hour volumes for the AM, Midday, and PM peaks. The file shall also include the count date including month, day, year, and day of the week. The CONTRACTOR shall also provide a Condition Diagram sketch of the intersection that includes the following information:  Intersection name  Date and times of count  Field conditions at time of count including weather and pavement conditions  Names of traffic counters and quality assurance staff  Intersection geometry sketch including lane configurations and lane widths, crosswalk widths and lengths, turning movement pocket lengths, traffic control device locations, pavement messages, and limit lines  Field Notes including observations of factors that impact traffic counts (i.e., overflow conditions, traffic accidents, construction, etc.), estimates on the percentage of heavy truck traffic observed during the count and within each peak hour interval, and any illegal traffic patterns.  North arrow bearing The CONTRACTOR shall require the person or persons performing the data collection to prepare the Condition Diagram the same day as the traffic count and to sign it. If the traffic data collected by the CONTRACTOR is inconsistent with historical traffic count data on record with CITY at any intersection, CITY in the sole discretion of CITY Engineer shall require the CONTRACTOR to recount the intersection for each or both peak periods; Condition Diagrams for the recounted traffic data shall also be provided. If the recounted traffic data is consistent with the CONTRACTOR’s original traffic count at such intersection the original count shall be considered validated and consistent with the second count. CITY shall compensate the CONTRACTOR for the second count per the base count price included in the proposal for both peak periods even if only one peak period was recounted. If the recounted traffic data is inconsistent with the CONTRACTOR’s original traffic count at such intersection, the original count shall be considered VOID and no additional compensation shall be provided for the second count. Peak hour manual turning movement counts shall occur on only a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday that does not follow or precede a City-designated Holiday. Should scheduled traffic counts be impacted by forecasted negative weather conditions, the traffic count shall be rescheduled and the CONTRACTOR shall submit a revised count schedule within five (5) business days at no additional cost to CITY. Manual turning movement counts must be collected manually on-site. The use of video based surveillance or recording equipment for remote or future data collection shall not be permitted. As a location for counting is identified by CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall specify a list of the electronic manual turning movement equipment proposed for use on the Project. The use of manual turning movement count boards shall not be permitted. The CONTRACTOR shall field visit each location to determine whether the use 1-person or 2-persons is appropriate. 12-Hour Manual Turning Movement Counts For each intersection subject to the Manual Count Method, the CONTRACTOR shall count each vehicular turning movement and each pedestrian walk direction and bicycle movement at each intersection from DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 8 Rev. July 11, 2011 7:00AM to 7:00PM. The CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY the traffic count data for each turning movement aggregated to the 15-minute time intervals for entire 12-Hour Period. The CONTRACTOR shall also provide the Peak Hour turning movement volumes for the AM, Midday, and PM peak periods. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the data in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and PDF electric format each containing in separate columns, the 15-minute interval totals for direction of travel/movement type. The file shall also include the peak hour and all movements in the peak hour volumes for the AM, Midday, and PM peaks. The file shall also include the count date including month, day, year, and day of the week. The CONTRACTOR shall also provide a Condition Diagram sketch of the intersection that includes the following information:  Intersection name  Date and times of count  Field conditions at time of count including weather and pavement conditions  Names of traffic counters and quality assurance staff  Intersection geometry sketch including lane configurations and lane widths, crosswalk widths and lengths, turning movement pocket lengths, traffic control device locations, pavement messages, and limit lines  Field Notes including observations of factors that impact traffic counts (i.e., overflow conditions, traffic accidents, construction, etc.), estimates on the percentage of heavy truck traffic observed during the count and within each peak hour interval, and any illegal traffic patterns.  North arrow bearing The CONTRACTOR shall require the person or persons performing the data collection to prepare the Condition Diagram the same day as the traffic count and to sign it. If the traffic data collected by the CONTRACTOR is inconsistent with historical traffic count data on record with CITY at any intersection, CITY in the sole discretion of CITY Engineer shall require the CONTRACTOR to recount the intersection for the full 12-hour period; Condition Diagrams for the recounted traffic data shall also be provided. If the recounted traffic data is consistent with the CONTRACTOR’s original traffic count at such intersection the original count shall be considered validated and consistent with the second count. CITY shall compensate the CONTRACTOR for the second count per the base count price included in the bid. If the recounted traffic data is inconsistent with the CONTRACTOR’s original traffic count at such intersection, the original count shall be considered VOID and no additional compensation shall be provided for the second count. 12-Hour manual turning movement counts shall occur on only a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday that does not follow or precede a City-designated Holiday. Should scheduled traffic counts be impacted by forecasted negative weather conditions, the traffic count shall be rescheduled and the CONTRACTOR shall submit a revised count schedule within five (5) business days at no additional cost to CITY. 12-Hour manual turning movement may be collected either manually on-site or recorded through the use of on-site video based surveillance equipment that is then monitored off-site for confirmation of traffic data. As a location for counting is identified by CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall specify a list of the electronic manual turning movement equipment proposed for use on the Project. The use of manual turning movement count boards shall not be permitted. The CONTRACTOR shall field visit each location to determine whether the use 1-person or 2-persons is appropriate. School Pedestrian Classification Count For each intersection subject to the School Pedestrian Classification Count, the CONTRACTOR shall manually collect the vehicle turning movement counts, the number of pedestrians crossing each leg of the intersection classified by age group, and the number of times that adult crossing guards enter the intersection to guide pedestrians if appropriate. The CONTRACTOR shall collect the data from within a vehicle to not bring awareness as to their presence to either crossing guards, students or their parents. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 9 Rev. July 11, 2011 The CONTRACTOR shall collect data for 2-hours in the morning commute, 1-hour in the afternoon commute and 2-hours in the late-afternoon commute to-and-from school. A sample School Pedestrian Classification Data Collection Sheet is provided in Exhibit A. Upon completion of the collection of the field data, the CONTRACTOR shall transfer the data into a Microsoft Excel 2000 Spreadsheet and return both the field data collection sheet and electronic file to CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY at least 24-hours prior to the collection of any school pedestrian classification counts so that CITY may notify the Palo Alto Police Department and the Palo Alto Unified School District as to the presence of CONTRACTOR staff at count intersections. As a location for counting is identified by CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall field visit each location to determine whether the use 1-person or 2-persons is appropriate. Video Bicycle and Pedestrian Data The CONTRACTOR shall collect the bicycle classification and school-pedestrian classification counts using a Video Surveillance Technology. The CONTRACTOR shall specify a list of video equipment proposed for use on the Project. The technology used for these counts must be approved by CITY before use. All video results will become the property of CITY and must be provided in a format that is accessible by CITY. The CONTRACTOR will be responsible for the costs of processing the video and proper classification of bicycles and pedestrians. Should the counting equipment be identified as not installed properly, become free of its installation, or impacted by vandalism, the CONTRACTOR shall remove the equipment immediately and reinstall it per the manufacturer’s recommendations at no additional cost to CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall not mount any electric counting equipment to trees. For each of the Count Location using Video Technology, the CONTRACTOR shall provide the bicycle and pedestrian count and classification data aggregated to the 15-minute time intervals for the entire 7-days. The CONTRACTOR shall not conduct any counts on days with forecasted negative weather conditions such as rain or on a week that includes a City-designated Holiday. The CONTRACTOR shall not perform any counts on days where normal traffic patterns are affected by nearby construction projects or scheduled special events. The CONTRACTOR shall provide the data in Raw Video, Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and PDF electric format each containing in separate columns, the 15-minute interval totals and classification for direction of travel/movement type. Parking Occupancy Counts The CONTRACTOR shall conduct on-street and off-street parking occupancy counts in the Downtown Palo Alto area which meets the following parameters: Counts shall be conducted in the geographic area specified in Exhibit B, between Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street, Embarcadero Road and Guinda Street. Off-Street Counts (Garages and Lots):  The CONTRACTOR shall conduct monthly occupancy studies of all Downtown Parking Garages and Surface Lots, and provide the information on the number of cars parked in permitted spaces vs. hourly spaces. CITY shall provide a template which can be used for the data collection. On-Street Counts  The CONTRACTOR shall conduct up to six (6) on-street occupancy studies of the geographic area specified in Exhibit B and provide vehicle counts per street block. Data can be handwritten but must be clear and legible. Data should not be collected on Mondays or Fridays. Times at which data should be collected for Off- Street counts include 8:00am –10:00 am, 12:00pm to 2:00pm, and 4:00pm to 6:00pm. Times at which data DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 10 Rev. July 11, 2011 should be collected for On-Street counts include 12:00am to 2:00am, 8:00am – 10:00am, 12:00pm-2:00pm and 7:00pm-9:00pm. Additional Services The need for additional types of traffic data collection services may be required during the term of the contract including parking turnover studies or vehicle speed data. CITY shall work with the CONTRACTOR to identify a fee schedule for any additional traffic data collection services prior to the start of any additional services. Any services not identified in this Scope of Services, but related to conducting traffic volume counts, shall be considered Extra Work. CONTRACTOR shall not be entitled to compensation for any Extra Work unless CITY Engineer authorizes, in writing, the performance of such Extra Work prior to the performance of the work. CITY shall not authorize payment for work completed until the CONTRACTOR has removed all field equipment from the count site. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 11 Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONTRACTOR shall perform Services as specified in EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services, according to schedule as to be determined (TBD) by the CITY Project Manager, within the term of this agreement. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 12 Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE OF FEES CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR according to the following rate schedule. The maximum amount of compensation to be paid to Contractor, including both payment for services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). Any services provided or hours worked for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to City. DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 13 Rev. July 11, 2011 EXHIBIT D INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 NO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 14 Rev. July 11, 2011 A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY 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 CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: AB9C0310-5550-4C8B-B4D6-989DF118A392 Certificate of Completion Envelope Number: AB9C031055504C8BB4D6989DF118A392 Status: Sent Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C15157160 Contract Traffic Data Collection Services.pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 14 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Chris Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 1/26/2015 1:48:12 PM PT Holder: Chris Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Bob Van Boening tdsbay@cs.com Manager Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 71.92.228.161 Sent: 1/26/2015 1:53:55 PM PT Viewed: 1/26/2015 7:24:35 PM PT Signed: 1/26/2015 7:26:28 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 1/26/2015 7:24:35 PM PT ID: d9c15837-d4ab-4553-8a4b-61b999fa4abf Robin Ellner robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 1/26/2015 7:26:29 PM PT Viewed: 1/27/2015 7:40:08 AM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 1/27/2015 7:40:08 AM PT ID: 5730d0f8-b301-475a-8316-0fec8444b8ac In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jessica Sullivan Jessica.Sullivan@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 1/26/2015 7:26:29 PM PT Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure CONSUMER DISCLOSURE From time to time, City of Palo Alto (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through your DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) Express user account. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the 'I agree' button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. For such copies, as long as you are an authorized user of the DocuSign system you will have the ability to download and print any documents we send to you through your DocuSign user account for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign 'Withdraw Consent' form on the signing page of your DocuSign account. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use your DocuSign Express user account to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through your DocuSign user account all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures electronically from us. Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 10/1/2013 3:33:53 PM Parties agreed to: Bob Van Boening, Robin Ellner How to contact City of Palo Alto: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org To advise City of Palo Alto of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in DocuSign. To request paper copies from City of Palo Alto To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with City of Palo Alto To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign account, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, IS Postal Address, telephone number, and account number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows2000? or WindowsXP? Browsers (for SENDERS): Internet Explorer 6.0? or above Browsers (for SIGNERS): Internet Explorer 6.0?, Mozilla FireFox 1.0, NetScape 7.2 (or above) Email: Access to a valid email account Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: •Allow per session cookies •Users accessing the internet behind a Proxy Server must enable HTTP 1.1 settings via proxy connection ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, we will provide you with an email message at the email address we have on file for you at that time providing you with the revised hardware and software requirements, at which time you will have the right to withdraw your consent. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the 'I agree' button below. By checking the 'I Agree' box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC CONSUMER DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify City of Palo Alto as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by City of Palo Alto during the course of my relationship with you. 1 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 Ordinance No. XXXX Attachment B ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $15,000 FROM THE UNIVERITY AVENUE PARKING PERMIT FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO THE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET STABILIZATION RESERVE FOR ON-CALL TRAFFIC DATA COLLECTION SERVICES The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 16, 2014 did adopt a budget for Fiscal Year 2015; and B. The contract for on-call traffic data collections services provide for collecting traffic speed and volume data, peak hour manual turning movement counts, school pedestrian classification counts, video bicycle and pedestrian data and parking occupancy data counts; and C. The traffic data is used to inform various projects throughout the City associated with traffic safety, safe routes to school, and related parking projects. SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) is hereby appropriated in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the ending fund balance in the University Avenue Parking permit Fund is decreased by Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000). SECTION 3. Therefore, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) is hereby appropriated to the Planning and Community Services Department with an offsetting reduction to the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. SECTION 4. As provided in Section 2.04.330 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. SECTION 5. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // // // // // 2 Revised September 20, 2013 130920 dm 0131136 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 Planning and Community Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5627) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of a Contract for Consulting Engineering Services for Citywide Bridge Assessment Project Title: Approval of a Contract C15155597 with Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc. in an Amount Not to Exceed $149,250 for Consulting Engineering Services for the Citywide Bridge Assessment Project –CIP PE-13012. From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve,and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute,the attached Contract No. C15155597 with Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc.(Attachment A) for a not-to-exceed amount of $149,250 for the Citywide Bridge Assessment Project (PE-13012),including $134,250 for basic services and $15,000 for additional services. Background Within the City of Palo Alto, there are more than 90 bridges that comprise an essential element of the City’s transportation network. Among these are State- owned bridges, bridges owned entirely by the City, and bridges that are the responsibility of neighboring jurisdictions and for which the City has a shared maintenance obligation. Bridges allow for the safe and efficient movement of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic throughout Palo Alto and,as such, contribute directly to the economic vitality and health of the community. One can safely assume that the replacement value of the City’s bridges is in excess of $100 million. To ensure that these valuable infrastructure assets are managed over time in a manner that is as cost-effective as possible, it is necessary to periodically perform condition assessments of the City’s bridges as recommended by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission. There are 41 City of Palo Alto Page 2 bridges within Palo Alto that exist on the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) and as a result, are inspected at least once every four years by Caltrans Office of Structure Maintenance & Investigations. The City is responsible for inspecting the remaining 50+ bridges that are not on the NBI. Since the inspection and assessment of bridges requires technical knowledge and expertise that are beyond the capabilities of staff, it is necessary to retain a consultant to perform this work. Discussion The primary objectives of the Citywide Bridge Assessment are to: 1.Develop an accurate inventory of all City-owned bridge structures that should undergo periodic assessment and that would integrate with the City’s GIST database and future Infrastructure Management System. 2.Confirm and document the various methodologies for inspecting and evaluating bridge structures. 3.Identify and document the existing conditions of bridge structures. 4.Evaluate the structural and functional deficiencies of bridge structures. 5.Identify maintenance, repair and rehabilitation work needed to ensure that bridge structures remain safe and functional. 6.Determine the frequencies of future bridge inspections. 7.Develop a multi-year program with cost estimates for bridge related work that will support the preparation of future budgets and Capital Improvement Plans. To accomplish these objectives, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 155597) seeking qualified consultants capable of performing a Scope of Services that includes the following: ·Assemble and review relevant data on City-owned bridge structures to develop an accurate inventory of them and to identify which ones should undergo further inspection and assessment. ·Perform a field review of up to 60 City-owned bridge structures to gather the relevant data needed to assess their existing structural and functional conditions. ·Prepare a structural assessment of each bridge structure for which a field review is performed that summarizes existing conditions and any City of Palo Alto Page 3 recommended maintenance, repair or rehabilitation work that should be completed within 10 years. ·Prepare conceptual level construction cost estimates for the recommended work associated with each structure along with a multi-year work program scenario. The RFP was advertised on both the City and IMS’s websites and was also directly issued to 10 Bay Area firms that were pre-identified by staff. The following table summarizes the results of the RFP solicitation process: Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Citywide Bridge Assessment (RFP #155597) Proposed Length of Project 26 Weeks Number of RFP’s Issued 12 Number of Addenda Issued 2 Number of Proposals Received 5 RFP Respondents Location (City, State) Selected for Oral Interview AECOM Sacramento, CA No Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc.San Jose, CA Yes Mark Thomas & Company San Jose, CA No NV5 San Jose, CA Yes Quincy Engineering Walnut Creek, CA No Range of Proposed Fees $79,045 -$229,307 A team of three staff from the Public Works Engineering Services Division reviewed, scored and ranked the proposals,using qualifications-based criteria established in a 100 point rubric. Afterwards, fees were examined and not surprisingly, the two firms that emerged as the top-ranked firms during the qualifications review, Biggs Cardosa & Associates, Inc. (BCA) and NV5, proposed fees that were very similar to one another confirming staff’s belief that these two firms had the best understanding of the work that needs to be done and the approach for performing such work. Both firms were then invited to interview with the selection team, which subsequently identified BCA as the top-ranked City of Palo Alto Page 4 firm primarily due to the considerable knowledge about the City’s bridge inventory and their successful completion of numerous similar studies for other agencies, most notably the City of Mountain View. After identifying BCA as the top-ranked firm, staff was able to negotiate a reduction of the base fee they originally proposed ($149,024) to the fee reflected in the attached contract ($134,250) by confirming that fewer bridges will require field inspection than what was anticipated when the RFP was issued. Timeline BCA has proposed a schedule to complete all work within 20 weeks of the City’s issuance of the Notice to Proceed, which assuming award of the contract by the City Council, should result in completion of the project by October 2015. Resource Impact Funding for the Citywide Bridge Assessment is available in the Structural Assessment of City Bridges project (PE-13012) in the Capital Improvement Fund. The not to exceed amount of the recommended contract award is $149,250, which includes a base fee amount of $134,250 and a $15,000 contingency allowance for unanticipated additional expenses. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: ·A -C15155597_Biggs Cardosa Associates_Citywide Bridge Assessment (PDF) Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15155597 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 6th day of April, 2015, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, located at 865 The Alameda, San Jose, California 95126 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to assess the bridges and culverts in the City of Palo Alto (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to perform a structural inspection and assessment of city-owned bridges and culverts 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 C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 1 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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 Thirty-Four Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($134,250.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed One Hundred Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($149,250.00). 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 C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 2 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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 CONTRACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSULTANT, and any person employed by or contracted with CONSULTANT to furnish labor and/or materials under this Agreement, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT’s obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the city manager. Consent to one assignment will not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment made without the approval of the city manager will be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Option A: No Subcontractor: CONSULTANT shall not subcontract any portion of the work C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 3 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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: BKF Engineers Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Parikh Consultants 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 Anthony Notaro as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Francisco Castillo as the project engineer 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 Larry Perlin, Public Works Department, Infrastructure Development Division, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: 650-329-2550. 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 receipt of final payment, 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. CITY assumes all responsibility for the use of the work product outside of its original intent. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 4 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the extent permitted by applicable law, including without limitation, California Civil Code section 2782.8, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the CITY, its Council members, officers, and employees (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all liability, loss, or damages, including death and injury to any person, property damages or any other loss, or claims against the CITY that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, in the performance of the Services.” [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. 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 C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 5 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s Purchasing Manager during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.4. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 6 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it will not employ subconsultants, contractors or persons having such an interest. CONSULTANT certifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21.3. If the Project Manager determines that CONSULTANT is a “Consultant” as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, CONSULTANT shall be required and agrees to file the appropriate financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 7 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 8 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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 // IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 9 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Name: Title: Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “A-1” ON CALL TASK ORDER (Optional) EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 10 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 President Stephen A. Biggs Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CITY requires a qualified CONSULTANT to perform a structural inspection and assessment of city-owned bridges in accordance with Federal Code of Regulations Title 23. The primary objectives of the project are: 1. To develop an accurate inventory of all city-owned bridge structures that should undergo periodic assessment and that would integrate with the CITY’s GIS database and Asset Management System. 2. To confirm and document the various methodologies for inspecting and evaluating bridge structures. 3. To identify and document the existing conditions of bridge structures. 4. To evaluate the structural and functional deficiencies of bridge structures. 5. To identify maintenance, repair and rehabilitation work needed to ensure that bridge structures remain safe and functional. 6. To determine the frequencies of future bridge inspections. 7. To develop a multi-year program with cost estimates for bridge related work that will support the preparation of future budgets and Capital Improvement Plans. To achieve these objectives, CONSULTANT will perform a Scope of Services that includes the following: Assemble and review relevant data on CITY-owned bridge structures to develop an accurate inventory of each and to identify which ones should undergo further inspection and assessment. Perform a field review of an estimated 60 CITY-owned bridge structures to gather data needed to assess their existing structural and functional conditions. Prepare a structural assessment of each bridge structure for which a field review is performed that summarizes existing conditions and any recommended maintenance, repair or rehabilitation work that should be completed within 10 years. Prepare conceptual level construction cost estimates for the recommended work associated with each structure along with a multi-year work program scenario. The specific tasks that are anticipated to accomplish the above Scope of Services are as follows: PHASE 1 - BRIDGE INVENTORY CONFIRMATION Task 1 Kick-Off Meeting A. Define project objectives B. Coordinate inspection methodology and schedule Task 2 Bridge Inventory Confirmation A. Develop an inventory of all CITY-owned bridge structures. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 11 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 B. Identify structures not currently inspected by Caltrans that require structural inspection C. Assist CITY in collection of and review of available record data including: 1. Record bridge and roadway plans 2. Available field surveys and topographic maps 3. Record utility plans 4. Log of test boring and materials information adjacent to site 5. CITY agreements 6. Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports (BIR) and Structure Inventory and Appraisal Reports (SIAR) for those structures inspected by Caltrans. Task 3 Develop Bridge Evaluation Criteria and Schedule A. Establish/ confirm standards to be utilized for evaluations of bridges and condition rating for review and approval by CITY. Task 4 Santa Clara Valley Water District Permit A. Coordinate with and submit SCVWD Encroachment Permit Application for all structures located along existing creeks and waterways and/or within SCVWD right- of-way/easements. PHASE 2 - BRIDGE INSPECTION / RECOMMENDATIONS Task 5 Field Inspection The field inspection of the CITY-owned bridges is performed utilizing an inspection checklist which includes general conditions as well as specific concerns developed during review of the available bridge data. The field checklist for these bridges would typically include: A. Superstructure 1. Concrete condition Stress cracks, pattern cracking, spalls Efflorescence, dampness Delamination Corrosion of reinforcement 2. Steel condition Corrosion Fatigue susceptible connections Weld integrity Proximity to tidal zone 3. Other factors C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 12 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 Deck drainage Deck overlay condition Deflection and weathering of wood decks Deterioration of wood members Stability of wood girder B. Substructure 1. Concrete condition Flood debris impact damage Stress cracks, pattern cracking, spalls Efflorescence, dampness Delamination Corrosion of reinforcement 2. Piling condition Wood pile decay Concrete or reinforcement deterioration 3. Scour potential 4. Evidence of settlement 5. Abutment drainage system condition Weephole condition Joints fouled, waterstops or seals missing Damage to drainage pipe outlets. C. Bearings and Joints 1. Restrained joint movement Joints fouled Bearings damaged or displaced Bearing pedestals spalled or cracked 2. Drainage across joints Loose, missing, or damaged joint seals Failure of abutment drainage system D. Railing and Fence 1. Railing adherence to current design standards for: Height Impact rating Collision protection of railing terminations 2. Sidewalk Width and access adherence to current ADA Standards 3. Concrete and steel condition Post anchorage Railing connections C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 13 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 E. Other Factors 1. Seismic risk assessment to identify by visual observation deficiencies in the lateral resistance 2. Evidence of structural modifications such as widenings or utility crossings 3. Evidence of vandalism 4. Potential for impact to wildlife or disturbance of wetlands during maintenance or repair 5. Channel flow constriction apparent from visual observation F. Scour Analysis 1. Hydrology investigations, studies and hydraulic analyses are not included in the scope of work. General scour observations will be included in the bridge evaluations. G. Geotechnical Evaluation 1. Geotechnical investigations, studies and analyses are not included in the scope of work. General foundation/ settlement observations will be included in the bridge evaluations. Task 6 Bridge Evaluation/Recommendations and Cost Estimate A. Preliminary Inspection Report 1. Field notes, photographs and other data are collected and compiled into a summary report for each of the structures. Each bridge will be assigned a condition rating in conformance with the National Bridge Inspection Standards. The report will include repair recommendations and cost estimates for each item of work. Repair recommendations will be in the form of a written description of work. Any recommended supplemental investigations will be clearly identified. 2. Recommendations for maintenance and rehabilitation work will be prioritized using a rating system to assist CITY in identifying the most critical items of work. This rating, in combination with the overall bridge condition rating, will provide CITY with a basis for Capital Improvement Projects which will address the most urgent needs for a long term maintenance and rehabilitation program. 3. Recommendations regarding structures that are likely to become structurally obsolete within 25 years and associated planning level replacement costs. 4. Recommendations for establishing a regular inspection program and inspection frequency, tailored to each structure, will be provided. B. Final Inspection Report 1. Following any revisions that are required based on CITY and internal QA/QC review of the preliminary report, five copies of the final report and an electronic copy (CD) will be submitted to CITY. Inspection Reports will include two volumes: C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 14 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 Volume 1 will include the following sections: Executive Summary, Introduction, Scope and Objectives, Summary of Structures, Structural Assessment Methodology, Structure Assessment Findings, Recommended Inspection Frequency Volume 2 will include the detailed technical findings for each structure including: Site Map, Field Photos, Field Inspection Summary, Supplemental Investigation Recommendations (if any), Estimated Repair Costs, and Estimated Replacement Costs (if applicable) C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 15 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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 a)Completion of Task 1 – Kickoff Meeting NTP + 2 weeks b)Completion of Task 2 – Bridge Inventory Confirmation NTP + 6 weeks c)Completion of Task 3 – Evaluation Criteria & Schedule NTP + 6 weeks d)Completion of Task 4 – SCVWD Permit NTP + 11 weeks e)Completion of Task 5 – Field Inspection NTP + 15 weeks f)Completion of Task 6 – Evaluation & Cost Estimates NTP + 20 weeks C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 16 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 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 $134,250. 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 $149,250. 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 $134,250 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $149,250. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $1,813 (Kickoff Meeting) Task 2 $10,786 (Bridge Inventory Confirmation) Task 3 $1,393 (Evaluation Criteria & Schedule) Task 4 $1,114 (SCVWD Permit) Task 5 $65,013 (Field Inspection) Task 6 $54,131 (Evaluation & Cost Estimates) Sub-total Basic Services $130,999 C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 17 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 Reimbursable Expenses $3,251 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $134,250 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $15,000 Maximum Total Compensation $149,250 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: 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 $500 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement Work required because the following conditions are not satisfied or are exceeded shall be considered as additional services: 1.Evaluation of additional bridge or culvert structures not contemplated or identified in the CITY’s original Request for Proposals. 2.Assignment of CONSULTANT’s staff to assist CITY with locating and assembling C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 18 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev. Feb. 2014 plans and other relevant records of bridge structures that will be evaluated by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. 3.The securing of any permits, other than from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which are needed to access any bridge structures for field inspection. 4.Attendance at any City Council, or similar, meetings if requested by CITY. 5. Preparation of plans documenting existing structure conditions. 6. Calculation of Load Limit recommendations for bridges. 7. Assistance with requesting a Caltrans Structure Number. 8. Topographic or boundary surveying. 9. Traffic Handling or general civil design. 10. Hydrologic, hydraulic or scour analysis. 11. Geotechnical and foundation investigation. 12. Material testing and hazardous material Initial Site Assessment. 13. Assistance with funding applications. C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 19 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Fee Schedule RFP No. 155597: Citywide Bridge Assessment Classification Actual Hourly Rate Overhead Multiplier Fee Fully Loaded Rate Principal I $99.81 188.86% 10.00% $317.14 Associate $57.98 188.86% 10.00% $184.23 Engineering Manager $53.65 188.86% 10.00% $170.47 Senior Engineer $49.04 188.86% 10.00% $155.82 Project Engineer $37.79 188.86% 10.00% $120.08 Staff Engineer $36.06 188.86% 10.00% $114.58 Assistant Engineer $31.73 188.86% 10.00% $100.82 Sr. Computer Drafter $40.67 188.86% 10.00% $129.23 Project Administration $47.02 188.86% 10.00% $149.40 Administration $31.59 188.86% 10.00% $100.38 *Charge Rates Applicable October 1, 2014 – September 30, 2015 C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 20 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: 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 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I.INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A.A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B.A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C.DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II.CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III.ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A.PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B.CROSS LIABILITY C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 21 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 Professional Services Rev Feb. 2014 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 CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2.IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED OR MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303. EMAIL: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org C15155597 Citywide Bridge Assessment 22 of 22 DocuSign Envelope ID: E5CFB202-4A71-4482-917E-C5755FB92EC7 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5611) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 805 Los Trancos Road ROLUA n Site Design Title: Approval of a Record of Land Use Action and a Site and Design Application for a New Single-Story, Single-Family Residence and Associated Site Improvements on a 3.5-Acre Parcel of Land in the Open Space (OS) Zoning District located at 805 Los Trancos Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council approve the project on consent calendar. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Record of Land Use Action approving the Site and Design Review application for the construction of a single-story, single family residence and associated site improvements at 805 Los Trancos Road, as recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission). The attached Record of Land Use Action (RLUA, Attachment A) contains Site and Design Review Findings, an Open Space Criteria compliance analysis and conditions of approval. Executive Summary The applicant proposes a one-story, single-family home on a 3.5-acre, vacant site. The home would be less than half the size of the two-story home Council approved in 2010 for construction, in approximately the same location on the same site. Single-family homes are allowed within the Open Space Zone District via Council approval of a Site and Design Review application, following review and recommendation by the Planning & Transportation Commission (Commission). The site’s existing trees and proposed vegetation would substantially screen the new home from off-site views. The home’s architectural style, materials, and colors would allow the home to blend in with its surroundings. The proposed site improvements include a gravel driveway, a small bridge over Buckeye Creek, new vegetation to blend in with the existing vegetation, and a pool and spa. The Commission has recommended approval of the project. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The site is designated on the Comprehensive Plan land use map as Open Space/Controlled Development and is located within the Open Space (OS) zoning district. The project site is 3.55 acres, formerly used as a farm, and is located west of Highway 280 in the Palo Alto foothills. Surrounding land uses include small lot single-family homes to the west, and large-lot, single family homes to the east, on the opposite side of Los Trancos Road. A location map is provided as Attachment B to this report. The property slopes westerly from Los Trancos Road to a primarily level grassy terrain and then slopes down to Los Trancos Creek. The site includes Oak, Olive, Buckeye and Redwood trees, and other vegetation. The site is vacant with a relatively flat clearing at the center of the property. In 2010, Council approved an 11,857 square foot (sf), two-story home with a basement for this site, but the applicant did not construct the home. The Commission reviewed the home on March 24, 2010; the Commission staff report provides additional background and can be viewed at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19227. The Commission meeting minutes can be viewed at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/20022. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.28, Section 18.28.070 item (k), any substandard lot that was a lawfully buildable site on July 5, 1972 would be considered a developable site. The subject site has been a legal parcel since the 1850s (prior to incorporation into the City of Palo Alto) and therefore, may be developed, even though it is does not meet the 10-acre minimum lot size for the OS Zone District. Commission Review On February 11, 2015, the Commission reviewed the Site and Design Review application, and voted 5-0 to recommend project approval as recommended in the staff report. The excerpt minutes from the February 11, 2015 Commission hearing are available as Attachment J. The Commission staff report can be found on the City’s website at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=45854. Project Description The proposal is the construction of a 5,689 square foot (sf), single-story single-family residence, and associated site improvements, including landscaping, a swimming pool, and a spa. The applicant describes the proposed architectural style as ‘Modern Equestrian’. The residence would consist of common areas and bedrooms; one of the bedrooms is designed to connect to the master bedroom by a narrow hallway. The applicant proposes a variety of exterior wall treatments, including reclaimed barn wood and smooth finish stucco, and proposes a flat roof made of a gray-toned membrane material. The warm and natural color palette would blend well with the colors found in the surrounding hills and vegetation. The private driveway from Los Trancos Road driveway would traverse a small creek (Buckeye Creek) via a small bridge. Buckeye Creek bisects the property, roughly perpendicular to Los City of Palo Alto Page 3 Trancos Road, and also becomes a drainage swale aligned parallel to Los Trancos Road; therefore, the driveway would cross Buckeye Creek in any case. The applicant will be required to obtain permits from state agencies that regulate the watershed, including the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The home would be constructed in an existing clearing, to minimize impacts to existing trees, and the closest edge of the home would be greater than 50 feet from the Los Trancos Creek and Buckeye Creek banks. The home would be located on a relatively flat and open area of the site, approximately 70 to 120 feet from the top of Los Trancos Creek’s bank, and 190 feet from the top of Buckeye Creek’s bank. All other components of the project would be located at least 50 feet from the top of the Los Trancos Creek bank. Passive landscaped open space and fencing are proposed approximately 20 feet from Buckeye Creek. The landscape design intent is that new vegetation would seamlessly blend in with the existing natural areas of the site. The applicant has selected water-wise, low-maintenance plant materials, and has provided for the preservation of the existing oak trees. The applicant’s project description is provided as Attachment E. Project plans are provided to Council and Palo Alto libraries, and may be viewed via the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=45765. Trees Proposed plantings on the site include 11 Coast Redwood trees, to be located on the northeast and southern property boundaries placed strategically to provide screening. No new vegetation is proposed west of the building footprint to stay clear of the Los Trancos Creek bank, except for one relocated Oak tree and four California Buckeye trees. Redwood trees and manzanita shrubs are proposed within 20 feet of the Buckeye Creek. Tree protection is described later in this report. The Arborist report is provided as Attachment F. Riparian Corridor The project maintains at least a 50-foot setback from the top of Los Trancos Creek’s bank, and 20 feet from the top of Buckeye Creek’s bank. Other than the proposed bridge for the driveway to span Buckeye Creek, no other structural site improvements are proposed within the required setback areas for the Buckeye Creek (20 feet) or Los Trancos Creek (50 feet). Native plantings are proposed within 20 feet of Buckeye Creek and a four-foot wire fence is proposed outside of the 20-foot area aligned parallel with Los Trancos Road and creating a gap at Buckeye Creek to allow wildlife to pass unobstructed. A condition of approval requires the planting plan to be expanded to include the area from the road to the creek. Grading Minimal grading (180 cubic yards exported) would be needed as the chosen site area for the proposed home is primarily flat. The majority of grading would be done for the driveway, building pad and swimming pool. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Discussion The Site and Design Review process is intended to ensure 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 Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table is provided as Attachment D to this report. In order for the proposed project to be approved, the project must demonstrate that the following objectives can be accomplished: 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 City Council. In addition to the Site and Design Review Objectives, Palo Alto Municipal Code (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. The attached Draft Record of Land Use Action reflects staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with these criteria. Visibility and Aesthetics A key consideration for any new home in the open space district is that the design result in the least physical and visual impact to the property and off site views. To that end, the design should enable the home to blend into the rural environment and be as unobtrusive as possible, to help maintain the natural aesthetic of the hillside environment. The applicant has appropriately chosen to site the new home in the location of the previously approved home; within a clearing on a relatively level portion of the parcel. This proposal will require less grading activity and lessen impacts on the adjacent Los Trancos Creek. The applicant proposes to: City of Palo Alto Page 5  Relocate seven trees from their present location within the building area to another location on site, or on the adjacent parcel of land, which is presently owned by the applicant; a separate agreement would be created to accept the tree relocations;  Remove seven other trees for various reasons, including poor health; three trees are dead (one tree was already removed from site, and other trees (bay, willow, black walnut and olive) are located within the proposed development area (building or pool, pool deck footprint area); and  Preserve the mature ring of trees that will provide a substantial visual barrier from offsite views of the new home from both public and private vantage points. The applicant has provided photographs of the project site from different vantage points, including points along Los Trancos Road and within the adjacent Portola Valley. The photos demonstrate that the building site is heavily screened from off-site views. The applicant has installed story poles with plastic material on the site, to indicate the outline of the proposed building thereby enabling Councilmembers to view what might be seen on the site from offsite locations. The proposed project’s building roof would be at the same elevation as Los Trancos Road and therefore, one would be looking down on the site from that vantage point. The design employs several strategies to limit the new home’s visibility: 1. The home is a single story with a maximum height of 15 feet above grade where 25 feet is allowed by code; 2. The majority of the structure is below 11 feet above grade; 3. The proposed gray-toned flat roof would minimize views of the structure; 4. The fenestration of the home increases transparency; 5. The proposed colors and materials will blend the structure into the surroundings; 6. The driveway material would be gravel; and 7. The automatic gate structure would be made of board-formed, painted concrete. Tree Protection An updated arborist report (Attachment E) describes the condition of each tree in the project area. The City’s Urban Forestry (UF) staff reviewed the report and tree protection plan and provided conditions of approval for inclusion in the RLUA. One condition is a site meeting with the UF staff and the applicant’s arborist, to verify tree protection feasibility prior to building permit issuance. Each tree is numbered and recommendations are provided for tree protection during construction, and to ensure long-term health. A total of 55 trees were surveyed to determine species, size and condition. There are 15 Protected Trees1 onsite. Trees are indicated by number in the report and on the site plans. Tree 21 fell in 2009 and no longer exists. The project includes the removal of seven trees as described above. None of the seven trees are protected by city ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8.10, Tree Preservation and Management 1 Protected Tree means (1) Any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and (2) Any Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade, and (3) A heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (PAMC Chapter 8.10 Section 8.10.020 Definitions) City of Palo Alto Page 6 Regulations). The applicant proposes to relocate seven trees and, as shown on Sheets L2 through L4 and C-2.1 and C-2.2, tree protection fencing will be provided to ensure retention of these existing trees. Impervious Coverage Pursuant to the PAMC Section 18.28.070, the maximum impervious coverage for the site is 4.73 percent or 7,307 square feet. The project proposes 7,301 square feet of coverage, which includes the house, terraces, walkways, Buckeye Creek Bridge, the pool, and a portion of the driveway (turnaround). Since the remainder of the driveway is composed of gravel and is 12 feet in width it is exempt from impervious coverage calculations. The project is consistent with this requirement. The Zoning Compliance Table is provided as Attachment C. Policy Implications The proposed project is consistent with the Open Space Development Standards and Comprehensive Plan policies, as set forth in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA). The proposal complies with the Open Space Review Criteria as noted in the RLUA. The subject property is a substandard 3.5 acre site in a district that requires a minimum 10-acre parcel for development; however, the code permits development of a single-family residence. Public Outreach The Zoning Code requires publication in the local newspaper, and mailing of notices of the City Council and Commission hearings to owners and residents of property within 600 feet. The newspaper notice for the PTC hearing appeared January 30, 2015, and cards were mailed out on January 30, 2015. The story poles were erected in a timely manner to allow those who receive notice cards or view the newspaper notice may see where the building is proposed on site. In addition, project plans are viewable on the City’s website at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=45765. Letters from neighbors are included as Attachment I. Courtesy notices for the Council Consent Calendar date will be mailed to the same radius of owners/residents. Timeline Application submittal: October 30, 2014 Planning and Transportation Commission Review: February 11, 2015 City Council Consideration: April 6, 2015 Environmental Review In 2010, the City Council approved an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, for a larger home the same applicant had proposed in approximately the same location as the proposed home, which is half the size, and does not include a basement. The applicant proposes the same bridge crossing over Buckeye Creek as previously approved by Council. Therefore, it is anticipated that the current project will also have the same “less than significant” impacts as the previous home. City of Palo Alto Page 7 In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum has been prepared to reflect the current project plans. An addendum is appropriate, as the project changes meet the State’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 findings (in that only minor technical changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred). The MND is provided as Attachment G. Courtesy Copies Debbie Pedro, Town of Portola Valley, Planning Director Stuart Welte, EID Architects, Applicant Leonard Lehmann, Neighbor Attachments:  Attachment A: 805 Los Trancos Road RLUA (DOCX)  Attachment B: Site Location Map (PDF)  Attachment C: Zoning ComplianceTable (DOCX)  Attachment D: Comprehensive Plan ComplianceTable (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant Letter (PDF)  Attachment F: Arborist Report (PDF)  Attachment G: MND and Addendum (PDF)  Attachment H: Public Comment (PDF)  Attachment I: P&TC Minutes February 11, 2015 (PDF) Attachment A ACTION NO. 2015-3 RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 805 LOS TRANCOS ROAD: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW (14PLN-00425) On ____________, 2015, the Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Site and Design Review application for construction of a single-story single-family residence, and associated improvements on a 3.5 acre parcel 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. Stuart Welte of EID Architects on behalf of Langenskold Family Trust, property owner, has requested the City’s approval to allow construction of a single-story single-family residence, and other site improvements for a total floor area of 5,689 square feet. (“The Project”). B. The project site is a single parcel (APN 182-36-022) of 3.5 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 5,689 square foot single- family residence with an outdoor swimming pool. The driveways would be constructed of pervious materials consisting of gravel and several patios would have pervious material such as pavers and gravel. Total impervious area (including building foot print and other hard-scaped areas) would be 7,301 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 February 4, 2015. The Commission’s recommendations are contained in CMR_______ 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 2010 and it was determined that, with the implementation of conditions of approval and mitigation measures, 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 changes to the project since then, including reduction to floor area, impervious area, building orientation and the materials palette. The changes all lessen the impacts of the project on the environment. An addendum to the Negative Declaration was prepared on January 6, 2015. This addendum found that the revisions would not significantly change the findings as described in the original Initial Study or necessitate a recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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, the project was designed to minimize the visual impact of the structures by being situated on a level portion of the site obscured by mature trees and other vegetation. 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, driveway, patios 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, 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: The Comprehensive Plan states to 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 its low profile. Policy N-7: The Comprehensive Plan indicates that 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. The project’s compliance with the Open Space Development Criteria is discussed in the following Section. SECTION 4. Open Space Review Criteria The project proposal meets the following Open Space Review Criteria (italicized) 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 be obscured 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 and be screened from Los Trancos Road. 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 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 on the level portion of the site, which is located lower than Los Trancos Road and setback from Los Trancos Creek. The site improvements are generally clustered together. The design of the driveway uses the same location as the existing access driveway to the site. The width and design of the driveway would minimize grading and reduce impacts on existing trees. The use of a bridge over Buckeye Creek will reduce impacts on the creek. 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 and Los Trancos Creek. The project would maintain all of the existing protected trees, 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 drip-lines of existing trees. Locate development to minimize the need for grading. The project proposes grading that includes both cut and fill. The net amount of cut (export) proposed is 180 cubic yards. Grading will avoid identified tree protection areas. 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, the swimming pool/spa and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces would be below 4.73% of the site area that is the maximum allowed. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earth-tone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth- tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural in appearance. The exterior walls include a variety of treatment including reclaimed barn wood, and smooth finish stucco. The flat roof is an oxford-gray color membrane material. Fenestration adds opacity to the house and the overall color palette includes warm and natural colors that blend into the surrounding hills and vegetation. 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 present onsite. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The proposed residence would create additional light and glare. While it is anticipated that window coverings would minimize light spill from the interior rooms to the outside at night, 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 access way to the site will be modified to current standards, however, the driveway is proposed to be composed of gravel for maximum permeable capabilities. The driveway will cross Buckeye Creek with a bridge to reduce impacts to the creek. The design of the bridge will include rustic characteristics that blend with the surroundings and the proposed architecture of the residence. 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-00425, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of the Record. SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval. Planning Division 1. SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. The plans submitted for a Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans last revised on December 16, 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 3. BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLOR SCHEME. The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building permit drawings for all buildings, structures, and other features. 4. LANDSCAPING PLAN. 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. WINDOWS. All new windows and glass doors shall be of a glass type that minimizes reflectivity from off-site views. 6. EXTERIOR LIGHTING. All exterior lighting shall be directed down to avoid any impact upon surrounding property and open space lands. 7. GRADING ACTIVITIES. 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. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF BRIDGE. Prior to issuance of building permits, the owner or designee shall submit an architectural design for bridge crossing Buckeye Creek that complements the project house and rural surroundings to be approved by the Planning & Community Environment Department. This shall include rustic elements, such as earthtone colors, wood or stone integrated into the design. 9. MITIGATION MEASURE (BIOLOGICAL). Mitigation Measure D-1: Removal of any on-site trees shall be conducted between September 1 and February 1 to avoid roosting bats and nesting migratory birds. If tree removal must be conducted outside this period, a survey of the tree must be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any species be found, an exclusion zone with a radius to be determined by project biologist, but no less than 50 feet, should be established. 10. MITIGATION MEASURE (GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY). Implementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures required by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and requirements listed in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Earth Systems Pacific (dated October 2014) would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level. Such measures include:  A grading permit will be required. Include a table on the site plan showing the quantities of cut and fill.  The plan set must include a grading and 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, inlets and outlets. 11. 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. 12. IMPACT FEES. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a payment of Development Impact Fees shall be made. 13. NINETY (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 14. 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. 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: 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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). 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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 DISCRETIONARY CONDITIONS 22. In order to adaptively screen direct views of the structures from Los Trancos Rd, that the ‘planting plan’ be potentially expanded to include the area from the road to the creek, to an agreeable as‐needed resolution determined by PW Urban Forestry staff and the applicants environmental consultants. Planting will, of course, respect the riparian setback with restricted plants (Buckeye man‐made part, the bridge, Los Trancos creek). 23. For all disturbed and targeted re‐vegetated areas, application of the CPA Approved, Los Trancos Road (watershed) Hydroseed Mix*** shall be exclusively utilized and included on building permit plan set submittal. Separate 30, 60 & 90 day monitoring inspection coverage reports shall be reported to designated City staff, and shall be subject to reapplication at the discretion of staff and the applicants environmental consultant. 24. For the fill soil area off the main road, it is critical for the civil engineer to incorporate CPA approved Engineered Soil Mix* (ESM) on top of Biaxial Geogrid** (Tensar cut sheet available) to preserve and reduce impact to existing oak and native tree roots immediately adjacent to the new road intersection. This material information shall be included in full to the building permit plan submittal. 25. Tree Protection Zone of underlying roots. The temporary access road and the permanent new road shall utilize the Geogrid at earliest phase, prior to mid‐road utility trenching, to maintain a reduced compaction effect to adjacent tree roots. Grading and Utility plan Notes shall specifically highlight this issue with project arborist input for exact phasing, supervision and verification. 26. Other Ministerial conditions for certain notes to be put on specific sheets will also apply (below), subject to change during review. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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 the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City, 805 Los Trancos Road, October 28, 2014 by McClenahan Consulting, LLC, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 30. 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. 31. 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. 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 at (650) 326-8781"; 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 obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees”. 32. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Plans shall clearly note hydroseeding of all areas not formally planted to within 10’ top of bank, Los Trancos Creek, within 4’ of Buckeye Creek, in the fall season. See separate condition below. c. 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). d. 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. e. 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. 33. 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. 34. GRASSLAND HYDROSEED MIX. All disturbed areas of the site shall be applied with CPA approved Hydroseed mix by November 27 preceding winter season rains. Unless otherwise specified, CPA Hydroseed Mix Specifications for Los Trancos Watershed shall be utilized from Planning Department Staff. 35. SUDDEN OAK DEATH (Best Management Practices). To deter the potential spread of sudden oak death disease in 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 DURING CONSTRUCTION 36. 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 to be implemented by Contractor. 37. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, John McClenahan (650) 326-8781, 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. 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 41. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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 45. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. Fire Department 46. Bridge shall meet weight bearing and durability requirements previously discussed between Fire Department and applicant. 47. Exterior and roof shall meet ignition resistance standards found in Chapter 7A of the 2103 Cal. Bldg. Code. 48. An approved fire-resistant landscape plan shall be implemented including a 30 foot fuel exclusion zone and a 100 foot fuel modification zone surrounding the home. 49. The hydrant shall be connected to a water supply capable of delivering 1,500 gallons per minute for not less than two (2) hours. 50. Fire sprinklers will be required for the project. A separate submittal to the Fire Department is required for installation. Green Building 51. RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. For design and construction of residential projects, the City requires use of the Build It Green (BIG), Green Point Rated (GPR) program to comply with the mandatory measures of Chapter 4.(Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). All requirements shall be met using compliance measures within the Building Department.  The project is a new construction residential building and therefore must achieve Build It Green, Green Point Rated verification and achieve 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 square feet over 2500 square feet. The project must hire a Green Point Rater. The applicant has indicated a list of sustainability goals.  The project contains a landscape area greater than 5,000 square feet and therefore must claim a minimum of 15 points in water efficiency from the Landscape section of the BIG GPR or show compliance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. PAMC 16.14.120 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013)  The project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). Applicant has noted a goal of 85%. PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013)  The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 5263 (Ord. 5228 § 2, 2014). 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 PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: 1. Those plans prepared by EID Architects entitled “805 Los Trancos Road”, consisting of 38 pages, dated December 10, 2014, and received on December 16, 2014. 575 622 614 610 805 620 6 856 810 850 L O S T R A N C O S R O A D This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits 805 Los Trancos Road (Project Site) 0'300' 805 Los Trancos Road Project Site Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-01-20 10:23:21 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) Attachment B ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 805 Los Trancos Road 14PLN-00425 ____________________________________ Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (OS DISTRICT) Regulation Proposed Existing OS (Open Space) Minimum Site Area 3.5 acres 3.5 acres (154,479 sf) 10 acres Min. Front Setback 30 feet vacant 30 feet Rear Yard Setback 50 feet +* vacant 30 feet Min. Side Setback 30 feet vacant 30 feet Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 4.73% (7,301 sf) vacant 4.73% (7,307 sf) Max. Impervious Coverage 4.73% (7,301 sf) vacant 4.73% (7,307 sf) Max. Building Height 15 feet (excluding chimney) vacant 25 feet (to the average height of the highest gable or hipped roof) *Minimum 50 feet from top of bank of Los Trancos Creek. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) Use Required Proposed Conformance Single Family 4 spaces, with at least one covered space 5 spaces, including 3 covered spaces Conforming ATTACHMENT D APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 805 Los Trancos Road 14PLN-00425 Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of 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. Retain undeveloped Baylands northeast of Highway 101 as open space. 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: 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, and other proposed improvements would result in minimal impacts to neighboring properties. POLICY L-60: Protect Palo Alto’s archaeological resources. 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 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 its low profile. POLICY N-7: All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should be consistent with the following criteria: 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 be obscured 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 and be screened from Los Trancos Road. 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 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 on the level portion of the site, which is located lower than Los Trancos Road and setback from Los Trancos Creek. The site improvements are generally clustered together. The design of the driveway uses the same location as the existing access driveway to the site. The width and design of the driveway would minimize grading and reduce impacts on existing trees. The use of a bridge over Buckeye Creek will reduce impacts on the creek. 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 and Los Trancos Creek. The project would maintain all of the existing protected trees, 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 project proposes grading that includes both cut and fill. The net amount of cut (export) proposed is 180 cubic yards. The cuts proposed for the basement are encouraged, because they enable development to blend into the natural topography. Grading will avoid identified tree protection areas. 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, the swimming pool/spa and landscaped areas. Impervious surfaces would be below 4.73% of the site area that is the maximum allowed. 9. Buildings should use natural materials and earthtone or subdued colors. Natural building materials in earth tones are proposed. All proposed building materials are natural in appearance. The exterior walls include a variety of treatment including reclaimed barn wood, and smooth finish stucco. The flat roof is an oxford-gray color membrane material. Fenestration adds opacity to the house and the overall color palette includes warm and natural colors that blend into the surrounding hills and vegetation. 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 present onsite. 11. Exterior lighting should be low-intensity and shielded from view so it is not directly visible from off-site. The proposed residence would create additional light and glare. While it is anticipated that window coverings would minimize light spill from the interior rooms to the outside at night, 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 access way to the site will be modified to current standards, however, the driveway is proposed to be composed of gravel for maximum permeable capabilities. The driveway will cross Buckeye Creek with a bridge to reduce impacts to the creek. The design of the bridge will include rustic characteristics that blend with the surroundings and the proposed architecture of the residence. 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. Attachment E October 28, 2014 Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe 1390 Market Street, Suite 112 San Francisco, CA 94102 RE: 805 Los Trancos Road Portola Valley, CA Assignment As requested, I performed a visual inspection of 55 trees to determine species, size and condition. This is a revision and amendment to my October 19, 2009 report. Appraisals were done on trees 17 through 21. Tree Protection Zones have been enlarged to conform to city of Palo Alto requirements. Summary This is a revision of a previously submitted arborist report to include appraised values of trees 17 through 21 (remains from 2009). Should home placement change, further review by the project arborist will be required. Trees 13, 14, 15 and 29 are recommended for removal due to condition. Trees 16, 26 and 40 are proposed for removal for the driveway. None of the trees are protected by city ordinance. Trees 8-12, 22 and 25 are proposed for relocation on site. Tree 21 fell in December of 2009, therefore its appraised value is $0.00. The driveway already exists in a more primitive state and will require additional grading to comply with the fire code. Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) are defined for each tree. It is my understanding that utilities and drainage will be installed in the middle of the access road. Construction may encroach inside TPZs of several trees. Trees are numbered on the attached site plan. •Tree Protection fencing will need to be installed along Los Trancos Road and along the driveway. The distances from trees will vary and should enclose as much of the drip line as possible. •Utilities and drainage improvements should be kept outside of TPZ’s. •Should precise distances be required for compliance, a site meeting is required after layout of road is final. •Project arborist should monitor grading, excavation and construction activity to occur within drip line areas of protected trees. •Results of inspections, observations, recommendations and implementation results will be forwarded to City of Palo Alto via email. •Susceptible oaks should be treated annually in October to prevent Sudden Oak Death. Attachment F Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 2 Methodology No root crown exploration, climbing or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of this survey. In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: Rate of growth over several seasons; Structural decays or weaknesses; Presence of disease or insects; and Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0 - 5 Years = Poor 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair 10 - 15 Years = Fair 15 - 20 Years = Fair to Good 20 + Years = Good In determining the monetary value, the trunk formula method of appraisal has been adopted for trees 6 to 30” or trees greater than 30” in diameter. The trunk formula method determines the basic value and then adjusting that value depending on the trees condition and location ratings. Basic value is the cost of replacement and the increase in value due to the larger size of the tree being appraised compared to the size of the replacement tree. Please be advised that the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers representing The American Association of Nurserymen, American Society of Consulting Arborists, Landscape Contractors of America, International Society of Arboriculture and Tree Care Industry Association who have approved and adopted this method of plant valuation authored this method of plant appraisal. The Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition was used to determine values of tree 17 to 21. In determining species rating, factors considered include: • climate and soil adaptability • growth characteristics • resistance to insects and disease • maintenance requirements • aesthetic values Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 3 In determining condition rating, factors considered include: • rate of growth over several seasons • structural decays or weaknesses • presence of insects or disease • life expectancy In determining location rating, factors considered include: • site • functional and esthetic contribution • placement Tree Description/Observation 1: Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Diameter: 19.2" Height: 35' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: Cluster of 3 trees Observation: Grows to photoropic lean. Bifurcation at 7-feet Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 18-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 2: Coast live oak Diameter: 6.3" Height: 12' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: Cluster of 3 trees Observation: Grows to photoropic lean. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 9-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 3: Elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) Diameter: 13.9" Multi trunk Height: 35' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor Location: Cluster of 3 trees Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback. Decay on main trunk visible from old limb failure. Tree 3 and 4 are multi trunk. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 12-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 4 4: Elderberry Diameter: 14.1" Height: 20’ Spread: 20’ Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Cluster of 3 trees Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback. Decay on main trunk visible from old limb failure. Tree 3 and 4 are multi trunk. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 12-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 5: Coast live oak Diameter: 17.8" Height: 40' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair to Good Location: On plan Observation: The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 15-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 6: Coast live oak Diameter: 14.2" Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Close to home construction Observation: Foliage is slightly sparse and stunted. Scaffold limbs exhibit narrow attachments. Root crown is buried. Any excavation within TPZ of 8-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise the cutting of any roots greter than one inch in diameter. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 12-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 7: Elderberry Diameter: 9.3, 6.5, 7.2, 7.5" Low branching Height: 32' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor Location: Close to home construction Observation: Canopy exhibits extensive dieback. Recommendation: Use Type 1 tree protection fencing. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 5 8: Olive (Olea europaea) Diameter: 13.6" Height: 28' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Location: In proposed area of construction Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits minor dieback. Grows to a lean, stem straightens at 13- feet. Planned for relocation per landscape plan. Recommendation: Relocate. 9: Coast live oak Diameter: 6.2" Low branching Height: 14' Spread: 12' Condition: Fair Location: Close to home construction Observation: Foliage is typical of the species with minor damage from cynipid gall. Proposed for relocation. Recommendation: Use Type 1 tree protection fencing. 10: Olive Diameter: 28.4" Height: 25' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: In proposed area of construction Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits minor dieback. Root flare is large approximately 6-feet in diameter. Planned for relocation per landscape plan. Recommendation: Relocate. 11: Olive Diameter: 26.2" Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: In proposed area of construction Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of deadwood. Bifurcation 4-1/2-feet creates an inherent structural defect. Root flare is approximately 5-feet. Proposed for relocation on site. Recommendation: Relocate. 12: Olive Diameter: 31.3" Height: 22' Spread: 22' Condition: Fair Location: In proposed area of constructon Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits a minor accumulation of deadwood. Bifurcation 4-feet creates an inherent structural defect. Root flare is approximately 5-feet. Proposed for relocation on site. Recommendation: Relocate. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 6 13: Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Diameter: Estimated 16.5" Low branching Height: Spread: Condition: Dead Location: On plan Observation: Proposed for removal. Recommendation: Remove. 14: Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) Diameter: 7.7" Height: Spread: Condition: Dead Location: On plan Observation: Proposed for removal. Recommendation: Remove. 15: Black walnut (Juglans hindsii) Diameter: 27.5" Height: 55' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor Location: In proposed driveway Observation: Canopy exhibits dieback. Recommendation: Recommend removal. 16: Bay laurel Diameter: 13.2" Height: 38' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: In proposed driveway Observation: Proposed for removal. Recommendation: Proposed for removal. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 7 17: Coast live oak Diameter: 20.6" Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Between Road and proposed access road Observation: Foliage is sparse and slightly stunted with a moderate accumulation of deadwood. Grows to a slight phototropic lean. Canopy overlaps with adjacent trees. Recommend removing bay trees within 30-feet of trunk. Any grading or excavation within TPZ of 18-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. Project arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. Basic Price $ 14,969.00 Species Classification 90 % $ 13,473.00 Basic Value (1805.00+13,473.00) $ 15,278.00 Condition Rating 45% $ 6,875.00 Location Rating 66.7 % $ 8,526.14 (Site: 65% Contribution: 70% Placement: 65% /3) Appraised Value …………………………… $ 4,600.00 18: Coast live oak Diameter: 17.7" Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair to Good Location: Near proposed access road Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits a moderate accumulation of deadwood and overlaps with adjacent trees. Numerous smaller oaks and olives create a dense understory. Proposed road grading will impact approximately 45 percent of root environment. Any grading or excavation within TPZ of 15-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. Project arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. Basic Price $ 11,005.00 Species Classification 90 % $ 9,905.00 Basic Value (1805.00+9,905.00) $11,710.00 Condition Rating 70% $ 8,197.00 Location Rating 66.6% $ 5,459.00 (Site: 65% Contribution: 65% Placement: 70% /3) Appraised Value …………………………… $ 5,500.00 Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 8 19: Coast live oak Diameter: 20.4" Height: 45' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair Location: Left of proposed access entry Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits a heavy accumulation of interior deadwood. Grows to a 45 degree lean over proposed drive. Los Trancos Road is 8-feet from trunk. Root crown is buried on uphill side. Proposed entry is 8-feet from the trunk and will impact approximately 40 percent of root environment. Any grading or excavation within TPZ of 18-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. Project arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. Basic Price $ 14,679.00 Species Classification 90 % $ 13,211.00 Basic Value (1805.00+13,211.00) $ 15,016.00 Condition Rating 55% $ 8,258.00 Location Rating 65 % $ 5,368.00 (Site: 65% Contribution: 70% Placement: 60% /3) Appraised Value …………………………… $ 5,400.00 20: Coast live oak Diameter: 35.0" Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Right of proposed access entry Observation: Foliar canopy exhibits a moderate accumulation of deadwood and has been partially topped for utility line clearance. Smaller bay laurels sprouting near trunk should be removed. Los Trancos road is 6-feet from the trunk. Root crown is buried on the uphill side. Proposed entry road is 10-feet from the trunk and will impact less than 25 percent of the root environment. Any grading or excavation within TPZ of 30-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. Project arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than one inch in diameter. Basic Price $ 42,018.00 Species Classification 90 % $ 37,817.00 Basic Value (1805.00+37,817.00) $ 39,621.00 Condition Rating 45% $ 17,829.00 Location Rating 65 % $ 11,589.00 (Site: 65% Contribution: 70% Placement: 60% /3) Appraised Value …………………………… $ 11,600.00 Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 9 21: Coast live oak Diameter: 58.5" Height: 55' Spread: 55' Condition: Poor Location: Between drainage creek and proposed fence Observation: Foliage is sparse, stunted and lacks vigor. Bifurcation at 3-feet creates an inherent structural defect. Secondary leader is more vigorous than primary leader. Low trunk exhibits decay and active infestation of western sycamore borer. Tree fell in December 2009. Appraised Value …………………………… $ 00.00 22: Bay laurel Diameter: 9.5" Height: 25' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Driveway entry Observation: Proposed for relocation. Leans over road. Poor candidate for relocation. Recommendation: Remove. 23: Coast live oak Diameter: 17.0" Multi trunk Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Along street Observation: 23 and 24 are multi trunk tree. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 15-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 24: Coast live oak Diameter: 19.0" Multi trunk Height: 40' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: Along street Observation: 23 and 24 are multi trunk tree. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 15-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 25: Olive Diameter: 11.7" Height: 12' Spread: 10' Condition: Poor Location: Near drive Observation: Proposed for relocation. Recommendation: Initiate supplemental irrigation. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 10 26: Olive Diameter: 13.6" Height: 18' Spread: 22' Condition: Poor Location: In driveway Observation: Proposed for removal, in proposed driveway. Recommendation: Initiate supplemental irrigation. 27: Olive Diameter: 20.5" Height: 22' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor Location: Edge of fill area Observation: Clean deadwood. No fill within 3-feet of trunk. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 17-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 28: Olive Diameter: 18" Height: 26' Spread: 18' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Beyond fill area Observation: Heavy interior deadwood. No fill within 3-feet of trunk. Type I tree protection fencing. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Any excavation within TPZ of 15-feet must be accomplished by hand digging. A qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater than 1-inch diameter. 29: Olive Diameter: 16.5" Height: 22' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor Location: In potential fill area Observation: Heavy accumulation of deadwood. Recommendation: Remove. Does not contribute to site. 30: Olive Diameter: Estimated 18" Height: 30' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor Location: Adjacent to proposed access road Observation: Heavy deadwood. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. The TPZ is 15-feet. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 11 31: Bay laurel Diameter: Estimated 13" Height: 30' Spread: 18' Condition: Fair Location: Near utility pole Observation: Larger oak near pole not impacted. The TPZ is 7-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 32: Coast live oak Diameter: Estimated 24" Height: 40' Spread: 45' Condition: Fair Location: On plan Observation: Between Los Trancos and new access road. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 33: Olive Diameter: 11.5, 10.5" Height: 25' Spread: 25' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: In potential fill area. Observation: Heavy accumulation of deadwood. The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing or relocate. 34: Coast live oak Diameter: 19.2" Height: 35' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: In potential fill area. Observation: Fill should not encroach within 4 feet of trunk. The TPZ is 16-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 35: Coast live oak Diameter: 13.8" Height: 45' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Edge of fill area Observation: The TPZ is 12-feet. Grows to phototropic lean. Fill should not encroach within 3 feet of trunk. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 36: Olive Diameter: Estimated 19.0" Height: 25' Spread: 24' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Below fill area. Observation: No impact in TPZ of 16-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. No fill within 5-feet. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 12 37: Olive Diameter: Estimated 19.0" Height: 30' Spread: 35' Condition: Poor Location: Along access road Observation: Heavy accumulation of deadwood. Drive will impact 50 percent of root environment. The TPZ is 16-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 38: Olive Diameter: 11.2" Multi trunk Height: 24' Spread: 12' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Tree 38 and 39 are one tree. The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 39: Olive Diameter: 8.6" Multi trunk Height: 22' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Tree 38 and 39 are one tree. The TPZ is 8-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 40: Olive Diameter: 8.7" Height: 25' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: Along access road Observation: No impact within TPZ of 9-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 41: Bay laurel Diameter: Estimated 30" Height: 60' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Entry road may impact 40 percent of root environment. Guy wire attached to utility support will need to be removed for vehicle clearance. The TPZ is 25-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 42: Bay laurel Diameter: 13.2" Height: 45' Spread: 30' Condition: Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Leans toward proposed road. The TPZ is 11-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 13 43: Bay laurel Diameter: 14.0" Height: 30' Spread: 20' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Leans toward proposed road. The TPZ is 12-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 44: Bay laurel Diameter: 14.5" Height: 50' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Sparse canopy. The TPZ is 14-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 45: Coast live oak Diameter: 12, 14" Height: 45' Spread: 15' Condition: Poor Location: Along access road Observation: Secondary stem is dead. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 46: Bay laurel Diameter: 11.8" Height: 45' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Along access road Observation: Slight lean. The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 47: White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) Diameter: 22.2" Height: 55' Spread: 20' Condition: Fair Location: Adjacent to creek Observation: Grows to a lean toward road. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 48: White alder Diameter: 23.8" Multi trunk Height: 55' Spread: 25' Condition: Fair Location: Adjacent to creek Observation: 48 and 49 are one tree. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 14 49: White alder Diameter: 22.5" Multi trunk Height: 55' Spread: 28' Condition: Fair Location: Adjacent to creek Observation: 48 and 49 are one tree. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 50: Bay laurel Diameter: Estimated 60" Low branching Height: 70' Spread: 75' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: Along road Observation: Low branching growth habit creates an inherent structural weakness. TPZ is 50- feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 51: Black walnut Diameter: 35.7" Height: 75' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor Location: On plan Observation: Deadwood and dieback indicate tree decline. The TPZ is 30-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 52: Black walnut Diameter: Estimated 24.0" Height: 55' Spread: 45' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: On plan Observation: The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 53: Coast live oak Diameter: 9.9" Height: 15' Spread: 15' Condition: Fair Location: On plan Observation: No impact anticipated within dripline. The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 54: Coast live oak Diameter: 5.8" Height: 10' Spread: 10' Condition: Fair Location: On plan Observation: No impact anticipated within dripline. The TPZ is 10-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 15 55: Coast live oak Diameter: 20.4" Height: 35' Spread: 30' Condition: Poor to Fair Location: On plan Observation: Lower 5-feet of stem and root flare exhibit significant decay and open cavity.No impact anticipated within drip line. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. 56: Coast live oak Diameter: 21.0" Height: 40' Spread: 40' Condition: Fair Location: On plan Observation: Low vigor. Leans toward proposed drive. No impact anticipated within dripline. The TPZ is 20-feet. Recommendation: Use Type I tree protection fencing. TREE PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Tree Preservation and Protection Plan In providing recommendations for tree preservation, we recognize that injury to trees as a result of construction include mechanical injuries to trunks, roots and branches, and injury as a result of changes that occur in the growing environment. To minimize these injuries, we recommend grading operations encroach no closer than ten times the trunk diameter, (i.e. 36” diameter tree x 10=360” distance). At this distance, buttress/anchoring roots would be preserved and minimal injury to the functional root area would be anticipated. Should encroachment within the area become necessary, hand digging is mandatory. Barricades Prior to initiation of construction activity, temporary barricades should be installed around all trees in the construction area. Six-foot high, chain link fences are to be mounted on steel posts, driven 2 feet into the ground, at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the drip line of the trees or as close to the drip line area as practical. These barricades will be placed around individual trees and/or groups of trees as the existing environment dictates. The temporary barricades will serve to protect trunks, roots and branches from mechanical injuries, will inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or debris within the sensitive ‘drip line’ areas and will prevent soil compaction from increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground around the tree canopy shall not be altered. These barricades should remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. Designated areas beyond the drip lines of any trees should be provided for construction materials and onsite parking. Langenskiold Family Trust Attention: Mr. Mark Conroe Page 16 Root Pruning (if necessary) During and upon completion of any trenching/grading operation within a tree’s drip line, should any roots greater than one inch (1”) in diameter be damaged, broken or severed, root pruning to include flush cutting and sealing of exposed roots should be accomplished under the supervision of a qualified Arborist to minimize root deterioration beyond the soil line within twenty-four (24) hours. Pruning Pruning of the foliar canopies to include removal of deadwood is recommended and should be initiated prior to construction operations. Such pruning will provide any necessary construction clearance, will lessen the likelihood or potential for limb breakage, reduce ‘windsail’ effect and provide an environment suitable for healthy and vigorous growth. Fertilization In lieu of traditional fertilization, I recommend treating live oaks with Agri Fos to aid in prevention of Sudden Oak Death. These applications should occur November and March the first year and November annually throughout construction. This site is located within an active zone of infestation. Mulch Mulching with wood chips (maximum depth 3”) within tree environments (outer foliar perimeter) will lessen moisture evaporation from soil, protect and encourage adventitious roots and minimize possible soil compaction. Inspection Periodic inspections by the Site Arborist are recommended during construction activities, particularly as trees are impacted by trenching/grading operations. Inspections at approximate four (4) week intervals would be sufficient to assess and monitor the effectiveness of the Tree Preservation Plan and to provide recommendations for any additional care or treatment. All written material appearing herein constitutes original and unpublished work of the Arborist and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without written consent of the Arborist. Should you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance in these concerns, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC By: John H. McClenahan ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, WE-1476B member, American Society of Consulting Arborists JHMc: pm ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. Arborist: John H. McClenahan Date: October 28, 2014 805 Los Trancos Rd, Palo Alto Updated Tree Survey October 23, 2014 Tree Location Tree Tree Number Type Diameter Action Reason Tree Protection Measures (inches) 1 oak 19 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 2 oak 6 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 3 elderberry 14 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 4 elderberry 14 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 5 oak 18 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 6 oak 14 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 7 elderberry 6-9 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 8 olive 14 Preserve-relocate In home area n/a 9 oak 6 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 10 olive 28 Preserve-relocate In home area n/a 11 olive 26 Preserve-relocate In home area n/a 12 olive 31 Preserve-relocate In home area n/a 13 bay 17 Remove Dead n/a 14 willow 8 Remove Dead n/a 15 black walnut 28 Remove Poor condition n/a 16 bay 13 Remove In driveway area n/a 17 oak 21 Preserve as-is n/a 18 oak 18 Fence around dripline In potential (1') fill area Type 1 fencing 19 oak 20 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing; arborist inspections 20 oak 35 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing; arborist inspections 21 No longer existing Fell Dec. 2009 n/a 22 bay 10 Remove In driveway entry n/a 23 oak 17 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 24 oak 19 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 25 olive 12 Relocate Near driveway area n/a 26 olive 14 Remove In driveway area, unhealthy n/a 27 olive 21 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 28 olive 18 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 29 olive 17 Remove Poor condition n/a 30 olive 18 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 31 bay 13 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 32 oak 24 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 33 olive 12/11 Relocate In potential (1') fill area n/a 34 oak 19 Fence around dripline In potential (1') fill area Type 1 fencing 35 oak 14 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 36 olive 19 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 37 olive 19 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 38 olive 11 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 39 olive 9 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 40 olive 9 Preserve-relocate In driveway turnaround n/a 41 bay 30 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 42 bay 13 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 43 bay 15 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 44 bay 12/14 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 45 oak 11 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 46 bay 12 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 47 white alder 22 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 48 white alder 24 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 49 white alder 23 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 50 bay 60 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 51 black walnut 36 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 52 black walnut 24 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 53 oak 10 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 54 oak 6 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 55 oak 23 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing 56 oak 23 Preserve as-is Type 1 fencing Attachment G 805 Los Trancos Road 14PLN-00425 Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum January 2015 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Preface and Summary ...................................................................................................................3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ......................................................................................... 3 Addendum Finding ................................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Site Location and Land Uses ..........................................................................................................6 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................................7 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impacts ...............................................................................................8 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 8 B. Agricultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 8 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 8 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 9 E. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 9 F. Geology, Soils and Seismicity ............................................................................................................... 9 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 10 H. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 10 I. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 10 J. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................... 10 K. Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 10 L. Population and Housing ..................................................................................................................... 11 M. Public Services ................................................................................................................................... 11 N. Recreation .......................................................................................................................................... 11 O. Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................................ 11 P. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 11 Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................................. 11 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 3 1.0 Preface and Summary A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated by the City of Palo Alto in March 2010, to analyze the impacts of a proposed single-family residential structure and ancillary site improvements at 805 Los Trancos Road. The project reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration included an 11,184 square foot residential building (including a livable basement area) and site improvements including a swimming pool and a small vehicular bridge over Buckeye Creek. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available to the public for a 30- day review period. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on the item on May 19, 2010 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council, where approval was granted on June 21, 2010. Since the City Council’s approval, the project proponent has made changes to the scope of the project. The key changes to the project include: 1. Reduction in overall size from 11,184 square feet to 5,689 square feet; 2. Elimination of the basement and second floor of the building; and 3. The orientation of the building. The revised project has also updated the following technical studies: 1. Geotechnical Engineering Report 2. Arborist Report 3. Biotic Report California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) California Code of Regulations Title 14 (hereinafter, “State CEQA Guidelines”), sections 15162 through 15164 discuss a lead agency’s responsibilities in handling new information that was not included in a project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: (a) When an EIR has been certified or Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 4 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides: Where some changes or additions are necessary to the previously approved Negative Declaration, but none of the changes or additions meet the standards as provided for a subsequent Negative Declaration pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, then the lead agency is directed to prepare an Addendum to the adopted Negative Declaration (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164). Further, the Addendum should include a “brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15162,” and that “explanation must be supported by substantial evidence” (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15164 [e]). The addendum need not be circulated for public review, but may simply be attached to the adopted Negative Declaration (State CEQA Guidelines, Section15164 [c]). Addendum Finding On the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, the proposed revisions to the original project do not meet the criteria in Section 15162 requiring a Subsequent Negative Declaration. The proposed changes do not increase any severity towards environmental issues discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project does not require any additional mitigation measures. Two previously identified mitigation measures 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 5 remain valid and adequate to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration is warranted. 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 6 2.0 Site Location and Land Uses The project site is a vacant parcel (APN 182-36-022) located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains in the western portion of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, west of Interstate 280. The site is located in an area predominately characterized by publicly and privately owned open space. The property is bordered by Los Trancos Creek to the west and the Town of Portola Valley beyond; Los Trancos Road to the north and to the east; and a vacant parcel to the south. The existing site has no above grade improvements. Views from the portion of the site to be improved and constructed on are to the west towards Portola Valley. A bypass of Buckeye Creek traverses the site and connects with Los Trancos Creek. 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 7 3.0 Project Description The proposal includes construction of a 5,689 square foot (sf), single-story single-family residence. The project also includes landscape improvements, including a swimming pool and spa. The architectural style of the proposed residence is described by the applicant as Modern Equestrian style. The home is set in the existing clearing to minimize impacts to existing trees and remains clear of Los Trancos and Buckeye creeks. The residence consists of common areas and bedrooms with one of the bedrooms and the master bedroom connected by narrow hallways. The exterior walls include a variety of treatment including reclaimed barn wood, and smooth finish stucco. The flat roof is an oxford-gray color membrane material. Fenestration adds opacity to the house and the overall color palette includes 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 onsite. 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 8 4.0 Environmental Setting and Impacts The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the original project did identify two mitigation measures (Biological and Geological) to be implemented along with standard conditions of approval to reduce identified potential significant impacts related to any of the discussed topics to a level of less than significant. The purpose of this section of the amendment to the Mitigated Negative Declaration is to determine whether the revised project would result in any potentially significant impacts that were not identified for the original project. A. Aesthetics The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased aesthetic impacts. The floor area of the project was reduced from 11,184 square feet to 5,689 square feet. The project proposes a single-story structure not taller than 15 feet, instead of two stories as previously proposed. The exterior walls include a variety of treatment including reclaimed barn wood, and smooth finish stucco. The flat roof is an oxford-gray color membrane material. Fenestration adds opacity to the house and the overall color palette includes 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 onsite. Light and glare impacts are also not expected to be greater than were identified for the original project. B. Agricultural Resources The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project does not change the previous “no impact” finding. C. Air Quality The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased air quality impacts. The air quality analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original project concluded that the project's vehicle trip generation rate was not high enough to create a significant air emissions impact. The proposed basement for the project has been eliminated in the revised proposal, which reduces excavation and related hauling activities. The revisions do 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 9 not increase the amount of trips to the site. Therefore, the revised project will not result in a significant air emissions impact. D. Biological Resources The revised project is not expected to result in any additional biological resources impacts. Neither the original or revised projects are expected to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the Tree Protection ordinance for preservation of biological resources on the site. The revisions would not substantially affect the existing biological resources beyond what was identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Tree preservation criteria are contained in the recommended conditions of approval. The previous Mitigation Measure regarding roosting bats and migratory birds remains valid and adequate to be implemented by the proposed project: Mitigation Measure D-1: Removal of any on-site trees shall be conducted between September 1 and February 1 to avoid roosting bats and nesting migratory birds. If tree removal must be conducted outside this period, a survey of the tree must be performed by a qualified biologist. Should any species be found, an exclusion zone with a radius to be determined by project biologist, but no less than 50 feet, should be established. E. Cultural Resources The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any cultural resources impacts beyond what was previously discussed. The elimination of the basement component of the project lessens the possibility of encountering archeological artifacts. F. Geology, Soils and Seismicity The environmental setting remains the same. An updated geotechnical report was submitted with the revised project. The findings within the report will augment the previous Mitigation Measure, which remains valid and adequate: Mitigation Measure F-1: Implementation of the construction techniques and erosion control measures required by the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department and requirements listed in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc. (dated September 2007) Earth Systems Pacific (dated October 2014) would reduce the geotechnical impacts to a less than significant level. Such measures include:  A grading permit will be required. Include a table on the site plan showing the quantities of cut and fill.  The plan set must include a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 10 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, inlets and outlets. G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any hazards and hazardous materials impacts beyond what was previously discussed. The project would remain consistent with the most recent water quality regulations in effect. H. Hydrology and Water Quality The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any hydrology and water quality impacts beyond what was previously discussed. I. Land Use and Planning The revised project is not expected to result in any new or increased land use or planning impacts. The project proposes a reduction in square footage, the elimination of a second story and basement. An updated arborist report evaluated the health of the trees on site. The City’s zoning ordinances have been updated regarding development in Open Space areas since the adoption of the original Mitigated Negative Declaration and the project is consistent with these regulations. The proposed revised project is not expected to conflict with the Comprehensive Plan designation for the site, the zoning ordinance, or any existing environmental plans or policies. J. Mineral Resources The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any mineral resources impacts beyond the “no impact” finding previously made. K. Noise The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any noise impacts beyond what was previously discussed. The revised project maintains consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Noise Ordinance for exposure or generation of noise on the site. 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 11 L. Population and Housing The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any population and housing impacts beyond what was previously discussed. M. Public Services The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any public services impacts beyond what was previously discussed. Impact fees are collected to ensure service levels are satisfactory and are adjusted annually. N. Recreation The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any Recreation impacts beyond what was previously discussed. Impact fees are collected to ensure service levels are satisfactory and are adjusted annually. O. Transportation and Traffic The revised project is not expected to result in any transportation and traffic impacts beyond what was previously discussed. P. Utilities and Service Systems The environmental setting has not changed and the revised project is not expected to result in any utilities and service systems impacts beyond what was previously discussed. The basement component of the project was eliminated, so excavation and hauling are less, resulting in fewer construction related trips. Q. Mandatory Findings of Significance The adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration discussed the issue of Greenhouse Gas Emissions before the issue became an individual item in the initial study checklist pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Updates. The revised project is not expected to result in any greenhouse gas emissions impacts beyond what was previously discussed. 805 Los Trancos Road--Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum 12 PTC Packet Page # 99 of 103 Attachment H PTC Packet Page # 100 of 103 January 10, 2015 The City of Palo Alto c/o Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP M-Group | Senior Planner 579 Clyde Avenue, Suite 340 Mountain View, California 94043 Subject: 805 Los Trancos house– Henry Family Dear Sheldon, My family owns the property at 575 Los Trancos Road, which is adjacent to 805 Los Trancos Road. I have met with the Henry Family in regards to their proposed house at 805 Los Trancos Road. The house would be a very nice addition to the area. The design of the home is carefully thought out, and blends in very nicely with the natural landscape with the earth tones of the home. Additionally, this home is “green” in its design, including reclaimed barn wood, solar, drought tolerant landscaping, with a goal of a net zero home with respect to energy consumption. We are in support of the City approving this home. Sincerely, Conroe Family Trust PTC Packet Page # 101 of 103 PTC Packet Page # 102 of 103 PTC Packet Page # 103 of 103 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Verbatim Minutes 2 February 11, 2015 3 4 DRAFT EXCERPT 5 6 7 Public Hearing8 805 Los Trancos Road (14PLN-00425) (*Quasi-Judicial): Request by EID Architects for a Site and9 Design review of a new 5,689 sf single-story, single-family home, and associated site improvements on a10 3.5 acre parcel of land. Zoning District: Open Space (OS). Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative11 Declaration approved in June 2010 and addendum attached. For more information contact Sheldon Ah12 Sing at sheldon@mplanninggroup.com.13 14 Chair Tanaka: and let’s move on to Item 2, which is 805 Los Trancos Road. This is a quasi-judicial item15 and I think Commissioner Gardias is recusing himself due to a conflict. And so does staff or the16 applicant, does the applicant have a presentation or does the staff give a presentation first?17 18 Sheldon Ah Sing, M-Group: Yes, I’m Sheldon Ah Sing, Planning Consultant, and I do have a presentation19 on behalf of the staff as well as the applicant does have a presentation.20 21 Chair Tanaka: Ok, do you want to proceed?22 23 Mr. Sing: Thank you. So this is a site and design review for 805 Los Trancos. The property is a three24 and a half acre site with approximately a half acre site clearing where the house would be proposed. The25 project proposed construction of a single-story 5,689 square foot home with other site and landscape26 improvements. Just for the Commission’s information the site previously had approval for a house that27 was twice the size and included two stories and a basement. So this is a reduction in size and scale for28 this property. The subject property is located in the Open Space (OS) zoning district and the purpose of29 the district is to protect and preserve open space land as limited and valuable resource while permitting30 reasonable uses. All properties within the OS district are subject to site and design combining district31 regulations.32 33 The project will comply with the OS district, establishes a 12 review criteria taken from the City’s34 Comprehensive Plan, and staff provided the project compliance analysis in Attachment A, the record of35 land use action. The three key issues for the project include visibility of the improvements and I have a36 slide later that will demonstrate that. The protection of mature trees; in that case there’s an updated37 arborist report that was submitted and describes the conditions of trees on the site, and includes a tree38 protection plan. Seven trees are proposed to be relocated as well as seven trees are proposed to be39 removed because of conflicts with construction. None of the site’s 15 protected trees are affected.40 Urban Forestry staff has reviewed the plans and determined that the project is in good shape for the tree41 protection and the site planning of the project minimizes impacts to the onsite trees. And the other issue42 is impervious coverage and I do have another slide on that later.43 44 So the location of the project is in a woodland area and also meadow area surrounded by mature trees.45 And those trees do screen the proposed location of the property as well as the improvements. To the46 east is Los Trancos Road and the western boundary is Los Trancos Creek as well as the City limits. So47 Los Trancos Road just to put things in context is at the same elevation as the proposed top of the roof of48 the house. So you’d be looking down, Los Trancos Road you’d be looking down on the project site and49 the site does include screening by redwood trees and other trees associated with riparian corridor.50 51 So just walk you through kind of the picture in the top left and then working our way down it gives you a52 little context of the site and that it is shrouded by dense and mature shrubbery and trees and there will53 also be proposed new vegetation that would screen views from Los Trancos Road so if you move to the54 top right picture that’s really the one view from Los Trancos Road that you can see to the site. The55 Attachment I 2 applicant does propose to plant some redwood trees there and that would screen the site further. And 1 then as you go down those views are again are from Portola Valley on that road on the other side of Los 2 Trancos Creek you can’t see through because of the mature riparian habitat trees. And then pictures at 3 bottom show the story poles are rerected and you can see the height of the building is about half of the 4 height of the trees that are on the site that would fully screen it and then the simulation on the right 5 includes what the buildings would look like on the site and it does blend very well. The designed house 6 includes earth tone colors, fenestration increases transparency, and the driving bridge that are proposed 7 would also be designed to be rustic in appearance. All these characteristics together would limit the 8 homes visibility. 9 10 So this is the site plan and this project is consistent with the City’s impervious cover standard. The 11 project’s driveway is exempt from the, exempt from the standard except for a turnaround because of its 12 width as well as the use of gravel. So walkways have a permeability factor so that it’s not completely 13 impervious. So all that together the project does comply with the City standard. 14 15 So in conclusion staff has received some letters in support of the project. The applicant’s done a pretty 16 good job by going to the neighbors and showing them the plans and they’ve responded by sending the 17 City some letters in support of the application. The project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive 18 Plan and zoning standards and therefore the recommendation is to recommend that the City Council 19 approve of the site and design review to allow the construction of the proposed single-story single-family 20 residence and associated site improvements based upon the findings and conditions of approval 21 contained in the record of land use action. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any 22 questions. The applicant is also here with a presentation. 23 24 Chair Tanaka: Ok, are there any questions now? Just pull the light. Go ahead. 25 26 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I have two questions just about the process. The first is how, how, what’s 27 the relevance of letters from neighbors in the review process? I’m just curious if there had been a 28 negative letter like how would that have played a role in the staff’s evaluation of the project’s satisfying 29 the requirements. 30 31 Mr. Sing: So this is a public hearing, essentially a public hearing and part of the process is to send a 32 notice out to those that own property within 600 feet I believe and as well as having a notice on the 33 property and a notice in the newspaper. So any public testimony that includes people showing up for the 34 hearing or as well as getting written letters are really part of the record and part of the process and they 35 may give some insight to something that staff didn’t see or didn’t quite have a sensitivity to because it’s 36 particularly their issue. So I think in this case where the letters were in support that just shows that in 37 general they’re happy with this project. 38 39 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, and then my second question is we talk about like color scheme and the 40 environment that surrounds it. I’m just curious is there, are there limitations moving forward after 41 development that restrict homeowners in these areas from repainting their homes different colors? I 42 mean I only say that because that would that seems… 43 44 Ms. Sing: Yeah, so there are findings I think the Commission and Council have to make regarding the 45 colors and how the project does blend in with its surrounding, but I think your question might be after 46 the approval and (interrupted) 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: Right. 49 50 Mr. Sing: Maybe the homeowner decides to paint the house a different color (interrupted) 51 52 Commissioner Alcheck: Five years from now. 53 54 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: So I think that we’re looking as part… so if, so no I guess is the short 55 answer. It would be a prohibition about doing some alterations to colors; however if those colors were 56 3 not in keeping with the intention to mimic the scenic area, the surroundings or stood out in a way that 1 brought undo attention to the building then I would, we would conclude that that is inconsistent with the 2 Commission or ultimately the City Council’s approval of the project and that would be enforceable action. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no I don’t see that being an issue here. I’m just sort of wondering about 5 sort of the effectiveness of a process that evaluates a color scheme that in theory doesn’t, you can’t 6 really enforce long run, which is ok by me because (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Lait: Well, I think you can enforce the concept, but if they do a different shade I think what we’re 9 looking for is conceptually is it going to be something that is compatible and fit in with the landscape. 10 11 Commissioner Alcheck: Which makes sense. 12 13 Mr. Lait: Yep. 14 15 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, those are my questions. 16 17 Chair Tanaka: Commissioner Rosenblum. 18 19 Commissioner Rosenblum: Thank you. I also have no major problems with the recommendation. I think 20 it seems like the site was approved for a much larger structure, it’s a smaller structure, but I also just 21 have a question about how staff actually makes its recommendation in this case. So in terms of for 22 example the visibility of the site, what is the standard? 23 24 Mr. Sing: So I think a part of it is really going out to the site. It’s hard to really do something without 25 kind of do something in the office by going to the site, taking into that context of it, reviewing those 26 plans, in this case looking at that the site’s actually lower than Los Trancos Road also you have those 27 mature trees and what they are proposing so you’ve got to kind of look ahead a little bit what would the 28 site be like maybe in five years with that mature, mature trees then also going maybe to some off site 29 locations and trying to see is there a vantage point you can actually see the project and in this case you 30 really can’t, given that it’s a single-story house. It’s going to be below the road and as well as from the 31 other direction with the riparian habitat even when we’re in a draught those trees were very green. 32 33 Commissioner Rosenblum: That is the standard that from any vantage point you could not see the 34 structure, is that correct? Is that what you’re trying to? 35 36 Mr. Sing: So I think what I’m trying to say is that’s part of it that goes into it. There’s a reality that at 37 some point you’re going to be at maybe a vantage point where you can see it (interrupted) 38 39 Commissioner Rosenblum: Yeah. 40 41 Mr. Sing: And then is that something you work with the applicant to try to reduce that impact, but some 42 vantage points you may see it. 43 44 Commissioner Rosenblum: Ok. That’s helpful and like I said it’s a one-story dwelling and a space that 45 had been approved for a much larger dwelling. Based on the rendering of it, it seems the reasonable 46 person standard would you be offended by this walking across it doesn’t seem to be, but I didn’t know 47 against what standard are you measuring this. So thank you. 48 49 Mr. Lait: Right, and if I could just add to that it is a somewhat subjective standard. It is not, it is one of 50 the criteria for the open space review that this body is considering in its recommendation to the City 51 Council and that that standard is that the development should not be visually intrusive from the public 52 roadways and public parklands. So that’s the standard by which we make our recommendations. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Ok so let’s move on and have the applicant give their presentation. You have up to 10 55 minutes. 56 4 1 Stuart Welte, EID Architects: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Stuart Welte, I’m the Architect 2 at EID Architects and I would like to introduce the homeowners. First of all they’d like to just say a 3 couple of words. 4 5 Steve Henry: My name’s Steve… let me get used to this, my name’s Steve. I’m here with my wife 6 Denise. We have three daughters ages 9, 12, and 13 to give you guys some context. We’re very excited 7 about this home. It’ll be our family’s residence. It’s where we live. There was some mention earlier 8 about going out to the community meeting with some, meeting with everyone. We live in Menlo Park 9 right now, West Menlo Park. It’s a very tight knit community so we wanted to meet our neighbors. 10 We’ve done that over the last several months, been very enjoyable. So that was a big plus for us to get 11 to know people. 12 13 In terms of the house I’m 44 years old. I’m an avid surfer. My wife and I have been members of the 14 Surf Rider Foundation. I don’t know if any of you heard about that; very, very involved from a kind of 15 environmental standpoint. This type of home, a single-story green passive home with these natural kind 16 of earth tones is what we would select with or without City Council. So having kind of a net zero type 17 home that’s our objective here as what we want to do again with or without the rules that are kind of 18 above my head. I’ll let Stuart talk to you about that, but the staff’s been very professional. They’ve been 19 cooperative to work with so far. We ask for your support tonight and with that I’ll hand it over to Stuart. 20 21 Mr. Welte: Thank you Steve. So I’ll try and keep it very brief and then be plenty of time for questions if 22 you have such, if not that’s fine. I know that your time is important so I don’t want to belabor the 23 process or the set I know you’ve looked at very thoroughly. The let’s see there’s a… there we go. So we 24 just put a quick PowerPoint together to show to illustrate some of the important points again in that we 25 are developing the home much smaller than what was previously approved, much lower to the ground, 26 much more sensitive to the rolling nature of the site and keeping the sightlines and the natural materials 27 very much in mind and keeping the planning of the home in the portion of the site that is already open 28 and minimize the impact on the surrounding trees. 29 30 Let’s see here… The one of the slides that’s coming up if the oh there it goes. I guess you roll the, you 31 roll the roller forward is that how this works? Just trying to go forward. Well, in lieu of the PowerPoint 32 that I can’t seem to operate basically what it’s full of is images of projects that we’ve done in the past 33 that are similar and to show the very natural materials and the complementary colors and textures that 34 we try so hard to develop into our buildings. We focus on green design and sustainability. We have 35 done so for decades to the point where actually in 2005 Governor Schwarzenegger awarded us the 36 Governor’s Award for Sustainability in Design and it was very fortunate for us to receive that. We have 37 worked very hard with all sorts of every agency you could ever name. We have all the certifications. We 38 design passive homes; everything we do is Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) 39 Platinum or zero energy. We have the first passive home in Palo Alto in fact and the first passive 40 commercial building that we designed in Palo Alto, which is where our office is at 412 Olive and you’re 41 welcome to come by any time and see how it actually feels and lives and what that sort of a building 42 really means to you on a daily basis. 43 44 The in this particular site we’re bringing all of those qualities into Steve and Denise’s new home. We’re 45 trying to keep it humble, keep it natural, and at all occasions all opportunities break the home down into 46 smaller components to more appropriately fit into smaller vignette type views and spatial configurations. 47 So that at sometimes the home can function and feel as a home that is suitable for five people to be 48 living in and possibly a guest now and then and that at other times can feel can be compartmentalized 49 and the energy completely turned off in portions of it and be very comfortable in a smaller portion of the 50 home and still from every portion of the building still have the qualities of the site. Still experience the 51 meadow, the trees, the riparian corridor, the creeks, etcetera. We also had a photo in here of a bridge 52 that an idea for the bridge design so that you could see oh, there it goes. 53 54 So that’s the Governor’s Award photo. This is of some of the assemblies that we incorporate into the 55 buildings. These happen to be panels. Again, we’ve worked with these assemblies for decades and they 56 5 don’t just make themselves work sometimes. You have to really figure out how to make them work to 1 get to a zero energy building and so we have been doing that. Boy, I don’t know why… anyway there’s 2 pictures up there of the various types of solar panels, photovoltaic panels, the structured hot water 3 system, plumbing systems. We don’t waste any water because there’s the push button at every water 4 fixture that allows the water to circulate before you turn the hot water on so you don’t have to wait for 5 hot water. All of this stuff is low voltage or fed by the photovoltaic system which is also a low profile 6 system. We also try to put into the set we try to keep the source, the materials sourced locally and also 7 have ESRICC reports for them because we realize that the building codes in the Wildland Urban Interface 8 (WUI) district the Wild Urban, Wildland Urban Interface sort of criteria is very important here. 9 10 In terms of irrigation and plantings we keep it fitting to the site so that’s why the trees that we’re 11 planting are buckeyes, oaks, trees that fit well and actually we worked closely to really confirm, reconfirm 12 what those trees are we and our landscape architect, the owners of course, and City Arborist sit down 13 and decide where, what are the trees that really fit this site and its particular eco system and where on 14 the site should they be planted. So we do converse with the experts to really decide to make those kind 15 of decisions. We take that philosophy through the whole building and the site and we take it through the 16 whole construction phase. 17 18 There’s photos in here of how we recycle. We are talking about 85 percent recycling. A lot of times 19 we’re much higher than that. We have photos in here of how we grind and chip and separate and 20 recycle all of the construction waste. The inspector’s always remarking about how clean our site, 21 construction sites are because everything is so managed and reused. So in effect most of our sites we 22 say 85 percent because we want to be safe, but often the certificates we receive are in the 95 to 98 23 percent recycling. So we try hard on all those levels all the way through. So that’s, that is essentially 24 how we work and how Steve and Denise’s home will complement the site and if you have any further 25 questions I’m happy to respond to those. 26 27 Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. So let’s see does any Commissioner have questions for the applicant? 28 Otherwise what I’ll do is we’ll do public comment now. If there’s any other public comment please give it 29 to staff and you’ll be heard on this item. So can the Vice-Chair please read off the first or… ok, so I 30 guess there’s no other cards for public comment so we’re going to close the public comment part and 31 let’s just have a discussion about this item then in terms of its merits. So let’s start off with 32 Commissioner Alcheck. 33 34 MOTION 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: You know it’s funny because I was thinking of that like little quote where 37 someone says if a tree falls in a forest no one’s there to hear it does it make a sound? And then I was 38 thinking if a garage is bright orange and no one can see it does it really matter if it’s bright orange? 39 That’s sort of why I was thinking about the colors. I think your color scheme’s great. After reviewing the 40 staff report nothing has stuck out to me why we wouldn’t proceed with making this recommendation and 41 I’m happy to make that Motion. I just want to add that I’m happy you’ve chosen to build this home in 42 Palo Alto. This looks like it’s going to be a bit hit on house. The, I’m a huge fan of this mid-century 43 modern aesthetic and I just want to sort of suggest that this seems like such an ideal place to build a 44 home that incorporates a lot of this sort of light transmission so you’ve got a lot of windows and the 45 indoor/outdoor seems to be really emphasized and it’s too bad that you won’t be able to see it because 46 it’s going to be probably a nice little I would assume that it will be fun to ride by this or drive by this 47 home. So anyways if it’s ok with the Chair I’ll make the Motion to move forward with staff’s 48 recommendation. 49 50 SECOND 51 52 Commissioner Downing: Second. 53 54 Chair Tanaka: Ok this Motion has, there’s been a Motion and seconded. Does the maker of the Motion 55 want to speak to the Motion any further? 56 6 1 Commissioner Alcheck: No. 2 3 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Does the second want to speak to it? 4 5 Commissioner Downing: Sure. I’m satisfied with the findings of the staff with all the reports that we’ve 6 seen, with all these little pictures, materials. Yeah, I sometimes wish the people who came before us all 7 invited us to a housewarming. Thanks. 8 9 VOTE 10 11 Chair Tanaka: Ok. Are there any other comments? Any deliberations anyone wants to have otherwise 12 we could take this to a vote. Ok, seeing no lights on all in favor? Ok. Ok, it looks like we’re unanimous. 13 So let’s close Item 2. Before we go to Item 3 let’s take a quick five minute break because Item 3 might 14 be a little bit long. So it’s now 6:42. Let’s come back at 6:47. 15 16 MOTION PASSED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Gardias recused, Commissioner Michael absent) 17 18 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner Alcheck to move forward with staff recommendation, 19 Commissioner Downing second. Motion passed unanimously 5-0-1-1; Commissioner Gardias recused 20 himself due to conflict and Commissioner Michael absent. 21 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY April 6, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of Corrected Resolution of the Council Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution ordering weed abatement following the public hearing held on March 2, 2015. Analysis On February 2, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9489 declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting March 2, 2015 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and In accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and All persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by this Council. Due to a clerical error, the resolution which accompanied the Staff Report on March 2, 2015 was a duplicate of the resolution which accompanied the February 2, 2015 Staff Report. A copy of the February 2, 2015 Staff Report and Resolution is attached hereto as Attachment A. A copy of the March 2, 2015 Staff Report and Resolution is attached hereto as Attachment B. A corrected version of the resolution ordering weeds abated is attached as Attachment C. Recommendation For these reasons, staff recommends that Council adopt the attached corrected resolution ordering weed abatement following the public hearing held on March 2, 2015. Page 2 Resource Impact No impact on budget. Policy Implications This resolution is consistent with adopted Council policy. Environmental Review The action recommended is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment: Attachment A - Weed Abatement Staff Report and Resolution February 2015 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment B - Weed Abatement Staff Report and Resolution March 2015 (PDF)  Attachment: Attachment C - Corrected Resolution Ordering Weeds Nuisance Abated 2015 (PDF) Department Head: Molly Stump, City Attorney Page 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5444) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 2/2/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Weed Abatement Resolution Title: Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Weeds to be a Public Nuisance and Setting March 2nd, 2015 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1)Adopt the attached resolution declaring weeds to be a public nuisance and setting March 2, 2015 for a public hearing; and 2)Direct staff to publish a notice of hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Background On March 21, 1977, the City Council approved an agreement with Santa Clara County for the administration of weed abatement within the City of Palo Alto. This agreement has reduced the City’s costs and staff time required for administration of weed abatement. For the past 36 seasons, the weed abatement program has been expeditiously carried out by the County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management with results satisfactory to Palo Alto residents. Discussion Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 8.08 specifies weed abatement procedures. The chapter requires property owners or occupants to remove certain weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010 that exist upon their premises, public sidewalks, streets or alleys. It also specifies the procedures to be followed to abate weeds, in the event owners do not remove them. These procedures are: - Resolution of the City Council declaring weeds to be a public nuisance. This resolution sets the time and place for hearing any objections to the proposed weed abatement. ATTACHMENT A City of Palo Alto Page 2 - Public Notice. This notice informs property owners of the passage of the resolution and provides that property owners shall remove weeds from their property, or the abatement will be carried out by Santa Clara County (County). The City then publishes a legal advertisement in the local newspaper announcing the date of the public hearing. - Public Hearing. The Council must conduct a public hearing, at which time any property owner may appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After the City Council hearing and considering any objections the Council may allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are overruled, the Council is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to proceed, at which point the County will be asked to perform the work of destruction and removal of weeds. The action taken by the Council at the February 2, 2015 meeting will set the public hearing date for March 2, 2015. Resource Impact There is no direct fiscal impact of this action to the City. The City of Palo Alto administers the weed abatement program with the County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management with a minimal amount of staff time. All charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Such charges are considered liens on these properties. The Weed Abatement Program is a cost recovery program and does not receive funding from City or County general funds. Policy Implications This procedure is consistent with existing City policies. Environmental Review The Santa Clara County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308. Attachments:  Weed Abatement Resolution 2-2-2015 (DOCX)  SCC2015WeedAbateProgCommenceRep (PDF) ** NOT YET APPROVED ** Resolution No. ---- Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting March 2, 2015 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement WHEREAS, weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to the public health as noxious or dangerous. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2013 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event of , there being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map. SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the 2nd day of March, 2015, at the hour of 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers of the Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Office on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, and the expenses thereof assessed upon the lots and lands from which, and/or in the front and rear of which, such weeds shall have been destroyed and removed. ** NOT YET APPROVED ** SECTION 4. The Santa Clara County, County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________________ _______________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Administrative Services _________________________ Fire Chief 2015 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM COMMENCEMENT REPORT CITY OFPALO Al TO Situs AP'( EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE 1119 FLFE AV 003-21-063 JUE, KENNETH R P OBOX83 PALO ALTO CA 94302-0083 93] GUThlJA ST 003-34-006 "GOUYET, ALBERT AND CALISA C 931 GUlliTIA ST PALO ALTO CA 94301-3H9 258 MIDDLEFIELD RD •120-02.-017 "CHAPIN, RONALD V TRUSTEE" 258 MIDDLEFI3LD RD PALO ALTO CA 94301-D42 733 RAMONA ST 120-27-063 "KODA, ROSS K TRUSTEE" P OBOX 156 SOUTH DOS PALOS CA 93E65 435 SEALE AV 124-09-•J29 ''BOWERS, THOMAS A TRUSTEE & ET 435 SEALE AV PALO ALTO CA 94'.:01'-3828 2225 ALMA ST 124-20-001 "LEE, STEPHEN AND YVETTE C" 2225 ALMAST PALO ALTO CA 94'.:0L-3905 425 STANFORD AV 124-3~-027 "NICHOLLS, MARIEL" 425 STANFORD AV PALO ALTO CA 94306-1149 739 COLORADO AV 127-34-101 "HUANG, HSING YET AL" 757 SEMINOLE Vv'Y PALO ALTO CA 943C3-4723 780 CLARA DR 127-35-030 "BANQUE, RAYMOl<D J'' 7&0 CLARA DR PALO ALTO CA 94303-3;105 3101 MCDDLEFIILD RD 127-53-007 FlSHERLLC 3101 MIDDLEFIELD RD PALO ALTO CA 94306 3085 MCDDLEFIE:,D RD 127-53-008 WINDY IDLL PY 3 LP 530 EMERSON ST PALO ALTO CA 94301 609 ASHTON AV 132-04-102 "DOROTHEA, DIANA'' 509 ASIITON AV PALO ALTO CA 94306-3610 3489 COV'v'FER ST 132-05-108 "MC CALLEY, RODERlCK. C ET AL" 3489 COWPER ST PALO ALTO CA 94306-3617 3 15 .o-=.rvE AV 132-32-029 "SM111{, BOYD C AND JL.,::, J 3201 ASH ST PALO ALTO CA 94306 0 OLIVE AV 132-32-037 Sl 43 LLC 10600N DE ANZ.A BL STE 200 CUPERTINO CA 953l4 195 PAGE MILL RD 132-32-C54 HOHBACH REALTY CO LP 29 LO~RYDR ATHERTON CA 94027 0 132-33-050 AT&T Communi~ations ATT: Kichard S. 870 N. MCARTHY BL VD. MILPITAS CA 95035-5125 325 FERNJ\NDC AV 132-34-012 "REHABILITATIO~ HOUSNG 1796 BAY RD EAST PALO ALTO CA 94303 290 iV.ATADERO AV 132-34-032 "RUEHL, KARL KAND SIGRID T 2391 GABRIEL AV MOONTAN VTEW CA 940i0-!415 405 CCRTNER 132-41-072 CURTNER INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 18801 BELGROVE CL SARATOGA CA 95070 4035 EL CAMINO \VY 132-43<39 PALO AL TO COMMONS 664 GILY1AN ST PALO ALTO CA 94301 4073 ELCAMlliO 132-46-107 ETON CAPITAL LLC 252 1 SOUTH CT PALO ALTO CA 94301-4241 2321 'PELLESLEY ST 137-02-024 "CCLPEPPER, JAMES A TRUSTEE" 2121 AMJERSTST PALO ALTO CA 9L3Q6-1205 23 records of 47 Santa Clara County Weed A.batementProgram Page 1 . ···.·· • ., .••. ,.,.__ ___ ,..,_. -,· •· -··•.-.•.••··.·,-• .•r••:ii. ': ' -.:;i·.• ·~ City of Palo Alto (ID # 5445) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Weed Abatement Public Hearing Title: Public Hearing: On Objections to Weed Abatement and Adoption of Resolution #9489 Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommendation Staff recommends that Council hold a public hearing to hear and consider any objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds, and adopt the attached Resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City of Palo Alto. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto contracts with Santa Clara County Agriculture and Resource Management to remove and destroy weeds, as defined in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This hearing allows all those affected and listed on the County’s 2015 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report to be heard and have their objections and comments considered by Council before the Council adopts a resolution ordering the abatement of weed nuisances in the City. Background The Council adopted Resolution #9489 on February 2, 2015 and declared weeds to be a nuisance and ordered the abatement of that nuisance as called for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Resolution provided for a public hearing date of March 2, 2015 and required notice to interested property owners and the public. Discussion The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Resource Management administer the contract for abatement of weeds within the City of Palo Alto. Upon notification of the City Council’s February 2, 2015 action declaring weeds to be a nuisance and ordering abatement thereof, the Department of Agriculture and Resource Management took proper steps to notify each property owner by mail of the proposed weed abatement action on respective properties and posted, on the public notice bulletin board, a list of the properties affected. The Department of Agriculture and Resource Management has furnished copies of the property ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto Page 2 listing to the City Clerk and the City Fire Marshal. The City Clerk also posted and published notice of the hearing as required. At this public hearing, property owners may appear and object to the proposed weed destruction or removal. After the hearing and consideration of any objections, the council may allow or overrule any or all objections. If objections are overruled, the Council is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction to proceed with abatement of weed nuisances upon Council Adoption of the attached resolution. The County will be asked to perform the abatement work to destroy and remove any weeds. Resource Impact All Charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on bills for property taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, which are considered liens on these properties. Policy Implications This procedure is consistent with existing City policies and Chapter 8.08 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Review Santa Clara County has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Sections 15308. Attachments:  SSC2015WeedAbateProgCommenceRep (PDF)  FY2015WeedAbate&HearingResolution#9489 (DOCX) Resolution No. 9489 Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Declaring Weeds to be a Nuisance and Setting March 2, 2015 for a Public Hearing for Objections to Proposed Weed Abatement WHEREAS, weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2015 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto sufficient to constitute a public nuisance as a fire menace when dry or are otherwise combustible, or otherwise to constitute a menace to the public health as noxious or dangerous. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Weeds, as defined in Section 8.08.010(b) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which are anticipated to develop during calendar year 2015 upon streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City of Palo Alto, are hereby found and determined to constitute a public nuisance. Such nuisance is anticipated to exist upon some of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, and parcels of private property within the City, which are shown, described, and delineated on the several maps of the properties in said City which are recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, reference in each instance for the description of any particular street, alley, or parcel of private property being hereby made to the several maps aforesaid, and, in the event of , there being several subdivision maps on which the same lots are shown, reference is hereby made to the latest subdivision map. SECTION 2. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the said public nuisance be abated in the manner provided by Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a public hearing shall be held on Monday, the 2nd day of March, 2015, at the hour of 6:00 pm, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at the Council Chambers of the Civic Center of said City, at which the Council shall hear objections to the proposed weed abatement of such weeds and give any objections due consideration; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Fire Chief of the City of Palo Alto is directed to give notice of the public hearing in the time, manner and form provided in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Unless the nuisance is abated without delay by the destruction and removal of such weeds, the work of abating such nuisance will be done by the County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Resource Management Office on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, and the expenses thereof assessed upon the lots and lands from which, and/or in the front and rear of which, such weeds shall have been destroyed and removed. SECTION 4. The Santa Clara County, County Counsel has determined the Weed Abatement Program to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15308. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________________ _______________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ________________________________ Director of Administrative Services _________________________ Fire Chief NOT YET APPROVED 1 Resolution No. _______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated R E C I T A L S A. On February 2, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution No. 9489 declaring weeds to be a nuisance and setting March 2, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Civic Center as the time and place for a hearing of objections to the proposed destruction and removal of weeds; and B. In accordance with said Resolution, notice of such hearing was given in the manner provided by law, as appears from the affidavits on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and C. All persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard, and all matters and things pertaining to said weed abatement were fully heard and considered by this Council. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Any and all objections to the proposed destruction and removal of such weeds are overruled. SECTION 2. The Fire Chief hereby is ordered to do all things necessary and authorized in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to abate such nuisance, or cause the same to be abated by contract with the County of Santa Clara. // // // // // // // // ATTACHMENT C NOT YET APPROVED 2 SECTION 3. The County of Santa Clara as lead agency has determined that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as an action by regulatory agencies authorized by state or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Fire Chief _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5670) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Assistant City Manager Appointment Title: Confirmation of Appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement From: City Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Recommendation The City Manager recommends that the City Council confirm the appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and approve her employment agreement. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires that the Council approve the City Manager’s appointment of Assistant City Manager. The Council must also approve any employment terms or benefits for the Assistant City Manager that are not already included in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel. Background The City Manager makes appointments to the position of Assistant City Manager with the approval of the City Council. (Municipal Code section 2.08.020.) The Assistant City Manager provides executive-level support and assistance to City Departments and may act on behalf of the City Manager at City Council meetings, with members of the public and in other venues. Filling the position at this time will promote effective operations of the City and provide strategic resources to advance Council priorities. Discussion The City Manager requests approval of the appointment of Suzanne Rosen Mason to the position of Assistant City Manager. Ms. Mason was selected as a result of an extensive search conducted by the executive recruitment firm of Teri Black Recruiting. The Assistant City Manager position has been vacant for a year. (Conversion of an Assistant to the City Manager position to a second Assistant City Manager was approved in the FY 2015 Budget. That position is still in recruitment.) City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Mason has diverse experiences relevant to Palo Alto. She has served as the Director of Human Resources in Napa County since 2009. Prior to her work in Napa, she held a variety of key positions in the City of Long Beach including Director of Human Resources, Deputy City Manager, and Manager of Business Operations for both the Energy and Parks Departments. She has a Master’s degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern California and attended the Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. Resource Impact Ms. Mason will be an “at will” employee, which means she will serve at the pleasure of the City Manager and can be terminated or asked to resign at any time. Her annual salary will be $220,000, which is within the Council-approved range for the Assistant City Manager position. The employment agreement includes a taxable stipend of $2,500 per month for rental housing within the City of Palo Alto. Rental housing assistance is not a customary benefit that the City has provided in recent years. The City is finding, however, that the high cost of housing in the region and specifically Palo Alto is creating barriers to attracting experienced, high-quality applicants, particularly at the executive level. The City Manager recommends approving the rental stipend for Ms. Mason. Ms. Mason will also be entitled severance equivalent to three months salary and benefits if she is terminated or asked to resign, which is appropriate for an executive-level employee who is leaving current employment and relocating to accept an at-will appointment. All of the other benefits Ms. Mason will receive are consistent with the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel. Once confirmed, Ms. Mason will begin work on May 5, 2015. Policy Implications This recommendation is consistent with existing City Policies. Attachments:  Attachment: Assistant City Manager-Mason- Emp Agreement Final JRK (DOCX) 1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SUZANNE ROSEN MASON THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city ("City") and Suzanne Rosen Mason ("Mason”). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page. This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts: A. City, acting by and through its City Manager, wishes to employ Mason as an Assistant City Manager, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter"). B. Under the Charter, the Assistant City Manager is appointed by the City Manager with the approval of the City Council. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the Assistant City Manager serves on an at-will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal. C. Mason desires to be employed by the City as an Assistant City Manager, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies. D. The City and Mason wish to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits and related matters. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY AND MASON AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Employment. The City appoints Mason as an Assistant City Manager for an indefinite term to begin on May 5, 2015. If Mason does not actually report for or start work on May 5, 2015, the employment start date will be the date, if any, that is mutually agreed by the parties. Except as otherwise provided herein, Mason’s employment with the City shall be governed by the City Council- adopted Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 2. Duties of the Assistant City Manager. Mason will perform the duties established for the Assistant City Manager by the Palo Alto City Charter, by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, by direction given by the City Manager, and as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. Mason agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties. 2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Mason will devote her full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of her duties. 2 2.2. No Conflict. Mason will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with or which interferes with the performance of her duties. Mason acknowledges that she is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations. 2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. Mason will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or not, without written permission of the City Manager. 3. Salary. While performing the duties of Assistant City Manager, Mason will receive a base salary within the range provided in the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. Mason will receive an initial gross base annual salary of two hundred twenty thousand ($220,000), beginning on the Employment Start Date. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Mason is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and her base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Mason's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4. Benefits and Allowances. Mason will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extent paid by the City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave, as are generally provided to management employees under the City Council- approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. 5. Additional Benefits and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specified in section 4, Mason will receive the following additional benefits and allowances: 5.1. Vacation Accrual. Notwithstanding the Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees Compensation Plan and based on service with prior public agency employers, Mason's vacation accrual rate will be calculated at the rate of two hundred (200) hours annually, prorated and credited each pay period. The maximum vacation leave balance allowed for Mason is six hundred (600) hours. 5.2. Rental Housing Stipend. So long as Mason resides in Palo Alto as Assistant City Manager, the City will provide Mason with a total amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) per month, subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, as a rental housing stipend. 3 5.3. Severance. If Mason is terminated or asked to resign she shall, upon execution of a release of all claims against the City, be eligible for a severance payment equivalent to twelve (12) weeks of salary and benefits, excluding the amount of the housing stipend described in paragraph 5.2 of this agreement. No severance shall be paid if Mason is terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of her office or position, including but not limited to waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of authority, misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment or discrimination. If Mason is later convicted of a crime involving such abuse of her position she shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section 53243.3. 6. Additional Expenses of Employment. The City shall pay the cost of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for the Assistant City Manager. 7. Duration of Employment. Mason understands and agrees that she has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in her employment as Assistant City Manager. Mason waives any and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Regulations, including without limitation, the right to pre-or post-disciplinary due process. Mason understands and agrees that she works at the will and pleasure of the City Manager and that she may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause. Mason may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager. 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by facsimile (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection. CITY: Attn: City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329-2226 Fax: (650) 328-3631 MASON: Suzanne Rosen Mason 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 8.2. Entire Agreement/ Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and 4 understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto. 8.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County. 8.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated. 8.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties. 8.6. Representation by Counsel. Mason and the City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it. 8.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection. MASON ___________________________ Suzanne Rosen Mason Date: _____________ CITY OF PALO ALTO ___________________________ City Manager Date: _____________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Deputy City Attorney City of Palo Alto (ID # 5581) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Track Watch Contract Amendment and Budget Amendment Ordinance Title: Adoption of a Contract Amendment with Val Security and a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the Amount of $175,000 to Increase the Project Safety Net Fund and Decrease the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve:  An Amendment Number Four to the contract with Val Security, increasing compensation by $298,000 (or from $225,000 to $523,000 over fours year 2011-2015) in payment of additional services that were and are to be rendered in FY 2015.  A Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $175,000 offset with the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund – Community Health and Safety Reserve. Background Since 2009, the City has used the services of contract security guards in response to the teen deaths that have occurred at the rail line. A guard has been stationed at the Charleston and East Meadow crossings from 6:15 pm to 1:15 am during the November 2009 – October 2014 time frame. Between 2009 and 2011 five teen deaths occurred on the rail line, all in the vicinity of the two crossings mentioned above. The monthly cost for security services was approximately $5,000. No additional teen deaths occurred at the rail line until four incidents between October 2014 and March 2015. After the first teen death in October 2014, security coverage was increased to begin at 3:00 pm (high school dismissal time) and the Churchill crossing near the Palo Alto High School campus was added as a precaution. The second death occurred in early November. Subsequent newspaper reports incorrectly listed a location south of the California Avenue Cal Train station as the location of the death. It was also reported to Community Services staff that some teens had been City of Palo Alto Page 2 gathering and a memorial had been erected at the California Avenue Cal Train station; the Palo Alto Police Department dismantled the memorial as best practices protocol recommends. The Project Safety Net (PSN) Leadership Team along with Public Safety staff recognized that the community was at high risk of additional suicides. In consultation with the PSN Leadership Team, Public Safety and City Manager’s Office, Community Services staff increased track security coverage to include the California Avenue Cal Train Station and have security guards on duty all hours the Cal Train and freight trains are in operation: 4:15 am –2:30 am (or until the last freight train passes through Palo Alto, which may occur at an earlier time). Since November 2014, security guards have been stationed at four locations on the rail line (Churchill, East Meadow and Charleston crossings and the California Avenue Cal Train Station.) Discussion Staff amended the current contract with Val Security to quickly increase staff levels at rail intersections. This resulted in increased expenditures of $123,000 between October and 2014 and March 2015. Due to the urgency of responding to the teen deaths in fall, the City Manager, at his discretion, authorized this spending above the Val Security approved contract amount of $225,000. The current cost of services is $40,500/month. Although the third teen suicide in January 2015 did not occur at the rail line, staff believes that it is imperative to keep the current level of track security coverage at the rail line. Palo Alto is once again experiencing a teen suicide cluster and the rail line has been the dominant location of the deaths. Since the first death in the most recent cluster, staff has been alerted by Palo Alto Unified School District staff and local psychologists of additional teens at high risk of suicide who have referenced the rail line. Whenever Community Services Department staff was notified of these heightened risks, the Palo Alto Police Department, San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department (who has jurisdiction over the rail line) and the security guards have been notified to be on high alert. Community Services Department staff, the City Manager’s Office, Palo Alto Police Department, and the Project Safety Net Leadership Committee feel that the current level of coverage is both warranted and the responsible thing for the City to do. On March 6, 2015, representatives from the City of Palo Alto (Jim Keene – City Manager, Dennis Burns – Police Chief, Ken Dueker, Director of Emergency Operations, Rob de Geus – Director of Community Services, Claudia Keith – Chief Communications Officer, and Richard Hackmann – Management Analyst) met with leadership staff from Caltrain (Jim Harnett – CEO, Gigi Harrington – Deputy CEO, Safety & Security, Chuck Harvey, Deputy CEO of Operations, Jayme Ackermann – Communications Manager, and Lt. Vicky O’Brien – Caltrain Transit Police.) They discussed safety improvements along the rail corridor such as higher fencing as well as shrub and tree removal. They also discussed ways in which the City and Caltrain can work together on media coverage City of Palo Alto Page 3 and the need to revisit the media guidelines with Peninsula reporters to ensure more responsible coverage of corridor incidents. Caltrain expressed interest in supporting Palo Alto's efforts on mental health initiatives. Caltrain also requested that the City shift the management of the Track Watch contract from the Community Services Department to the Police department; that change will occur soon. Resource Impact The current FY 2015 CSD budget includes $75,000 for Track Security. The funding source for Project Safety Net (PSN) expenses are funded by the $2 million Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund – Community Health and Safety allocation for Project Safety Net. To date, the entire Track Security budget, in addition to other existing FY 2015 PSN approved funding in the amount of $123,000 was allocated to pay for part of the additional Track Security services for FY 2015. With the existing funding, the services of the current contract will be paid pending approval of the Amendment No. 4 contract amendment. In order to pay for current invoices for this critical service, the City Manager authorized payments in the amount of $123,000 in advance of this staff report seeking authorization to exceed the contract amount of $225,000. In order to fully meet projected Track Security expenses for 2015 from March 1 until June 30 at the current level of service, staff is requesting approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) of $175,000. The BAO recommends funding this expense from the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund – Community Health and Safety allocation. Policy Implications Due to the current teen suicide crisis, the City Manager, at his discretion due to public safety concerns, authorized spending above the Val Security contract limit of $225,000 by $123,000. This staff report retro-actively seeks Council authorization for spending past $225,000 for FY 2015 for expenses that has occurred and is anticipated. Attachments:  Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance (DOCX)  Attachment B: Amendment 4_Val Security_Rail Line Security Services (DOC) 1 5581/mb Revised September 20, 2013 Ordinance No. XXXX ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $175,000 FROM THE STANFORD MEDICAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FUND TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROJECT SAFETY NET PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES FOR THE TRACK WATCH PROGRAM 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 2009, the City of Palo Alto has used contract security guard services at the Charleston and East Meadow crossings to provide rail safety and security to prevent teen suicide and accidental death; and C. In November 2014, in response to increased frequency of teen suicides, the City of Palo Alto Project Safety Net Track Watch program increased track security coverage to include the California Ave station and Churchill crossing; and D. Due to the enhanced level of service currently provided, the existing appropriation for the Track Watch program will need to be increased by $175,000 to maintain the current service level through the end of the fiscal year. SECTION 2. Therefore, the sum of One Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000) is hereby appropriated to the Community Services Department Project Safety Net Program and the ending fund balance in the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund is decreased by One Seventy Five Thousand dollars. 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. // // // // // 2 5581/mb Revised September 20, 2013 INTRODUCED AND PASSED: Enter Date Here AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ____________________________ Director of Community Services City of Palo Alto (ID # 5657) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of 429 University Avenue Mixed Use Project Title: Appeal of the Planning and Community Environment Director's Architectural Review Approval of a 31,407 s.f., Four Story, Mixed Use Building With Parking Facilities on Two Subterranean Levels Requested by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on Behalf of Kipling Post LP to Replace Two One-story Commercial/Retail Buildings on an 11,000 s.f. Site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) Zone District Located at 429 University Avenue From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council uphold the Director’s determination on the consent calendar. Executive Summary The proposed project is a new 31,407 square foot (s.f.), four story, mixed-use building with two levels of subterranean parking. Retail is proposed on the ground floor, office on the second floor, three residential units on the third floor, and office and one residential unit on the fourth floor. The project is located on a 11,000 s.f. site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zone district addressed as 429 University Avenue (Attachment A – Project Location Map). The project replaces two existing one-story buildings. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended approval of the project on a 4-0-0-1 vote after three public hearings. The Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the project and the environmental document on February 25, 2015. The Director’s determination reflects the ARB’s recommendation, but includes an additional condition requiring a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the commercial component of the project. The attached appeal was submitted within the prescribed appeal period. The appeal by Michael Harbour, along with 24 co-signers, is related to four main topics: 1. the aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the character of the City of Palo Alto Page 2 Downtown University Avenue District, 2. the aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the surrounding heritage buildings on University Avenue and Kipling Street, 3. the project’s access, circulation, and parking provisions, and potential traffic and parking impacts on adjacent streets, and 4. the proposed ground-floor retail space as compared to the existing condition. The appellant presented similar objections verbally and in writing during the three ARB public hearings. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.77.070(f) requires placement of an appealed project on the Council consent calendar within 30 days of the submittal of the appeal, and it takes a minimum of three Councilmembers to pull an Architectural Review appeal off the consent calendar. The alternatives available to the Council include: 1. Affirm the Director’s approval (approving the project on consent calendar), 2. Remove the item from the consent (requires four votes) and schedule a public hearing. While in theory, the Council could hear the appeal on the same night it pulls the item from consent, doing so would require the Council to review the Director’s action and make a decision based on the record (without accepting new evidence). Instead, staff recommends that – if the item is removed from consent – a hearing date be set for May 4, 2015. This would allow the Council to hear additional evidence, and would also allow staff time to prepare more detailed responses to the issues raised on appeal, and a draft Record of Land Use Action. This project and the resultant appeal touch on several current policy conversations the Council and community are having related to downtown development activity, retail preservation, office development, housing, and parking. The property owner has availed herself of code permitted transfer of development rights, including 5,000 square feet of parking-exempt TDRs (which is equivalent to 20 vehicular parking spaces). The site was previously assessed and the owner is paying into the assessment district for 37 parking spaces. These factors effectively reduce the amount of parking required onsite, but it remains that the project complies with municipal regulations. The appellant raises other context-based arguments about the project’s compatibility with the neighborhood, traffic impacts and historic resources, which are at odds with the ARB’s and Director’s conclusions. Included with this report are all relevant records, including (draft) verbatim transcripts of the ARB meetings (Attachments E, F, G) and public comments (Attachment I). This material is provided to inform the Council’s decision to consider the appeal or accept the Director’s determination on consent. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Background The subject project was submitted on June 19, 2014. The project is a new four-story, mixed-use building containing 20,407 sf of commercial floor area ( a 1.86:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)) and 11,000 sf of residential floor area (1.0:1 FAR). The total of 31,407 sf floor area (2.86:1) is within the maximum allowable floor area of 32,000 sf (2.91:1 FAR) with Transferable Development Rights in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The property is located at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The properties have been assessed and had paid ‘in lieu’ fees for a total of 37 parking spaces not provided on-site. The project includes approximately 9,200 square feet of transferred development rights. Five thousand of those TDRs are exempt from parking, which reduces required parking by 20 spaces. These parking exempt TDRs were established prior to the current parking exempt TDR ban. Parking is provided in two levels of subterranean parking. Forty spaces are provided onsite. The total spaces normally required based on the mix of land uses and floor area is 92 spaces. Accordingly, the project provides five additional spaces beyond code: 92 (required) – 37 (parking assessment) – 20 (parking-exempt TDR) – 40 (provided onsite) = 5 extra parking spaces. Ingress and egress to parking is from Lane 30, which is a one-way alley exiting on Kipling Street. The project was approved on February 25, 2015, based on a recommendation from the ARB, as reflected in the approval letter (Attachment C). The Director’s approval included the Architectural Review approval and the adoption of the MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment J). ARB Review and Recommendation The ARB reviewed the project plans, received written public comments and oral public testimony at three public hearings. The ARB had also conducted a Preliminary Review of concept plans in November 2013.1 1 The relevant ARB reports, with all attachments, initial study and appendices thereto, and project plans are viewable on the City’s website at the links provided below:  ARB November 7, 2013 Preliminary Review report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37588  ARB November 20, 2014 report, Attachment H: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44755  ARB January 15, 2015 report, Attachment F, inclusive of November 20, 2104 excerpt verbatim minutes and initial study/MND: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45512  ARB February 19, 2015 report, Attachment D, inclusive of Initial Study/MND: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/45974  Project plans recommended by the ARB and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37684 City of Palo Alto Page 4 The ARB conducted the first public hearing on November 20, 2014 and discussed the aesthetic quality of the project. The ARB requested the applicant to reconsider: the project’s scale, massing configuration, façade treatment, and transition relative to the context. The applicant modified and presented the project plans in the January 15, 2015 ARB hearing. The main modifications included: 1. repositioning the stair and elevator shafts to reduce their appearance from street view, reducing the height of stair shaft, and stepping back upper floors to enhance the building’s transition with smaller scale structures along Kipling Street; 2. dividing façade segments and stepping back upper floors along University Avenue to respect the general pattern of facades along the street; 3. replacing vehicular parking with landscape planters and bicycle lockers to enhance the environment on Lane 30. The ARB members were generally in favor of the modifications and provided additional comments relating to architectural details, the placement of public art, and the corner treatment at the junction of University Avenue and Kipling Street. On February 19, 2015, the applicant modified and presented the project plans. The main modifications focused on: 1. fine-tuning design details (adjusting railing and storefront glass translucence); 2. further setting back the second and third floor balconies to make a better transition with buildings on Kipling Street; 3. locating public art from the lobby to the exterior wall of the building facing Kipling Street. During the public hearing, the ARB also discussed the project’s potential impact upon parking and traffic conditions on Kipling Street, and noted that concerns regarding the existing road conditions of Kipling Street were appropriate for a policy discussion. The ARB recommendation was based upon the Architectural Review Approval Findings and Context Based Design Criteria Findings on pages 1-5 of Attachment A to the February 19, 2015 staff report (Attachment D, includes attachments). The ARB recommended approval of the project on February 19, 2015. Discussion  Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reviewed by ARB and approved by Director: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44785  Appendices to IS/MND: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44807 City of Palo Alto Page 5 The appeal (Attachment B) was filed in a timely manner, within 14 days following the Director’s decision. The appellant is Michael Harbour, the property owner of 421-423 Kipling Street. The appeal includes 24 co-signers. Staff has summarized the key appeal statements as follows: 1. Aesthetic Quality. The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the character of the Downtown University Avenue District, 2. Historic Character. The aesthetic quality of the approved design and its impact on the surrounding heritage buildings, 3. Parking and Traffic Impacts. The project’s access/circulation, parking and transportation arrangements and their impacts to adjacent streets, and; 4. Ground Floor Retail Preservation. The proposed ground-floor retail space as compared to the existing condition. The appellant presented verbally at all three ARB public hearings and submitted various written letters for similar objections as noted in the appeal letter. Below is more information about the appeal followed by initial staff comments. If the project is scheduled for a public hearing, staff will provide a more detailed response to the appeal statements. Aesthetic Quality The appellant expresses concern with the project’s building size, style and massing, and finds it out of context with Kipling Street and University Avenue. The appellant conducted an inventory and analysis of structures near the project site, and concluded that the project is incompatible with its context because it is ‘overly tall, massive and architecturally dissimilar’ and has ‘nothing in common stylistically’. Where the Comprehensive Plan provides policy direction, the Zoning Ordinance provides specific quantitative limits to regulate the sizes of development, and the Context-based design criteria and the Downtown Urban Design Guide provide qualitative guidance to ensure the aesthetic quality of development respects the surrounding context. The project is a building that complies with the zoning regulations of the CD-C district. The project meets the development standards relating to building setbacks, site coverage, height, daylight plane, and floor area ratio, and does not require approval of design enhancement exceptions or a variance. The attached determination letter further details the project’s conformance with specific findings, including context-based findings. Notwithstanding code compliance, the project is subject to discretionary review. While the ARB and Director found the project consistent with required findings, the Council on appeal may reach the same or different conclusion based on the administrative record. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Historic Character The appeal notes concerns about the project’s potential impacts to nearby historic buildings. Although the project site is within the vicinity of buildings listed on the City’s local Historical Resources Inventory, the project is not located within the vicinity of a designated historic district recognized by local, state or national historic registers requiring the establishment of visual and historic linkages. According to the Historical Architectural Evaluation (HAE) prepared by Preservation Architecture (and peer reviewed by the City’s environmental consultant), there are no previously identified historic districts in the vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the HAE found that there is no apparent collection of resources, thematically or architecturally, that may constitute an identifiable historic district that would include the subject property. The Downtown area is comprised of buildings that spans several periods of development, and no particular period, style or building type is prevalent. As described in the HAE, several historic structures are located in the vicinity of the project site, including properties listed in the City’s Inventory and in the National Register of Historic Places. The historic structure that is nearest to the project site is a Category 3 building, listed on the City’s local Historic Resource Inventory, located west of the project site. The proposed work, which is limited to the project site, would not have any physical or material effect on nearby individual historic structures, including the adjacent Category 3 structure. Standard conditions for construction activities would be applied to help ensure the project would not adversely affect the historical and architectural integrity of existing individual historic structures in the vicinity of the project site. Parking and Traffic Impacts The appeal references various statements in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultant, Inc., dated October 20, 2014. The appellant states concerns that the traffic pattern, trip generation and queuing time would exacerbate the road capacity and safety conditions of Kipling Street. The Initial Study (Attachment J, pages 34 through 39) addresses parking and traffic, and references the TIA, which concluded that the new building would provide adequate corner sight distance at the exit of the alley (Lane 30) for drivers to see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. To ensure adequate visibility of the alley for vehicles exiting the garage, mirror installations at the parking garage driveway are required to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30 (Condition of approval #20). The trip generation estimates outlined in the TIA applied the applicable trip generation rates, published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, to the existing and proposed building, which is consistent with the City’s guidelines for traffic analysis. Based on the project’s size, the anticipated level of traffic impacts are less than significant. While the environmental analysis did not conclude a significant environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act, Kipling Street is a narrow street and typically requires the ‘queuing’ or ‘taking turns’ for vehicles to pass each other slowly. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ground Floor Retail The appeal notes concern regarding the loss of ground floor retail space associated with the development. The policy referenced in the appeal letter is a draft policy prepared by the Planning & Transportation Commission for the Comprehensive Plan update and has not been formally adopted. While the CD-C zoning district does not have a minimum area requirement for ground floor retail use, the proposed development is consistent with regulations for the ground floor (GF) and pedestrian shopping (P) combining districts by providing retail space on the ground floor with pedestrian design features. The proposed first floor of the project is primarily for retail use, other uses include lobby, elevator and stairway access to upper floors, trash receptacles, mechanical room, garage ramp and bicycle lockers. It is correct that the area of staircases, the elevator and the ramp to reach the below grade parking facility for the retail, office and residential uses would displace some amount of ground floor retail space. The existing retail area on the ground floor is 8,800 sf, comprised of recessed entrances, retail area, storage area and restrooms. The proposed retail area (not including floor area of two required stairs, elevator and elevator lobby, garage ramp, exit hallways, trash areas for other uses, mechanical rooms, and open site areas formed by the alley setback, and bicycle locker/utility service area) is 7,160 sf. Resource Impacts There are no significant fiscal or budget impacts associated with this recommendation. Environmental Review The proposed project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated. With a required 20-day public review, the comment period for this project began from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached as Attachment J. Attachments:  Attachment A - Project Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B - Appeal filed March 11, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment C - Director's Decision dated February 25, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment D - February 19, 2015 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment E - February 19, 2015 ARB Excerpt Verbatim Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment F - January 15, 2015 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment G: January 15, 2015 ARB Excerpt Verbatim Minutes (DOC)  Attachment H - November 20, 2014 ARB Staff Report (November 20, 2014 ARB Excerpt Verbatim Minutes is available in the January 15, 2015 ARB Staff Report) (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment J - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF) All Saints Episcopal Church 7-11 Garden Court Hotel Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop W FLO REN C E ST REET KIPLIN G STREET LYTTON AVEN UE W AVERLEY STREET TREET ETT AVENUE VE NUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE C O W PER STREET KIPLIN G STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE C O WPER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA MILTON AVENUE WPER STREET TASS O STREET LANE 20 EAST LAN E 30 LANE 20 W EST 301 337 339 323 317 400 420 332 30 353 355 367 418 431 401 366 436426 #1-7 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 314 338 340 560 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429 425 415-419 405 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 4 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432 428 460-476 450 4 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 437327 333 407 401 385 411 452 344-348 328 456 321 325 330 460 474 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489-499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405401 441 480-498 34 351 355 359 525 430 47 3 332- 342 500-528 54 0 53 0 531-535 579 567 555 408 412 440 435 445 32 8 447 515 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 435433 37 5 530 415 305 -313 405 508 482 330 349 31 2 443 445 447 335 506 327 469 321319 PF 74 CD-C(GF)(P))PF 4611 RMD (NP) PC-4052PF CD-C (P)PC-429 6 P C-4436 Varsity Theatre This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'150' 425 and 429-447 University Ave Project Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-11-13 13:52:22429University CF (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C City of Palo Alto (ID # 5524) Architectural Review Board ARB Staff Report Report Type: New Business Meeting Date: 2/19/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 14PLN-00222 429 University Avenue Title: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. On Behalf Of Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two one-story commercial/retail buildings with a total of 11,633 sf and construct a 31,407 sf, four-story, mixed use building with a below grade, 40-space parking facility on two levels, on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration public review period was November 17, 2014 through December 12, 2014. The hearing of this item was continued from the January 15, 2015 ARB meeting to this date. From: Amy French Lead Department: Architectural Review Board RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the Architectural Review findings (Attachment A) and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The project is for the demolition of two one-story commercial/retail buildings (11,633 sf of gross floor area) and the construction of a 31,407 sf, four-story, mixed use building with a below grade, 40-space parking facility on two levels, on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. The ARB initially reviewed this project on November 20, 2014 and again on January 15, 2015. The January 15, 2015 ARB staff report included the following: A summary of project modifications made since the November 20, 2014 ARB hearing; Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan conformance, zoning compliance, parking and circulation, trees and landscaping, Context-based design considerations; and Attchment D City of Palo Alto Page 2  The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The ARB continued the review to the February 19, 2015 and provided the following comments:  The store front rhythm along University Avenue is improved, with distinct façades for each lot frontage;  The corner treatment abutting Lane 30 and Kipling Street is improved, given adjustments to the massing and articulation on the upper floors. However, the perceived massing of the third floor can be reduced further by holding back the canopy and/or setting back the terrace;  The placement of public art needs to be visually accessible by the public;  A frosted railing is recommended, to shield residents’ personal property items from public view, given the commercial context along University Avenue;  While some ARB members concurred that the proposed corner design at the junction of University Avenue and Kipling Street is consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide, others recommended the applicant continue to explore other corner designs that would enhance the pedestrian experience;  The landscaping element shall extend to the utility area abutting Lane 30; and  More details are required on the landscape design for the proposed planters. The most recent plan set responding to these comments has been uploaded to the City’s website as a courtesy for the public to view the changes. CURRENT PROPOSAL The applicant modified the project plans to address the aesthetic concerns regarding architectural details, the placement of public art and the building’s transition to the Kipling neighborhood east of the site. The applicant provided a description of the modifications in Attachment F, excerpted here: University Avenue Modifications 1. Railings: The residential railings at the third floor will have a translucent white frosting to shield from public view any personal property that might be stored on the balconies. Additionally, since these will be apartments, the owner is concerned about what is stored on the balconies and will monitor this with the tenants. The fourth floor commercial railing will have transparent glass to bring the feel of downtown to the terrace. 2. Storefront glass: The ground floor retail windows will be clear glass. Kipling Modifications 1. Railings: The residential railings at the third floor will receive the same translucent white frosting and the owner’s oversight of tenant storage items, as on the University side. The railings at corner balconies above the lobby will have transparent glass to give the area an open feel. 2. Storefront glass: The ground floor retail windows will be clear glass. City of Palo Alto Page 3 3. Increased setbacks: The second floor and third floor balconies adjacent to the stair element have been pushed away from the alley by 1.5 additional feet to make a better transition to the Kipling buildings. Additionally, the metal canopy at the third floor elevator entrance has been pushed back from Kipling five (5) feet, and from the alley 16”, to improve the transition to Kipling. Alley Modifications 1. Railings: The railings at the alley will be transparent. 2. Landscaping: A new landscape report (included in the drawing set as drawing L-1) provides details for the plant material proposed in the built-in planters and in the new concrete containers added to demarcate the bike area. The landscape report also describes the containers and planting on the fourth floor terrace. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan and Zoning compliance The revised plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=37684) would not change the mixed-use program, total gross floor area, building setbacks, lot coverage, building height and material palette from the plans presented January 15, 2015. The proposed land uses remain in conformance with the applicable policies found in the Comprehensive Plan. The project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive Plan is discussed within Attachment E. The project is eligible for an on-site parking exemption under the Municipal Code. The long term policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan related to parking are further discussed below:  Program T-2: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. This project is a mixed use development in the Downtown employment center with housing and commercial services. The project is designed to create an inviting pedestrian and bicycle environment that supports walking, bicycling and reduced dependence on cars.  Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. The project site was previously assessed for parking not provided on site; instead, an ‘in lieu’ fee was paid for the parking acquisition or improvements within the University Avenue parking assessment district. In addition, the Municipal Code allows for transfer of development rights (TDR) floor area that is not “parked”, as long as the TDR area was documented prior to the Council’s 2013 action on “exempt” floor area. The applicant is not requesting a parking reduction, and will provide five additional parking spaces beyond the on-site parking requirement. To encourage the reduction of parking demand and increased transit use, staff included a draft condition of approval allowing for implementation of a transportation demand management program. City of Palo Alto Page 4  Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. The project is surrounded by buildings with commercial uses; however, it appears there is at least one residence on the Kipling block between University and Lytton Avenues. The applicant proposes to locate the required parking spaces on site.  Program T-53 states: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. The below grade parking facility would not intrude into an adjacent residential neighborhood (the Kipling block is commercially zoned and used primarily for commercial use). Zoning Compliance With the exception of a ten foot rear setback for the residential component, the CD-C(GF)(P) zone district standards do not limit the building’s site coverage nor require minimum setbacks from property lines. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) CD-C Zone District Chapter 18.18, Section 18.18.060 (b) Mixed Use Development Standards do not require property line setbacks for the commercial portion of the building. The revised plan is consistent with the previous plan, providing the required 10 foot rear setback to the residential wall. The second, third and fourth floor balconies begin at approximately four feet from the rear property line. Residential balconies are allowed to extend up to six (6) feet into the 10 foot residential (per PAMC Section 18.18.060 (b)). The new building would meet the 50 foot height limit, while the height of the proposed utility and mechanical features would be below the maximum height limit of 15 feet above the roof. The allowable floor area for the new building is 22,000 sf (twice the lot size, or a 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)), with a maximum of 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sf) for residential use and 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sf) for commercial uses. The applicant proposes to transfer bonus floor area, in accordance with the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, in the amount of 9,207 sf. The TDR floor area has been gathered from eligible sender sites and documented to increase the commercial floor area of this project. The applicant also requests a one-time 200 sf floor area bonus (available for non-seismic and non- historic buildings)1. The revised plan includes the same total gross floor area of 31,407 sf consistent with the previous plans (which is an FAR of 2.86:1). The distribution of commercial space (20,407 sf, or an FAR of 1.86:1) and residential space (11,000 sf, a 1.0:1 FAR) remains the same. The zoning compliance table (Attachment D) sets forth the project’s compliance with zoning regulations. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District 1 Though the parking exemption for the 200 square foot bonus floor area was eliminated by Council action in 2013, the bonus floor area still remains for eligible properties. City of Palo Alto Page 5 PAMC Chapter 18.30(B) Pedestrian (P) Shopping Combining District, Section 18.30(B).040 requires “Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways or covered recessed areas for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet.” The site has 210 feet of street frontage (100’ on University Avenue and 110’ on Kipling Street), so 315 sf of recessed area is required. The revised plans indicate 326 sf of recessed area is proposed (152 sf along University and 174 sf along Kipling); therefore the recessed area requirement is met for street frontages. The revised plan would maintain three entries on University Avenue and two entries on Kipling Street, each recessed from the property lines and featuring a glass canopy. The proposed design incorporates frameless storefront glass clad with glass ceramic panels on the ground level. This design meets the retail/display window requirement, to provide visual interest for pedestrians. The current proposal maintains the previously proposed right-angle corner at the intersection of Kipling Street and University Avenue. The landscape planters proposed at the northwest corner facing Kipling Street would preclude blank walls and provide a transition to the adjacent low density neighborhood. To minimize the residential appearance of the third floor balconies along University Avenue, the applicant proposes a frosted railing. The frosted railing would start from the project south elevation, continue along University Avenue frontage, and wrap around the northeast corner of the building. Other above ground railings (facing Kipling and Lane 30) will be clear glass. Trees and Landscaping The revised plan is consistent with the previous plan, in that London Plane trees would still be planted along the project site abutting University Avenue, and the four Kipling Street trees would still be replaced with four 36” box sized Golden Maidenhair trees. In the revised plan, the ground floor landscape planter at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street would include a living wall along the planter parallel to Lane 30. The current proposal replaces the three bollards that were proposed in previous plan with three landscape containers to screen the bicycle parking area. Minimal landscaping is proposed on the second and third floors. Where six concrete planters were proposed in previous plan, the current plan reflects five concrete planters on the fourth floor paved terrace. The applicant has provided a description of the proposed landscape on Sheet L.1 of the most recent plan set. Public Art The revised plan includes a preferred location for the installation of on-site public art. In the previous plan, the applicant proposed to locate public art on an interior wall in the ground floor lobby fronting Kipling Street. The revised plan proposes the placement of public art on the exterior wall of the stair shaft fronting Kipling Street. The ARB may provide advice on the placement of public art in relation to the site design and especially provide comments on the extent of the visibility of the wall shown for the art from the public right of way. The public Art Commission will review the final location and design for the public art. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Parking and Circulation The current proposal would not change the number of parking spaces proposed in the previous plan; 40 automobile parking spaces are proposed in the subterranean garage on site. The proposed project would require 82 automobile parking spaces for 20,407 sf of commercial use (at a ratio of one parking space for every 250 sf) and 10 residential spaces for four residential units (at a ratio of two spaces for each unit, with guest parking), for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, both buildings at 425 University and 429-447 University Avenue were previously assessed and had paid ‘in lieu’ fees for a total of 37 parking spaces not provided on these sites, via the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The proposed project utilizes a total of 9,207 sf of TDR area, of which 5,000 sf (equivalent to 20 parking spaces) was recorded under Section 18.18.070, prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance No. 5214 (November 4, 2013) and thus qualifies for a parking exemption for 20 parking spaces. The remaining 4,207 sf of TDR floor area (equivalent to 17 parking spaces) were perfected after the interim parking ordinance and thus must be parked. Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 parking spaces, of which 10 must be designated for residential parking. The 40 automobile parking spaces would be located in the two-level underground garage. The number provided exceeds the parking requirement by five spaces, given the prior assessments and the exempt floor area. The revised plans reflect four bike lockers at grade in the recessed area at the rear, and four bike lockers within the subterranean garage level one. The proposal still includes six (6) short term bicycle parking spaces on the sidewalks of both frontages (via two, two-sided racks on University and one, two-sided rack on Kipling). As noted, the current proposal still maintains at least a four (4) foot building setback from the edge of the alley, with the exception of landscape planters near the corner. In addition to mirrors and a warning light at the garage entrance/exit, adequate corner sight distance is required to limit the height of landscape material and planter to less than three feet in height, to ensure visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. Environmental Review The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment G) were prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA. The initial public comment period began on November 17 and ended December 12, 2014. The draft Initial Study determined several items would trigger the thresholds of significance and mitigation measures were proposed; these are now proposed as conditions of approval (Attachment B), and addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment H) to ensure the impact of these items would be less than significant. The plan revisions did not result in any additional impacts nor require any additional mitigation measures. Public Feedback Since the submittal of the current application, staff has received written comments from 42 people. These letters are included as Attachment I. For those who are in support of this project, the general comments were related to the mixed use opportunity, retail space and parking City of Palo Alto Page 7 improvement. For those who expressed concerns, the general comments were related to the height of the building, massing relative to the context, street character and safety, noise, parking and traffic. The applicant has submitted letters to respond to these concerns (Attachment J). COURTESY COPIES Ken Hayes khayes@thehayesgroup.com Elizabeth Wong elizabethwong2009@gmail.com Prepared by: Christy Fong, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachments:  Attachment A: Findings (DOC)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions (DOC)  Attachment C: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Comprehensive Plan Table (DOC)  Attachment F: Revised Project Description dated January 26, 2015 (PDF)  Attachment G: Inital Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment H: Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Comment Letters (PDF)  Attachment J: Applicant's Response Letters (PDF)  Attachment K: Project Plans (ARB Member Only) (DOCX) 1 __________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW AND CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 ______________________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review Findings The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project complies with the policies of the Comprehensive plan as outlined in Attachment E. This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The proposed project for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use designation; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is designed to take advantage of the available site area while staying within the limitations of the zoning. While the Downtown Urban Design Guide has not specific the desirable number of stories for this site, the project is compatible in the Downtown urban context where the immediate environment along University Avenue is comprised of buildings varying in heights ranging from two to four stories. The proposed building, with contextual consideration of massing and setbacks, respects the scale of abutting low density neighborhood on Kipling Street, south of the project site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building would accommodate retail, office and residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass with canopies to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also consistent with the requirements and recommendations of the Context Based Design Criteria; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is consistent with the applicable guidelines in the Downtown Urban Design Guide, particularly when the project reinforces University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining ground floor retail uses, preserving the general pattern of storefronts, and continuing retail vitality onto Kipling Street; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not situated in a transition area between different designated land uses; 2 (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design is compatible with the surrounding office and retail uses of the Downtown commercial area; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building is designed to have an active storefront along University Avenue, and a softer edge with landscaping to transition to the adjacent lower density neighborhood. Parking facilities are located underground with access from the alley. The façade is broken down to preserve the existing storefront rhythms. The upper floor massing is set back to respect the scale of nearby buildings. Ample outdoor balconies and terraces are proposed to meet the needs of the buildings users; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal provides an adequate amount of recesses to the zoning requirements of the “P” overlay and the intent is to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians. Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for both residential and office tenants. The design of open space is appropriate to the function of the structure and the surrounding context; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project has met both vehicular and bicycle parking requirements. The project would enhance the pedestrian experience by widening the sidewalks on both University Avenue and Kipling Street. The proposed open space and landscaping are compatible with the design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is easily approachable by all modes of transportation. The proposed vehicular circulation is safe and does not introduce significant changes to the adjacent street and sidewalk system; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that two existing street trees along University Avenue would be preserved. Four destructive trees along Kipling Street will be replaced by four new 36” box Golden Maidenhair trees that are complementary to existing natural environment; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that proposal includes smooth stone, glazing, metal and earth-tone colors that are common to contemporary commercial development in the Downtown environment and would fit in with the eclectic nature of the district; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, 3 open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal includes landscape materials that are used to screen and soften the appearance of the building while also providing a pleasing color palette. Proposed plantings in the planter at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street would be low in height to ensure visibility from the alley to the side street; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed landscape materials are not extensive and would require relatively low maintenance within easy-to-maintain planters; (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design:  Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation;  Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects;  Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;  Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving;  Use sustainable building materials;  Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;  Create healthy indoor environments; and  Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. The design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion; (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Context-Based Design Criteria Findings The design and architecture of the proposed project has been reviewed with respect to the Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAMC 18.18.110. Section 18.18.110 (a) notes that the project shall be: 4 (A) Responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design (where “responsible to context” is not a desire to replicate surroundings, but provide appropriate transitions to surroundings), and (B) Compatible with adjacent development, when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. Generally, while it will be taller and have greater scale and mass than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, the proposed building includes features that provide appropriate transition to the immediate surroundings. The proposed building (1) creates a rhythmic pattern and façade treatment that are consistent with the pedestrian environment on University Avenue; (2) provides contextual consideration of massing and building step backs to respect the scale of the adjacent lower scale neighborhood on Kipling Street; and (3) improves the environment of Lane 30 through the treatment of landscaping. The project’s compliance with the above “context and compatibility” criteria is further addressed in findings 1-4 below. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project supports widened sidewalks with recessed entries on primary pedestrian routes, at-grade bicycle racks near the building entrances, and secured bicycle facility at ground level and within the underground parking garage. The project also includes a showering facility in the garage to support the bicycle environment; (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed street facades are designed to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The building façade facing University Avenue preserves the existing storefront pattern with distinguishing architectural elements to break up the building mass. Entries are clearly defined and have a scale that is in proportion to the building functions. Elements that signal habitation, such as entrances, stairs, and balconies, are visible to people on the street. The proposed placement and orientation of doorways, windows and landscape elements are appropriate to create strong and direct relationships with the streets. Upper floors are stepped back, the width of the overhang is reduced and the elevator shaft is oriented inward to reduce the building mass and fit in with the context of the neighborhood; (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design with a series of recessed terraces and interchange in materials to break down the scale of building and provide visual interest. Variation in massing and materials creates a façade with two distinctive frontages, which respect the existing storefront patterns and rhythms on University Avenue. The proposed design incorporates a columns framework and tall display windows to reinforce the street corner. With the intent to minimize massing and ensure greater setback, the current, revised design presents a reduced-in-height stairway tower and stepped back roofline for the upper floor terrace at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street; 5 (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. While the height is taller than most of the buildings in the neighborhood, the proposed building height of 50 feet is compliant with the height limit in the Downtown Commercial District. The proposed design includes at least a 10 foot setback with open terraces at the upper stories to reduce the impact of the building height on the adjacent lower density neighborhood. The potential privacy concern is at a less than significant level as the buildings behind the project site are mostly one- story with commercial/office uses and mature trees along Kipling Street would provide some degree of screening. The proposed design includes storefront glass on both frontages to introduce a daylight source on the ground level; (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with wider sidewalks, balconies, and a roof-top terrace. The balconies would be accessible by residents on the site and would be located on four sides of the building to encourage ‘eyes on the street’. The proposed roof-top terrace is for office tenants and would provide ample solar exposure; (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking facilities would be located within the below-grade garage and would not detract from pedestrian environment. The project includes a well-integrated garage entry, a four foot setback from property lines, and mirrors that would aid traffic and visibility on the alley (Lane 30). In addition, the project incorporates a landscaping element to soften the exit of Lane 30. The intent is to enhance the character of pedestrian environment, while maintaining traffic visibility with low profile plant materials; (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding does not apply; (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. The design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion. 6 Page 1 of 31 __________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 ______________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans received on January 26, 2015, except as modified to incorporate the following conditions of approval and any additional conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or City Council. The following conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application. 2. The proposed project requires 9,207 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior to issuance of building permit for construction submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant. 3. The current project requires to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as permitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development. This note shall be added to the Building Permit plan set along with the standard project data required. 4. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowance specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 5. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district ground floor space shall be designed to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district. 6. Certificate of occupancy is required for separate businesses occupying tenant spaces, and for residential buildings having 3 or more units. This project is subject to the use restrictions set forth in PAMC 18.30(C) with the provisions of the Ground Floor retail (GF) combining district. 7. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $254,993.10 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the project’s building permit. These fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant may propose a Transportation Demand Management plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. The plan shall include provisions such as passes or subsidies for all Page 2 of 31 employees of the commercial space for using public transit, in addition to car sharing, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. 9. The use of the outdoor terrace spaces, associated with both residential and non-residential uses within the building, shall be limited. There shall be no smoking and use shall comply with the restrictions outlined in the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance at all time. 10. The current proposed FAR of 31,407 sq. ft., is reaching the maximum of 32,200 sq. ft. (which included a one-time 200 sq. ft. floor area bonus) at which this site can be developed. Additional FAR can only be requested through the Transfer of Development Right. All transfer is subject to the restrictions and procedures set forth in PAMC 18.18.080 and shall be submitted for Architectural Review. Future addition of TDR must be fully parked. 11. Any exterior modifications to the building or property shall require Architectural Review, including all future signage and outdoor furniture. 12. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green Building Ordinance. 13. The project shall be subject to the performance criteria outlined in PAMC 18.23. 14. A Parcel Map, to merge the two parcels into a single parcel, must be recorded with the County of Santa Clara prior to building permit issuance. 15. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Page 3 of 31 Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 16. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of building demolition and during demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. 17. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to issuance of building permit, submittal materials shall include window and transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. For residential portion: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating shall be up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. For commercial portion: Window and exterior door assemblies shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). 18. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to issuance of building permit, submittal material shall include details of the residential ventilation system to ensure a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. 19. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prior to issuance of building permit, noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Page 4 of 31 20. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Prior to issuance of building permit, building permit submittal materials shall include mirrors installation at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. 21. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Prior to issuance of building permit, building permit submittal materials shall include mirrors installation at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. 22. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 23. Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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 TO 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. 24. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 25. 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 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 26. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: The applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. Since the project site is located within two parcels 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT Page 5 of 31 27. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated. 28. Applicant shall schedule a meeting with Public Works Engineering and Transportation Division to discuss the existing building demolition, excavation and building construction logistics. Construction fence shall be located at the building property line, travel lane closures will not be permitted. Applicant shall propose a logistics plan that shows how pedestrian access is maintained and eliminating the least number of parking spaces during construction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 29. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 30. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 31. BASEMENT SHORING: Provide shoring plans for the basement excavation, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City’s right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. During the ARB process and via email dated 9/25/14 the applicant indicated that the tiebacks will extend into the adjacent private property. As such provide a letter from the neighboring property owner to allow the encroachment of permanent tiebacks into their property. In addition the shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. Also provide notes on the Shoring Plans for the “Contractor to cut-off the shoring 5-feet below the sidewalk Page 6 of 31 elevation.” AND “Contractor shall submit and obtain an permanent encroachment permit from Public Works for the tiebacks and shoring located within public right-of-way. 32. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 33. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide a note on the Rough Grading Plan that includes the comment above as a note. 34. GAS METERS: In-ground gas meters are not typically allowed by Public Works Utilities. If in-ground gas meters are not allowed, the above ground gas meter shall be located complete within private property. Plot and label the proposed location. If in-ground gas meters are permitted, applicant shall submit an email from Utilities that indicates in-ground gas meters are acceptable for this project. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 35. MAPPING: Applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. If at any point the applicant intends to sell portions of the building a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Page 7 of 31 Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. 36. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Prior to a Minor or Major Subdivision Application, applicant shall meet with Public Works to discuss any potential off-site improvements. These may include new concrete or asphalt work and utility upgrades or relocations. 37. The following items were not addressed through the final ARB submittal and shall be shown on the plans. a. Explain how all of the site runoff will drain directly into the media filter. The media filter shall be located complete with the private property as shown on the approve ARB plans. The details provided indicate that the media filter is to be installed below ground and discharge would need to be pumped to the surface. However that is not reflected on the Utility Plan. b. Plot and label the total the number of disconnected downspouts. The civil has indicated that the downspouts runoff will drain into the media filter, but it’s not clear on the plans how this will be accomplished. c. The site plan shall demonstrate how the runoff from the MFS flows by gravity into the gutter, provide pipe inverts and flowline grades. If a new separate structure is required to allow runoff to flow by gravity into the gutter or reduce the velocity, then the structure shall be located completely within the private property. The 4th and 5th resubmittal ARB plans show a junction box within the public right of way, this box shall be located completely within the private property. d. The 5th submittal shows a planter box adjacent to the alley and the MFS has been relocated to be within this planter boxes. The plans submitted lack information, show how the roof runoff is directed into the mechanical treatment facility. Plot and label the pump, drain lines, downspouts. Show how all of the site runoff is treated by the proposed MFS. e. It’s not clear if the planter box is intended to provide C3 treatment. If LID treatment is proposed provide the surface drainage areas and calculations. f. Resize the new planter box to allow the junction box to be within the private property and behind the Kipling Street sidewalk. The planter box and planting material shall have height clearance with a maximum of three feet within the 4-ft by 6-ft clear site distance (triangle). In addition the planter box shall be located 1-foot minimum away from the adjacent alley. 38. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations at every at grade door entrance, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks 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, Page 8 of 31 or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connected directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system as required for all uncovered exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwell, stairwells or driveway ramps. 39. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 40. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The 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 our website. 41. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 42. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape- based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the Page 9 of 31 requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval 43. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit that demonstrates how the site’s drainage flows by gravity into the City’s system and is not pumped. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged directly into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate that downspouts are disconnected, daylight at grade, and are directed to landscaped and other pervious areas onsite. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. If pumps are required, plot and label where the pumps will be located on-site, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allow to infiltrate and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 44. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. The backflow preventer, and above grade meters shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. 45. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. This project may be required to replace the driveway approach the sidewalk associated with the existing driveway may be required to replace with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. 46. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2013 California Building Code Chapter 32 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway. The contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close or occupy the sidewalk(s) or ally. 47. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all of the existing sidewalks, ramps, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of- way along the frontage(s) of the property. Applicant shall be responsible for replacing the Page 10 of 31 two ramps immediately across the street from the project site. Applicant shall meet with Public Works and Transportation to discuss the potential for adding a bulb-out along the University Avenue side to widen the sidewalk. If construction of the new ramps and/or sidewalk results in a conflict with utilities or traffic signal than applicant will be responsible for adjusting to grade or relocating conflict and to bring the improvements to current designs standards. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. Provide references to the specific City’s Standard Drawings and Specification. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 48. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of the street on University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages adjacent to the project. In addition this project is required to resurface the full width of the Lane along the project frontage. Note that the base material for these 3 streets varies. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing. Include an off-site plan that shows the existing signage and striping that is to be replaces as part of this project and for the contractor’s use. 49. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 50. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 51. BIKE RACKS: Currently, there are 2 bike racks on University Avenue. It is not Public Works’ responsibility to approve the relocation or installation of the bike racks near this location. If the applicant would like to requests the installation of new or more bike racks along University Avenue, the applicant must obtain approval from the Transportation Division at 650-329-2520 to determine an appropriate location, type/model and quantity that can be installed per City Standards. The plan must note that in order to install or relocate any bike racks, the applicant must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works. 52. GARBAGE/TRASH RECEPTACLES: The plans provided for preliminary review do not include the existing garbage/trash receptacle along University Avenue. This shall be shown on the plans and remain in its location for as long as possible during construction. If construction activities require the temporary removal of the receptacle, the contractor may Page 11 of 31 remove during that construction activity but must place it back as soon as those activities have been completed. Prior to doing so, the contractor must notify the public works department to determine if Public Works Operations should pick it up for storage during that time. 53. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement or construction access provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties 54. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Franscisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 55. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. 56. GREASE INTERCEPTOR: If a commercial kitchen is proposed requiring the installation of a grease interceptor, the grease separator shall be installed and located within private property. In no case shall the City of Palo Alto allow the right-of-way (ROW) to be used to satisfy this requirement. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 57. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 58. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic (pdf) copy of the Off- Site Improvements As-Built set of plans to Public Works for the City’s records. The as-built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. 59. Contractor shall submit and obtain an Encroachment permit for the permanent structures (shoring and tiebacks) that were installed within the public road right-of-way. Page 12 of 31 60. Additional comments and/or conditions may apply as the project is revised. ZERO WASTE/ SOLID WASTE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 61. Provide a garbage and recycling chute for the residential unit with either an additional chute or a bin space for compostables on the residential floor. 62. SERVICE LEVELS: Without a restaurant: the enclosure should be sized for 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 1-yard compostables bin; with a restaurant: With a restaurant: 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 2-yard compostables bin. 63. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING (PAMC 18.23.020): (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 64. RECYCLING STORAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (PAMC 5.20.120): The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. 65. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS: (a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. (b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. (c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. (d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs”. 66. GARBAGE, RECYCLING, AND YARD WASTE/COMPOSTABLES CART/ BIN LOCATION AND SIZING: Page 13 of 31 a. Office Building: The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. b. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments: Please contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 to maximize the collection of compostables in food preparation areas and customer areas. For more information about compostable food service products, please contact City of Palo Alto Zero Waste at (650) 496-5910. c. Multi-family Residential: The proposed multi-family development must follow the requirements for recycling container space2. All residential developments, where central garbage, recycling, and compostables containers will serve five or more dwelling units, must have space for the storage and collection of recyclables and compostables. This includes the provision of recycling chutes where garbage chutes are provided. Project plans must show the placement of recycling and compostables containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 2 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 Page 14 of 31 driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear-and-tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. 67. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 68. COVERED DUMPSTERS, RECYCLING AND TALLOW BIN AREAS (PAMC 16.09.075(q)(2)): a. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. b. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. c. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). d. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. e. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. Page 15 of 31 69. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (CDD) (PAMC 5.24.030): a. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. b. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY CONTROL 70. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): 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. 71. UNPOLLUTED WATER (PAMC 16.09.055): Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. uncovered ramp to garage area). 72. COVERED PARKING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9)): If installed, drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system. 73. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITATIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.ARCHITECTURAL COPPER PAMC (16.09.180(b)(14)): 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 Page 16 of 31 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 74. LOADING DOCKS (PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2)): (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 75. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5)): Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 76. SILVER PROCESSING (e.g. photoprocessing retail) (PAMC 16.09.215): Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329- 2421. 77. COPPER PIPING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b)): 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. 78. MERCURY SWITCHES (PAMC 16.09.180(12)): Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 79. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS (PAMC 16.09.205(a)): It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 80. STORM DRAIN LABELING (PAMC 16.09.165(h)): Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 81. UNDESIGNATED RETAIL SPACE (PAMC 16.09): Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: a. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes Page 17 of 31 i. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) ii. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. iii. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. iv. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. v. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. vi. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) vii. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. viii. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. ix. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) x. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. b. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes i. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. ii. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. iii. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: Page 18 of 31 1. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks 2. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) 3. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD 4. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks 5. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens 6. Prep sinks 7. Mop (janitor) sinks 8. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. 9. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures 10. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines 11. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks iv. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: 1. Dishwashers 2. Steamers 3. Pasta cookers 4. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens 5. Hand sinks 6. Ice machine drip lines 7. Soda machine drip lines 8. Drainage lines in bar areas v. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). vi. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. vii. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) c. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) i. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. ii. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. Page 19 of 31 iii. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. iv. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. v. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. d. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) i. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. e. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCDVolume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Note:  All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.  It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal) Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 Page 20 of 31  The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. FIRE DEPARTMENT 82. Fire sprinklers, fire standpipe and fire alarm systems required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 83. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that the 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 84. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration. 85. All floor levels in multi-story buildings must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. 86. All welding or other hot work during construction shall be under a permit obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Department with proper notification and documentation of procedures followed and work conducted. 87. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the building in accordance with the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. A written report to the Fire Marshal shall be provided prior to final inspection. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Page 21 of 31 GENERAL 88. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 89. 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. 90. 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. FOR SUBMITTALS TO ELECTRIC SERVICE 91. 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. 92. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 93. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 94. Applicant has selected the option of going with a submersible transformer. This installation will fall under “Special Facilities”. Special Facilities will have additional costs for substructure work, annual cost of ownership plus one time replacement cost of submersible transformer. Vault and submersible transformer along with the required infrastructure will be installed by the City in the alley/public right of way or at a feasible location at applicant’s expense. Note that submersible transformers are more susceptible to extended outages and potential cause for failures due to accumulation of dirt, debris and water in the vaults. . During servicing/maintenance or outage there will be no power to the building. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the electric service to the building or to any critical equipment through a generator, if required. The City will not reimburse or compensate for anything (e.g. damages/lost production hours/labor cost etc.) during maintenance/outage or shut down time. The City will replace the transformer in the event of failure at no cost to the applicant. 95. Based on the electric loads the applicant has projected for the new building, the Utilities will consider installing a 500KVA, 120/208Y Volts transformer. However, if the load drops significantly below the rated capacity of the transformer for any continuous period of twelve (12) months, the City will notify the applicant about the fees and charges attributable to the reduced capacity. If the loads are added in the future and existing submersible transformer is found to be overloaded or exceeded its operational limitations then the City will require the applicant to accept the electric service to the building at Page 22 of 31 277/480Y Volts. At that time, in order to get the electric service to the building at new voltage; all the required modifications will be done by the applicant. 96. 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. 97. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be installed outside the building and shall be easily accessible to Utilities meter readers and maintenance crews. Electric switchboard shall be NEMA 3R. All the substructure work done/installed for providing electric service to the new building shall be at applicant’s expense. Detailed comments and final cost estimate shall be provided to the applicant when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. 98. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall show on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 99. All utility meters, lines, transformers, switchboards, electric panels, 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. 100. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s submersible transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 101. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the submersible transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to 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. 102. 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. 103. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 104. For primary services, the standard service protection is a submersible fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 105. 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 Page 23 of 31 Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 106. 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 107. 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. 108. 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. 109. 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. 110. 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. 111. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 112. 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. 113. 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. Page 24 of 31 114. 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 115. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 116. 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 117. 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 118. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. a. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. b. All fees must be paid. c. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The following conditions apply to three-phase service and any service over 400 amperes: 119. A padmount or submersible transformer is required. 120. The Utilities Director, or his/her designee, may authorize the installation of submersible or vault installed facilities if in their opinion, padmounted equipment would not be feasible or practical. 121. Submersible or vault installed facilities shall be considered Special Facilities as described in Rule and Regulation 20, and all costs associated with the installation, including continuing ownership and maintenance, will be borne by the applicant (see Rule and Regulation 3 for details). 122. The customer must provide adequate space for installation, or reimburse the Utility for additional costs to locate the transformer outside the property boundaries. All service Page 25 of 31 equipment must be located above grade level unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. WATER - GAS - WASTEWATER ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 123. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 124. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 125. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 126. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 127. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 128. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 129. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak floor demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval Page 26 of 31 of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 130. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities’ record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 131. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 132. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 133. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 134. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 135. Existing wastewater main is 5.4” PE on Kipling Street. (sewer lateral to be 4”) 136. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 137. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Page 27 of 31 138. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 139. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 140. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connection of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 141. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage may require. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 142. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire system including all Fire Department’s requirements. Please see a fire/domestic combination service connection for your provide- see City of Palo Alto standard WD-11. 143. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground. 144. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 145. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 146. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 147. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. Page 28 of 31 148. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 149. All WGW utilities work on University Avenue is 1.5 times the stated fee due to traffic; existing conditions require the work to be done outside of regular work hours. BUILDING INSPECTION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 150. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct the complete project. 151. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building on site. 152. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits. 153. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems: E.V., P.V. and Solar Hot Water. 154. Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be “deferred” shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 155. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 156. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. 157. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Section 1207. Page 29 of 31 URBAN FORESTRY 158. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permit, as well as during demolition, exaction and construction, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: a. City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. b. Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. c. Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. d. Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. e. New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. f. Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. g. Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. h. Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. i. All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. 159. Any existing city street trees approved to remain shall be maintained and protected during construction per City of Palo Alto standard requirements. 160. All landscape material shall be well maintained for the life of the project and replaced if it fails. 161. Two regulated public trees (London Plane) on University Ave frontage are to be retained and protected. Protection shall consist of Modified Type III (see attached graphic) for the entire trunk and will include primary branches on the building side. For any branch clearance pruning for building or scaffolding, contractor shall coordinate with Urban Forestry for direct supervision by staff of private tree contractor (submit written Tree Care Application to Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org) 162. Kipling frontage-Trees. four trees in the RoW are approved for removal including stumps (two flowering pears, two carobs). Four replacement trees shall be installed, Ginkgo Page 30 of 31 biloba ‘Autumn Gold’, Maidenhair, 36-inch box size, in 5’x5’ Kiva tree grates, two irrigation bubblers per tree (PW Standard Detail # 603a and 513). A certified arborist for the applicant shall evaluate/select matching trees for quality. Contractor shall coordinate an Urban Forestry inspection of the new trees, before they are planted in the ground. 163. Sidewalk base medium (Kipling side only). As a root growing medium between the curb and building face, Silva Cell technology or approved equal, shall be designed as a suspended sidewalk element and provide low compaction area for long term root growth. A certified arborist for the applicant shall calculate how many cubic feet of soil and Silva cell material will be needed for each tree. The remaining soil between the engineered root growing areas. GREEN BUILDING 164. Green Building Ordinance: a. Commercial Portion - CALGreen Tier 2: The project must meet the California Green Building Code Tier 2 requirements. Due to the size of the project, the team must engage a commissioning agent and fulfil on the commissioning requirements. Additional information may be found at the following link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. The new Energy California Energy Code contains significant changes and Palo Alto is currently enforcing code minimum for the energy code . The details can be found at the following link. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ b. Residential Portion- Green Point Rated: The project is required to achieve Green Point Rated Certification through Build It Green. The project team must engage a Green Point Rater. The required minimum points value is 70. The required prerequisite and points associated with exceeding the code shall be excused. Additional information may be found at the following linkhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp 165. BASE Energy Services: The project may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in meeting and exceeding Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. 166. EV Parking Ordinance: The project is subject to meet the new Electric Vehicle Parking Ordinance. The press release provides an outline of the ordinance. The future ordinance language can be found within the staff report. There are multi-family and commercial provisions that apply. See the ordinance for all details. a. Multi-family: One EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed per unit. For guest parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for multi-family guest parking shall be provided. Page 31 of 31 b. Commercial: For commercial parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for commercial parking shall be provided. 167. Other Incentives & rebates: The Utilities department has several rebates and incentives that would apply to the project. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp PUBLIC ART PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 168. This project must comply with the provisions outlined in PAMC 16.61. The project proposes to install on-site public art and must follow the processes and requirements under this section. Removal or relocation of proposed public art shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board and approved by the Palo Alto Public Art Commission. No building permit may be issued until the Public Art Commission issues the approval of the final artwork and placement required for the on-site public art. 169. For building permit submittal, the design and installation of public art must comply with all the building code requirements. 170. The Architectural Review Board shall review the final placement of public art to ensure the artwork or associated lighting would not create adverse impacts of lighting and glare to adjacent neighbors. 171. In lieu of installation of on-site public art, the applicant may make a monetary contribution to the Palo Alto Public Arts Fund. The applicant must notify the Public Art Office of the intent to fulfill the public art requirement by payment of the in-lieu fee instead of commissioning art on site. The applicant is required to submit the amount equal to 1% of the estimated construction valuation into the Public Art Fund account and provide a copy of the receipt to the Public Art office prior to the issuance of building permit. All Saints Episcopal Church 7-11 Garden Court Hotel Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop W FLO REN C E ST REET KIPLIN G STREET LYTTON AVEN UE W AVERLEY STREET TREET ETT AVENUE VE NUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE C O W PER STREET KIPLIN G STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE C O WPER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA MILTON AVENUE WPER STREET TASS O STREET LANE 20 EAST LAN E 30 LANE 20 W EST 301 337 339 323 317 400 420 332 30 353 355 367 418 431 401 366 436426 #1-7 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 314 338 340 560 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429 425 415-419 405 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 4 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432 428 460-476 450 4 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 437327 333 407 401 385 411 452 344-348 328 456 321 325 330 460 474 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489-499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405401 441 480-498 34 351 355 359 525 430 47 3 332- 342 500-528 54 0 53 0 531-535 579 567 555 408 412 440 435 445 32 8 447 515 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 435433 37 5 530 415 305 -313 405 508 482 330 349 31 2 443 445 447 335 506 327 469 321319 PF 74 CD-C(GF)(P))PF 4611 RMD (NP) PC-4052PF CD-C (P)PC-429 6 P C-4436 Varsity Theatre This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'150' 425 and 429-447 University Ave Project Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-11-13 13:52:22429University CF (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment C CD - C (P) ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 1 ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 CD-C ZONE (Mixed Use Development Standards) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMS Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 10’ for residential portion with permitted setback encroachment up to 6’ for balconies Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 9,594 sf Yes Maximum Height 50’ 50’ Yes Daylight Plane Same as abutting residential zones Not Applicable Yes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 22,000 sf - 2.0:1 32,000 sf - With Transferable development rights 33,000 sf- Maximum 3.0:1 2.86:1 31,407 sf Yes Parking Requirement (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 92 spaces 1 space/250 sf commercial area 2 spaces/living unit Includes 37 previously assessed spaces (not provided on site) for properties 40 on-site spaces where 35 on-site spaces are required; 57 spaces not required [per PAMC 18.18.080(g) & 18.18.090(b)(4)] Yes* Bicycle Parking Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Long Term: 8 Short Term: 6 Yes * At the time of the Downtown Parking Assessment, the two sites were determined to have building floor area totaling 11,631 square feet, requiring payment in lieu (assessment) for 47 parking spaces not provided on site, while ten spaces were identified as provided on-site. The project shall comply with the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Specifically, the applicant shall address the 57 spaces otherwise proposed to be exempted under Section 18.18.080(g) and 18.18.090(b)(4). Measures to comply may include: a) payment of in-lieu parking fees, b) certification of FAR bonuses pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1), c) certification of Transfer of Development Rights prior to November 4, 2013 pursuant to Section 18.18.080(g), d) approval of underground parking pursuant to 18.52.070(d), or e) some combination thereof. The method of compliance shall be presented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to submittal for building permits. ATTACHMENT E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 Program L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas and direction for private development and public improvement in the Downtown area. The project incorporates many of the goals of the Downtown Urban Design Guide including: (1) Reinforce University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining ground floor retail. (2) Create ground floor architectural interest with windows and displays (3) Continue retail vitality onto the side streets. Policy L-20 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plaza. The project incorporates design to reinforce street corners and integrate with nearby sidewalks with great building frontage. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The project incorporates several design considerations contained in the Downtown Urban Design Guide in that the project design would: (1) provides pedestrian friendly amenities such as recessed entries, canopies, and new street trees, (2) includes attractive display windows at frequent intervals that invite shoppers, (3) promotes a mixed of uses including housing and commercial. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/ Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian. The project incorporates pedestrian-friendly design and support bicycle use to complement the nearby Caltrain transit hub. Public art is proposed to be located on site to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian and building tenants. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is designed to promote a strong relationship with the streets and create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activities. Site planning is appropriate with its context and is compatible with the retail pedestrian environment of the downtown commercial district. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The project is consistent with this policy in that the proposed building would incorporate clear glass windows to avoid blank or solid walls at street frontage. A variety of recessed entryways, glass canopies and balconies on both the University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages would promote ‘eye-on-the-street’. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. The proposed mixed use project provides four housing units. Program T-2: Promote mixed use development to provide housing and commercial services near employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving. The project is a mixed use development in the Downtown employment center that provides housing and commercial services. The project is designed to create an inviting pedestrian and bicycle environment that supports walking, bicycling and reduced dependence on cars. Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. The project site was previously assessed for parking not provided on site. The Municipal Code allows for transfer of development rights (TDR) floor area that is not “parked”, if the TDR area was documented prior to the Council’s 2013 action on “parking exempt’ floor area. The applicant is not requesting a parking reduction, and will provide five additional parking spaces beyond the on-site parking requirement. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby business districts. The project is surrounded by buildings with commercial use; however, it appears there is one residence on the Kipling block between University and Lytton Avenues. The project proposes to locate parking onsite. Program T-53: Discourage parking facilities that would intrude into adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed below grade parking facility would not intrude into an adjacent residential neighborhood (the Kipling block is commercially zoned and used primarily for commercial use). Attachment G DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: November 17, 2014 Project Name: 429 University Avenue Project Location: The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Project Proponent: Elizabeth Wong for Kipling Post LP City Contact: Christy Fong Planner, Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description: The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The base FAR in the CD- C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR is achieved through the transfer of 4,207 square feet that requires parking, 5,000 square feet that is exempt from parking, TDR from separate properties, and a one-time 200-square-foot parked bonus for the project. Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study prepared for this project incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: Page 2 of 5 • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls Page 3 of 5 (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160– 42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Prepared by Project Planner Date Adopted by Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Signed after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved Page 4 of 5 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED THEREIN. Project Applicant's Signature Date Page 5 of 5 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study DRAFT RELEASED NOVEMBER 2014 UPDATED JANUARY 2015 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...................6 A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 7 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 10 C. AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................... 11 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 14 E CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 16 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ........................................................ 18 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 20 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................. 21 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................... 24 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................... 26 K. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 28 L. NOISE .................................................................................................................. 29 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 32 N. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................... 33 O. RECREATION ................................................................................................... 34 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................ 34 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 40 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................... 41 III SOURCE REFERENCES ...............................................................................................42 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 42 IV DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................44 FIGURES 1 Regional Map 2 Vicinity Map 3 Aerial Map 4 Site Plan 5 Elevations 6 Perspective Renderings 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 1 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 429 University Avenue 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto 650.838.2996 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Kipling Post LP Contact: Elizabeth Wong PO Box 204 Palo Alto, California 94302 650.323.5295 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 14PLN-00222 6. PROJECT LOCATION 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101 (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 2 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan; City of Palo Alto 2007). This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Non-residential floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.35 to 2.0. The project site is part of a Regional/Community Commercial district that extends from Alma Avenue on the south to Webster Street on the north and between Lytton Avenue on the west and Hamilton and Forest Avenues on the east. 8. ZONING The Zoning designation of the project site is Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD-C (community) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations to allow specific variations to the uses and development requirements of the CD district. The project site is also within the pedestrian shopping (P) and ground floor (GF) combining districts. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Initial Study has been modified subsequent to public review of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect revisions made to the project plans. These revisions provide clarifying information regarding the proposed project but none of the revisions to the Initial Study or project plans result in any new or increased environmental effects. The revisions to this Initial Study do not constitute “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86 (Figure 5, Elevations). The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR will be achieved through the transfer of 9,207 square feet of 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 3 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto development rights from separate properties, of which 4,207 square feet require parking and 5,000 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. The project is also eligible for a one-time 200-square-foot bonus, which is subject to the City’s parking requirements. Together, these TDRs and bonuses would allow the project to achieve the proposed 2.86 FAR. Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located on University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The project site is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Located directly across University Avenue from the site is a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three- story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The surrounding uses on Kipling Street serve as a transition between the primarily commercial University Avenue and the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north. Lower-intensity commercial/office uses and single-family residential line both sides of Kipling Street. A yoga studio is located behind the project site, accessed from an alley off Kipling Street (the alley is referred to as Lane 30 E). A public surface parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 4 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto nearby uses. Another public surface parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 5 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. (A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 6 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 2, 3 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1, 2, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing two existing one-story retail buildings with a new four-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5, Elevations, and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the project would not exceed the allowable height (50 feet) for the site. The design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The façade would be divided into 25-foot sections consisting of the solid stair element, the glass entry element with recessed residential terrace, and the secondary grid inside the main building form. The third and fourth floors of the building would set back from the alley property line and the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a two- to three-story building. The proposed stair element would be located east of the alley and would be buffered from the alley by a landscaped area near the ground-floor entrance adjacent to the alley. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District, including the four-story Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners building located directly across University Avenue. The University Avenue façade would appear to be three stories tall. The fourth floor would be set back 30 feet from the front of the building creating a terrace for use by building occupants and guests. The fourth-floor terrace would extend along the length of the building as would the main three-story building block, giving definition to the street edge and presence to 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 7 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the building when seen in the context of the street. The main rectangular mass of the building would be elevated so the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass would create display windows and entries that would activate the sidewalk through visual and physical connections. Retention of existing trees along the project site’s University Avenue frontage and the planting of new trees along the Kipling Street frontage would soften the views of the new building from public roadways and adjacent uses. The building would be built within the buildable area of the property and no public views or view corridors would be affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City, is not within a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes several policies related to visual resources, including the following: • Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. • Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. • Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. • Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. As described above, the proposed project would comply with the height and setback requirements for the project site. In addition, the project has been designed to blend into the existing development on both Kipling Street and University Avenue. The proposed building design recognizes that the uses along Kipling Street are smaller in scale and lower in intensity than those on University Avenue, and the project design responds to the adjacent uses by minimizing the appearance of an abrupt change in scale between the two areas. The University Avenue frontage would create an inviting retail environment and provide a pleasant pedestrian experience, thereby enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the City’s central business district. In addition, as described above, the proposed building design would activate the sidewalk through the use of human-scale architectural details and frameless glass windows on the ground floor. The project site is currently developed with retail uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed structure would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 8 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows or other highly reflective surface materials. Glare is particularly associated with high light intensity. It can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb rather than reflect light. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and has limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and receives more sunlight exposure. At the street level along these frontages, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with canopies over the entrances. On the second floor, windows would also be provided on these frontages and would be shaded by canopies to reduce glare. The third floor would be set back from the building façade on the University Avenue frontage and Lane 30 E, creating a large overhang that would shade windows along this side. The fourth floor would be set back even farther along University Avenue, such that glare from windows would not be visible from the street. The Kipling Street frontage would receive less sunlight exposure and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. Exterior building lighting is proposed at the rear entrance of the building on Lane 30, as well as within the ramp to the underground parking level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project site property lines. The project is also required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. Specifically, the proposed building would increase shading on Kipling Street and Lane 30 E, which are public streets. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 9 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in a developed urban area in Downtown Palo Alto and does not contain and land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 10 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)? 1, 2, 6 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a. project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b. project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c. project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1, 2, 6, 17 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 6 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1, 2 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million? 1, 2 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI? 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 11 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5 and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. As the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 12 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of existing buildings. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria should not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase; the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, emissions during each construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all of the construction emission control measures as identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 1.62 14.21 10.98 2.56 1.94 Excavation 2.95 35.30 23.50 3.15 1.86 Building construction 1.62 15.25 10.26 1.22 0.99 Parking structure paving 1.29 11.64 8.50 0.90 0.72 Architectural coatings 28.48 2.59 2.11 0.25 0.22 Source: Air Quality Modeling Results (see Appendix B). Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 13 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Operational Emissions The project would result in a total of 20,407 square feet of retail and office space, which is a net increase of 8,774 square feet compared to the existing conditions. In addition, four new dwelling units would be constructed. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low rise or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1), 11 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 14 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 2, 3, 5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is almost entirely developed with existing buildings and paved parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Tree Survey Report prepared for the site by Davey Resource Group (provided in Appendix A), the site includes six street trees, two in bulb-outs into the parking area along University Avenue and four in the sidewalk along Kipling Street. These trees were determined to be in poor to fair condition. The proposed project includes the retention of the two existing street trees on University Avenue (London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia)), removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street (two ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana) and two carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua)), and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees. Construction of the project could impact the two trees to be retained on University Avenue if the trees are not properly protected. In addition, removal of the four street trees on Kipling Street would result in a significant impact if not completed in accordance with requirements for tree removal and replacement; therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that these potential impacts remain below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 15 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. E CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 7 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7, 8 X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search records search was conducted by Dudek on September 25, 2014 and found that no cultural resources have been recorded in the project site (see Appendix C). The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 16 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. However, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken. Historical architectural evaluations were prepared by Preservation Architecture for the existing buildings located on the project site to determine the potential for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see Appendix D). The existing building at 429 University Avenue, which was built in 1927, has not been identified as a potential historical resource by the City or the state, nor is the building included in a historic district. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. The exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, such that the original façade and storefronts are entirely lost, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. The historical evaluation determined that the building does not have historical architectural or historical resource potential and is therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The existing building at 425 University Avenue was constructed circa 1937 and has since been used for office and commercial uses. The original architects of the building at 425 University Avenue, Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark of Palo Alto, are recognized as local masters. However, the exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, including the complete loss of the original façade and storefront. The building was evaluated for historical resource eligibility and although the building has the potential for significance under the CRHR, the loss of integrity of the structure renders it ineligible for listing on the CRHR. Since the project site does not include any eligible historical resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historical resources would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 17 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N5), 12 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 (Map N5), 9 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N5), 9 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 2, 9 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 18 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto DISCUSSION Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in September 2013 (see Appendix E). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. It is the opinion of Murray Engineers that the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The geotechnical report did not indicate that there are expansive soils, corrosive soils, and/or soils subject to settlement present. Soils found on the project site consist of layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to a depth of 45 feet. The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet consist of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. The clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to a depth of 45 feet. Murray Engineers conducted additional soil testing to determine the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Based on their analysis, the silty sand was determined to be very dense and therefore likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. In addition, the report concluded the “site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake.” All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 19 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 6 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 6 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of CO2 (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19 ksf Strip mall 19 ksf Hardware/paint store 16 ksf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 20 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space along with four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space) and 78 dwelling units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC, including attainment of a minimum Build It Green score of 70 for the residential portion of the project. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1, 2 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 21 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3 (Map N7) X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X DISCUSSION Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the project site and include a general assessment of the nature and extent of past activities, if any, on the site that could have used hazardous materials, and whether the site appears to have evidence of soils or groundwater contamination. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the commercial buildings located at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue by Professional Service Industries Inc. in August 1999. In June 2010 an environmental transaction screen (ETS) for buildings located at 429–447 University Avenue was prepared by AEI to identify any potential environmental issues associated with past and present activities in the handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, a follow-up Phase I ESA was prepared for 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street3 by Transaction Management Corporation (TMC) in April 2014. The Phase I ESAs and ETS are included in Appendix F. Both of the Phase I ESAs and the ETS report indicate that due to the age of the buildings there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint to be present. TMC recommends preparation of an operations and maintenance plan for ACMs given the potential for occurrence in the 425 University Avenue building. The 2014 Phase I ESA indicates that the property at 425 University Avenue is not on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous sites. In addition, the 2010 ETS and the 1999 Phase I ESA indicate that the project site does not contain a recognized environmental condition, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Both reports conclude there also is no evidence of a recognized environmental condition off site that could impact the project site. In addition, the project site is not listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database and there was no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination. The project involves the demolition of two buildings and construction of a new building. Demolition activities could release hazardous building materials into the air. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types 3 450 Kipling Street is not part of the project. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 22 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. It is not anticipated that construction of the subsurface garage would require dewatering due to the depth of groundwater; however, if required, the project applicant would comply with standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process, which require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plan section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including ROGs) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 micrograms per liter (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. Based on the construction date of the existing buildings (1927), it appears that the buildings may contain ACMs and may contain lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Addison Elementary School, is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools associated with hazardous materials at the project site would occur. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 23 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 13, 14 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 2, 13, 14 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 13, 14 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100- year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 24 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With the exception of some street trees on University Avenue and Kipling Street, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments (included as Appendix G to this document) prepared for the project, the project site currently contains 11,000 square feet of impervious surface with the existing buildings and parking lot area. The project is proposing to maintain the same development footprint (0.252 acre). The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change drainage patterns or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation of nearby waterways. Groundwater was identified at a depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. In addition, stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permitee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater run-off and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff. However, the regional permit also allows LID treatment reduction credits for three categories of “smart growth” projects – urban infill, high-density, and transit oriented development projects. These are called “Special Projects” in the regional permit, and are approved for reductions in the requirements for LID treatment in recognition of the fact that smart growth development projects can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less “accessory” impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. The RWCQB recognizes that these types of projects have inherent water quality and other environmental benefits. The project applicant has applied for and obtained a C.3 Special Project Category A determination based on the following: the project would preserve or enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design, would be located in a Commercial downtown zone, would replace less than 0.5 acre of impervious surface area, would have minimal surface parking, and more than 85% of the site would be covered by the proposed building. Due to the small project site and its location in a developed urban commercial corridor, it would not be feasible to construct grassy swales or other LID features to treat stormwater. There is not sufficient space to accommodate biotreatment facilities or to route runoff to an appropriate discharge point. Since the project meets the criteria listed above, the project would receive 100% LID treatment reduction credit and be allowed to treat 100% of the amount of storm water runoff with non-LID treatment measures. Stormwater runoff from the site would be collected and piped to a mechanical device (manufactured by Contech Stormwater Solutions) which is an accepted storm filter treatment facility. The mechanical device would be located onsite and stormwater runoff would be treated prior to flowing by gravity into the street and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. The applicant would also be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee that the project provide the required maintenance and/or replacement of the device for the life of the project. By providing approved and appropriate stormwater runoff collection and conveyance, and ensuring long- 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 25 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto term maintenance of the collection and conveyance infrastructure, the project would have less than significant impacts related to violating water quality standards or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project includes a subsurface garage with a maximum depth of 27 feet below grade. Reducing the number of exposed parking spaces also reduces the potential for stormwater to carry pollutants such as litter and/or leaking motor fluids. Due to the depth of groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated; however, due to fluctuations in groundwater it is possible that construction activities could encounter groundwater. Since the garage would be designed to be watertight and no permanent dewatering system would be required, it is expected that the impact to groundwater flow would be less than significant. The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Stormwater runoff is directed toward storm drain grates located in one covered parking space and in the adjacent alleyway that parallels the northwest boundary of the project site. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0010H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area as shown on maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2003). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood- related hazards. The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures None required. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1, 2, 3, 4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 26 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1, 2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 31,407-square-foot, four-story commercial, office, and residential building, is an allowed use as regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The project would replace two single-story buildings currently used for retail with the proposed mixed-use building. The increase from one story to four stories on the site would change the existing scale; however, buildings in the surrounding area include a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building across the street, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed- use development in the project area through the following policies: • Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. • Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. • Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development in an area where mixed-uses are encouraged and the project design reflects a pedestrian scale, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining Districts (CD- C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.30. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The project would also include construction of two levels of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CD-C (community) subdistrict zoning and parking regulations. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The maximum building height in this district is 50 feet. The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with TDRs and/or bonuses for seismic and historical rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project includes TDRs and bonuses to achieve the maximum 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 27 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto allowable FAR of 2.86. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the Pedestrian Shopping (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining district regulations that apply to this site are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment through the continuity of retail stores and design windows in retail districts and allow only service-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed project is designed to comply with the combining district regulations with ground-floor retail and façade details to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A., Aesthetics, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings along Kipling Street; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line and 7 feet from the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. In addition, as described in Section A., Aesthetics, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project would comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 28 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2, 3, 15 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground- borne noise levels? 1, 2, 15 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 15 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 15 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X g) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 2, 15 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1, 2, 15 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed mixed-use project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 29 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study (EPA 1971), which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 4, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts. Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground Clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed with two one-story retail buildings and is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Residential land uses are located approximately 60 feet to the north and northwest. The proposed office building is not anticipated to result in significant levels of on-site noise or traffic noise because of the nature of the proposed land use and the relatively small size (which would generate a less than significant increase in traffic as discussed in Section P., below). The Environmental Noise Study for the project was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. (Appendix H). This assessment found that existing noise levels in the project area range from 64 dB to 70 dB during the peak traffic hours and between 63 dB and 73 dB when measured as a day-night-level (DNL), which assigns a penalty to noises generated during nighttime hours to reflect heightened sensitivity to noise in those hours. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multi-family dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB. However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 30 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment noise from exhaust fans was analyzed, as shown in Table 5, to assess whether the equipment noise would comply with Section 9.19.040 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states: “No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight decibels above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.” Table 5 Predicted Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Property Line Predicted Noise Level (dB) Criteria (dB) At Nearest Receiver At Property Plane North 49 65 57 East 47 58 56 South 48 69 54 West 49 68 54 Currently there are no adjacent receivers at or near the property plane that are 50 feet in height; therefore, adjacent receivers would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standard due to rooftop mechanical equipment noise, as shown in Table 5. However, as shown in Table 5, noise levels at the property plane would be above the criteria; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is required to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix I). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by approximately 1 dBA along University Avenue and 2 dBA along Kipling Street. Based on the Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria, a 2 dB increase in noise levels due to a project would result in a significant noise impact where the ambient noise levels without the project are in excess of 76 dB. Where noise levels are less than 76 dB, a project-generated noise level increase of more than 2 dB is required for a finding of significant noise impact. Since the ambient noise levels in the project area are less than 76 dB without the project, the maximum noise increase of 2 dBA would result in a less-than- significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 31 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1, 2 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace two existing one-story retail buildings with a four-story mixed-use building that would include a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four residential dwelling units. The increase of four residential units would not add substantial population, nor is the increased commercial or office space expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of four dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs-housing balance in this employment center. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 32 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Specifically, residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance based on the City’s determination that construction of four or fewer units would not have a significant effect on affordable housing in the City, even in a cumulative context. As the project proposes construction of four residential units, it is exempt from the BMR program. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments and the four proposed residential units would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 33 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 2 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would construct a new mixed-use building with commercial and office space and four residential units replacing two existing retail buildings. The 8,774-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of four residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 17 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 17 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 34 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1, 2, 3 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1, 2, 17 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1, 2, 17 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1, 2, 17 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1, 2, 17 X n) Impede the development or function of 1, 2, 3 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 35 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1, 2, 17 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use (Transportation Impact Analysis; Hexagon 2014, included in Appendix I). The analysis was completed in a manner consistent with other transportation impact studies in the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This includes use of the level of service (LOS) methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM; TRB 2000) for signalized intersections, use of the LOS methodology described in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM for unsignalized intersections, and use of the methodologies and standards described in the VTA 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for intersections included in the CMP (VTA 2013). The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon by applying applicable trip generation rates to the existing and proposed building. These calculations (see Table 6) are based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, ninth edition (ITE 2012). The project would replace existing retail/restaurant space of the same size; therefore, trip generation from the first floor retail/restaurant space is excluded from the analysis. In addition, the rooftop office/lunchroom is intended for use by office employees and it therefore included in the office space calculation for trip generation purposes only. The trip generation estimates do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the project location. In this respect, the project trip generation estimates are conservative. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Type Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total General Office 12.603 ksf 6.65 139 1.56 17 2 20 1.49 3 16 19 Apartment 4 du 11.03 27 0.51 0 2 2 0.62 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 166 17 4 22 4 17 21 Source: Hexagon 2014. 1 Trip rates based on ITE 2012, Office (710), Apartment (230). ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling units The proposed project is calculated to cause 22 new AM peak hour trips and 21 new PM peak hour trips. Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimates to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in LOS at any location. The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the following five intersections: 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 36 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 seconds or more and the critical-movement volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Project Effects on LOS and Delay Intersection (control) Peak Hour Average Delay (in seconds) and LOS Existing Existing Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street (Signal) AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.1 0.003 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.2 0.004 PM 9.9 A 10.6 B 0.1 0.006 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.008 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street (TWSC) AM 17.6 C 17.7 C -- -- 22.9 C 23.0 C -- -- PM 15.0 B 15.1 C -- -- 18.6 C 19.1 C -- -- 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 28.2 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 0.000 260.5 F 260.3 F 0.0 0.000 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 30.6 C 30.6 C 0.0 0.001 36.1 D 36.1 D 0.1 0.001 PM 37.0 D 37.0 D 0.0 0.001 158.5 F 158.8 F 0.1 0.001 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street (Signal) AM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.2 0.002 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.2 0.003 PM 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.002 23.6 C 23.8 C 0.2 0.002 TWSC = two-way stop control Bold indicates a substandard level of service. The results in Table 7 show that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 37 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The results in Table 7 also show that two of the signalized study intersections (University Avenue & Kipling Street and Lytton Avenue & Alma Street) would continue to operate adequately (LOS D or better) under cumulative plus project conditions. Two other signalized intersections (University Avenue & Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road) are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. The project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the operation of these intersections, based on the significance criteria described above. As shown in Table 7, project traffic would only increase the critical delay by 0.1 second and the critical V/C value by 0.001, which are less than the significance thresholds of 4 seconds and 0.01, respectively. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Hexagon also considered impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project location is approximately 0.5 miles from the Caltrain station and transit center and in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly downtown area, and the underground parking garage is proposed to include bike lockers and a shower room for employees. It is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize transit or bicycles. Due to the project size, it is unlikely to produce significant bicycle trips or pedestrian trips or impact the nearby trains and buses. It is expected that these additional trips could easily be accommodated by the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Site Access and Onsite Circulation Access to the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30) would be assisted by breaks in traffic on Waverly Street created by the nearby traffic signals at Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block. Such maneuvers are common in downtown settings during commute periods. Based on the estimated traffic generated during the peak periods, it is anticipated that the project’s garage access to and from Lane 30 at Waverly and Kipling Streets, respectively, would operate acceptably and would be typical of a development in an urban setting with underground parking. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at garage entrance/exit. Truck access and loading would be provided adjacent to the project site via the alley (Lane 30). The alley is 20 feet in width and truck loading requires a width of 10 feet, which leaves the remaining 10 feet available for vehicles to pass in this one-way alley. The alley currently provides adequate truck access for other adjacent businesses, and it is expected that it would provide adequate access for the proposed project as well since the width of the alley would remain the same. Adequate corner sight distance is required at the exit of the alley to ensure that drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. Sight distance is typically measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The proposed project would provide a 4-foot setback from the edge of the alley. The project would also replace the large street tree nearest this corner which would improve the visibility of the roadway. The combination of the setback and the tree removal is expected to provide adequate visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. Additionally, bike lockers require a five foot aisle in front of the door openings. The proposed parking plan meets these minimum specifications, as well as providing the minimum dimensions for standard, accessible, and van-accessible spaces. However, due to the 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 38 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto limited footprint of the underground parking, vehicles are required to navigate tight 90 degree turns near the ends of both ramps and the middle of the lower ramp, where sight lines may be restricted. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires that mirrors be installed in the parking garage to provide adequate site distance. Parking The project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Specifically, the PAMC requires that the project provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of new commercial space and two spaces for each of the residential units plus guest spaces (one space plus 10%). The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for four residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in-lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two- level underground parking garage. The project would also meet the applicable bicycle parking requirements. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1 bicycle space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 80% for long-term parking and 20% for short-term parking. In addition, 4 long-term bicycle spaces (1 per unit) are required for the residential units. The project is required to provide 13 total bicycle parking spaces. As reflected in the site plans, the project proposes to provide 7 long-term bicycle parking spaces within the underground parking garage and 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces near the entrances of the building on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The bicycle parking spaces provided on the project site meet the requirements of Ordinance 18.52.040 and follow layout requirements of PAMC Section 18.54.060. While this project does not include an explicit transportation demand management (TDM) plan, several elements common to TDM are present. Most importantly, the project is located in a transit-rich and pedestrian friendly location. Second, the project proposes to include both bicycle lockers and a restroom with a shower. Both of these features should result in some reduction in automobile trips generated by the project and reduce the amount of parking needed by employees. In addition, the project is in a good location for transit-related TDM strategies that may be implemented by future tenants, such as Caltrain and VTA Go Passes or reimbursement of transit fares. However, due to the small project trip generation, a TDM plan is not necessary to reduce peak hour trips. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 39 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 40 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 2 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, Aesthetics, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 41 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto III SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2014 (Appendix B) 7. Cultural Resources Memorandum (Appendix C) 8. Historic Architectural Evaluations, 2014 (Appendix D) 9. Geotechnical Investigation, 2013 (Appendix E) 10. Phase I ESA 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street, 2014 (Appendix F) 11. Phase I ESA for the Commercial Buildings, 1999 (Appendix F) 12. Environmental Transaction Screen, 429–447 University Avenue, 2010 (Appendix F) 13. Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments, 2014 (Appendix G) 14. Special Projects Worksheet, 2014 (Appendix G) 15. Environmental Noise Study, 2014 (Appendix H) 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 17. Traffic Impact Analysis, 2014 (Appendix I) REFERENCES CITED 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. “Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20 Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20I%20%20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_ Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Article 2, Definitions, Section 4526, “Timberland.” California Public Resources Code, Article 3, Definitions, Section 12220(g), “Forest land.” California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 42 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Boston, MA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Heather Martinelli, AICP Katherine Waugh, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 43 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto IV DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 44 November 2014, updated January 2015 Milpitas SanJose MountainView PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo DiscoveryBay Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood PleasantHill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho AptosHills-LarkinValley Interlaken SantaCruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton DayValley ScottsValley BenLomond BoulderCreek MorganHill LexingtonHills SanJose LosGatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvale PortolaValley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoonBay MenloPark BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo FosterCity Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco SanFrancisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastroValley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley SanRafael Lagunitas-ForestKnolls Lucas Valley-Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo AmericanCanyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d 0115.5 Miles Project Site 82 101 FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Palo Alto Quadrangle. Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 2 _ V i c i n t y . m x d 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: BING 2014 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 1 9 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ M A P S \ I S \ F i g u r e 3 _ A e r i a l _ M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Boundary Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study 8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Site Plan FIGURE 4 TRU ENORTHPROJ E C T NOR T H UP DN DN UP RAMP DN TO LV. 1 PARKING 18' - 0 " CU R B T O C U R B 10 0 ' - 0 " 110'-0"20'-0"12'-0" SIDEWALKALLEY/ (E) DRIVEWAY 25'-6" TO C OF UNIV. AVE. L 10 ' - 0 " 15 ' TO C O F K I P L I N G S T . L UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E LA N E 3 0 KIPLING STREET (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE(APPROVED BY CITY)TYP. OF 3 PAIRS (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA SID E W A L K PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 0 5 10 15 20 FT (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE OR SIM(APPROVED BY CITY) FDC, TYP. (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA 4'-0" 6'-0" 1 1 1 4'- 0 " 6'-0" 3 4'-1 1/2" 4'-10" C R T STORM FILTER,SEE CIVIL DWG. 4 (N) WALL MOUNTED GAS METERS 4 T C R SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study 8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Elevations FIGURE 5 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL LANE 30 428 UNIVERSITY AVE. 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL UNIVERSITY AVE. WAVERLEY ST.KIPLING ST. UNIVERSITY AVE. STREETSCAPE ELEVATION 1 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KIPLING ST. STREETSCAPE 2 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study 8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Perspective Renderings FIGURE 6 VIEW FROM UNIVERSITY AVE. AND KIPLING ST.1 N.T.S. VIEW FROM ACROSS KIPLING STREET 2 N.T.S. AERIAL VIEW FROM UNIVERSITY AVE. AND KIPLING STREET 3 N.T.S. VIEW FROM ACROSS UNIVERSITY AVE.4 N.T.S. 4 44 4 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program January 2015 INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the 429 University Avenue project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 429 University Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3. the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4. performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). Attachment H 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:  Aesthetics  Agricultural Resources  Air Quality  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. Applicant City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Group/Planning Division Arborist  Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits  During demolition, excavation, and construction  Approved site plans reflect applicable conditions  Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance  Training materials provided to construction contractors  Field inspections conducted to verify compliance 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety’s 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer’s information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program 429 University Avenue Project Page 7 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Attachment I Attachment J Attachment K: Project Plans – delivered to ARB Board Members only Also available online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2449&TargetID=319 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Attachment E ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD February 19, 2015 VERBATIM MINUTES DRAFT EXCERPT ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= Item No. 1: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail buildings with a total of 11,633 sf and construct a 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building with two levels of underground parking providing 40 on-site spaces on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration public review period was November 17,2014 through December 12, 2014. The hearing of this item was continued from the January 15, 2015 ARB meeting to this date. 17 Chair Popp: This is a request by Ken Hayes Architects on behalf of Kipling Post LP for architectural 18 review of a proposal to demolish two one-story commercial/retail buildings with a total of 11,633 square 19 feet and construct a 31,407 square foot, four-story mixed-use building with a below grade 40-space 20 parking facility on two levels on an 11,000 square foot site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C(GF)(P)) 21 zoning district. Environmental assessment: initial study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration public 22 review period was November 17, 2014 through December 12, 2014. The hearing of this item was 23 continued from the January 15, 2015 ARB meeting to this date. I'm sure we have a staff report. 24 25 Christy Fong, Planner: Thank you for the introduction and good morning, Board Members. This is the 26 third formal hearing for 429 University Avenue. The project remains as described and there are no 27 changes to the proposed for area and land-use program. The first ARB formal hearing took place on 28 November 20, 2014. The comments received from the meeting were related to the project's 29 compatibility to its context and the overall massing and scale. The project has been revised and gone 30 through the second hearing on January 15, 2015. The ARB comments were summarized in page 2 of the 31 staff report. Since the last hearing the project has been modified. The applicant has prepared a 32 presentation to go through the changes. After the packet distribution last week, staff has received 33 additional public comment. The correspondence along with the applicant's response letters are provided 34 at-places for your consideration. That concludes staff report. 35 36 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: I want to add into that. There are additional comments that we 37 received from a Board Member who is not present, and those are being copied right now. Finally, as 38 Christy mentioned, it's the third public hearing, so the Board by Code is asked to make a 39 recommendation today. If there was a desire to continue it and the applicant was amenable to this and 40 allowed this, then that is something to work out and can be done. 41 42 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. I do want to just disclose that I did receive an email from Board 43 Member Ballantyne in regard to her not being present today. She had provided those comments as an 44 attachment to that; I forwarded that on to staff for printing for today. I think, with that, we'd like to ask 45 Mr. Hayes to present the changes for the project. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 Mr. Hayes: Let me get situated here before you start the clock. Good morning, Members of the Board, 2 Chair Popp. My name's Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be presenting the project on behalf 3 of my client, Kipling Post LLP. Before I start, I'd like to extend my thanks to the planner, Christy Fong, 4 and also Chief Planner Amy French for assisting us with bringing the application back to you in a 5 complete form. I think we're all familiar with the site on the corner of Kipling and University Avenue. It's 6 a neighborhood that has buildings varying in height from one story to six stories tall. Most of that mass 7 concentrated on University Avenue. The project, as Christy pointed out, hasn't changed, so we have 8 ground-floor retail. Second floor is office. The third floor are three residential apartments, about 2,500 9 square feet each, and the fourth floor has a big roof terrace because we've set the fourth floor back quite 10 a ways. It has a small office space as well as another apartment at that level, also about 2,500 square 11 feet. This is the shady lane. This is the corner of Kipling and University Avenue, so the project site is 12 this one here, and then another shot from the University side at the former Apple building over here. 13 When we were here in January, we generally had your support, I think, with the modifications that had 14 been made relative to mass, scale, setback and, I think more importantly, rhythm to the façade and, I 15 think, the material palette had been one that was endorsed at the prior meeting. But you had some 16 details you wanted us to come back on, and those specifically were provide ground-level planters on the 17 alley side of the project. The residential railings, some concern about seeing personal property on the 18 balconies, and so how could those railings be addressed. I want to make sure, Board Member Lew, that 19 clear glazing is used at the ground floor to address your concerns, so the drawings say that. Also on the 20 Kipling side, there was some discussion about reducing the impact of the canopy that provided shelter at 21 the elevator and the stair enclosure, and also maybe reduce the cantilever of the balcony at the second 22 floor lobby, if you will. We had the public art in the lobby prior, and the Art Commission expressed some 23 concern about that as well, so we have a new location we are proposing for the public art. Then there 24 was some discussion about maybe a different treatment at the University Avenue and Kipling corner on 25 the ground floor. The first slide shows the changes on the alley here. We've introduced three handmade 26 clay pots, about 31, 32 inches tall, 18 inches rectangular which would have horse tail planted in them. 27 They're beautiful pots, and they would match the pots that we have on the fourth floor balcony. The 28 horse tail also matches the planting that is in the built-in planter located here on the corner. On the 29 University Avenue façade, and both these images, or all four of the next slides, the top image was the 30 last one you saw. The changes here are a frosted glass, laminated railing at the third floor apartments to 31 hide the personal property; clear glass on the ground floor; and we've done some reconfiguration of the 32 unit on the fourth floor, bringing the living area to the front. That resulted in some changes here. We 33 added some windows there that you didn't see here before. On the corner, we really felt strongly about 34 keeping a corner window, and I think we had the support of some of the Members on that concept. It is 35 consistent with one of the prescribed ways to address a corner. Our owner's program from the very 36 beginning was a corner window, so we feel pretty strongly about keeping that. On the Kipling side, again 37 the corner window is as was before. We have the translucent glass on both of these residential 38 balconies, clear glass described on the ground floor. The biggest change has to do with this corner here. 39 We've pulled it in 1 1/2 feet, I think, about 1 1/2 feet. Pushed it in towards the building, so it doesn't 40 hang out to the alley. The property line is right here, so we're about 4 foot back from the edge of the 41 property line, I believe. The canopy that is here for the elevator, you see here, you can't tell in this 42 drawing, we've pushed it back 5 feet. Instead of 10 feet, it's 5 feet deep from the elevator door 43 approximately. Then you see the planter here, that was there prior. The art work, we're thinking let's 44 try to engage the artist to do something on the stairwell. I think there was some suggestion about that 45 as well. We don't know what yet, but that's what we're going to target. I think that'll do a number of 46 things; provide interest there on a blank wall and also help with some of the scale and texture of that 47 piece. On the alley, you see the change here where this canopy was pushed back 5 feet. You don't 48 really notice the change here; although, we did change the texture of the reveal pattern, just getting a 49 little bit more refined. So it sort of reduces, makes a little bit smaller scale on the reveal pattern. You 50 see the planters here, and then we have a Ficus vine that's actually going to grow on the concrete wall 51 located there. Again on the fourth floor, there's some of those changes I talked about, where we've just 52 done some reconfiguring of the unit which has shifted some of the windows around, like these windows 53 are different here. Other than that, no change. The only change on the side is the translucent glass. 54 This is prior, so now this piece of glass here is translucent, so that wraps that corner of that third floor 55 unit. Then the integration with the streetscape. You see the one story buildings coming along. It steps 56 up to this piece, and then it steps up again to this piece. As you all know, this is set back about 15 feet, City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 so it will read like a nice transition, I think, to the rest of the block. Then on the Kipling side, you can see 2 where we've pushed this back as well, there, and then the art work will be on that corner to help this 3 transition. This is the prior. We thought it would be good just to see them kind of next to each other. 4 You see the glass here and there, and then how this has been pushed back. That's where the art work 5 would go. Then on University Avenue, oh, you can see the planters down the alley as well. University 6 Avenue, before and after. Now, I think it'll read more translucent than this. I don't want it to look like 7 the neo (unintelligible), sorry, which will increase the mass. We want it to be translucent enough to be 8 differentiated; yet, solid enough to hide what's behind it, and I think it will. That's it. Thank you very 9 much. I look forward to a recommendation for approval to the Director. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Popp: So let's go to the Board for any questions that we might have. Mr. Kim, do you want to get 12 any clarifications or questions from staff at this point. 13 14 Board Member Kim: No questions on clarification. 15 16 Chair Popp: Mr. Gooyer and Board Member Lew. 17 18 Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. Apologies, I should have sent this to you guys earlier. I 19 do have a question on the Transfer Development Rights section of the Code. Do you have the zoning 20 here? I just want a clarification on this. It's Section 18.80.80. It says page, I think, what is it? Page 17 21 of the TDR Ordinance. So there's one section that says in reviewing a project proposed for a receiver site 22 pursuant to this Section, the Architectural Review Board shall review the project in accordance with 23 Section 16.48.120 of the Code. And then you go to that section, and it's been deleted. I was just trying 24 to understand maybe what was the intent of it. Is there something that we should be doing in lieu of this 25 deletion? 26 27 Ms. French: Yeah, thanks for the question. It's an error in our Municipal Code. 16.48 was the chapter 28 that was formerly entitled Architectural Review Board. 29 30 Board Member Lew: I see. 31 32 Ms. French: So that, back in 2003 I want to say, or '04, was transmuted to Chapters 18.76 and 18.77. 33 The contents were put into those chapters about the ARB findings and purview and then the process in 34 those two chapters. 35 36 Board Member Lew: Okay. And then a follow up is in that same paragraph, it says the project may not 37 be required to be modified for the sole purpose of reducing square footage unless necessary in order to 38 satisfy the criteria of that said chapter. So is that still the case, that we are not allowed to reduce this 39 square footage of this because it's a TDR project? (crosstalk) 40 41 Ms. French: Unless necessary in order to satisfy the criteria for approval. So that's the judgment call. 42 43 Board Member Lew: If a ... 44 45 Ms. French: You know, you have discretionary review. We have the ARB findings and ... 46 47 Board Member Lew: So we're saying that the ARB findings still trump this? 48 49 Ms. French: Correct. 50 51 Board Member Lew: We have to find that it is compatible and, if we don’t find it's compatible, then 52 somehow then the TDRs have to resolve themselves. Is that ... 53 54 Ms. French: Correct. 55 56 Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 Chair Popp: All right, I have no questions, and so at this point we'll go ahead and open up the public 3 hearing. Each person will have 3 minutes to speak. I have five cards in front of me. If anyone else from 4 the audience is interested in speaking to this item, please go ahead and fill out a card and bring it 5 forward. We will begin with Mr. Jeff Levinsky, followed by Neilson Buchanan. Please do announce your 6 name as you come to the mike. 7 8 Jeff Levinsky: My name is Jeff Levinsky. Good morning, Board Members and staff. Thank you very 9 much for holding this hearing. I'd like to raise two issues about the project. First of all, some of you may 10 have attended last night's State of the City address, and Mayor Holman focused particularly on the loss of 11 thousands of square feet of retail space in Palo Alto as a major concern for our city. It's happening 12 across town, but particularly downtown. Now the staff report for this project doesn't address the issue of 13 how this project will impact retail, but I estimate in looking at it that the new building will have several 14 thousand square feet fewer for retail than the existing buildings. It's a bit hard to be more precise. The 15 staff report incorrectly says that the existing buildings are one story. In fact, both of them are two story. 16 There's an architect in the second story of one of them. But based on my estimate that not all of the 17 existing 12,000 or so square feet is retail, the new building will have approximately some 7,000 square 18 feet. So there's going to be a loss of at least 2 or more thousand square feet of retail. So it will 19 contribute to the citywide problem. You're being asked to make a finding, number 4 on page 8, saying 20 the project reinforces University Avenue as the retail core of downtown Palo Alto by maintaining ground- 21 floor retail uses. I think it's important that you reject the finding as the building is not maintaining retail 22 space, but rather reducing retail space and, thus, undercutting University Avenue's retail environment. 23 My second point comes from visiting the property yesterday for about half an hour and looking at all the 24 neighboring properties on University and Kipling. With one exception across the street, they're all 25 basically one or two-story buildings reflecting traditional Palo Alto architectural styles. One adjacent 26 building has a very ornate façade. The buildings across the street, you know, the new varsity buildings 27 and such look very different than this. The Burge Clarke designed store across Kipling plans to remain as 28 a mostly one-story structure with a small two-story extension. I can't see how the proposed design fits 29 into this location either in style or in size. It will completely change the character of that part of the 30 street. I carefully read the owner's recent letter urging, one, take a walk down University Avenue, Lytton 31 or Hamilton to appreciate the diversity of styles downtown. True, but the building is going to be at one 32 particular spot, so please focus on the neighboring buildings at that specific corner of Kipling and 33 University. Thank you very much. 34 35 Chair Popp: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. And next is Neilson Buchanan, to be followed by Stephen Levy. 36 37 Neilson Buchanan: My name is Neilson Buchanan. I live in Downtown North neighborhood adjacent to 38 the University commercial core. My neighborhood is the largest commercial parking lot in the City of Palo 39 Alto. We may be tied for University South or Professorville. We'll soon know the actual breakdown in the 40 next five or six months. That's one of the reasons I'm here but, of all the reasons I am concerned about 41 this project, parking is the least important. Let me try to recite problems, and I'd like to bring some 42 solutions with each one of those. The issue is cumulative negative impact on the quality of 43 neighborhoods. The way the planning process works in most cities is the cumulative impact is not a 44 factor. Each little project says there's no significant change in this project, but cumulatively there is. I 45 don't have time to explain all that, but I appeal to your common sense. The first problem is the housing- 46 job imbalance, and I don't have time to explain any of these things. That tears at the social fabric of Palo 47 Alto in my opinion. We've become a city of commuters; that's not good. If I had an aerial camera, I'd 48 like to show you the parking lot known as Highway 101 and 280, trying to get off the ramps at this very 49 minute. You go out any day during the week; you'll see almost dangerous situations of the right-hand 50 lane being blocked because they can't get off the exits. Parking. I've generated tons of information 51 about the impact of parking. I would like to talk about retail, but I do not have time. So quickly to the 52 solutions. One of the millennial friends, in fact some people on the Planning Commission point out that 53 this is probably the wrong inventory to be adding downtown. We could be offering smaller units instead 54 of two units. There's an appetite among the millennials for much smaller units downtown, and this is a 55 chance to do it. Traffic. On the way out of this traffic thing is the parking assessment district, excuse 56 me, the traffic management district that's being formulated. It's time to make that an accelerated City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 priority of the Council. I know for a fact a donation has been made very recently to the City of Palo Alto 2 to expedite that project, and more on that later. What I'd like to do is try to find a better way to dialog 3 with you in the appeals process for this project coming forward, because we have crossed over the line 4 for cumulative negative impact that is affecting the neighborhoods. I look forward to having a longer 5 discussion with you. These are not easy issues. The retail issue alone is so complicated. But the fact of 6 what Jeff just described is that we're having a material drop in the inventory of retail. Whether it's right 7 or not, each one of these buildings is actually knocking out ground floor square footage. In general, all 8 of this is deficit information in the staff reports, and I think that's the issue that the City Council will be 9 interested in. Thank you very much. 10 11 Chair Popp: Thank you, Mr. Buchanan. Stephen Levy, to be followed by Michael Harbor. 12 13 Stephen Levy: My name is Stephen Levy. I live downtown. I've worked on University or Hamilton since 14 1969. I walk those streets virtually every day and night since I came here in 1963. I come in support of 15 the project, but more important in support of your process. I want to thank Christy and Amy and you. I 16 do believe that public agencies appropriately negotiate and give feedback to project proponents. What 17 I've seen both in what Ken Hayes did today and what the applicant has done earlier is two or three 18 rounds of actually responding to your Architectural Review Board requests. I'm no architect. I know that 19 tastes differ. I don't think I have a right to impose my taste on a project proponent any more than I do 20 on a homeowner, so I have to trust you on that. I do think that the process and the proposal is legal. 21 That's what I get from reading the document. That the parking, the Transfer of Development Rights and 22 the in-lieu payments is legal for this property, that the renovation is appropriate. I know that some 23 residents would like to see University Avenue back as it was in the '60s. It was pretty rocking in the '60s, 24 but in the '70s and the '80s and the '90s it wasn't. We're now in 2015. One needs to expect change. 25 Town and Country is changing. Stanford Shopping Center is changing. Downtown needs to change as 26 well to keep pace with competitive pressures, to keep pace with who the customers are. I appreciate 27 that the proponent added housing and that that the housing is apartments and not condos. I appreciate 28 that new buildings allow the city to impose green building standards. If we keep everything the same as 29 it was, we're going to have a more difficult time meeting our green standards. Finally, to Neilson's point 30 of cumulative impacts, that has to be taken into account with cumulative mitigation programs, like the 31 TMA and like TDM and like the proposals at Palantir and Survey Monkey. To reduce employee use, you 32 just cannot take one part of the equation on cumulative impacts and assume we're going to do nothing 33 over time to mitigate them. It's a very difficult issue. Thank you, but I do support the project. 34 35 Chair Popp: Thank you, Mr. Levy. Next we'll have Michael Harbor, to be followed by Sam Arsan. 36 37 Michael Harbor: Good morning. I'm Michael Harbor, and I own the building at 421 Kipling Street. You 38 know, I have to say that I am impressed with the design of the building and what has evolved over time. 39 I think it is a beautiful building, but you can't look at it in a vacuum, that it has to be looked at in the 40 context of the neighborhood and that specific narrow street, Kipling Street, which this building is 41 anchoring. That's my whole reason for being here. You know, I'm not a developer. I'm not a 42 speculator. I'm a physician. I've missed three days of work because I think it's important to be able to 43 come and speak my mind about our community, and I really like this community. And yes, you can say I 44 have a vested interest because I own a building down the street, but that's a very unique street for Palo 45 Alto. You know, this week's Daily Post front page was, you know, second chance for reviewing this 46 massive building. I think many people in the community consider this a massive building. I have nothing 47 against it in and of itself, but Kipling is not the same as the other streets that are going down there. I've 48 owned my building here since 2001, and I've been hit on that street a couple of times because, when 49 cars are parked on both sides of Kipling Street, that street effectively acts as a one-way street. One 50 person goes, and then another person goes. You can't have two cars going simultaneously. They clip off 51 each other's side view mirrors, and that's what's happened to me twice. I actually went and read very 52 thoroughly the Hexagon transportation consultant's report that was presented as part of this application. 53 On page 39, it's clearly stated here. It should be noted that a queue of more than a single vehicle in the 54 southbound direction, so that's people exiting Kipling Street and going towards University, could prevent 55 other vehicles from turning right from westbound University onto Kipling Street due to the extremely 56 narrow roadway and presence of parked vehicles. I don't know if any of you have really gone through City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 and read this. It's tedious, but it's stated right there. And then the other thing on page 47. Right there. 2 In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alleyway, so Alleyway 30 where all the cars are 3 going to be directed from Waverley Street, going down into the garage and then coming up and either 4 going to be turning left or right onto Kipling Street. It says in the event that a vehicle making a right turn 5 out of the alley onto Kipling encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn 6 onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton to circle around the block to get to where he or she is going. 7 That particular narrow streets don't lend themselves for an underground parking lot that's going to have 8 a net 166 new cars. That's what the report says. There's going to be 166 net new cars. The building is 9 beautiful. I don't have any problem with it. I'd like to be able to mitigate this aspect from Kipling Street. 10 That's my biggest thing. I wish you could please consider that. 11 12 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. Thank you. And then the last card I have today is Sam Arsan. 13 14 Sam Arsan: Good morning. My name's Sam Arsan. 15 16 Chair Popp: If you don't mind, could you speak right into the mike for us? We're trying to make sure 17 everyone can hear you. 18 19 Mr. Arsan: Sure. Good morning. 20 21 Chair Popp: Thank you, Sam. 22 23 Mr. Arsan: My name is Sam Arsan. I manage and lease several buildings in downtown Palo Alto. I've 24 been in the downtown area for over 20 years. I pretty much have several of the merchants and tenants 25 that are currently in downtown as my clients. I support this building quite a bit. I think we need to keep 26 the city vibrant. We have a lot of competition from other cities and other retail areas. This is an older 27 building with failing systems. Some of the tenants that are in there have been my clients. We need to 28 make sure that the new building, which is well designed, it's gone through several revisions already. 29 They've addressed several of your concerns. I just want to make sure that we're able to support the 30 current merchants that are in town, that we're moving with the times. I think one of the things is we just 31 can't remain unchanged. We have to move with the times. I have several people that have looked at 32 that building, but they are interested in and they would be a draw to consumers all over, from the Palo 33 Alto area and outside areas. I just feel that, you know, the owners have done everything they can to 34 accommodate your concerns. I believe it should be approved. Thank you. 35 36 Chair Popp: All right, thank you. I don't have any other cards from the public. If there's anyone else 37 that wishes to speak, please come forward now. Seeing no one doing that, we will close the public 38 hearing and move back to the Board for comments and discussion. Board Member Kim, if you'd begin for 39 us. 40 41 Board Member Kim: Thank you, Mr. Hayes, for re-presenting your project. I just appreciate that, I think 42 the slides when you went back and forth between the previous scheme and the current one helped quite 43 a bit to show us the final revision that you've made here. I mean I agree with a lot of the comments that 44 were made. I think the process has really made the building a lot better and, you know, if we are going 45 to make the recommendation today, I don't think I would have a problem with making that. I just 46 appreciate your willingness to really understand our point of view and our comments and to take those 47 into consideration. I think it's a great building. Thank you. 48 49 Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. I always think it results in a better project, so thank you for your 50 comments. 51 52 Chair Popp: Board Member Gooyer, Vice Chair Gooyer. 53 54 Vice Chair Gooyer: I agree there's some nice changes. I think, what we talked about, I agree is that we 55 were talking about the rails will be translucent, not opaque basically, but I knew that was what you had 56 intended. It just had looked a bit ... City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 Mr. Hayes: Solid. 3 4 Vice Chair Gooyer: ... white on the rendering. Yeah, I mean realistically I've heard various things about 5 the massing and everything else. If the ordinances allow a four-story building to be built in this particular 6 location, I think, you know, the applicant has done a heck of a job working with all the requirements that 7 we've put on them and the suggestions we've given. And I think the final solution is a good solution 8 based on the criteria. I don't have a problem with the corner being the way it is. I don't particularly 9 need to have the 45 or the open corner; it's not that big of a deal to me. The only other thing I was 10 thinking is that if you, to make the building look smaller or less massive, whatever you want to call it, is 11 removing the upper eyebrow. I just don't think that would help the design of the building itself. I mean 12 I know we keep talking about you can't judge a building like this in a vacuum, but the reality of it also is 13 that sometimes if you would try adapting too much to the environment around it, it ruins the actual 14 design of the building itself. I can support the building like this, or the project the way it stands. 15 16 Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. 17 18 Chair Popp: Board Member Lew. 19 20 Board Member Lew: So thank you, Ken. Since this project seems to be so polarizing to the community, I 21 spent a lot of time trying to think outside of the box. I don't really have any issues with the particular 22 building given the rules that we have. I actually went and looked at other cities to see what other rules, 23 say like San Francisco or Santa Monica are doing to try to address the concerns that the residents have 24 on this particular project. I'm going to spend a lot of time talking about, and please rein me in if I’m 25 taking up too much time. I just want to give some throw-out examples, and these are not things that 26 are the purview of the ARB. This is really Planning Commission level kind of comments. I think to 27 Mr. Buchanan's concerns about the overflow parking, that's cities in my mind. Like Berkeley and Boulder 28 have like 40 percent single-occupant vehicle trip generation, where Palo Alto, we're in like the 67-74 29 percent, somewhere there. So other cities have far fewer single-occupant, I say other comparable cities, 30 far fewer single-occupant trips than Palo Alto. We, I think, are morally responsible to reduce that 31 number. So for example, in Boulder the downtown businesses, the employees, full-time employees who 32 work in the downtown assessment district get free transit passes. That's paid for by parking garage and 33 parking meter revenue. Those employees drive half as much as employees who are sort of outside the 34 downtown district who don't get the free passes. To me, that's huge. That really takes a lot of pressure 35 off of both parking and also traffic. They also have a .006 percent sales tax that helps subsidize the 36 EcoPass for residents, and they do that by neighborhood. Also, Denver has like a .4 percent sales tax for 37 building rail. I've been out to Denver, and they're building light rail all over the place. Their queues are 38 like our Caltrain, and they're being much more progressive about it. They're really trying to get the 39 single-occupant trips down to 25 percent by 2025. I think that we're, I think Mr. Buchanan's saying that 40 our policies are sort of just behind the times, and I do agree with him about that. Then even with the 41 pass, if you get a pass, then there are maybe like 50 or so merchants that give discounts for the 42 employees that have the passes. In downtown Santa Monica, another example is they have a Park Me 43 website. It gives the number of spaces that are available in any garage at any time of the day, and 44 there's an app too. So you get on the phone, it will tell you the percentage fullness of the garage, all 45 right. It will also tell you the cost. Sometimes it's free; sometimes there are charges for it. Then you 46 can also reserve a spot. If you know you need to be in downtown, if you have an interview or something 47 and you need a spot and you have to drive, there will be one there for you if you reserve it. Century City 48 in Los Angeles, the shopping mall, like every single space in the garage has a red or a green light. So if 49 you're going into the garage, you know these huge, fast garages, you don't need to head down into that 50 section that's all red. It's all up here in the ceiling lights. Yeah, and so we just need to get with the 51 times. Other places are much more progressive about it than we are, and we just need to get moving 52 with that. With regards to massing, I agree with Board Member Gooyer that if our zoning allows 50-foot 53 buildings, then that's the rule. If the community feels that it should be something else, then we should 54 change the rules. In San Francisco, on certain streets, on pedestrian-oriented streets like Hayes Street, 55 which is a main street like University Avenue, they really want to protect the existing retail and the 56 narrow pattern, rhythm of the storefronts. They actually in their Zoning Code, it's Section 121.6, there's City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 a restriction of lot mergers in pedestrian-oriented streets, and then it gives a dimension, like a maximum 2 dimension. For example, Hayes Street is 50 feet, parts of Market Street it may be like 150 feet or 3 whatnot. It varies depending on the location. But for the people we've received comments from that 4 want to keep downtown one story, two stories, they want the sun and all of that, something like that 5 needs to be in the Comp Plan and the zoning. Like the ARB is not in that position to take off that much 6 square footage on a project. It's the zoning entitlement. We're not there. I'm saying if the community 7 feels that way, change the rules. Also in San Francisco, this issue about the skinny streets, they have 8 additional height limits on narrow streets. In San Francisco, they consider it less than 40 feet, so that 9 would not necessarily apply to Kipling which is a 50-foot right-of-way. But for example, it has a daylight 10 plane, and they measure it differently. It's a 50 degree daylight plane. They measure it differently than 11 we do in Palo Alto, but I sort of sketched it on the drawings, and Ken's project would comply with San 12 Francisco's narrow street daylight plane. That's not to say we wouldn't have something else, but I think 13 to the point, the idea though is that if there's a skinny street that has different sun and visibility issues or 14 whatnot, then our zoning could or should, I don't know, have special regulations regarding that. But we 15 don't at the moment. I should also mention too that that particular ordinance in San Francisco does not 16 apply at the corners. Like downtown Palo Alto, like it's okay to have a larger building at the corner, and 17 then midblock they should sort of step down. The last thing, which I think has been debated, I think, 18 last fall when the Planning Commission was, you know, chain stores and retail stuff, and so San Francisco 19 does have a fairly crazy Conditional Use Permit process for what they call formula retail, where they try to 20 manage the type and mix of stores, so you don't have two big chain stores selling the exact same thing 21 in one neighborhood and put out all of the local businesses. That's under discussion elsewhere in the 22 city, but I just would throw that out there today. I think we also had some residents of Kipling talk 23 about, you know, trying to create a Victorian street or something like that. I actually like that idea. In 24 downtown Oakland, there's a really great little place called Preservation Park which is 16 Victorians. Five 25 of them were originally on that block, and then the other eleven were moved. They were, like, 26 threatened with demolition from, like, freeway widenings and whatnot, street widenings, and so the 27 developers moved it all together into one space. It's office, event space, and a little bit of retail space. 28 That was not easy to do. It was two different developers, then the city had to step in, and it took them 29 ten years. Like that's not an easy thing to do and that requires, like, way more, you know, planning and 30 leg work than we can do here. If you guys feel strongly about that, that's a really great idea. To me, 31 like Kipling could be better than it is. 32 33 Mr. Hayes: It is a big city-owned parcel (crosstalk). 34 35 Board Member Lew: The city-owned lot, I'm thinking, is ripe for something really great there. That 36 parking lot's always been sort of, yeah, just not ideal. And then the other issue with Kipling and, I think, 37 Lane 30 was that they were narrow. I used to work on like new urbanist developments, and we 38 purposely designed skinny streets. They were always very difficult to get through cities, especially like 39 from the fire department and public works. Normally what ended up happening was that there was, 40 certain parts of the block were striped red to allow the passing of cars. It seems logical to me that 41 something like that would happen on Kipling. 42 43 Mr. Hayes: One way. 44 45 Board Member Lew: Yeah, or one way. So in my neighborhood we have lots of little, skinny streets. If 46 there's some sort of big event, whatever, the city restricts parking to just one side of the street. They 47 don't do it every day, but it's on certain days they do it. They've been testing out different scenarios, you 48 know, just based on when they anticipate bigger, more demand. Otherwise, on lower demand days they 49 do want to allow people to like park in front of their house or whatnot. I'm sort of curious that there was 50 nothing in the staff report. I mean the residents have mentioned it, but it wasn't really addressed 51 specifically in the Hexagon environmental studies. I didn't really see anything specific to like passing cars 52 or whatnot. Okay. And then thank you for the glazing. I just did want to follow up on that with the 53 solar ban and the low E glazing. To me this is a really important issue. I think that whether it's clear or 54 star fire doesn't make a difference to me. As I checked it, the clear glazing with low E has a 70 percent 55 light transmittance value, and star fire is like 75 percent like transmittance value. But if you use tinted 56 glass, it goes down to as low as 35 percent. I think we have to be, I don't know a way to say it. I think City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 we should have some sort of guidelines or just pay attention to it on every single retail project, because 2 35 percent is not acceptable ... 3 4 Mr. Hayes: You looked at solar ban 70? 5 6 Board Member Lew: Solar ban 60 with the various, you know, I mean there are a dozen different tints. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. But there's a clear one. 9 10 Board Member Lew: Right. The clear ones are up in the 70 to 75 percent, but the tints ... 11 12 Mr. Hayes: (crosstalk) 13 14 Board Member Lew: ... go way down really fast. 15 16 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, with the color. 17 18 Board Member Lew: 40 percent, 50 percent, way, way, way down. I see it on lots of new buildings, I'm 19 not picking on you, on other buildings and, to me, it's a problem. I don't even see how retailers stay in 20 business if nobody can see through the storefront. I mean I just don't get it. So that's where I am on 21 the project. 22 23 Mr. Hayes: Okay, thank you (crosstalk). 24 25 Board Member Lew: I support the project. In an ideal world, I really support more of our 2.0 Floor Area 26 Ratio. The 2.86 seems big to me, particularly at the back. I'd like the stepping. I think there should be 27 like a larger discussion on the TDRs. Like basically we're preserving some older buildings, right, with 28 seismic and historic renovations, and we're trading it off for a bigger building here. But I don't know 29 what the other end, it's like a see-saw. Since those don't come here I never see the end of the see-saw, 30 and so I'm trying to weigh the balance not knowing. It seems to me it's ripe for a community discussion 31 about that, you know, a larger picture of how that ordinance has been working. Okay, and that's it. 32 33 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 34 35 Chair Popp: That's it. All right. So I'm trying to summarize this a little bit and weave my own thoughts 36 into this. I agree with Alex's comments about the 2.86. I mean it's a lot for this site. It's a lot. On top 37 of the 2.86, there's a 200 square foot bonus that was taken, and all of these things in aggregate have 38 created what is a significant building. That said, I think you've done a masterful job of managing that 39 square footage. The changes that you've made to the building since we first saw it are dramatic. I really 40 appreciate the presentation that you brought today, where you showed the subtle changes in the 41 balcony. What I really wish you had shown today was the first proposal. 42 43 Mr. Hayes: You only have 10 minutes. 44 45 Chair Popp: I'd give you another 30 seconds for that one. I think it's important for people to understand 46 how this process has worked, in particular on this building which does seem to be really polarizing. I 47 think that there are projects where we don't have a lot of challenge, and it's a fairly easy approval 48 process. Others go through three full hearings, and sometimes a preliminary as well. It takes us a little 49 longer to get to a place where we're supportive. Alex has said there are laws in place that permit this 50 type of development, and Ms. Wong and her team conformed to those laws. The parking here is beyond 51 what you're required to provide. You've paid into the in-lieu. You've used the TDRs, and still opted to 52 provide five more than are needed. The parking problem is not this building. The parking problem is the 53 buildings that have been built before this, ten years ago, that are being used as office space far in excess 54 of what their parking provides or their use anticipated. The infrastructure in our city has not kept pace, 55 and I'm going to put it on the Council to take steps to take care of this. It's not this individual building 56 that's the problem. I'm going to be very surprised if this building gets appealed on that basis, because it City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 has no standing as I see it. Kipling is commercially zoned. The transitions that you have made relate to 2 that well. Yeah, it's a narrow street. Yeah, it's got a different character. But the zoning contemplates all 3 of this, and it's in place, and you've followed it. You've complied. I am going to condition my approval 4 on an evaluation of the street and some parking changes. Perhaps removal of a couple of parking spaces 5 to mitigate the concerns about stacking. You know, if we're really seeing accidents happen there 6 because the street is so narrow, we should think about a one-way street. I don't want to see one more 7 accident. I don't want to see one more person hurt because of the narrowness of a street. But this 8 building is not changing the dimension of the street. This building is not changing the parking and the 9 way it occurs on that street. I'm having a little trouble understanding where the frosted glass is versus 10 the not-frosted glass, and I want to just make sure that it's on all of the residential balconies. It looked 11 to me like it wasn't on Kipling. Is that ... 12 13 Mr. Hayes: It's on all residential balconies that face the two public street frontages, and this side here, 14 Chair Popp, right here. 15 16 Chair Popp: Okay. So ... 17 18 Mr. Hayes: On the alley ... 19 20 Chair Popp: On University and Kipling, it's some type of a translucent but not transparent glass? 21 22 Mr. Hayes: Right. And then what you would see on this angle here (crosstalk). 23 24 Chair Popp: It's not quite clear from your drawings, and the translucency sort of stops mid-panel even 25 on one of the drawings. I just want to make sure that that's well coordinated and clarified. I'm going to 26 ask you to provide a sample of that glass to subcommittee for us. I appreciate the finer grain that you've 27 developed for the building and the character that you have changed and how you've re-looked at that. 28 You know, I'm jumping around here a little bit. The unit design itself, you know as Mr. Levy and others 29 have described, it's great to have housing downtown. I'd love to have seen smaller units. You certainly 30 have the parking to accommodate that. It would have been great to get that, because I think that's the 31 most desirable for the millennial generation which are likely to be using this. On A-3.2, I have just one 32 concern with the rear elevation. You show CP-2. You've got this sort of sawhorse that's projecting 33 forward that's all of the CP-2 finish. 34 35 Mr. Hayes: You're on 3.2? 36 37 Chair Popp: I'm on 3.2, yeah, drawing number 1. Right next to the little planter bollards and the trash 38 area, just to the left of that, you've got a panel that is CP-2 and the other legs are quite slender and then 39 you've got this one leg that's the same finish. I was going to suggest that maybe that should be CP-1 40 instead. Very minor little nudge. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: On the left-hand side there where it comes down? 43 44 Chair Popp: Yeah, on the left-hand side. I don't know how you feel about that, but it's not going to 45 make or break my approval of this project. 46 47 Mr. Hayes: I would need to look to adjust how the planes comes together. 48 49 Chair Popp: In looking at it, it just looks like it's not speaking the same language as all the other pieces. 50 51 Mr. Hayes: I wouldn't want to change the color in a coplanar transition. 52 53 Chair Popp: All right. 54 55 Mr. Hayes: I want to look at the ... 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Chair Popp: It is coplanar. I was trying to figure it out from the plans, and it looked to me like it was 2 setback just a little bit. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: I think it might be coplanar. 5 6 Chair Popp: Okay. If it is, fine. If it's not, please consider that. I'd also like you to make the height of 7 your mechanical enclosure match the height of the units, whatever that might be. So as you start to 8 understand what your mechanical units are, currently the drawings show the mechanical units lower than 9 the edge of the parapet that surrounds it, the wall that surrounds it, and I'd like them to match. On 10 13A.1, you show metal plates above and below the windows, and I haven't been able to find the finish of 11 that material. 12 13 Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry, I'm writing these down. 14 15 Chair Popp: That's fine. 13A.1, you have a window system, and at the bottom edge and at the top 16 edge, the head, there's a metal plate showing that doesn't indicate the finish. 17 18 Mr. Hayes: That will match the window system. 19 20 Chair Popp: It matches the window system. Okay, that's what I was hoping. All right, terrific. So only 21 two other things that I’m challenged with. First, I don't feel the landscape is very satisfactory on this 22 project. We've got some narrative about the landscape, the types of planters that are being used, the 23 types of plantings that are in it, and the conclusion says, and I quote, "[a]ll plant material shown is 24 subject to change in the design process. Plant material in the containers may also be substituted or 25 replaced at various times during the growing season." So we don't have any clarity as to what you're 26 planning to do or how you're planning to do it, because there's no plan, there's no commitment. 27 28 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so they've proposed horse tail in both the potted plants on the ground floor, and the 29 built-in planter is also horse tail, and then there's Ficus that is on the wall immediately behind that on the 30 ground floor. 31 32 Chair Popp: Right, growing up the wall. 33 34 Mr. Hayes: I think the way that's written they're giving you the flexibility to say what you want. That's 35 what the landscape and the architectural firm wants, but they're keeping it open for your input. 36 37 Chair Popp: All right, so here's what I ... 38 39 Mr. Hayes: And then on the fourth floor terrace it's a boxwood hedge. 40 41 Chair Popp: So I'm not in the position of saying which particular plants I want or what the design should 42 be. I'm in the position of saying what I want to compel you to do. The boxwood, I think, are too small 43 and too few. The design is too sparse, and I think we need to see something more capable than what's 44 proposed. I'm in support of this project at this point. 45 46 MOTION 47 Chair Popp: I'd like to make a motion that we approve this project as presented and in accordance with 48 the staff report and attachments that it includes. The approval is conditioned with the following items: 49 the signage, the art placement and light of the art, the glass for the balconies, the landscape plan should 50 all return to subcommittee for review. 51 52 SECOND 53 Vice Chair Gooyer: I'll second. 54 55 Chair Popp: I'm sorry, not quite done. You may not like these next things. We'll see. In addition to 56 that, because they're not legible in this package, I'd like staff to review the photometrics and confirm that City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 they are appropriate. I'll note then on A-2.8 images listed A, B, and C for the types of light fixtures don't 2 match the legend which is labeled B, D, and C. One last item for staff, which is to follow up on the 3 parking conditions on Kipling and if that should be made a part of the project requirements in attempt to 4 mitigate concerns. I think that seems appropriate. 5 6 Vice Chair Gooyer: Okay, I can live with those modifications. I guess the only one is the last one. Can 7 we really tie that to this building? I would have a problem with that. 8 9 Board Member Lew: That was my question for staff. Do we have purview over that? 10 11 Chair Popp: Let me just describe why I'm doing that. So we have a traffic analysis that says that there 12 is a concern about queuing on the street as a result of placement of the garage and the number of cars 13 that are part of this. It seems appropriate to me that, because there is this potential for impact in that 14 area, that it would be appropriate to tie that obligation to the project. Ms. French, maybe you can 15 describe your opinion. 16 17 Ms. French: Yes, I'd like to weigh in on that. So when you said the word mitigation, my ears perked up. 18 You know, the environmental document did not find that mitigation was required, so we wouldn't want to 19 add mitigation for queuing. I do have an email from our Transportation Division staff that talks about 20 the, you know, queuing or taking turns, and he says that any proposed changes to Kipling such as 21 converting to one way, removal of parking would require direction from City Council to investigate. I 22 don't think it's in your purview to direct us to do that, you know, as a part of your recommendation. 23 Certainly to encourage staff to explore, you know, ways to make the existing condition safer, perhaps 24 there's some existing conditions that, you know, could be explored, but I wouldn't say related to this 25 project because then it sounds like a mitigation and we're not ... 26 27 Chair Popp: All right, that's fine. I'll modify my Motion to retract that line. 28 29 Ms. French: Okay. 30 31 Chair Popp: You'll accept that? 32 33 Vice Chair Gooyer: I'll accept that. 34 35 Chair Popp: Okay. Any further discussion? 36 37 Board Member Lew: Can we add a comment like in our Motion that this is a concern that we have and 38 we can't recommend anything. Just so that is documented and it doesn't fall through the cracks? 39 40 Ms. French: Yeah, I think you're on the record as stating such a concern, along with the community is on 41 record. Certainly that's something that, you know, staff can be looking at. We do have a Transportation 42 Division and folks looking at the parking and other situations including a permit parking program. 43 44 Board Member Lew: One feedback that I've gotten from the Council is that since they don't get verbatim 45 minutes, they don't know exactly how we feel about things unless it's in a Motion. Even on appeals, 46 when they do get like a full transcript, they don't always read every, if we have like three hearings or 47 something on a project, they're not going to read every single word in a transcript. I was trying to think 48 of a way of doing it sort of in an executive summary or something. 49 50 Chair Popp: So I'm ready for a vote. So at this point, all in favor. All those opposed. So this passes 5-0 51 ... 52 Board Member Kim: Four. 53 54 Chair Popp: I'm sorry, excuse me. 4-0-1-0. 55 56 MOTION PASSED 4-0-1-0 Ballantyne absent City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 Chair Popp: In closing, happy to give the applicant 5 minutes for any closing comments that you like. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: I've taken enough of your time today, but thank you for, you know, helping us through the 5 process. Like I said, I think it results in a better building. I'm much happier with where we are today. 6 So thank you. 7 8 Chair Popp: Great. Thank you very much. Great. So shifting around a little bit. The discussion that 9 we're having here is because Board Member Ballantyne is out today, we are just discussing the 10 subcommittee process for the day. Board Member Ballantyne and I are responsible for that, and so in 11 Board Member Ballantyne's place, Vice Chair Gooyer will take the responsibility for that with me today. 12 So thank you for doing that. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5453) Architectural Review Board ARB Staff Report Report Type: New Business Meeting Date: 1/15/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 14PLN-00222 429 University Avenue Title: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail buildings with a total of 11,633 sf and a construction of a 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building with two levels of underground parking providing 40 on-site spaces on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration public review period was November 17, 2014 through December 12, 2014. The hearing of this item was continued from the December 18, 2014 ARB meeting to this date. From: Amy French Lead Department: Architectural Review Board RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the proposed project, based upon the Architectural Review findings (Attachment A) and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment B). BACKGROUND The November 20, 2014 ARB staff report included the following: A project description with site conditions, context, and background regarding a previously proposed project; Discussion regarding Comprehensive Plan conformance, zoning compliance, parking and circulation, tree and landscaping, Context-based design consideration and findings; and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). On November 20, 2014, the ARB conducted a hearing and continued the review of this item to December 18, 2014. The ARB members expressed the following comments on the project: The mix of uses and site planning are appropriate in the Downtown urban setting; The materials are an appropriate expression to the design and function of the project; Attachment F City of Palo Alto Page 2  The overall massing appears out of scale and contextually incompatible with the immediate environment of the site;  The design concept of a secondary grid and some architectural details, such as the dimension of the roof overhang (eyebrow elements), are insufficient to support the intent of reducing the building volume and weight;  Break down the façade’s scale along University Avenue to better respect the existing character and store front rhythms within the block;  The elevator shaft/stair tower at the corner of Kipling Street and Lane 30 does not support the harmonious scale and built form transition to nearby low density buildings;  Although a corner design at the junction of University Avenue and Kipling Street is one of the design options listed in the Downtown Design Guide, explore other alternatives to provide a better transition from University Avenue to (the narrowness of) Kipling Street;  The rear elevation needs attention as it is as important, with the view from Kipling Street toward University Avenue, as the other elevations. Following the November 7, 2014 ARB hearing, the applicant made various modifications and submitted revised project plans on December 15, 2014 and January 7, 2015. The project review was continued from the December 18, 2014 ARB hearing to the January 15, 2015 ARB hearing, to allow staff to process the revised project. The CEQA documents (draft Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and source documents) were available online for public review and comment on November 17, 2014 through December 12, 2014. Since the last ARB hearing, the revised project plans received on December 15, 2014 and January 7, 2015 were uploaded to the City’s website as a courtesy for the public to view the changes. CURRENT PROPOSAL To respond to the November 20, 2014 ARB comments (captured in the excerpt minutes, Attachment L), the applicant submitted revised plans on December 15, 2014 and January 7, 2015. These two plans are similar with the exception of Sheet 0.4- Site Plan. The latter plan includes an enlarged site plan detail for the covered space abutting Lane 30. Other modifications are made in the recent plan to address the aesthetic concerns regarding the building’s scale, the store front rhythm along University Avenue, and the building form’s transition to the Kipling neighborhood east of the site. The applicant provided a description of the modifications in Attachment F, excerpted here: University Avenue Modifications 1. The height of the primary, cut-stone framework has been lowered at the roof terrace and the resulting stone face dimension has been matched at the lower stone framework. The glass railing has been raised at the roof. The resulting effect reduces the scale of the framework and lowers the visual height of the terrace wall. This modification extends down Kipling as the framework wraps the corner on Kipling. 2. The length of the stone framework defining the block face has been reduced, drawing back towards the corner by approximately 30 feet, and the secondary surface of the building, defining the two-story height of the façade, has been accentuated by breaking City of Palo Alto Page 3 free of the stone framework, defining a two story facade on the western end of the building. This modification creates a stronger relationship of the building to the context of facades next door and extending down University Avenue. Additionally, at this new, two-story façade, the upper floors are successively stepped back, creating terraces for the residents on the third and fourth floors. Providing additional rhythm along this façade, the stone framework has been divided into segments that more closely reflect the pattern of facades along the street. Kipling Modifications 1. Concern over the relationship of the building to the smaller scale buildings along Kipling has resulted in significant changes to this frontage, including the relocation of the upper floor entrance to the corner of the alley, the repositioning of the stair and elevator in- board of the alley wall, and reduction of the stairwell height. Additionally, the corner of the building has been eroded, pushed into the building to form balconies so the effective height of the building at the alley corner is two stories. A raised planter has been added at the alley to ground the building corner, provide an amenity for the entrance and a transition to the landscape frontages of the Kipling buildings. These changes remove the impact of the previous four-story elevator and stair enclosure and create a very strong relationship to the Kipling neighborhood. 2. Adjacent to the new stair location, the fourth floor terrace has been pushed into the building six feet to reduce the perceived height of the building and to introduce more light onto the third floor terrace of the residential unit. Alley Modifications 1. Changes in the alley include the elimination of the handicap parking space, since adequate parking is provided below grade, including the required ADA accessible spaces. 2. Modifications have been made with the column and wall locations to address the overall composition of the façade. Additionally, at the second floor, an exterior balcony with glass railings has been added to create opportunities for fresh air to the occupants, but to also create a stronger relationship to the upper floors and a deep shadow line to give the building more relief. The fourth floor has been modified as result of the changes above to compensate for floor area that has had to be relocated; however, the total floor area of the building has not changed. DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan and Zoning compliance The revised plan (dated January 7, 2015 in Attachment M) would not change the mixed-use program, total gross floor area, building setbacks, lot coverage, building height and material palette from the plans presented in the November 20, 2014 ARB hearing. The proposed land uses remain in conformance with the applicable policies found in the Comprehensive Plan. The project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive Plan is discussed within Attachment E. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Zoning compliance With the exception of a ten foot rear setback for the residential component, the development standards of CD-C(GF)(P) zone district do not include a maximum limitation on lot coverage nor minimum setbacks from property lines. The revised plan dated January 7, 2015 is consistent with the previous plan and has a 10 foot rear setback for the residential portion. The open terrace/balcony for residential use above the ground level extends six (6) feet into the property, meeting the minimum setback requirements. The new building would meet the 50 foot height limit, while the proposed utility and mechanical features are below the maximum height limit of 15 feet above the roof. The project site remains the same size, at 11,000 square feet (sf). The allowable floor area for the new building is 22,000 sf (a 2.0:1 Floor Area Ratio or FAR), with a maximum of 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sf) for residential use and 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sf) for commercial uses. The applicant would continue to utilize the Transferable Development Right (TDR) of 9,207 sf gathered from other eligible sender sites, and requests a one-time 200 sf floor area bonus (available for non- seismic and non-historic buildings). The revised plan includes the same total gross floor area of 31,407 sf (which is an FAR of 2.86:1). The distribution of commercial space (20,407 sf, or an FAR of 1.86:1) and residential space (11,000 sf, a 1.0:1 FAR) remains the same. The zoning compliance table (Attachment D) details the project’s compliance with zoning regulations. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The revised plan would maintain three entries on University Avenue and two entries on Kipling Street, each recessed from the property lines and featuring a glass canopy. The proposed design incorporates frameless storefront glass clad with glass ceramic panels on the ground level, meeting the retail/display window requirement to provide visual interest for pedestrians. The landscape planter proposed at the northwest corner facing Kipling Street is intended to preclude blank walls and provide a transition to the adjacent low density neighborhood. Trees and Landscaping The revised plan is consistent with the previous plan, in that London Plane trees would still be provided along the project site abutting University Avenue, and the four Kipling Street trees would still be replaced with four new 36” box sized Golden Maidenhair trees. As noted, the revised proposal includes a ground floor landscape planter at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street. Minimal landscaping is proposed on the second and third floors. Six concrete planters would be placed on the paved terrace at the fourth floor level. Public Art The revised plan includes a preferred location for the installation of on-site public art, which would be located on the wall in the ground floor lobby fronting Kipling Street, accessing the building’s upper floors. The ARB may provide advice on the placement of public art in relation to the site design and especially provide comments on the extent of the visibility of the wall City of Palo Alto Page 5 shown for the art from the public right of way. The public Art Commission will review the final location for the public art. Parking and Circulation The proposed project would require 82 automobile parking spaces for 20,407 sf of commercial use (at a ratio of one parking space for every 250 sf) and 10 residential spaces for four residential units (at a ratio of two spaces for each unit, with guest parking), for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, both buildings at 425 University and 429-447 University Avenue were previously assessed and had paid ‘in lieu’ fees for a total of 37 parking spaces not provided on these sites, via the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The proposed project utilizes a total of 9,207 sf of TDR area, of which 5,000 sf (equivalent to 20 parking spaces) was recorded under Section 18.18.070, prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance No. 5214 (November 4, 2013) and thus qualifies for a parking exemption. The remaining 4,207 sf of TDRs were perfected after the interim parking ordinance and thus must be parked. Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 parking spaces, of which 10 must be designated for residential parking. The revised plan reflects a total of 40 parking spaces provided on site. The spaces would be located in the two-level underground garage. The number provided exceeds the parking requirement by five spaces, given the prior assessments and the exempt area. The at-grade ADA parking space in the previous plan is deleted in the revised plan/current proposal. Seven (7) long term bicycle parking spaces and six (6) short term bicycle parking spaces would be provided, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The current proposal would maintain the four (4) foot building setback from the edge of the alley, with the exception of landscape planter. In addition to mirrors and a warning light at the garage entrance/exit, adequate corner sight distance is required to limit the height of landscape and planter under three feet in height, to ensure visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. Access to Utility Area at Lane 30 The revised proposal has a ground floor area of approximately 30’x 17’ for utility access from Lane 30. After the submittal of revised plan on December 15, 2014, staff and applicant have discussed various options to ensure this space has an active use and aesthetic appearance that would promote a harmonious transition with the adjacent environment, such as installing landscape planters and providing at-grade bicycle parking. The current project plan dated January 7, 2015 is to locate small 8” square bollards to better define the boundary of this space. In addition, four long term bicycle parking lockers would be relocated from the underground parking garage to this area at the ground level. This alternative would allow the distribution of bicycle parking in convenient locations that are accessible for residents, as well as promote a desirable environment at the rear alley. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 6 The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment G) were prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA. The initial public comment period began on November 17 and ended December 12, 2014. The Initial Study determined several items would trigger the thresholds of significance and mitigation measures were proposed; these are now proposed as conditions of approval (Attachment B), and addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment H) to ensure the impact of these items would be less than significant. The plan revisions did not result in any additional impacts nor require any additional mitigation measures. A memorandum was prepared to respond to the public testimony received on the November 20, 2014 hearing (Attachment K). Public Feedback Since the submittal of the current application, staff has received written comments from 36 people. These letters are included as Attachment I. For those who are in support of this project, the general comments were related to the mixed use opportunity, retail space and parking improvement. For those who expressed concerns, the general comments were related to the height of the building, massing relative to the context, street character and safety, noise, parking and traffic. The applicant has submitted a letter to respond to these concerns (Attachment J). Staff has not received additional written comments since the last public hearing on November 20, 2014. COURTESY COPIES Ken Hayes khayes@thehayesgroup.com Elizabeth Wong elizabethwong2009@gmail.com Prepared by: Christy Fong, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachments:  Attachment A: Findings (DOC)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions (DOC)  Attachment C: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment F: Applicant Revised Project Description dated December 15, 2014 (PDF)  Attachment G: Inital Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment H: Mitigation Monitoring Program (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Comment Letters (PDF)  Attachment J: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment K: Response Memo for Comments to Proposed MND (PDF)  Attachment L: November 20, 2014 ARB Excerpt Minutes (PDF) 1 __________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT A DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW AND CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 ______________________________________________________________________________ Architectural Review Findings The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. (1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project complies with the policies of the Comprehensive plan as outlined in Attachment E. This project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The proposed project for a new mixed use building is consistent with the land use designation; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is designed to take advantage of the available site area while staying within the limitations of the zoning. The project is compatible in the Downtown urban context when the immediate environment along University Avenue is comprised of buildings varying in heights ranging from two to four stories. The proposed building, with careful consideration on massing and setbacks, respects the scale of abutting low density neighborhood south of the project site; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building would accommodate retail, office and residential uses. The proposed building would have ample storefront glass with canopies to create an inviting retail and pedestrian environment. The design is also consistent with the requirements and recommendations of both the Context Based Design Criteria; (4) In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide, particularly when the project reinforces University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining a strong concentration of ground floor retail uses, preserving the general pattern of storefronts, and continuing retail vitality onto Kipling Street. The proposed building design has stepped back upper stories and a landscaping element to allow a better transition to adjacent low density structures; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable in that this project is not situated in a transition area between different designated land uses; 2 (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design is compatible with the surrounding office and retail uses of the Downtown commercial area; (7) The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the new building is designed to have an active storefront along University Avenue, and a softer edge with landscaping to transition to the adjacent lower density neighborhood. Parking facilities are located underground with access from the alley. The façade is broken down to preserve the existing storefront rhythms. The upper floor massing is set back to respect the scale of nearby buildings. Ample outdoor balconies and terraces are proposed to meet the needs of the buildings users; (8) The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal provides an adequate amount of recesses to the zoning requirements of the “P” overlay and the intent is to add interest at the ground floor for pedestrians. Additionally, the project provides sufficient open space for both residential and office tenants; (9) Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project has met both vehicular and bicycle parking requirements. The project would enhance the pedestrian experience by widening the sidewalks on both University Avenue and Kipling Street. The proposed open space is compatible with the design concept; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is easily approachable by all modes of transportation. The proposed vehicular circulation is safe and does not introduce any significant changes to the adjacent street and sidewalk system; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that two existing street trees along University Avenue would be preserved. Four destructive trees along Kipling Street will be replaced by four new 36” box Golden Maidenhair trees that are complementary to existing natural environment; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that proposal includes smooth stone, glazing, metal and earth-tone colors that are common to modern commercial development in the Downtown environment and would fit in with the eclectic nature of the district; (13) The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposal includes landscape materials that are used to screen and soften the appearance of the 3 building while also providing a pleasing color palette. Proposed plantings in the planter at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street would be low in height to ensure visibility from the alley to the side street; (14) Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed landscape materials are not extensive and would require relatively low maintenance within easy-to-maintain planters; (15) The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design:  Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation;  Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects;  Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access;  Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving;  Use sustainable building materials;  Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use;  Create healthy indoor environments; and  Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. The design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion; (16) The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. Context-Based Design Criteria Findings The design and architecture of the proposed project has been reviewed with respect to the Context-Based Design Criteria set forth in PAM 18.18.110. Section 18.18.110 (a) notes that the project shall be: (A) Responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design (where “responsible to context” is not a desire to replicate surroundings, but provide appropriate transitions to surroundings), and (B) Compatible with adjacent development, when apparent scale and mass is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and when new construction shares 4 general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so the visual unit of the street is maintained. Pursuant to PAMC 18.18.110(b), the following additional findings have been made in the affirmative: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project supports widened sidewalks with recessed entries on primary pedestrian routes, at-grade bicycle racks near the building entrances, secured bicycle facility at ground level and within the underground parking garage. The project also includes showering facility in the garage to support the bicycle environment; (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed street facades are designed to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity. The building façade facing University Avenue preserves the existing storefront pattern with distinguishing architectural elements to break up the building mass. Entries are clearly defined and have a scale that is in proportion to the building functions. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, and balconies are visible to people on the street. The proposed placement and orientation of doorways, windows and landscape elements are appropriate to create strong and direct relationships with the streets. Upper floors are stepped back, the width of the overhang is reduced and the elevator shaft is oriented inward to reduce the building mass and fit in with the context of the neighborhood; (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design with a series of recessed terraces and interchange in materials to break down the scale of building and provide visual interest. Variation in massing and materials creates a façade with two distinctive frontages, which respect the existing storefront patterns and rhythms on University Avenue. The proposed design incorporates a columns framework and tall display windows to reinforce the street corner. With the intent to minimize massing and ensure greater setback, the current, revised design presents a reduced-in-height stairway tower and stepped back roofline for the upper floor terrace at the corner of Lane 30 and Kipling Street; (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. While the height is taller than most of the buildings in the neighborhood, the proposed building height of 50 feet is compliant with the height limit in the Downtown Commercial District. The proposed design includes at least a 10 foot setback with open terraces at the upper stories to reduce the impact of the building height on the adjacent lower density neighborhood. The potential privacy concern is at a less than significant level as the buildings behind the project site are mostly one- story with commercial/office uses and mature trees along Kipling Street would provide some degree of screening. The proposed design includes storefront glass on both frontages to introduce a daylight source on the ground level; 5 (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with wider sidewalks, balconies, and a roof-top terrace. The balconies would be accessible by residents on the site and would be located on four sides of the building to encourage ‘eyes on the street’. The proposed roof-top terrace is for office tenants and would provide ample solar exposure; (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking facilities would be located within the below-grade garage and would not detract from pedestrian environment. The project includes a well-integrated garage entry, a four foot setback from property lines, and mirrors that would aid traffic and visibility on the alley (Lane 30). In addition, the project incorporates a landscaping element to soften the exit of Lane 30. The intent is to enhance the character of pedestrian environment, while maintaining traffic visibility with low profile plant materials; (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding does not apply; (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project would comply with the City’s green building ordinance, and the design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. The design is easy for pedestrian, bicycle and transit access. The project incorporates high efficiency LED light fixtures, low-flow plumbing fixtures and high efficiency HVAC equipment for efficiency energy and water use. Green building features will be incorporated to achieve CalGreen Tier 2 standards for the commercial portion and Green Point rated standards for the residential portion. Page 1 of 31 __________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 ______________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 2. The proposed project requires 9,207 square feet of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Prior to issuance of building permit for construction submittal, the applicant shall provide sufficient information so that the Director of Planning and Community Environment can issue written confirmation of the transfer, which identifies both the sender and receiver sites and the amount of TDRs which have been transferred. This confirmation shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder prior to the issuance of building permits and shall include the written consent or assignment by the owner(s) of the TDRs where such owner(s) are other than the applicant. 3. The current project requires to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as permitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development. This note shall be added to the Building Permit plan set along with the standard project data required. 4. All noise producing equipment shall not exceed the allowance specified in Section 9.10 Noise of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 5. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district ground floor space shall be designed to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district. 6. Certificate of occupancy is required for separate businesses occupying tenant spaces, and for residential buildings having 3 or more units. This project is subject to the use restrictions set forth in PAMC 18.30(C) with the provisions of the Ground Floor retail (GF) combining district. 7. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $303,132.41 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the project’s building permit. These fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant shall be required to submit a Transportation Demand Management plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. The plan shall include provisions such as passes or subsidies for all employees of the commercial space for using public transit, in addition to car sharing, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. Page 2 of 31 9. The use of the outdoor terrace spaces, associated with both residential and non-residential uses within the building, shall be limited. There shall be no smoking and use shall comply with the restrictions outlined in the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance at all time. 10. The current proposed FAR of 31,407 sq. ft., is reaching the maximum of 32,200 sq. ft. (which included a one-time 200 sq. ft. floor area bonus) at which this site can be developed. Additional FAR can only be requested through the Transfer of Development Right. All transfer is subject to the restrictions and procedures set forth in PAMC 18.18.080 and shall be submitted for Architectural Review. Future addition of TDR must be fully parked. 11. All future signage and outdoor furniture for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 12. The project shall be subject to the mandatory Green Building Ordinance. 13. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 14. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of building demolition and during demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including Page 3 of 31 lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. 15. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to issuance of building permit, submittal materials shall include window and transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. For residential portion: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating shall be up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. For commercial portion: Window and exterior door assemblies shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). 16. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Prior to issuance of building permit, submittal material shall include details of the residential ventilation system to ensure a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. 17. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Prior to issuance of building permit, noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. 18. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Prior to issuance of building permit, building permit submittal materials shall include mirrors installation at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. 19. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Prior to issuance of building permit, building permit submittal materials shall include mirrors installation at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. 20. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project Page 4 of 31 within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 21. Government Code Section 66020 provides that 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 TO 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. 22. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 23. 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 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 24. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: The applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. Since the project site is located within two parcels 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 a certificate of compliance for a lot merger is required. Applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance and provide the necessary documents. Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT 25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. It shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Plan shall also indicate if the bus stop will need to be relocated. Page 5 of 31 26. Applicant shall schedule a meeting with Public Works Engineering and Transportation Division to discuss the existing building demolition, excavation and building construction logistics. Construction fence shall be located at the building property line, travel lane closures will not be permitted. Applicant shall propose a logistics plan that shows how pedestrian access is maintained and eliminating the least number of parking spaces during construction. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 27. GRADING PERMIT: An Excavation and Grading Permit is required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 28. ROUGH GRADING: provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 29. BASEMENT SHORING: Provide shoring plans for the basement excavation, clearly including tiebacks (if any). Tieback shall not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City’s right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. During the ARB process and via email dated 9/25/14 the applicant indicated that the tiebacks will extend into the adjacent private property. As such provide a letter from the neighboring property owner to allow the encroachment of permanent tiebacks into their property. In addition the shoring plans shall clearly show the property line and the dimension between the outside edge of the soldier piles and the property line for City records. Also provide notes on the Shoring Plans for the “Contractor to cut-off the shoring 5-feet below the sidewalk elevation.” AND “Contractor shall submit and obtain an permanent encroachment permit from Public Works for the tiebacks and shoring located within public right-of-way. 30. DEWATERING: Basement excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If Page 6 of 31 groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 31. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide a note on the Rough Grading Plan that includes the comment above as a note. 32. GAS METERS: In-ground gas meters are not typically allowed by Public Works Utilities. If in-ground gas meters are not allowed, the above ground gas meter shall be located complete within private property. Plot and label the proposed location. If in-ground gas meters are permitted, applicant shall submit an email from Utilities that indicates in-ground gas meters are acceptable for this project. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 33. MAPPING: Applicant has revised the project description to indicate that she is no longer pursuing the development of condominiums. If at any point the applicant intends to sell portions of the building a Minor or Major Subdivision Application will be required. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map requirements. 34. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS: Prior to a Minor or Major Subdivision Application, applicant shall meet with Public Works to discuss any potential off-site improvements. These may include new concrete or asphalt work and utility upgrades or relocations. 35. The following items were not addressed through the final ARB submittal and shall be shown on the plans. a. Explain how all of the site runoff will drain directly into the media filter. The media filter shall be located complete with the private property as shown on the approve Page 7 of 31 ARB plans. The details provided indicate that the media filter is to be installed below ground and discharge would need to be pumped to the surface. However that is not reflected on the Utility Plan. b. Plot and label the total the number of disconnected downspouts. The civil has indicated that the downspouts runoff will drain into the media filter, but it’s not clear on the plans how this will be accomplished. c. The site plan shall demonstrate how the runoff from the MFS flows by gravity into the gutter, provide pipe inverts and flowline grades. If a new separate structure is required to allow runoff to flow by gravity into the gutter or reduce the velocity, then the structure shall be located completely within the private property. The 4th and 5th resubmittal ARB plans show a junction box within the public right of way, this box shall be located completely within the private property. d. The 5th submittal shows a planter box adjacent to the alley and the MFS has been relocated to be within this planter boxes. The plans submitted lack information, show how the roof runoff is directed into the mechanical treatment facility. Plot and label the pump, drain lines, downspouts. Show how all of the site runoff is treated by the proposed MFS. e. It’s not clear if the planter box is intended to provide C3 treatment. If LID treatment is proposed provide the surface drainage areas and calculations. f. Resize the new planter box to allow the junction box to be within the private property and behind the Kipling Street sidewalk. The planter box and planting material shall have height clearance with a maximum of three feet within the 4-ft by 6-ft clear site distance (triangle). In addition the planter box shall be located 1-foot minimum away from the adjacent alley. 36. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations at every at grade door entrance, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.28 Adjacent grades must slope away from the building foundation at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks 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 blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connected directly to the City’s infrastructure, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscape and other pervious areas of the site. Plan shall also include a drainage system as required for all uncovered exterior basement-level spaces such as lightwell, stairwells or driveway ramps. 37. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, Page 8 of 31 such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 38. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The 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 our website. 39. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 40. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape- based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval 41. UTILITY PLAN: shall be provided with the Building Permit that demonstrates how the site’s drainage flows by gravity into the City’s system and is not pumped. Public Works generally does not allow downspout rainwater to be collected, piped and discharged Page 9 of 31 directly into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure. The utility plan shall indicate that downspouts are disconnected, daylight at grade, and are directed to landscaped and other pervious areas onsite. Downspouts shall daylight away from the foundation. If pumps are required, plot and label where the pumps will be located on-site, storm water runoff from pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allow to infiltrate and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 42. TRANSFORMER AND UTILITIES: Applicant shall be aware that the project may trigger water line and meter upgrades or relocation, if upgrades or relocation are required, the building permit plan set shall plot and label utility changes. The backflow preventer, and above grade meters shall be located within private property and plotted on the plans. Similarly if a transformer upgrade or a grease interceptor is required it shall also be located within the private property. 43. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. This project may be required to replace the driveway approach the sidewalk associated with the existing driveway may be required to replace with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. 44. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2013 California Building Code Chapter 32 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway. The contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close or occupy the sidewalk(s) or ally. 45. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all of the existing sidewalks, ramps, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of- way along the frontage(s) of the property. Applicant shall be responsible for replacing the two ramps immediately across the street from the project site. Applicant shall meet with Public Works and Transportation to discuss the potential for adding a bulb-out along the University Avenue side to widen the sidewalk. If construction of the new ramps and/or sidewalk results in a conflict with utilities or traffic signal than applicant will be responsible for adjusting to grade or relocating conflict and to bring the improvements to current designs standards. The site plan and grading and drainage plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. Provide references to the specific City’s Standard Drawings and Specification. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. Page 10 of 31 46. RESURFACING: The applicant is required to resurface (grind and overlay) the entire width of the street on University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages adjacent to the project. In addition this project is required to resurface the full width of the Lane along the project frontage. Note that the base material for these 3 streets varies. Thermoplastic striping of the street(s) will be required after resurfacing. Include an off-site plan that shows the existing signage and striping that is to be replaces as part of this project and for the contractor’s use. 47. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 48. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 49. BIKE RACKS: Currently, there are 2 bike racks on University Avenue. It is not Public Works’ responsibility to approve the relocation or installation of the bike racks near this location. If the applicant would like to requests the installation of new or more bike racks along University Avenue, the applicant must obtain approval from the Transportation Division at 650-329-2520 to determine an appropriate location, type/model and quantity that can be installed per City Standards. The plan must note that in order to install or relocate any bike racks, the applicant must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works. 50. GARBAGE/TRASH RECEPTACLES: The plans provided for preliminary review do not include the existing garbage/trash receptacle along University Avenue. This shall be shown on the plans and remain in its location for as long as possible during construction. If construction activities require the temporary removal of the receptacle, the contractor may remove during that construction activity but must place it back as soon as those activities have been completed. Prior to doing so, the contractor must notify the public works department to determine if Public Works Operations should pick it up for storage during that time. 51. ADJACENT NEIGHBORS: For any improvements that extend beyond the property lines such as tie-backs for the basement or construction access provide signed copies of the original agreements with the adjacent property owners. The agreements shall indicate that the adjacent property owners have reviewed and approved the proposed improvements (such as soldier beams, tiebacks) that extend into their respective properties Page 11 of 31 52. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to San Franscisquito Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Similar medallions shall be installed near the catch basins that are proposed to be relocated. Provide notes on the plans to reference that medallions and stencils. 53. OIL/WATER SEPARATOR: Parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be located within private property. 54. GREASE INTERCEPTOR: If a commercial kitchen is proposed requiring the installation of a grease interceptor, the grease separator shall be installed and located within private property. In no case shall the City of Palo Alto allow the right-of-way (ROW) to be used to satisfy this requirement. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 55. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $381 (FY 2015) C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 56. Contractor and/or Applicant shall prepare and submit an electronic (pdf) copy of the Off- Site Improvements As-Built set of plans to Public Works for the City’s records. The as- built set shall include all the improvements within the public road right-of-way and include items such as: shoring piles, tiebacks, public storm drain improvements, traffic signs, street trees, location of any vaults or boxes, and any other item that was installed as part of this project. 57. Contractor shall submit and obtain an Encroachment permit for the permanent structures (shoring and tiebacks) that were installed within the public road right-of-way. 58. Additional comments and/or conditions may apply as the project is revised. ZERO WASTE/ SOLID WASTE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 59. Provide a garbage and recycling chute for the residential unit with either an additional chute or a bin space for compostables on the residential floor. Page 12 of 31 60. SERVICE LEVELS: Without a restaurant: the enclosure should be sized for 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 1-yard compostables bin; with a restaurant: With a restaurant: 3-yard garbage bin, 4-yard recycling bin, 2-yard compostables bin. 61. TRASH DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING (PAMC 18.23.020): (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 62. RECYCLING STORAGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (PAMC 5.20.120): The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. 63. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS: (a) Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. (b) Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. (c) Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. (d) Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs”. 64. GARBAGE, RECYCLING, AND YARD WASTE/COMPOSTABLES CART/ BIN LOCATION AND SIZING: a. Office Building: The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 Page 13 of 31 ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. b. Restaurants and Food Service Establishments: Please contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 to maximize the collection of compostables in food preparation areas and customer areas. For more information about compostable food service products, please contact City of Palo Alto Zero Waste at (650) 496-5910. c. Multi-family Residential: The proposed multi-family development must follow the requirements for recycling container space2. All residential developments, where central garbage, recycling, and compostables containers will serve five or more dwelling units, must have space for the storage and collection of recyclables and compostables. This includes the provision of recycling chutes where garbage chutes are provided. Project plans must show the placement of recycling and compostables containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. i. Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. ii. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. iii. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. iv. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce wear-and-tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. 2 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 Page 14 of 31 65. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 66. COVERED DUMPSTERS, RECYCLING AND TALLOW BIN AREAS (PAMC 16.09.075(q)(2)): a. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. b. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. c. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). d. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. e. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. 67. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (CDD) (PAMC 5.24.030): a. Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. Page 15 of 31 b. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY CONTROL 68. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): 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. 69. UNPOLLUTED WATER (PAMC 16.09.055): Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (e.g. uncovered ramp to garage area). 70. COVERED PARKING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9)): If installed, drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system. 71. DUMPSTERS FOR NEW AND REMODELED FACILITATIES (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10)): New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area.ARCHITECTURAL COPPER PAMC (16.09.180(b)(14)): 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. 72. LOADING DOCKS (PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2)): (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of Page 16 of 31 loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 73. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5)): Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 74. SILVER PROCESSING (e.g. photoprocessing retail) (PAMC 16.09.215): Facilities conducting silver processing (photographic or X-ray films) shall either submit a treatment application or waste hauler certification for all spent silver bearing solutions. 650-329- 2421. 75. COPPER PIPING (PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b)): 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. 76. MERCURY SWITCHES (PAMC 16.09.180(12)): Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 77. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS AND HEAT EXCHANGERS (PAMC 16.09.205(a)): It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 78. STORM DRAIN LABELING (PAMC 16.09.165(h)): Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. 79. UNDESIGNATED RETAIL SPACE (PAMC 16.09): Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following requirements must be met: Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Project: a. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes i. The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) ii. GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. iii. GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. iv. GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. Page 17 of 31 v. The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. vi. GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) vii. All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. viii. Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. ix. All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) x. GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. b. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & cited Bldg/Plumbing Codes i. To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. ii. A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. iii. All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: 1. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks 2. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) 3. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD 4. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks 5. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens 6. Prep sinks 7. Mop (janitor) sinks Page 18 of 31 8. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. 9. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures 10. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines 11. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks iv. The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: 1. Dishwashers 2. Steamers 3. Pasta cookers 4. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens 5. Hand sinks 6. Ice machine drip lines 7. Soda machine drip lines 8. Drainage lines in bar areas v. No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). vi. Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. vii. Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) c. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) i. Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. ii. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. iii. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. iv. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. v. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. d. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) Page 19 of 31 i. FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. e. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCDVolume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Note:  All resubmitted plans to Building Department which include FSE projects shall be resubmitted to Water Quality.  It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal)  The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. FIRE DEPARTMENT 80. Fire sprinklers, fire standpipe and fire alarm systems required in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA14, NFPA 24, NFPA 72 and State and local standards. Sprinkler, standpipe, fire Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 Page 20 of 31 alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 81. Sprinkler main drain must be coordinated with plumbing design so that the 200 gpm can be flowed for annual main drain testing for 90 seconds without overflowing the collection sump, and the Utilities Department approved ejector pumps will be the maximum flow rate to sanitary sewer. 82. Applicant shall work with Utilities Department to provide acceptable backflow prevention configuration. 83. All floor levels in multi-story buildings must be served by an elevator capable of accommodating a 24 x 84 inch gurney without lifting or manipulating the gurney. 84. All welding or other hot work during construction shall be under a permit obtained from the Palo Alto Fire Department with proper notification and documentation of procedures followed and work conducted. 85. Low-E glass and underground parking areas can interfere with portable radios used by emergency responders. Please provide an RF Engineering analysis to determine if additional devices or equipment will be needed to maintain operability of emergency responder portable radios throughout 97% of the building in accordance with the Fire Code Appendix J as adopted by the City of Palo Alto. A written report to the Fire Marshal shall be provided prior to final inspection. Page 21 of 31 UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING GENERAL 86. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 87. 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. 88. 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. FOR SUBMITTALS TO ELECTRIC SERVICE 89. 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. 90. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 91. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 92. Applicant has selected the option of going with a submersible transformer. This installation will fall under “Special Facilities”. Special Facilities will have additional costs for substructure work, annual cost of ownership plus one time replacement cost of submersible transformer. Vault and submersible transformer along with the required infrastructure will be installed by the City in the alley/public right of way or at a feasible location at applicant’s expense. Note that submersible transformers are more susceptible to extended outages and potential cause for failures due to accumulation of dirt, debris and water in the vaults. . During servicing/maintenance or outage there will be no power to the building. The applicant will be responsible for maintaining the electric service to the building or to any critical equipment through a generator, if required. The City will not reimburse or compensate for anything (e.g. damages/lost production hours/labor cost etc.) during maintenance/outage or shut down time. The City will replace the transformer in the event of failure at no cost to the applicant. 93. Based on the electric loads the applicant has projected for the new building, the Utilities will consider installing a 500KVA, 120/208Y Volts transformer. However, if the load drops significantly below the rated capacity of the transformer for any continuous period of twelve (12) months, the City will notify the applicant about the fees and charges attributable to the reduced capacity. If the loads are added in the future and existing submersible transformer is found to be overloaded or exceeded its operational limitations Page 22 of 31 then the City will require the applicant to accept the electric service to the building at 277/480Y Volts. At that time, in order to get the electric service to the building at new voltage; all the required modifications will be done by the applicant. 94. 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. 95. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be installed outside the building and shall be easily accessible to Utilities meter readers and maintenance crews. Electric switchboard shall be NEMA 3R. All the substructure work done/installed for providing electric service to the new building shall be at applicant’s expense. Detailed comments and final cost estimate shall be provided to the applicant when plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. 96. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall show on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 97. All utility meters, lines, transformers, switchboards, electric panels, 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. 98. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s submersible transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 99. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the submersible transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to 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. 100. 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. 101. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 102. For primary services, the standard service protection is a submersible fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 103. 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 Page 23 of 31 Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 104. 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 105. 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. 106. 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. 107. 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. 108. 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. 109. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 110. 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. 111. 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. Page 24 of 31 112. 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 113. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 114. 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 115. 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 116. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. a. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. b. All fees must be paid. c. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The following conditions apply to three-phase service and any service over 400 amperes: 117. A padmount or submersible transformer is required. 118. The Utilities Director, or his/her designee, may authorize the installation of submersible or vault installed facilities if in their opinion, padmounted equipment would not be feasible or practical. 119. Submersible or vault installed facilities shall be considered Special Facilities as described in Rule and Regulation 20, and all costs associated with the installation, including continuing ownership and maintenance, will be borne by the applicant (see Rule and Regulation 3 for details). 120. The customer must provide adequate space for installation, or reimburse the Utility for additional costs to locate the transformer outside the property boundaries. All service Page 25 of 31 equipment must be located above grade level unless otherwise approved by Electric Engineering. WATER - GAS - WASTEWATER ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 121. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 122. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 123. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 124. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 125. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 126. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 127. The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak floor demands. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval Page 26 of 31 of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 128. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities’ record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 129. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 130. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 131. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 132. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 133. Existing wastewater main is 5.4” PE on Kipling Street. (sewer lateral to be 4”) 134. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 135. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. Page 27 of 31 136. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 137. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 138. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connection of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 139. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage may require. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 140. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Department a copy of the plans for fire system including all Fire Department’s requirements. Please see a fire/domestic combination service connection for your provide- see City of Palo Alto standard WD-11. 141. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. Gas meter to be installed above ground. 142. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. 143. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 144. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 145. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. Page 28 of 31 146. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 147. All WGW utilities work on University Avenue is 1.5 times the stated fee due to traffic; existing conditions require the work to be done outside of regular work hours. BUILDING INSPECTION FOR BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 148. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct the complete project. 149. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building on site. 150. The entire project is to be included under a single building permit and shall not be phased under multiple permits. 151. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems: E.V., P.V. and Solar Hot Water. 152. Design of building components that are not included in the plans submitted for building permit and are to be “deferred” shall be limited to as few items as possible. The list of deferred items shall be reviewed and approved prior to permit application. 153. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. 154. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include allowable floor area calculations that relate the proposed occupancies to type of construction. This includes possible future installation of assembly occupancies such as large conference rooms or cafeterias, for example. 155. An acoustical analysis shall be submitted and the plans shall incorporate the report’s recommendations needed to comply with the sound transmissions requirements in CBC Section 1207. Page 29 of 31 URBAN FORESTRY 156. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permit, as well as during demolition, exaction and construction, the following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: a. City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. b. Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. c. Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. d. Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. e. New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. f. Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. g. Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. h. Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. i. All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. 157. Two regulated public trees (London Plane) on University Ave frontage are to be retained and protected. Protection shall consist of Modified Type III (see attached graphic) for the entire trunk and will include primary branches on the building side. For any branch clearance pruning for building or scaffolding, contractor shall coordinate with Urban Forestry for direct supervision by staff of private tree contractor (submit written Tree Care Application to Dorothy.dale@cityofpaloalto.org) 158. Kipling frontage-Trees. four trees in the RoW are approved for removal including stumps (two flowering pears, two carobs). Four replacement trees shall be installed, Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’, Maidenhair, 36-inch box size, in 5’x5’ Kiva tree grates, two irrigation bubblers per tree (PW Standard Detail # 603a and 513). A certified arborist for Page 30 of 31 the applicant shall evaluate/select matching trees for quality. Contractor shall coordinate an Urban Forestry inspection of the new trees, before they are planted in the ground. 159. Sidewalk base medium (Kipling side only). As a root growing medium between the curb and building face, Silva Cell technology or approved equal, shall be designed as a suspended sidewalk element and provide low compaction area for long term root growth. A certified arborist for the applicant shall calculate how many cubic feet of soil and Silva cell material will be needed for each tree. The remaining soil between the engineered root growing areas. GREEN BUILDING 160. Green Building Ordinance: a. Commercial Portion - CALGreen Tier 2: The project must meet the California Green Building Code Tier 2 requirements. Due to the size of the project, the team must engage a commissioning agent and fulfil on the commissioning requirements. Additional information may be found at the following link http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. The new Energy California Energy Code contains significant changes and Palo Alto is currently enforcing code minimum for the energy code . The details can be found at the following link. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ b. Residential Portion- Green Point Rated: The project is required to achieve Green Point Rated Certification through Build It Green. The project team must engage a Green Point Rater. The required minimum points value is 70. The required prerequisite and points associated with exceeding the code shall be excused. Additional information may be found at the following linkhttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp 161. BASE Energy Services: The project may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in meeting and exceeding Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. 162. EV Parking Ordinance: The project is subject to meet the new Electric Vehicle Parking Ordinance. The press release provides an outline of the ordinance. The future ordinance language can be found within the staff report. There are multi-family and commercial provisions that apply. See the ordinance for all details. a. Multi-family: One EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed per unit. For guest parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for multi-family guest parking shall be provided. b. Commercial: For commercial parking, either conduit only, EVSE Ready or EVSE Installed shall be provided for 25% of the parking. A minimum of 1 EVSE Installed for commercial parking shall be provided. Page 31 of 31 163. Other Incentives & rebates: The Utilities department has several rebates and incentives that would apply to the project. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp PUBLIC ART PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 164. This project must comply with the provisions outlined in PAMC 16.61. The project proposes to install on-site public art and must follow the processes and requirements under this section. No building permit may issue until the Public Art Commission issues the approval required for the on-site public art. All Saints Episcopal Church 7-11 Garden Court Hotel Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop W FLORENC E ST REET KIPLIN G STREET LYTTON AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET TREET ETT AVENUE VENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET KIPLING STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HAMILTON AVENUE WPER STREET TASSO STREET LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LANE 20 WEST 301 337 339 323 317 400 420 332 30 353 355 367418431 401 366 436426 #1-7 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 314 338 340 560 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 4 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432 428 460-476 450 4 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 437327 333 407 401 385 411 452 344-348 328 456 321 325 330 460 474 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489-499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405401 441 480-498 34 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 500-528 54 0 530 531-535 579 567 555 408 412 440 435 445 32 8 447 515 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 435433 37 5 530 415 305 -313 405 508 482 330 349 312 443 445 447 335 506 327 469 321319 PF 74 CD-C(GF)(P))PF 4611 RMD(NP) PC-4052PF CD-C(P)PC-429 6 PC-4436 Varsity Theatre This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'150' 425 and 429-447 University AveProject Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-11-13 13:52:22429University CF (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment C CD - C (P) ATTACHMENT D Page 1 of 1 ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 CD-C ZONE (Mixed Use Development Standards) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMS Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 10’ for residential portion with permitted setback encroachment up to 6’ for balconies Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 9,523 sf Yes Maximum Height 50’ 50’ Yes Daylight Plane Same as abutting residential zones Not Applicable Yes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 22,000 sf - 2.0:1 32,000 sf - With Transferable development rights 33,000 sf- Maximum 3.0:1 2.86:1 31,407 sf Yes Parking Requirement (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 92 spaces 1 space/250 sf commercial area 2 spaces/living unit 40 on-site spaces 57 spaces not required [per PAMC 18.18.080(g) & 18.18.090(b)(4)] Yes* Bicycle Parking Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Yes * At the time of the Downtown Parking Assessment, the two sites were determined to be 11,631 square feet and required 47 parking spaces, ten spaces were identified on-site. The project shall comply with the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Specifically, the applicant shall address the need to accommodate the 57 spaces otherwise proposed to be exempted under Section 18.18.080(g) and 18.18.090(b)(4). Measures to comply may include: a) payment of in-lieu parking fees, b) certification of FAR bonuses pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1), c) certification of Transfer of Development Rights prior to November 4, 2013 pursuant to Section 18.18.080(g), d) approval of underground parking pursuant to 18.52.070(d), or e) some combination thereof. The method of compliance shall be presented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to submittal for building permits. ATTACHMENT E COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 Program L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas and direction for private development and public improvement in the Downtown area. The project incorporates many of the goals of the Downtown Urban Design Guide including: (1) Reinforce University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto which by maintaining strong concentration of ground floor retail. (2) Create ground floor architectural interest with windows and displays (3) Continue retail vitality onto the side streets. Policy L-20 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street concerns with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plaza. The project incorporates design to reinforce street corners and integrate with nearby sidewalks with great building frontage. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The project incorporates several design considerations contained in the Downtown Urban Design Guide in that the project design would: (1) provides pedestrian friendly amenities such as recessed entries, canopies, and new street trees, (2) includes attractive display windows at frequent intervals that invite shoppers, (3) promotes a mixed of uses including housing and commercial. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/ Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian. The project incorporates pedestrian-friendly design and support bicycle use to complement the nearby Caltrain transit hub. Public art is proposed to be located on site to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian and building tenants. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is designed to promote a strong relationship with the streets and create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activities. Site planning is appropriate with its context and is compatible with the retail pedestrian environment of the downtown commercial district. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The project is consistent with this policy in that the proposed building would incorporate clear glass windows to avoid blank or solid walls at street frontage. A variety of recessed entryways, glass canopies and balconies on both the University Avenue and Kipling Street frontages would promote ‘eye-on-the-street’. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. The proposed mixed use project provides four housing units. December 15, 2014 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environm ent 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 429 University ARB Major Review Revisions To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect’s re-submittal package for 429 University Ave. for Major ARB review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Kipling Post LP. This package includes five sets of half-size drawings, one set of full- size drawings, five copies of this letter describing changes to the project, and one digital copy of the above resubmittal documents. On November 20, 2014 we received comments from the board that included favorable remarks relative to the mixed-use program, setback along the alley, reduction in height and materials palette but requesting additional consideration be given regarding the building’s scale and rhythm along University Avenue and the transition of the building to the Kipling neighborhood context to the east of the site. After thoughtful consideration of the board’s comments, we are pleased to present the following modifications to the design: University Avenue Modifications 1.The height of the primary, cut-stone framework has been lowered at the roof terrace and theresulting stone face dimension has been matched at the lower stone framework. The glassrailing has been raised at the roof. The resulting effect reduces the scale of the frameworkand lowers the visual height of the terrace wall. This modification extends down Kipling asthe framework wraps the corner on Kipling. 2.The length of the stone framework defining the block face has been reduced, drawing backtowards the corner by approximately 30 feet, and the secondary surface of the building,defining the two-story height of the façade, has been accentuated by breaking free of thestone framework, defining a two story facade on the western end of the building. Thismodification creates a stronger relationship of the building to the context of facades nextdoor and extending down University Avenue. Additionally, at this new, two-story façade theupper floors are successively stepped back creating terraces for the residents on the thirdand fourth floors. Providing additional rhythm along this façade, the stone framework hasbeen divided into segments that more closely reflect the pattern of facades along the street. Kipling Modifications 1.Concern over the relationship of the building to the smaller scale buildings along Kipling has resulted in significant changes to this frontage including the relocation of the upper floor Attachment F entrance to the corner of the alley, the reposition of the stair and elevator inboard of the alley wall and reduction of the stairwell height. Additionally, the corner of the building has been eroded, pushed into the building to form balconies so the effective height of the building at the alley corner is two stories. A raised planter has been added at the alley to ground the building corner, provide an amenity for the entrance and a transition to the landscape frontages of the Kipling buildings. These changes remove the impact of the previous four-story elevator and stair enclosure and create a very strong relationship to the Kipling neighborhood. 1. Adjacent to the new stair location, the fourth floor terrace has been pushed into the building six feet to reduce the perceived height of the building and to introduce more light onto the third floor terrace of the residential unit. Alley Modifications 1. Changes in the alley include the elimination of the handicap parking space, since adequate parking is provided below grade, including the required handicap spaces. 2. Modifications have been made with the column and wall locations to address the overall composition of the façade. Additionally, at the second floor, an exterior balcony with glass railings has been added to create opportunities for fresh air to the occupants but to also create a stronger relationship to the upper floors and a deep shadow line to give the building more relief. The fourth floor has been modified as result of the changes above to compensate for floor area that has had to be relocated; however, the total area of the building has not changed. We are very excited about the changes that have been made and believe we have a stronger project as a result. We look forward to staff’s review and our ARB hearing so that we can proceed with the development of this project. Please call me at (650) 365 0600 x 15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal CC: Elizabeth Wong, Kipling Post LP Attachment G DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: November 17, 2014 Project Name: 429 University Avenue Project Location: The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Project Proponent: Elizabeth Wong for Kipling Post LP City Contact: Christy Fong Planner, Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description: The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The base FAR in the CD- C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR is achieved through the transfer of 4,207 square feet that requires parking, 5,000 square feet that is exempt from parking, TDR from separate properties, and a one-time 200-square-foot parked bonus for the project. Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study prepared for this project incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: Page 2 of 5 • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls Page 3 of 5 (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160– 42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Prepared by Project Planner Date Adopted by Director of Planning and Community Environment Date Signed after the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been approved Page 4 of 5 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED THEREIN. Project Applicant's Signature Date Page 5 of 5 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study DRAFT RELEASED NOVEMBER 2014 UPDATED JANUARY 2015 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...................6 A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 7 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... 10 C. AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................... 11 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 14 E CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 16 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ........................................................ 18 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 20 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................. 21 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................... 24 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................... 26 K. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 28 L. NOISE .................................................................................................................. 29 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 32 N. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................... 33 O. RECREATION ................................................................................................... 34 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................ 34 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 40 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................... 41 III SOURCE REFERENCES ...............................................................................................42 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 42 IV DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................44 FIGURES 1 Regional Map 2 Vicinity Map 3 Aerial Map 4 Site Plan 5 Elevations 6 Perspective Renderings 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 1 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 429 University Avenue 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto 650.838.2996 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Kipling Post LP Contact: Elizabeth Wong PO Box 204 Palo Alto, California 94302 650.323.5295 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 14PLN-00222 6. PROJECT LOCATION 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101 (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 2 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan; City of Palo Alto 2007). This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Non-residential floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.35 to 2.0. The project site is part of a Regional/Community Commercial district that extends from Alma Avenue on the south to Webster Street on the north and between Lytton Avenue on the west and Hamilton and Forest Avenues on the east. 8. ZONING The Zoning designation of the project site is Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD-C (community) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations to allow specific variations to the uses and development requirements of the CD district. The project site is also within the pedestrian shopping (P) and ground floor (GF) combining districts. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This Initial Study has been modified subsequent to public review of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to reflect revisions made to the project plans. These revisions provide clarifying information regarding the proposed project but none of the revisions to the Initial Study or project plans result in any new or increased environmental effects. The revisions to this Initial Study do not constitute “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86 (Figure 5, Elevations). The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR will be achieved through the transfer of 9,207 square feet of 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 3 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto development rights from separate properties, of which 4,207 square feet require parking and 5,000 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. The project is also eligible for a one-time 200-square-foot bonus, which is subject to the City’s parking requirements. Together, these TDRs and bonuses would allow the project to achieve the proposed 2.86 FAR. Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner. The stone framework would be divided into segments that reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The third and fourth floors would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for residents and guests of the building. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building and a raised planter would be located at the corner of the alley to provide a transition to the landscaped frontages along Kipling Street. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located on University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The project site is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Located directly across University Avenue from the site is a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three- story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The surrounding uses on Kipling Street serve as a transition between the primarily commercial University Avenue and the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north. Lower-intensity commercial/office uses and single-family residential line both sides of Kipling Street. A yoga studio is located behind the project site, accessed from an alley off Kipling Street (the alley is referred to as Lane 30 E). A public surface parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 4 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto nearby uses. Another public surface parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 5 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. (A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 6 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 2, 3 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1, 2, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing two existing one-story retail buildings with a new four-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5, Elevations, and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the project would not exceed the allowable height (50 feet) for the site. The design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The façade would be divided into 25-foot sections consisting of the solid stair element, the glass entry element with recessed residential terrace, and the secondary grid inside the main building form. The third and fourth floors of the building would set back from the alley property line and the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a two- to three-story building. The proposed stair element would be located east of the alley and would be buffered from the alley by a landscaped area near the ground-floor entrance adjacent to the alley. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District, including the four-story Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners building located directly across University Avenue. The University Avenue façade would appear to be three stories tall. The fourth floor would be set back 30 feet from the front of the building creating a terrace for use by building occupants and guests. The fourth-floor terrace would extend along the length of the building as would the main three-story building block, giving definition to the street edge and presence to 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 7 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the building when seen in the context of the street. The main rectangular mass of the building would be elevated so the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass would create display windows and entries that would activate the sidewalk through visual and physical connections. Retention of existing trees along the project site’s University Avenue frontage and the planting of new trees along the Kipling Street frontage would soften the views of the new building from public roadways and adjacent uses. The building would be built within the buildable area of the property and no public views or view corridors would be affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City, is not within a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes several policies related to visual resources, including the following: • Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. • Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. • Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. • Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. As described above, the proposed project would comply with the height and setback requirements for the project site. In addition, the project has been designed to blend into the existing development on both Kipling Street and University Avenue. The proposed building design recognizes that the uses along Kipling Street are smaller in scale and lower in intensity than those on University Avenue, and the project design responds to the adjacent uses by minimizing the appearance of an abrupt change in scale between the two areas. The University Avenue frontage would create an inviting retail environment and provide a pleasant pedestrian experience, thereby enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the City’s central business district. In addition, as described above, the proposed building design would activate the sidewalk through the use of human-scale architectural details and frameless glass windows on the ground floor. The project site is currently developed with retail uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed structure would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 8 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows or other highly reflective surface materials. Glare is particularly associated with high light intensity. It can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb rather than reflect light. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and has limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and receives more sunlight exposure. At the street level along these frontages, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with canopies over the entrances. On the second floor, windows would also be provided on these frontages and would be shaded by canopies to reduce glare. The third floor would be set back from the building façade on the University Avenue frontage and Lane 30 E, creating a large overhang that would shade windows along this side. The fourth floor would be set back even farther along University Avenue, such that glare from windows would not be visible from the street. The Kipling Street frontage would receive less sunlight exposure and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. Exterior building lighting is proposed at the rear entrance of the building on Lane 30, as well as within the ramp to the underground parking level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project site property lines. The project is also required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. Specifically, the proposed building would increase shading on Kipling Street and Lane 30 E, which are public streets. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 9 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in a developed urban area in Downtown Palo Alto and does not contain and land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 10 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)? 1, 2, 6 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a. project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b. project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c. project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1, 2, 6, 17 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 6 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1, 2 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million? 1, 2 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI? 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 11 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5 and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. As the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 12 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of existing buildings. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria should not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase; the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, emissions during each construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all of the construction emission control measures as identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 1.62 14.21 10.98 2.56 1.94 Excavation 2.95 35.30 23.50 3.15 1.86 Building construction 1.62 15.25 10.26 1.22 0.99 Parking structure paving 1.29 11.64 8.50 0.90 0.72 Architectural coatings 28.48 2.59 2.11 0.25 0.22 Source: Air Quality Modeling Results (see Appendix B). Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 13 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Operational Emissions The project would result in a total of 20,407 square feet of retail and office space, which is a net increase of 8,774 square feet compared to the existing conditions. In addition, four new dwelling units would be constructed. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low rise or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1), 11 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 14 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 2, 3, 5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is almost entirely developed with existing buildings and paved parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Tree Survey Report prepared for the site by Davey Resource Group (provided in Appendix A), the site includes six street trees, two in bulb-outs into the parking area along University Avenue and four in the sidewalk along Kipling Street. These trees were determined to be in poor to fair condition. The proposed project includes the retention of the two existing street trees on University Avenue (London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia)), removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street (two ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana) and two carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua)), and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees. Construction of the project could impact the two trees to be retained on University Avenue if the trees are not properly protected. In addition, removal of the four street trees on Kipling Street would result in a significant impact if not completed in accordance with requirements for tree removal and replacement; therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that these potential impacts remain below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 15 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. E CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 7 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7, 8 X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search records search was conducted by Dudek on September 25, 2014 and found that no cultural resources have been recorded in the project site (see Appendix C). The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 16 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. However, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken. Historical architectural evaluations were prepared by Preservation Architecture for the existing buildings located on the project site to determine the potential for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see Appendix D). The existing building at 429 University Avenue, which was built in 1927, has not been identified as a potential historical resource by the City or the state, nor is the building included in a historic district. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. The exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, such that the original façade and storefronts are entirely lost, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. The historical evaluation determined that the building does not have historical architectural or historical resource potential and is therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The existing building at 425 University Avenue was constructed circa 1937 and has since been used for office and commercial uses. The original architects of the building at 425 University Avenue, Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark of Palo Alto, are recognized as local masters. However, the exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, including the complete loss of the original façade and storefront. The building was evaluated for historical resource eligibility and although the building has the potential for significance under the CRHR, the loss of integrity of the structure renders it ineligible for listing on the CRHR. Since the project site does not include any eligible historical resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historical resources would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 17 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N5), 12 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 (Map N5), 9 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N5), 9 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 2, 9 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 18 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto DISCUSSION Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in September 2013 (see Appendix E). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. It is the opinion of Murray Engineers that the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The geotechnical report did not indicate that there are expansive soils, corrosive soils, and/or soils subject to settlement present. Soils found on the project site consist of layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to a depth of 45 feet. The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet consist of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. The clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to a depth of 45 feet. Murray Engineers conducted additional soil testing to determine the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Based on their analysis, the silty sand was determined to be very dense and therefore likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. In addition, the report concluded the “site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake.” All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 19 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 6 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 6 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of CO2 (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19 ksf Strip mall 19 ksf Hardware/paint store 16 ksf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 20 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space along with four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space) and 78 dwelling units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC, including attainment of a minimum Build It Green score of 70 for the residential portion of the project. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1, 2 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 21 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3 (Map N7) X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X DISCUSSION Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the project site and include a general assessment of the nature and extent of past activities, if any, on the site that could have used hazardous materials, and whether the site appears to have evidence of soils or groundwater contamination. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the commercial buildings located at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue by Professional Service Industries Inc. in August 1999. In June 2010 an environmental transaction screen (ETS) for buildings located at 429–447 University Avenue was prepared by AEI to identify any potential environmental issues associated with past and present activities in the handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, a follow-up Phase I ESA was prepared for 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street3 by Transaction Management Corporation (TMC) in April 2014. The Phase I ESAs and ETS are included in Appendix F. Both of the Phase I ESAs and the ETS report indicate that due to the age of the buildings there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint to be present. TMC recommends preparation of an operations and maintenance plan for ACMs given the potential for occurrence in the 425 University Avenue building. The 2014 Phase I ESA indicates that the property at 425 University Avenue is not on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous sites. In addition, the 2010 ETS and the 1999 Phase I ESA indicate that the project site does not contain a recognized environmental condition, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Both reports conclude there also is no evidence of a recognized environmental condition off site that could impact the project site. In addition, the project site is not listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database and there was no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination. The project involves the demolition of two buildings and construction of a new building. Demolition activities could release hazardous building materials into the air. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types 3 450 Kipling Street is not part of the project. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 22 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. It is not anticipated that construction of the subsurface garage would require dewatering due to the depth of groundwater; however, if required, the project applicant would comply with standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process, which require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plan section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including ROGs) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 micrograms per liter (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. Based on the construction date of the existing buildings (1927), it appears that the buildings may contain ACMs and may contain lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Addison Elementary School, is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools associated with hazardous materials at the project site would occur. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 23 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 13, 14 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 2, 13, 14 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 13, 14 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 24 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With the exception of some street trees on University Avenue and Kipling Street, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments (included as Appendix G to this document) prepared for the project, the project site currently contains 11,000 square feet of impervious surface with the existing buildings and parking lot area. The project is proposing to maintain the same development footprint (0.252 acre). The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change drainage patterns or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation of nearby waterways. Groundwater was identified at a depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. In addition, stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permitee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater run-off and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff. However, the regional permit also allows LID treatment reduction credits for three categories of “smart growth” projects – urban infill, high-density, and transit oriented development projects. These are called “Special Projects” in the regional permit, and are approved for reductions in the requirements for LID treatment in recognition of the fact that smart growth development projects can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less “accessory” impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. The RWCQB recognizes that these types of projects have inherent water quality and other environmental benefits. The project applicant has applied for and obtained a C.3 Special Project Category A determination based on the following: the project would preserve or enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design, would be located in a Commercial downtown zone, would replace less than 0.5 acre of impervious surface area, would have minimal surface parking, and more than 85% of the site would be covered by the proposed building. Due to the small project site and its location in a developed urban commercial corridor, it would not be feasible to construct grassy swales or other LID features to treat stormwater. There is not sufficient space to accommodate biotreatment facilities or to route runoff to an appropriate discharge point. Since the project meets the criteria listed above, the project would receive 100% LID treatment reduction credit and be allowed to treat 100% of the amount of storm water runoff with non-LID treatment measures. Stormwater runoff from the site would be collected and piped to a mechanical device (manufactured by Contech Stormwater Solutions) which is an accepted storm filter treatment facility. The mechanical device would be located onsite and stormwater runoff would be treated prior to flowing by gravity into the street and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. The applicant would also be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee that the project provide the required maintenance and/or replacement of the device for the life of the project. By providing approved and appropriate stormwater runoff collection and conveyance, and ensuring long- 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 25 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto term maintenance of the collection and conveyance infrastructure, the project would have less than significant impacts related to violating water quality standards or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project includes a subsurface garage with a maximum depth of 27 feet below grade. Reducing the number of exposed parking spaces also reduces the potential for stormwater to carry pollutants such as litter and/or leaking motor fluids. Due to the depth of groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated; however, due to fluctuations in groundwater it is possible that construction activities could encounter groundwater. Since the garage would be designed to be watertight and no permanent dewatering system would be required, it is expected that the impact to groundwater flow would be less than significant. The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Stormwater runoff is directed toward storm drain grates located in one covered parking space and in the adjacent alleyway that parallels the northwest boundary of the project site. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0010H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area as shown on maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2003). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures None required. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1, 2, 3, 4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 26 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1, 2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 31,407-square-foot, four-story commercial, office, and residential building, is an allowed use as regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The project would replace two single-story buildings currently used for retail with the proposed mixed-use building. The increase from one story to four stories on the site would change the existing scale; however, buildings in the surrounding area include a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building across the street, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development in the project area through the following policies: • Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. • Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. • Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development in an area where mixed-uses are encouraged and the project design reflects a pedestrian scale, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining Districts (CD- C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.30. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The project would also include construction of two levels of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CD-C (community) subdistrict zoning and parking regulations. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The maximum building height in this district is 50 feet. The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with TDRs and/or bonuses for seismic and historical rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project includes TDRs and bonuses to achieve the maximum 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 27 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto allowable FAR of 2.86. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the Pedestrian Shopping (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining district regulations that apply to this site are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment through the continuity of retail stores and design windows in retail districts and allow only service-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed project is designed to comply with the combining district regulations with ground-floor retail and façade details to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A., Aesthetics, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings along Kipling Street; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line and 7 feet from the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. In addition, as described in Section A., Aesthetics, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project would comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 28 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2, 3, 15 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels? 1, 2, 15 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 15 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 15 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X g) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 2, 15 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1, 2, 15 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed mixed-use project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 29 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study (EPA 1971), which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 4, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts. Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground Clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed with two one-story retail buildings and is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Residential land uses are located approximately 60 feet to the north and northwest. The proposed office building is not anticipated to result in significant levels of on-site noise or traffic noise because of the nature of the proposed land use and the relatively small size (which would generate a less than significant increase in traffic as discussed in Section P., below). The Environmental Noise Study for the project was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. (Appendix H). This assessment found that existing noise levels in the project area range from 64 dB to 70 dB during the peak traffic hours and between 63 dB and 73 dB when measured as a day-night-level (DNL), which assigns a penalty to noises generated during nighttime hours to reflect heightened sensitivity to noise in those hours. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multi-family dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB. However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 30 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment noise from exhaust fans was analyzed, as shown in Table 5, to assess whether the equipment noise would comply with Section 9.19.040 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states: “No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight decibels above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.” Table 5 Predicted Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Property Line Predicted Noise Level (dB) Criteria (dB) At Nearest Receiver At Property Plane North 49 65 57 East 47 58 56 South 48 69 54 West 49 68 54 Currently there are no adjacent receivers at or near the property plane that are 50 feet in height; therefore, adjacent receivers would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standard due to rooftop mechanical equipment noise, as shown in Table 5. However, as shown in Table 5, noise levels at the property plane would be above the criteria; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is required to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix I). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by approximately 1 dBA along University Avenue and 2 dBA along Kipling Street. Based on the Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria, a 2 dB increase in noise levels due to a project would result in a significant noise impact where the ambient noise levels without the project are in excess of 76 dB. Where noise levels are less than 76 dB, a project-generated noise level increase of more than 2 dB is required for a finding of significant noise impact. Since the ambient noise levels in the project area are less than 76 dB without the project, the maximum noise increase of 2 dBA would result in a less-than-significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 31 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1, 2 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace two existing one-story retail buildings with a four-story mixed-use building that would include a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four residential dwelling units. The increase of four residential units would not add substantial population, nor is the increased commercial or office space expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of four dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs-housing balance in this employment center. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 32 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Specifically, residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance based on the City’s determination that construction of four or fewer units would not have a significant effect on affordable housing in the City, even in a cumulative context. As the project proposes construction of four residential units, it is exempt from the BMR program. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments and the four proposed residential units would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 33 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 2 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would construct a new mixed-use building with commercial and office space and four residential units replacing two existing retail buildings. The 8,774-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of four residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 17 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 17 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 34 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1, 2, 3 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1, 2, 17 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1, 2, 17 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1, 2, 17 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1, 2, 17 X n) Impede the development or function of 1, 2, 3 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 35 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1, 2, 17 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use (Transportation Impact Analysis; Hexagon 2014, included in Appendix I). The analysis was completed in a manner consistent with other transportation impact studies in the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This includes use of the level of service (LOS) methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM; TRB 2000) for signalized intersections, use of the LOS methodology described in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM for unsignalized intersections, and use of the methodologies and standards described in the VTA 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for intersections included in the CMP (VTA 2013). The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon by applying applicable trip generation rates to the existing and proposed building. These calculations (see Table 6) are based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, ninth edition (ITE 2012). The project would replace existing retail/restaurant space of the same size; therefore, trip generation from the first floor retail/restaurant space is excluded from the analysis. In addition, the rooftop office/lunchroom is intended for use by office employees and it therefore included in the office space calculation for trip generation purposes only. The trip generation estimates do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the project location. In this respect, the project trip generation estimates are conservative. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Type Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total General Office 12.603 ksf 6.65 139 1.56 17 2 20 1.49 3 16 19 Apartment 4 du 11.03 27 0.51 0 2 2 0.62 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 166 17 4 22 4 17 21 Source: Hexagon 2014. 1 Trip rates based on ITE 2012, Office (710), Apartment (230). ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling units The proposed project is calculated to cause 22 new AM peak hour trips and 21 new PM peak hour trips. Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimates to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in LOS at any location. The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the following five intersections: 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 36 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 seconds or more and the critical-movement volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Project Effects on LOS and Delay Intersection (control) Peak Hour Average Delay (in seconds) and LOS Existing Existing Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street (Signal) AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.1 0.003 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.2 0.004 PM 9.9 A 10.6 B 0.1 0.006 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.008 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street (TWSC) AM 17.6 C 17.7 C -- -- 22.9 C 23.0 C -- -- PM 15.0 B 15.1 C -- -- 18.6 C 19.1 C -- -- 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 28.2 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 0.000 260.5 F 260.3 F 0.0 0.000 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 30.6 C 30.6 C 0.0 0.001 36.1 D 36.1 D 0.1 0.001 PM 37.0 D 37.0 D 0.0 0.001 158.5 F 158.8 F 0.1 0.001 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street (Signal) AM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.2 0.002 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.2 0.003 PM 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.002 23.6 C 23.8 C 0.2 0.002 TWSC = two-way stop control Bold indicates a substandard level of service. The results in Table 7 show that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 37 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The results in Table 7 also show that two of the signalized study intersections (University Avenue & Kipling Street and Lytton Avenue & Alma Street) would continue to operate adequately (LOS D or better) under cumulative plus project conditions. Two other signalized intersections (University Avenue & Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road) are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. The project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the operation of these intersections, based on the significance criteria described above. As shown in Table 7, project traffic would only increase the critical delay by 0.1 second and the critical V/C value by 0.001, which are less than the significance thresholds of 4 seconds and 0.01, respectively. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Hexagon also considered impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project location is approximately 0.5 miles from the Caltrain station and transit center and in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly downtown area, and the underground parking garage is proposed to include bike lockers and a shower room for employees. It is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize transit or bicycles. Due to the project size, it is unlikely to produce significant bicycle trips or pedestrian trips or impact the nearby trains and buses. It is expected that these additional trips could easily be accommodated by the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Site Access and Onsite Circulation Access to the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30) would be assisted by breaks in traffic on Waverly Street created by the nearby traffic signals at Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block. Such maneuvers are common in downtown settings during commute periods. Based on the estimated traffic generated during the peak periods, it is anticipated that the project’s garage access to and from Lane 30 at Waverly and Kipling Streets, respectively, would operate acceptably and would be typical of a development in an urban setting with underground parking. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at garage entrance/exit. Truck access and loading would be provided adjacent to the project site via the alley (Lane 30). The alley is 20 feet in width and truck loading requires a width of 10 feet, which leaves the remaining 10 feet available for vehicles to pass in this one-way alley. The alley currently provides adequate truck access for other adjacent businesses, and it is expected that it would provide adequate access for the proposed project as well since the width of the alley would remain the same. Adequate corner sight distance is required at the exit of the alley to ensure that drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. Sight distance is typically measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The proposed project would provide a 4-foot setback from the edge of the alley. The project would also replace the large street tree nearest this corner which would improve the visibility of the roadway. The combination of the setback and the tree removal is expected to provide adequate visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. Additionally, bike lockers require a five foot aisle in front of the door openings. The proposed parking plan meets these minimum specifications, as well as providing the minimum dimensions for standard, accessible, and van-accessible spaces. However, due to the 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 38 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto limited footprint of the underground parking, vehicles are required to navigate tight 90 degree turns near the ends of both ramps and the middle of the lower ramp, where sight lines may be restricted. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires that mirrors be installed in the parking garage to provide adequate site distance. Parking The project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Specifically, the PAMC requires that the project provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of new commercial space and two spaces for each of the residential units plus guest spaces (one space plus 10%). The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for four residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in-lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 40 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by five spaces. The 40 parking spaces would be provided in the two- level underground parking garage. The project would also meet the applicable bicycle parking requirements. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1 bicycle space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 80% for long-term parking and 20% for short-term parking. In addition, 4 long-term bicycle spaces (1 per unit) are required for the residential units. The project is required to provide 13 total bicycle parking spaces. As reflected in the site plans, the project proposes to provide 7 long-term bicycle parking spaces within the underground parking garage and 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces near the entrances of the building on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The bicycle parking spaces provided on the project site meet the requirements of Ordinance 18.52.040 and follow layout requirements of PAMC Section 18.54.060. While this project does not include an explicit transportation demand management (TDM) plan, several elements common to TDM are present. Most importantly, the project is located in a transit-rich and pedestrian friendly location. Second, the project proposes to include both bicycle lockers and a restroom with a shower. Both of these features should result in some reduction in automobile trips generated by the project and reduce the amount of parking needed by employees. In addition, the project is in a good location for transit-related TDM strategies that may be implemented by future tenants, such as Caltrain and VTA Go Passes or reimbursement of transit fares. However, due to the small project trip generation, a TDM plan is not necessary to reduce peak hour trips. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 39 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 40 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 2 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, Aesthetics, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 41 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto III SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2014 (Appendix B) 7. Cultural Resources Memorandum (Appendix C) 8. Historic Architectural Evaluations, 2014 (Appendix D) 9. Geotechnical Investigation, 2013 (Appendix E) 10. Phase I ESA 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street, 2014 (Appendix F) 11. Phase I ESA for the Commercial Buildings, 1999 (Appendix F) 12. Environmental Transaction Screen, 429–447 University Avenue, 2010 (Appendix F) 13. Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments, 2014 (Appendix G) 14. Special Projects Worksheet, 2014 (Appendix G) 15. Environmental Noise Study, 2014 (Appendix H) 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 17. Traffic Impact Analysis, 2014 (Appendix I) REFERENCES CITED 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. “Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20 Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20I%20%20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_ Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Article 2, Definitions, Section 4526, “Timberland.” California Public Resources Code, Article 3, Definitions, Section 12220(g), “Forest land.” California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 42 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Boston, MA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Heather Martinelli, AICP Katherine Waugh, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 43 November 2014, updated January 2015 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto IV DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ___________________________________ _________________________ Project Planner Date 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 44 November 2014, updated January 2015 Milpitas SanJose MountainView PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo DiscoveryBay Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood PleasantHill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho AptosHills-LarkinValley Interlaken SantaCruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton DayValley ScottsValley BenLomond BoulderCreek MorganHill LexingtonHills SanJose LosGatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvale PortolaValley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoonBay MenloPark BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo FosterCity Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco SanFrancisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastroValley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley SanRafael Lagunitas-ForestKnolls Lucas Valley-Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo AmericanCanyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d 0115.5 Miles Project Site 82 101 FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Palo Alto Quadrangle. Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 2 _ V i c i n t y . m x d 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: BING 2014 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 1 9 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ M A P S \ I S \ F i g u r e 3 _ A e r i a l _ M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Boundary Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Site PlanFIGURE 4 TRU ENORTHPROJ E C T NOR T H UP DN DN UP RAMP DN TO LV. 1 PARKING 18' - 0 " CU R B T O C U R B 10 0 ' - 0 " 110'-0"20'-0"12'-0" SIDEWALKALLEY/ (E) DRIVEWAY 25'-6" TO C OF UNIV. AVE. L 10 ' - 0 " 15 ' TO C O F K I P L I N G S T . L UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E LA N E 3 0 KIPLING STREET (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE(APPROVED BY CITY)TYP. OF 3 PAIRS (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA SID E W A L K PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 0 5 10 15 20 FT (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE OR SIM(APPROVED BY CITY) FDC, TYP. (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA 4'-0" 6'-0" 1 1 1 4'- 0 " 6'-0" 3 4'-1 1/2" 4'-10" C R T STORM FILTER,SEE CIVIL DWG. 4 (N) WALL MOUNTED GAS METERS 4 T C R SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 ElevationsFIGURE 5 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL LANE 30 428 UNIVERSITY AVE. 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL UNIVERSITY AVE. WAVERLEY ST.KIPLING ST. UNIVERSITY AVE. STREETSCAPE ELEVATION 1 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KIPLING ST. STREETSCAPE 2 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Perspective RenderingsFIGURE 6 VIEW FROM UNIVERSITY AVE. AND KIPLING ST.1 N.T.S. VIEW FROM ACROSS KIPLING STREET 2 N.T.S. AERIAL VIEW FROM UNIVERSITY AVE. AND KIPLING STREET 3 N.T.S. VIEW FROM ACROSS UNIVERSITY AVE.4 N.T.S. 4 44 4 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program INTRODUCTION Section 15097 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, whenever a public agency approves a project based on a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the public agency shall establish a mitigation monitoring or reporting program to ensure that all adopted mitigation measures are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is intended to satisfy this requirement of the CEQA Guidelines as it relates to the Fountain Square Medical Office Building project. This MMP would be used by City staff and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MMP were developed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. As noted above, the intent of the MMP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of all adopted mitigation measures. The MMP will provide for monitoring of construction activities, as necessary, and in the field identification and resolution of environmental concerns. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto will coordinate monitoring activities and ensure appropriate documentation of mitigation measure implementation. The table below identifies each mitigation measure for the 385 Sherman Avenue Project and the associated implementation, monitoring, timing and performance requirements. The MMP table presented on the following pages identifies: 1. the full text of each applicable mitigation measure; 2. the party or parties responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure; 3.the timing of implementation of each mitigation measure including any ongoing monitoring requirements; and 4.performance criteria by which to ensure mitigation requirements have been met. Following completion of the monitoring and documentation process, the final monitoring results will recorded and incorporated into the project file maintained by the City’s Department of Planning and Community Environment. It is noted that the mitigation measure numbering reflects the numbering used in the Initial Study prepared for the 429 University Avenue Project (Dudek 2014). 429 University Avenue Project Page 1 Mitigation Monitoring Program January 2015 Attachment H 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program No mitigation measures are required for the following resources:  Aesthetics  Agricultural Resources  Air Quality  Geology, Soils, and Seismicity  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hydrology and Water Quality  Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources  Population and Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. Applicant City of Palo Alto Urban Forestry Group/Planning Division Arborist • Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and building permits • During demolition, excavation, and construction • Approved site plans reflect applicable conditions • Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions 429 University Avenue Project Page 2 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to Applicant City of Palo Alto Prior to and during earth disturbance • Training materials provided to construction contractors • Field inspections conducted to verify compliance 429 University Avenue Project Page 3 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos- related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of demolition permit and during demolition Building survey report submitted LCMs and ACMs handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the California Occupational Health and Safety’s 429 University Avenue Project Page 4 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB-containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. PCBs, mercury and other hazardous building materials handled by qualified contractor and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations as identified. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include window sound transmission ratings and interior noise levels verification from a qualified acoustical consultant. 429 University Avenue Project Page 5 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 429 University Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring Program Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility Timing Performance Evaluation Criteria locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air-conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include details of the residential ventilation system. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include garage exhaust fan manufacturer’s information regarding equipment noise levels and noise attenuation details TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Applicant City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Prior to issuance of building permit Approved building plans shall include parking garage mirrors 429 University Avenue Project Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program January 2015 Attachment I Attachment J MEMORANDUM To: Christy Fong, Planner From: Heather Martinelli, AICP and Katherine Waugh, AICP Subject: Responses to Comments on Proposed MND for 429 University Avenue Date: December 19, 2014 This memo provides responses to the comments received regarding the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 429 University Avenue Project (proposed project). Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an agency must consider comments from the public and from other agencies concerned with the project. The Proposed MND was made available by the City of Palo Alto (City) for public review from November 17, 2014, through December 12, 2014, for a total of 25 days. The Notice of Intent to adopt the Proposed MND was posted at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office from November 21, 2014, through December 12, 2014, for a total of 21 days. No comment letters were received during the public review period for the Proposed MND; however, oral comments were received at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) hearing on November 20, 2014. Several commenters expressed their support for the project, while others voiced their concerns. Responses to the comments related to the CEQA document are addressed by topic below. None of the comments received provide substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence includes “fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21080, subd. (e)(1)) Substantial evidence does not include “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative.” (Guidelines, Section 15384, subd. (a)). AESTHETICS •Building height and scale: Concerns regarding the building height and scale were expressed by several commenters. As described on page 7 of the Initial Study, the project would be within the allowable height for the site of 50 feet. Although the project would be larger in scale than some adjacent buildings, it would be similar in scale to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue. The project design has been refined since the ARB hearing to address concerns related to the size, scale, and character of the building. The scale of the stone framework has been reduced by lowering the height at the roof terrace and raising the glass railing along the roof terrace. The stone framework Attachment K Memorandum Subject: Responses to Comments on Proposed MND for 429 University Avenue has been divided into segments that more closely reflect the pattern of facades along the street. The secondary surface of the building has been accentuated to define a two story façade on the western end of the building. Additionally, at this new, two-story façade the upper floors have been stepped back to create terraces for the residents on the third and fourth floors. • Transition to Kipling Street: Comments were received regarding the transition of the building to the lower scale character of Kipling Street. Specific concerns included the back elevation and the tower near the alley on Kipling Street. The project design has been revised since the ARB hearing to address these concerns. The upper floor entrance has been moved to the corner of the alley to allow the stair and elevator tower to move closer to University Avenue. The stairwell height has also been reduced. Adjacent to the new stair location, the fourth floor terrace has been set back into the façade by six feet to reduce the perceived height of the building. Two balconies were added to the upper floors at the corner of the building on the alley/Kipling Street, which reduces the massing of the building on that corner. A raised planter has been added at the alley to transition to the landscape frontages of the existing buildings on Kipling Street. Comments addressing this topic: Michael Harbor, Lisa Rutherford, Alexander Lew (ARB), Kyu Kim (ARB), Robert Gooyer (ARB), Randy Popp (ARB). BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • Street Trees: There was a request for clarification on the number of trees being removed and replaced. As described on page 15 of the Initial Study, a total of four street trees are proposed to be removed along Kipling Street. These trees would be replaced with four new street trees along Kipling Street. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 includes specific measures to ensure impacts related to the tree removal and replacement remain less than significant. Comments addressing this topic: Catherine Ballantyne (ARB) TRAFFIC • Parking: Concerns were expressed regarding the impacts of the project on parking in Downtown. As described on page 4 of the Initial Study, the project proposes to provide 40 parking spaces in two levels of underground parking, which exceeds the parking requirement of 35 spaces by 5 spaces. 8576 2 December 2014 Memorandum Subject: Responses to Comments on Proposed MND for 429 University Avenue • Traffic and Parking on Kipling Street: Concerns were expressed regarding the impact the project would have on traffic on Kipling Street given the narrow width of the street and the potential for large trucks needed to serve retail uses in the building. As discussed on pages 36 through 39 of the Initial Study, the project would not cause any significant impacts to the operation of intersections in the project study area. Lastly, the discussion of Site Access and Onsite Circulation on page 38 of the Initial Study, describes how truck loading would occur within Lane 30, not Kipling Street. • Construction Traffic: A comment was made that the construction of the project would disrupt business in the area due to traffic. Although construction of the project may temporarily increase traffic accessing the site, a project of this size is not anticipated to require a large number of construction vehicles. Additionally, the existing retail uses of the site would not be operating during construction. This would slightly reduce background traffic volumes in the area during the construction period. • Trip Generation: There was a question regarding the calculation of AM Peak Hour trips in Table 6 of the Initial Study. The total is shown as 21; however, when added together, the total should be 22. This calculation has been corrected on page 36 of the Initial Study. Comments addressing this topic: Catherine Ballantyne (ARB), Michael Harbor, Lisa Rutherford UTILITIES • Water Use: A comment was made that the discussion of water use in the Initial Study does not address the increase in water-using appliances/fixtures. Although the project would increase the number of water-using appliances/fixtures and overall water use in the building compared to the existing use, the project is consistent with the City’s land use designation for the site, which was taken into consideration in the preparation of the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Palo Alto Utilities 2011). In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program, which would ensure that water conservation measures are included in the project to reduce water demand. Comments addressing this topic: Catherine Ballantyne (ARB) REFERENCES City of Palo Alto Utilities. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. 8576 3 December 2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 234 Thursday, November 20, 2014, Meeting 5 8:30 AM, Council Chambers 6 7 8 1.429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of9 Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing one-story10 commercial/retail buildings containing a total of 11,633 square feet (sf) of floor area and11 construct a 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building with two levels of underground parking12 providing 41 on-site spaces on a 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P))13 zoning district. Environmental Assessment: The draft Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative14 Declaration is available for a public review comment period November 17 – December 12, 2014,15 in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.16 17 Chair Popp: Alright, with that we will move on to the last item of the day, 429 University Avenue: 18 Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal 19 to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail buildings totaling 11,633 square feet (sf) of floor 20 area and construct a 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building with two levels of underground parking 21 providing 41 on-site spaces on a 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning 22 district. The Environmental Assessment has declared the draft Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative 23 Declaration (MND) is available, sorry, and in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) 24 requirements and comments may be submitted through December 12, 2014. And I imagine staff will 25 explain that, but the period for CEQA has not expired so we don’t have the full value of that information 26 at this time. So perhaps staff can illuminate us about that and any other items about the project please. 27 28 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes. Hello, so Amy French here. I wanted to introduce Christy Fong 29 who is the project planner for this project. Yes, to clarify the release of the environmental document just 30 occurred I think it was last Friday, the day of the packet. And so it’s just newly released and we 31 anticipate receiving comments on that document and will look forward to receiving those and then being 32 able to comment on those. And this is the, the first reason for the continuance to that December 18th 33 and then of course this is your first hearing on the matter and we look forward to hearing your comments 34 as well as the public comments. And let me turn it over to Christy. We also have our environmental 35 consultant here from Dudek the firm we have retained to help us with the environmental documents for 36 development. 37 38 Christy Fong, Planner: Thank you for the introduction and good morning Board Members. The project 39 site is located at the southwest corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue and comprised of two 40 parcels, one at 425 University and the other is at 429 to 447 University Avenue. As read from the project 41 description, the proposal is to demolish the existing one-story retail buildings for a new four-story mixed 42 use building. It would include 21,407 sf of commercial space and 11,000 sf for four residential units. 43 The use allocation is two levels of underground parking, retail at the ground floor, office on the second 44 floor, three residential units on the third floor, and one residential unit and office space on the top floor. 45 46 A preliminary review of similar project was considered by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on 47 November 7, 2013. While the project site at that time included only 429 to 447 University the current 48 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES Attachment L City of Palo Alto Page 2 project site has been expanded to include 425 University. The current proposal also has different design 1 features, which include building setback of approximately four feet from the rear property line, an 2 increased number of entrances to the ground floor retail space along University Avenue, the removal of 3 roof form over the fourth floor terrace and more terrace space on the fourth and third floors. 4 5 The current project complies with the development standard in the CD-C zoning district. Staff has 6 evaluated the project based on the Downtown Design Guidelines and Context Based Design Criteria. The 7 current architecture concepts include a two-story grid of columns with frameless glass, recessed 8 entrance, and glass canopies on the street level. Light color palettes and glazed windows are proposed 9 on the second level. Most of the interior spaces on the third and fourth floor are setback from street view 10 with either roof or open terrace. 11 12 Since the project is located in the Downtown Commercial District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining 13 District it is required to incorporate design features that foster a lively pedestrian environment. Staff will 14 appreciate the Board to provide feedback on site design, project architecture, massing, setback, and 15 streetscape element with consideration to the existing context and a goal of providing quality pedestrian 16 experience in the Downtown District. 17 18 The applicant has request for a number of clarifications in the staff report and provided enlarged color 19 renderings to further illustrate their design concept. The renderings show columns on the ground floor 20 are protruded from the frameless glass and the grid pattern is connected to the upper floor with the 21 intent to provide further vertical articulation. Staff would recommend the ARB to review the proposed 22 plan, receive public testimony, and continue the project to a date certain. This will allow public to 23 provide comments on the draft CEQA documents and project plans. As of today staff has received 24 written correspondence from 36 individuals. These letters are included in Attachment E of the staff 25 report. There is material board and paving sample available to facilitate discussion. Heather Martinelli 26 from Dudek is also available here to answer any CEQA related questions. 27 28 Chair Popp: Is there anything specific addressing, I’m sorry I don’t have your name, but is there anything 29 specific that you’d want to share with us? If you could introduce yourself and let us know anything you’d 30 like to add to the staff description of the project? 31 32 Heather Martinelli, Dudek: I’m Heather Martinelli with Dudek and I prepared the draft MND that you have 33 in your packet as well as the initial study that goes through the potential impacts of the project. And as 34 they mentioned the public review period started on the 17th and extends through December 12th. So the 35 required review period is a total of 20 days; however, this period extends a little longer to allow for since 36 we do have the holiday in the middle of that. So I’m here to answer any questions related to the MND; 37 however, formal comments should be submitted and then they will be reviewed and responded to 38 accordingly. 39 40 Chair Popp: Ok so now is the time we’ll ask any of the Board Members to ask clarifying questions or for 41 additional information of staff. Let’s see, I’ll start with… here we go. It was you last, right? Yeah, so 42 Board Member Lew. 43 44 Board Member Lew: I don’t think I have any questions for staff at this time. 45 46 Chair Popp: Board Member Ballantyne. 47 48 Board Member Ballantyne: Would now be an appropriate time to correct some discrepancies in the 49 written report? 50 51 Chair Popp: We can do that in comments. 52 53 Board Member Ballantyne: Ok. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Popp: If it’s just discrepancies. If it’s asking a question to clarify or ask for additional information 1 this is the right time to do that, but if it’s just corrections (interrupted) 2 3 Board Member Ballantyne: It’s just corrections we can do that later. 4 5 Chair Popp: We’ll hold off on that. Board Member Kim? Alright, and I do have a question for staff. So I 6 guess the question is really as a formal review we’re doing this without the benefit of all the information 7 that should be available to us because we don’t have the documentation complete yet. And so do you 8 want us to just do as much as we can today and then we’ll potentially continue this to another date 9 certain once the additional information comes forward we’ll adjust? So that’s what’s (interrupted) 10 11 Ms. French: Our request is that you continue this hearing to December 18th is our suggested date. You 12 can’t recommend it today. We, we mustn’t do that. What we would like to do is go through as this is the 13 first review of this project on the two sites is to thoroughly go through the design review as the main 14 concern, hear the public testimony, if you have comments on the environmental document which you 15 should have received as well we would like to hear those comments. And then when we do come back 16 to you we will have responses to the comments and responses to your direction and requests. I would 17 like to mention that there’s a member of the public that requested to speak prior to the applicant, I guess 18 has a pressing engagement an attorney so and his name’s John Hanna (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Popp: G. Vail She’s (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. French: Yeah, she also requested to speak. 23 24 Chair Popp: So is there, was there a statement they asked you to read? 25 26 Ms. French: No, he’s here still. He, yeah just noting that there are folks that would like to speak prior to 27 the applicant giving their presentation if that’s at all possible. 28 29 Chair Popp: Alright, it’s a little out of order to do that. 30 31 Ms. French: It is. 32 33 Chair Popp: But I actually went out of order already didn’t I? So let’s allow that in this particular case. 34 So can you tell me who those folks are? 35 36 Ms. French: John Hanna and then the one that spoke to us earlier at the break had requested… 37 38 Chair Popp: Alright, so let’s have G. Vakil and then Mr. Hanna can come and speak. We’ll take three 39 minutes for each of you. We’ll be opening the public hearing at this point then and we’ll start that. It’s a 40 little out of order, but off we go. So G. Vakil if you don’t mind come forward to the mike, make sure 41 you’re speaking directly in the mike, identify yourself, and be happy to hear what you have to share with 42 us. 43 44 G. Vakil: Morning respected Commissioners [Note-Board Members] and thank you for allowing me to 45 speak first. I’m not an expert to comment on architectural specifics. I speak because of the final 46 products I’ve seen and the effect of the processes on me generically, but specific for development issues 47 of Downtown where I’ve had a small retail store since 1974. Development is good on many fronts. It’s 48 human nature and a property owner’s right. We know all that and I like posh modernity. Here’s what is 49 said in support of huge developments in an old, small, historic Downtown with small streets. It will have 50 retail plus housing plus parking besides its main aim, business space. It will beautify the City. A 51 particular construction will be environmentally sound. Those are the three points, but look at the ethics 52 of what has really happened and could happen if development continues unbridled which it is because of 53 the issues I will mention. The fact that in the name of providing retail what’s really provided is one large 54 space for a corporate chain store. Thus fellow retailer House of Bagels was rejected at the new building 55 near [Abby Tarry] because I would correctly guess from the nuances involved he wasn’t posh enough nor 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 was he a corporation. And instead of multiple smaller apartments one or two large expensive penthouses 1 are built. Some overpowering humongous monstrosities with no underground parking have crept in; the 2 compounded effect of repeated multiple constructions. So these are the two points in counter effect to 3 the three stated benefits that I mentioned. 4 5 Besides on the environment, consider the following: construction is done in a manner that totally 6 disregards its devastating effect on small businesses who have given years of service and charm to the 7 City. Construction resulting in millions in profit to landlords and developers, but which disrupts small 8 businesses for months at a time in repeated succession seems unethical to me. The traffic, enormous 9 noise, and huge trucks must be limited to times when stores are not open. New York does so at night. 10 Let restaurants and residents also share the inconvenience. As for parking huge construction trucks or 11 trucks who deliver to huge corporate restaurants park as they please or can, even middle of the street. 12 This does not happen and would not be allowed to happen with small business. So bigger is more 13 power. I have never seen one get a ticket even when a police car or ticket maid passes by or when I’ve 14 complained, but that is too ok in the name of progress and benefits to the majority. What is not ethical 15 or fair is as one of scores of examples when I get a ticket for parking momentarily in one of three empty 16 motorbike spaces on my block in order to carry a heavy load into my store with no grace given as is 17 given to the huge trucks. Build, that’s good, but the City although she could have justifications for all 18 these issues needs to be even more mindful and egalitarian in a functioning and provide specific 19 consideration, one moment please if you don’t mind? To existing small stores including perhaps a 20 mandate to provide space to existing stores at rents similar to the existing rent. Thank you very much. 21 22 Chair Popp: Thank you. Mr. Hanna is next please. 23 24 John Hanna: Thank you. Hi, my name is John Hanna. I appreciate your allowing me to speak 25 beforehand although since we don’t have the picture up there and so forth I won’t be able to talk too 26 much about the project itself. I think that last speech is one that would be more appropriate to be given 27 to the Council than to you. I want you to know I do appreciate the difficulty of the task that you people 28 have and I respect as do architects and other people that work with your expertise and your ability to 29 guide and influence these projects that come before you and you have delicate task to kind of find your 30 way between compromising the architects’ design and creativity and at the same time trying to make it fit 31 within all of the objective and subjective parameters. And as an aside I want to complement Mr. Popp 32 for mentioning the sacred cow, the H word. It’s the first time I’ve heard somebody say that it’s a 33 disaster, which it truly is. You could imagine how much different and how much better we would be if 34 we had open space and which you can only get with height instead of wall to wall buildings, which is 35 what we have now. 36 37 I also sympathize with the job of the architect who has to deal with all the zoning height limitations, 38 setback, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), disability. On the one hand he’s got to stay within those rules; on the 39 other hand he’s got to deal with the staff, the ARB, the Council, and the public. Everybody has an idea of 40 what these new buildings and projects should look like and I shudder to think of what would happen if I. 41 M. Pei or a Frank Gehry or a Frank Lloyd Wright should show up in Palo Alto these days trying to get 42 something approved. 43 44 What I do like about this building I think it’s a very handsome building. I think it brings what we need to 45 Downtown Palo Alto, which is a combination of residential and office and retail and provides the legal 46 limit on parking. I think it’s a well-designed handsome building. I think it’s a commendable replacement 47 for the ho-hum buildings that are there now and I would certainly hope you give it most favorable 48 consideration. Thank you. 49 50 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. Alright so we’ll turn back to our typical agenda and go back to the 51 applicant’s presentation please. Mr. Hayes you’ll have 10 minutes to share with us your vision for the 52 design. Thank you. 53 54 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Let me before you start the clock… Good morning Members of the 55 Board, Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll be presenting the project on behalf of my clients 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Elizabeth Wong and Jaime Wong who are here in the audience if you have questions for them. The site 1 and I actually would like to thank Christy Fong the planner. She’s done an incredible job on this project 2 as has Amy and I enjoyed Dudek’s report as well. 3 4 The site is the corner parcel, two parcels combined to create an 11,000 sf property on the corner of 5 Kipling and University Avenue. The context [as such] the old Apple Store is located here at 451, the 6 Varsity Theatre is kind of off axis, but it’s located here where the marquee is. We have the Excel 7 Partners four-story building located here and then further down the block here and here one-story 8 buildings some of these with mezzanines. It’s all in the CD-C ground floor pedestrian overlay zone. It is 9 the old Shady Lane store and the Giants Dugout, which is the further interior parcel. This is a front view 10 so it includes this building to the corner. This is the view of Lane 30, which is the alley that runs behind 11 our project and then you can see University Avenue down here, the Varsity Theatre’s right there. These 12 trees are all being removed by the way. Is the old Apple Store with a real heavy band around the top of 13 the store that kind of defines the block and then a two-story addition that was done awhile back. The 14 former Apple Store. I’m not sure if I said the Apple Store. 15 16 So here’s the program: develop a four-story 31,000 sf building with not quite a 3.0 FAR which is what’s 17 permitted with ground floor retail space, four 3 bedroom residential units that are about 2,400 sf, a full 18 level of commercial office space, a generous rooftop terrace with office space, and also a unit up there. 19 The plan is to fully park the project in an underground garage, two levels, provide retail exposure along 20 University and Kipling and allow for flexibility in that floor plate so it could have multiple tenants. The 21 goal is that we create a modern mixed-use building that responds to the site and incorporates 22 daylighting, utilizes sustainable building strategies, and enhances the living and working experience. We 23 want to respect the context and anchor the corner, some of the ideas of the Downtown plan. Create 24 retail transparency and vitality to connect the inside to the sidewalk and enhance the pedestrian shopping 25 experience. 26 27 And we were here in November of last year for our preliminary and we had some comments from you 28 then and want to show you how we’ve responded to those. This is the site here, just an idea on the 29 circulation. So the auto circulation pretty much or I’m sorry, auto circulation is in the alley. It’s one way 30 towards Kipling. We access our garage from the back, from the back alley. There is no left turn onto 31 Kipling from University Avenue. This is pedestrian sidewalk and activity and how they would get into the 32 building as well. I sort of described this, but this kind of is the diagram to show you here’s the six-story 33 building, two-story building, two-story building, four-story building, one-story building, and then this is 34 the addition on the back of the former Apple Store. That’s also two-story so there’s plenty of example of 35 varying building heights I think in the area. And then down Kipling there are older wood frame homes 36 and commercial businesses on this side of the street. Most of those homes are actually commercial 37 buildings presently. 38 39 The ground floor space site analysis trying to create multiple points for potential retail entry; we’re 40 thinking we could have as many as four retail tenants in the building or we could have one. The main 41 entrance for the office would be off of Kipling trying to get as much retail exposure on University Avenue 42 as possible. We don’t want it on the corner; we want to pull it towards the back of the building. We 43 have again Lane 30 access in that direction and then come into the garage here. Highlight the corner 44 with a window that basically defines, defines the corner. Create as much retail transparency as possible 45 on those two critical frontages and then get all the utility and electrical rooms and fire risers and trash 46 enclosures off the alley in the back, which is the purpose of those alleys I think in the Downtown. 47 48 So just the ground floor plan at a little bit larger scale. The office is fairly open on the second floor with 49 abundant windows that wrap three sides, the back and then the two street sides. The residential 50 occupies the third floor entirely residential with generous outdoor terraces deep so that they can get 51 away from the noise if they need to, but also wanted to point out that in the center where the entries are 52 for the residential units this is open to the sky so there’s a light, light well from the fourth floor you can 53 look down so there’s some integration. This is the fourth floor with a small kind of office, thinking it’s 54 maybe kind of a break space up there or possibly the office for the owner with the residence on the 55 backside and then this is the terrace that overlooks University Avenue. You can see that all the fourth 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 floor with the exception of this piece here is setback from the edge of the building. I think we’re 10 feet 1 at the rear and I believe we’re 6 feet on the side or 8 feet on the side. 2 3 So at the preliminary ARB we had this elevation here. It’s before we had the Giants Dugout store next 4 door. Your comments were you’re on a corner I think Member [Note-Vice-Chair] Gooyer said this, is that 5 the best way to express the corner through symmetry? So we thought about that and figured out 6 another way to respond. I do like the response that we have. Clearly it’s no longer a symmetrical 7 façade. We have a larger framework that wraps the corner then a secondary grid work that I’ll show you 8 later how it ties in to the Downtown. Previously we had this on the, on the side. We’re trying to break 9 the scale of the building down as we go down Kipling. It’s not the University Avenue kind of presence or 10 edge that I think you need on University Avenue. Comments were a little bit too high maybe on that 11 glass line it becomes you’ve lifted the building up too much and obviously the 50 foot height limit. We 12 were trying to get that mass out on the street that you saw here, this framework and maybe there’s a 13 better way to do that. And there were some neighbors that were concerned about height as well so we 14 brought the height down to 41 feet because we’ve pushed everything back on the fourth floor to the rear 15 of the building. So it really reads as a three-story building on those sides. The rear of the building I 16 won’t spend much time on. We can come back to that if you have questions. I want to make sure I 17 have time to get through the presentation. 18 19 This is the street view, the old Apple Store located here. Again I mentioned the heavy fascia on the 20 Apple Store sort of began to define the dimension that we’re using on the new building. The context of 21 these buildings here that are sort of these old mercantile buildings with mezzanines in front. The idea is 22 that we’re trying to lay behind our main grid of the building a secondary grid in this different contrasting 23 material that creates that line that comes through the building and in fact the whole residential terrace 24 above is setback to create that definition of that maybe smaller scale. Also the syncopation it probably 25 reads best in the color elevation or perspective you had, you have rather, but the idea of that secondary 26 grid with the breakdown of the windows above on the second floor pulling down through the building 27 kind of marches around the Kipling side as well. 28 29 The Kipling side again we’ve still broken it down into smaller elements of the building to begin to address 30 the scale on Kipling. This perspective, bird’s eye view from the south with the roof terrace the materials, 31 the grey pietra serena would be the main framework of the building. Then the secondary grid that I’m 32 talking about that begins to relate to the two-story the mercantile the existing buildings on the street 33 would be crystalized glass product; very elegant materials. As you come around on the Kipling side of 34 the building we do have our stair element that’s open at the top. It kind of anchors, anchors the corner. 35 It’s setback we were right on the property line when we were here last time. We’re four feet back now 36 from the property line. This is the office entry as you come in and then the main block of the building 37 that wraps the corner is defined here. And then the colored view of the building gives you an idea of 38 how we’re anchoring the corner with a large, large storefront, but it is very good at demonstrating I think 39 how that, the two grids are overlaid on one another. The on the ground floor the glass is also when it 40 hits the columns its setback and then the base setback from the glass here and then the base of the 41 building is the, is proud of those columns so it gives something for the building to rest on. Thank you 42 very much. And I don’t rehearse it or practice it… 43 44 Chair Popp: He had another three minutes, but he just stopped. Alright. So thank you very much Mr. 45 Hayes for the presentation; very informative. We will continue the public comment period at this point. I 46 have six more cards here and so again we give three minutes per person. We’ll start with Michael 47 Harbour to be followed by Mark Weiss. Please introduce yourself and make sure you’re speaking into the 48 microphone. 49 50 Michael Harbour: Good morning, my name is Michael Harbour. I own the building at 421-423 Kipling 51 Street. Unlike Mr. Hayes who just mentioned it as wood and constructed buildings what’s very 52 interesting about Kipling Street is that these are old Victorian buildings. My home was built in 1902 and 53 it’s been painstakingly put back together as well as the other homes on the street and there’s been no 54 actually just mention of the uniqueness of this particular street filled with Victorian homes. And so when 55 I look at the backside of this Kipling building with that big grey brick solid wall, the view from Kipling is 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 not attractive at all. What is interesting about Kipling it’s only 29 feet wide unlike all the other streets 1 that are in Downtown Palo Alto: Waverley, Bryant, which are 49 feet wide yet they have the same 2 zoning. So a 50 foot height limit and this in my mind doesn’t, it’s not congruent with the other wide 3 streets there. So I think it looks very tall. 4 5 The fact that the entrance is going to be on Kipling Street there’s a reason why Kipling Street is one way 6 because it’s extremely narrow. You can’t turn left off of University Avenue. In the 12 years that I’ve 7 owned the home I’ve been personally hit twice by cars on Kipling Street where my side view mirror has 8 been clipped off by trying to navigate that narrow road. And many other people have the same issues. 9 So I really think that we’ve heard a lot about the view from University Avenue, the view from the old 10 Apple Store, but we haven’t taken into consideration the only street in Downtown Palo Alto which is full 11 of these Victorian homes and that perspective to this building. We’re left to look at a solid blank wall. 12 I’m concerned about parking coming in and out there because it, the parking just gets backed up. 13 There’s always a line to move down Kipling Street it’s so busy. 14 15 And I’m not against progress. I think the building although many of Mr. Hayes’ buildings in my mind look 16 pretty much the same from many different perspectives that’s just my opinion sir, but I have no problem 17 with renovating that building. But the size and the scope is important to consider and I personally would 18 love to see University, I mean Kipling Street remain a very unique walkable street because there’s no 19 other street like it in Downtown Palo Alto. It’s that I would like to see it as its own protected little 20 Victorian row if you will. I think that’s a very unique aspect. I’ve tried to incorporate a type of patio and 21 my building is right next to Vino Locale so there’s a lot of outside proprietors that are there and guests. 22 I’ve developed a little area for my tenants there and I just don’t think that we’re thinking about Kipling 23 Street in regard to this particular project. Thank you. 24 25 Chair Popp: Thank you very much Mr. Harbor. Mr. Weiss followed by Gerson Bers. 26 27 Mark Weiss: The new project proposed for the corner of University Avenue and Kipling is exactly what we 28 need more of in Downtown Palo Alto. We need more residential Downtown to make it possible for 29 people to live and work in town as opposed to commuting. And we need more parking Downtown. This 30 project fulfills both of these needs and in addition adds to the tax base and improves the aesthetics of 31 that corner considerably. This project meets, the project meets zoning and parking requirements and 32 needs no special favors or exemptions. What’s not to like? John Paul Hanna, Esquire, Hanna & Van Atta, 33 525 University Avenue, Suite 600. 34 35 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. Mr. Gerson Bers to be followed by Brad Ehikian. 36 37 Gerson Bers: Good morning, my name is Gerson Bers my wife Tory and teenager twins live at 3218 38 Louis. We’ve lived in Palo Alto continuously for 25 years. Our first apartment was at 360 Forest a few 39 steps from where I’m standing right now. We have great love of Palo Alto, particularly the Downtown. 40 I’m here to voice my family’s strong agreement with this project as we believe it really improves the 41 situation downtown. We think this for three reasons and the first one is, has to do with the existing 42 buildings that are there on University and their value. The second thing is the parking situation, which 43 we need to speak about. And last is architectural, which you folks here are going to dive into pretty 44 deeply if I understand what you’ve done in the previous project. 45 46 The existing buildings are single masonry structures have little historic or architectural value. The reports 47 provided on the City’s website indicate they’re not terribly old buildings. They are primarily masonry and 48 not constructed to current seismic or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) codes. They’ve been 49 significantly modified since they were originally constructed. In short they really don’t have a lot of value 50 to the community and they’re not actually worth saving and investing. So we kind of agree that the block 51 needs to move on, the buildings need to come along. 52 53 The second thing we’d like to speak to is parking. You can’t discuss any type of development in Palo Alto 54 whether it’s in my neighborhood or this neighborhood without talking about parking. I think this project 55 is specifically and particularly responsible when it comes to parking. As I understand the documents that 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Amy’s groups prepared the existing site has 10 parking spots. I walked by before coming over here and I 1 couldn’t find more than eight places you could possibly stuff a car. So I think 10 existing is kind of 2 questionable. The proposed development provides 41 spaces, significantly more than what we have and 3 6 more than are absolutely required by code. 4 5 The last thing I’d like to talk about is architecturally. I think this building that Ken designed is gorgeous. 6 It does a great thing for the corner, it takes the energy from University Boulevard [Note-Avenue] and 7 wraps into the corridor that right now is this canyon that goes for 200 feet until you get to these beautiful 8 Victorians, which is a cold and sterile place and it wraps that energy in and I think that’s helpful for the 9 neighborhood. It extends the Downtown further to the east. The second level articulation relates to the 10 next door neighbors. I think that’s a really cool way of solving this big/tall/small issue. It pushes the 11 third floor back with the residential so you don’t get that feel that people are living right on top of 12 University. It’s there when you need it and it’s not there when you don’t. The fourth level pulls the 13 whole mass back and that’s a very neat thing because the building doesn’t look anywhere near as big as 14 you’d think it is. 15 16 So in conclusion as a long time Palo Altoan we like this building. It’s a good one. And last [things side] 17 you guys do this out of the goodness of your heart and as a Palo Altoan I appreciate the time it takes you 18 out of your personal lives and business lives to come here. 19 20 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. We’ll have Brad Ehikian followed by Bev Fields. 21 22 Brad Ehikian: Good morning, I’m Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties. You guys have a really tough job. 23 Architecture it’s in the eyes of the beholder. It’s art. We all have different opinions; architecture we like, 24 we don’t like, but in regard to what your opinions are I think what Ken has designed is a beautiful 25 building on, for a very predominant corner Downtown. I think how we should be looking at this is we 26 should be celebrating this type of a project Downtown, a mixed-use project that brings in a housing 27 element, it takes a single story building that was under parked, underutilized and it builds out this 28 predominant corner fully parked with housing elements to it that is going to be exciting for the 29 Downtown. I think we should be celebrating these types of developments and like I said I think it’s good 30 for Palo Alto as a whole as an economy Downtown. Thank you. 31 32 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. Bev Fields to be followed by Sam Arsan. 33 34 Beverley Fields: Hello, my name is Beverley Fields. I began working in Palo Alto in 1984 for a developer 35 who also owned a property management company and at that time the Downtown was virtually dead. It 36 housed a hodgepodge of small offices, some financial institutions, a couple of restaurants, very little was 37 going on down here. It did not attract neighboring communities, the residents from neighboring 38 communities, any office or retail tenants. It was a mess. So anyway it was a vision of the developers at 39 that time that they wanted to mimic Santa Barbara and do Spanish style building. And then a few of 40 those buildings were passed and built and then a few architects came on the scene, young architects like 41 Key Hayes who brought some modern designs, some excitement, and helped to create a mix of Spanish 42 and modern and existing buildings which brought diversity to the quarter. And it brought interest from 43 neighboring communities and from retailers and tenants that wanted to be housed in these buildings. I 44 do not feel that Palo Alto would be the same or have the economic stability it has today without this 45 diversity and that Downtown offers, what it offers to its users, which is also made Palo Alto a destination 46 for the entire Bay Area. I believe that the Wong’s proposed project is beautiful. It’s going to enhance 47 this quarter and the experience that we already have here and create more stability for the City. And I 48 really hope that you, I’m really sorry I’m not really good at public speaking, but I really hope that you 49 consider this project and approve it. Thank you. 50 51 Chair Popp: Thank you Ms. Fields. And Sam Arsan to be followed by David Klieman. David Klieman is 52 the last card that I have at this point. If there’s anyone else from the public who wishes to speak, please 53 do fill out a card and we’ll make sure we get an opportunity to hear from you. Thank you. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Sam Arsan: Hello, my name is Sam Arsan I’m with Arsan Realty. I’ve been working in Downtown Palo 1 Alto for almost 20 years now. I’m a commercial real estate broker. Mr. Hayes and Mr. Hanna were very 2 eloquent in describing the project. I think it’s a beautiful building. I am in Downtown pretty much every 3 day working with tenants, looking for space. I do a lot of retail leasing. The fact that this, the retail 4 portion of it is divisible and flexible it will add a lot for the tenants that I’m working with. The building 5 that’s currently there is outdated. A lot of the systems are failing. I think replacing it with something as 6 elegant as this building is really a huge benefit for us and adding the parking it’s a fully parked building. 7 It’s just I believe it will be very beneficial for the Downtown and I really hope that you will approve this 8 project. Thank you. 9 10 Chair Popp: Thank you Mr. Arsan. David Klieman. I think we’ll have one more speaker after that it looks 11 like. 12 13 David Klieman: Good morning. My name is David Klieman. I’m a going on six year resident of 14 Downtown North. I live approximately three blocks from the proposed development and I’m strongly in 15 favor of it and I would encourage you to approve the project and I’ll explain why. In my real job I’m a 16 real estate developer and a proponent of modern architecture of which I think this is a wonderful 17 example of. My volunteer work if you will is teaching an architecture course at Stanford admittedly with 18 Ken Hayes the project architect, but that’s not why I’m in favor of this. I think it’s a beautiful building. If 19 Ken hadn’t designed it I would still be standing here telling you that I think it should be approved, but 20 there’s even a better reason, which is that every night when my wife gets home from work we take a 21 walk through Downtown either to have dinner or occasionally to have dessert and we walk by this site 22 and it’s dark. There’s just nothing happening. It’s not that the buildings there are unattractive, but I 23 think they pale in comparison to the replacement of the existing structures. In addition I really think it 24 would be great if we saw more buildings with residential uses being built, mixed-use buildings on 25 University. It will do I think a world of good for the City in the long run. I think this is a great example 26 of that. It’s fully parked. I can’t recommend strongly enough that this should be approved, but thank 27 you very much. 28 29 Chair Popp: Thank you Mr. Klieman and the last card I have is from Lisa Rutherford. 30 31 Lisa Rutherford: Thank you. I apologize I’m a little sick so please forgive my voice. I’m actually the 32 closest residence to that building and I think it’s very telling that my house isn’t shown in any of the 33 depictions you’ve seen. It is 36 feet, I measured it last night from the parking garage entrance to the 34 gate at the front of my house. I live on the opposite side of the street next to the Apple Store. And so I 35 want to talk a little bit about the fact that we love living on Kipling Street. It’s my husband, myself, and 36 our three and a half year old son. I love that it’s a mix of commercial and residential. The Apple Store 37 was the best neighbor I’ve had in my entire life. We loved living next to them and we’re so excited about 38 the development we’ve seen Be Yoga coming in, the redevelopment of Zibibbo's, we are completely in 39 favor of the idea of having a mixed-use residential and commercial building at the corner. I think it’s 40 exactly the type of idea that Downtown North needs and we would be thrilled to have. 41 42 The question though is a four story building that has two levels of parking garage underneath and is 43 emptying onto what is essentially a boulevard in terms of width. It’s much narrower than other streets. 44 It’s already congested and from the architectural and aesthetic standpoint it’s also the last remaining 45 street of its kind in Palo Alto. I am, I live closer to University Avenue in a single-family home than 46 anyone in Palo Alto does and there are so many times I walk by other beautiful houses that have been 47 converted into commercial and I say why would someone move? We never want to move. My husband 48 and I this is our home and we love, we love it, but this is the first time that we kind of freaked out a little 49 bit and said, wow this could make our street and make what is so special about this beautiful, beautiful 50 boulevard different. 51 52 Other notes that no one’s talked about I think so walking from Johnson Park to University Avenue 53 families all use Kipling instead of the other streets simply because it is a little quieter now and I think that 54 that’s lovely that it’s a very it still has congestion, but it’s a pretty safe street. And I would just 55 encourage you to really think about the two big issues is that yes, should there be a building there? Yes. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Are we excited about it being there? But a four story building with a parking garage that empties onto 1 that narrow of a street it probably isn’t the best fit and that’s my deep concern. So thank you for hearing 2 me and thank you for the time. 3 4 Chair Popp: Thank you so much Ms. Rutherford. With that I will close the public hearing and I will return 5 to the Board for comments and discussion and potentially a Motion. So with that… so are we potentially 6 going to continue this to a date certain at the end of this? Ok. Ok. Sorry. Mr. Lew, Board Member Lew 7 please let’s begin with you. 8 9 Board Member Lew: So thank you Ken for being responsive to our comments from last year. I think the 10 general strategy, design strategy is much, much improved. I’m generally supportive of the direction that 11 you’ve taken on this. I think there’s some design adjustments that could be made to make it feel a little 12 less massive on the street. It seems not quite, not quite right to me. I think it’s mostly because you 13 added the additional site to the project. It’s feeling fairly big to me relative to the existing small scale 14 development on the block and to me it’s really the it’s the third floor whatever you call it, is it a band or 15 whatnot? That sort of emphasizes the box and I was wondering if there were if you could explore other 16 options for that just to make, to break the scale down or to step down the building to the neighbors on 17 the left. You know like a transition? I see like on your third floor or I think on the fourth floor I know 18 you were doing some cutouts and some light wells and whatnot and it seems like that could be it’s like 19 adjusting those kinds of elements to break that corner down. 20 21 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, we have a cutout here. 22 23 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: On that side. 26 27 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 28 29 Mr. Hayes: And that’s actually a light well. 30 31 Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think the issue is in general in our Downtown District, the Urban Design 32 Guidelines for Downtown sort of encourage taller buildings on corners and I think really as many of the 33 residents noted the issue is that Kipling isn’t really like Waverley or Bryant and so I think something 34 smaller in scale makes sense. I think all the adjustments you’ve made to the fourth floor really do help. 35 36 And I think this is sort of outside the scope of the ARB, but I just wanted to mention some, some things 37 that other cities have done so like in Hayes Valley in San Francisco I think all the Hayes Valley 38 Neighborhood Association recognized that once the freeway was removed it was going to just change the 39 neighborhood a lot and that there would be a lot more chain stores and high rent kind of turnover. And 40 the neighborhood was very active with the city to encourage like more retail on side streets that would 41 be smaller scale for so that existing retailers could find other space in the neighborhood and then the 42 larger higher rent mixed-use buildings right on Hayes, right on Hayes could move it. So it was trying to 43 balance (interrupted) 44 45 Mr. Hayes: So we have the retail wrapping that corner. 46 47 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 48 49 Mr. Hayes: Where there is nothing there. 50 51 Board Member Lew: Yeah, exactly. I’m just saying that’s in general. I mean that’s like a Planning 52 Department kind of thing. It’s a strategy for retaining existing retail, but also making room for new 53 projects. And I think there are some cases where you have to be really careful like in Santa Monica they 54 renovated there Third Street downtown and now it’s like a theme park. I mean it’s they really lost all of 55 their neighborhood, neighborhood stores. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 In this case we may be the saving grace here is that the shopping center is separate from Downtown 2 where really most of the big national chains may just prefer to stay over on the shopping center side and 3 that we may because we have so much retail in Palo Alto we may be able to still have nice character and 4 quality in this particular building. So that was my speech about just I think that it makes sense to have a 5 larger strategy that’s beyond the scope of the ARB for this became I do think that this is, this is sort of, 6 this type of project is causing a split in the community. There basically people who are looking at this as 7 the beginning of the end and I think that you’re working really hard to sort of find the right balance in 8 there. I think that your design strategy of layered façades and stuff is the right way to go. And I will 9 move on at this time. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 12 13 Chair Popp: Board Member Ballantyne. 14 15 Board Member Ballantyne: I wonder if I can address a couple of technical things in the report? So I think 16 there was an addition problem on Page 35 when we’re adding up the trip generation totals, on Table 6 17 the last I took elementary math I think 20 plus 2 is 22. So that’s just a typo. Also if you look then to 18 Page 37 one, two, three, four, the fifth paragraph down where the second sentence I believe reads “The 19 project would also replace the large street trees nearest to this corner that would improve the visibility to 20 the roadway.” They are not replacing all of them, right? They’re taking out four and they’re replacing 21 three. This inconsistency is also perpetrated through the drawing set and in many of the renderings even 22 the ones we received today they’re showing lots of the trees on Kipling Street which are actually not 23 going to be present in my understanding of the street tree plan. 24 25 Ms. Fong: The recommendations provided by the arborist hired by the applicant proposed three replacing 26 tree along Kipling. After consultations with the City Arborist, it is decided that there will be four street 27 trees replacing the existing trees on Kipling and this is consistent for our documents as well as the project 28 plan. 29 30 Board Member Ballantyne: Good, ok so that piece of information I don’t think was included in any of the 31 documents that I received. All I saw was the tree report and not the additional information from the City 32 Arborist. 33 34 Ms. Fong: Yes, we will cover that in the next staff report to ensure that clarification is in place. 35 36 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. Did the species also change then in that discussion? So the 37 species is still going to be ginkgo? 38 39 Ms. Fong: That’s correct. 40 41 Board Member Ballantyne: And the rest of the street is still going to maintain the carob tree? 42 43 Ms. Fong: Yes, as recommended by Urban Forestry. 44 45 Board Member Ballantyne: Yeah, so that’s a point that may bear for some further discussion. This whole 46 streetscape is carob and it’s beautiful and they’re not in great condition and they are breaking up the 47 sidewalks and there’s some downsides to it, but why as a landscape architect generally you want to 48 match existing street trees especially if they’re mature so unless you’re going to rip out the whole street 49 canopy it would be jarring to have carob, carob, carob, and then four ginkgoes. 50 51 Mr. Hayes: That’s coming from Urban Forestry. We didn’t select those. 52 53 Ms. French: Yeah, I think what we’ll do is have them come to the next hearing on this to explain their 54 thinking because they’ve been kind of going in this direction of they don’t do monocultures anymore. It’s 55 break it up and so anyhow I’ll let them speak for themselves. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. So I tend to look at drawing sets as a way to communicate to an 2 average layperson reader especially in this kind of a situation not just someone skilled in the art and so I 3 would like to suggest that on the further renderings that we unless the tenant downstairs is going to be a 4 car dealership that we eliminate the red car in the corner unless you’re doing like 3D printing and there’s 5 no way to get a car in there and I think it tends to mislead a layperson reader who is used to using that 6 corner at [design earth and reach] as a stopping place. Right now there’s patio space that fronts the 7 sidewalk and I think it’s misleading because the pedestrian experience is going to be significantly 8 different. And I don’t think it’s particularly accurate to leave that kind of I think there’s a lot of different 9 ways you can demonstrate that that’s wraparound retail space. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: Previously we had this has gone through a number of revisions with staff and the back of the 12 building has been affected quite a bit. We did have access originally for a vehicle to come in and that 13 was the plan, but we later learned that wouldn’t be a permitted use. We had already had the rendering 14 prepared so I apologize, but it was just a very costly proposition to redo the rendering for that, but that’s 15 why it’s there. 16 17 Board Member Ballantyne: Great. So along the same line in our drawing set we have for the top office 18 lunchroom space we have a use of a backspace that says lunchroom/office. And I’m curious in your 19 presentation it was the floorplan has the label office. And so which is it? Because if it’s a (interrupted) 20 21 Mr. Hayes: It’s either. It’s office, it’s considered office space from the City standpoint. It may be the 22 break room for an office or it may be the private office of my client. 23 24 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. 25 26 Mr. Hayes: So it will be office space. It won’t be like a café. 27 28 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you, well there’s no fridge. So there’s only a sink. That’s going to limit 29 the catering. 30 31 Mr. Hayes: We’re not in to that level of detail at this point. 32 33 Board Member Ballantyne: Will there be a key fob to control the access to that terrace to tenants or how 34 do you plan to? 35 36 Mr. Hayes: The terrace is primary for the office user in the building. 37 38 Board Member Ballantyne: So will it be key fobbed so that people can’t get up there? 39 40 Mr. Hayes: I would imagine that they’ll have their own security, yes. 41 42 Board Member Ballantyne: And this, the garage is that going to be limited to tenant use only or is that? 43 44 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 45 46 Board Member Ballantyne: That’s tenant use only? 47 48 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 49 50 Board Member Ballantyne: The last thing I had a comment about in the reporting was the detail at least 51 was the water. So right now is what my understanding is there’s one toilet and one sink existing in each 52 of the four tenants there. So you’re going I counted I think 75 water using appliances in this building. 53 So it’s fairly stuffed. 54 55 Mr. Hayes: You’re counting the residential as part of that? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 Board Member Ballantyne: I’m counting the residential so the building itself now has an add of plus 68 2 water appliances. So I thought that was interesting as far as impacts go. The, one of the things that I 3 would like to address as we move sort of upward in the building the treatment of that corner if you just 4 walk from Ms. Wong letter to the points that were brought au contraire takes us on a walk down 5 University Ave. And if we take that walk down University Ave. upon her recommendation and you just 6 look at the way the corners are treated just from Kipling down to Alma like of the 21 corners that are 7 there 12 of them are either open or cut on the diagonal so that there’s lots more room at the corner. 8 Here we don’t have that. 9 10 Mr. Hayes: The Downtown Urban Design Guide actually has options on the corners and this is one of the 11 options that they have in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. So we’ve done probably all of those except 12 maybe the chamfer corner, but it was important to our client to have a window on that corner in this 13 proposal. 14 15 Board Member Ballantyne: So then as we sort of move upwards in the building I’d like to echo some of 16 Commissioner [Note-Board Member] Lew’s comments about you’re the first through the gate, right? As 17 far as contextual discrepancies go? I mean there’s going to be a precedent set with respect to the way 18 the massing goes because just like you’re using the other buildings around you in your contextual 19 discussions this is going to be a precedent setting building. It’s also clearly besides that it’s very 20 economically pleasing with the way that the pieces are organized I’m, I love that it’s mixed-use. I love 21 that that, I love the way that the functions are organized. I think it’s splendid. I wonder if its 22 aesthetically if the massing is really the best possible use of that legacy corner? Thank you. 23 24 Chair Popp: Mr. Kim. Board Member Kim. 25 26 Board Member Kim: So I think the previous Board Members have mentioned most of the points that I 27 wanted to make, but I think overall from a quality and character standpoint of the building I don’t have 28 any problems with the quality or the materials that are being proposed, but I do think that the character 29 of the building is very massive. Even in the streetscape you notice that it’s almost half of that block that 30 this building occupies and I think especially, especially at the point where the building touches some of 31 those neighboring buildings along University Avenue while I appreciate that the third floor residences 32 actually pulled away from University I think the way that the elevation is treated with that band it almost 33 makes it seem as if the volume is still there even though there is that void space there. And so I think 34 there might be a possibility to be a little bit more gracious when that building transition happens. And I 35 also think that the way that the building progresses down Kipling Avenue it actually seems to grow and I 36 don’t know that that’s the best way to treat the rest of the neighbors along Kipling I guess. 37 38 I think also there may be an opportunity to do something along that back corner where the egress stair 39 tower is. It seems a little bit daunting to me if I had to walk along that street and around that corner for 40 any reason it just seems a little bit massive and a little bit scary. But again overall I think the quality of 41 the materials that are presented especially the program I really like that residential has been incorporated 42 into it. I don’t have a problem with the mix of spaces, but I do think that the character that the building 43 represents I think a lot of what residents of Palo Alto and visitors even like is kind of the broken up 44 elevations, the different street facades that we approach and I think that with this building if you’re 45 walking down University you really get a sense that it’s one space and it’s a big space. It takes up half 46 that block like I said. So maybe if there’s an opportunity to break up that façade along University Avenue 47 so that it feels like they’re separate unique spaces I think a good example of that is maybe the FLOR 48 Store, which I believe is another one of your projects where the elevation is kept as kind of a separate 49 distinct piece. 50 51 Mr. Hayes: That’s where we have an, there’s an historic building there and then the addition next to it. 52 53 Board Member Kim: Right and I realize that it’s kind of a different case because of the historic situation 54 there, but I think it, it really presents itself to the street a little bit nicer and that it’s broken up and it 55 doesn’t necessarily feel like one really long space. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Mr. Hayes: So here’s an example of 100 foot long façade. And obviously this is 100 feet. That’s 100 2 feet. So there’s certainly precedent for that in the Downtown. 3 4 Board Member Kim: Right. And I’m not saying your building is the first to come up with that, but I don’t 5 think those are these facades that you’re showing are necessarily the buildings that Palo Altoans or even 6 visitors to Downtown Palo Alto necessarily appreciate, so. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 9 10 Chair Popp: Board Member [Note-Vice-Chair] Gooyer. 11 12 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Ok, let me start with a couple of things. I like the fact that you’ve got parking 13 underground. I am so tired of hearing all these we’ll just throw money at it and then obviously there will 14 be a parking place somewhere and then anything gets built. So I think that’s a big plus. I also like the 15 fact that you said that this has residences, residential. The thing I have a real problem with is that the 16 way you use the residential. Four 3 bedroom apartments I think is a total waste of the ability for 17 residential. I’d rather see 10 one bedroom apartments up there. if you want to bring people downtown 18 that’s the way to do it, not four 3 bedroom units which I would assume based on a 3 bedroom unit you 19 could have a couple of kids and I don’t know if having a half a dozen kids running around in that building 20 is really the ideal use for residence, residential on that property. But again that’s your discretion. I just 21 think it’s a real waste of opportunity. 22 23 I agree that I think he did a much or you did a good job taking that sort of massive four-story and 24 bringing it down to what you have here. The original one that you that we saw that one, but again I 25 agree that because maybe because it’s gotten wider having that band on the third floor still does a whole 26 lot to not really or I should say psychologically it’s adding to the volume of that building. We’ve had 27 other projects that have come in here like that and I think it’s interesting because the one you showed 28 earlier about examples of Downtown that one (interrupted) 29 30 Mr. Hayes: The Apple? 31 32 Vice-Chair Gooyer: The I don’t know I’m not positive which one it is. Where the third there is no big 33 eyebrow up there and it has a tendency to reduce the massing of that and I think that’s a… that one. It 34 steps the building back a little bit and reduces the massing somewhat. I’m not saying you have to copy 35 this, I’m just saying it does that (interrupted) 36 37 Mr. Hayes: This is our project also. 38 39 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Ok. So you must know… let’s go back to that elevation like I said has been a big 40 improvement. The one on El Camino. The one I have a real problem with is the north elevation if you 41 want to call it that corner. That massive four-story bunker. The stair tower. I mean it (interrupted) 42 43 Mr. Hayes: I’m sorry. 44 45 Vice-Chair Gooyer: That’s ok. 46 47 Mr. Hayes: I’ve lost the, I can’t read it. Page 23 there. 48 49 Vice-Chair Gooyer: That one. Yeah. I have a real problem with that one. First of all in my former 50 position on the Planning Commission in another community I used to use the term all buildings have four 51 sides and unfortunately most people or most developers or most clients think of either one or two 52 elevations and this being the case the one sort of right at the corner on Kipling and then on El Camino or 53 rather University and these two are lost or forgotten. The one speaker we had I agree with Kipling is a 54 great little street that has the old Victorians, everything else and I really don’t see that the adjacent 55 building here on the other side of the alleyway is going to become a four-story building anytime in the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 near future, which would hide a lot of or at least blend a lot of this massing. So I think that that one, 1 one and a half story building here is going to stay for a while and then this four-story mass especially 2 coming up Kipling towards El Camino or again, towards University is just way out of scale. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: This is the location for stair. 5 6 Vice-Chair Gooyer: I understand what it is. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: No, I said you’re talking about the stair? 9 10 Vice-Chair Gooyer: I’m talking about the stair and in fact I’m also not real thrilled about the back 11 elevation. It’s that whole concept you spend all the money on the front and then there’s really no money 12 left for the back and all you’re doing is closing it up. I’m not saying that you in particular I’m just saying 13 that’s done quite often. And the problem here is that you could see that backside from a long way away. 14 If this was among a half a dozen other buildings of the same scale then it’s like yeah, ok, fine you don’t 15 see it anyway or standing in the alleyway looking straight up you’re not really going to care. But this 16 thing is very obvious from a long ways away and it really stands out. I agree with the rendering it’s like 17 gee they’re going to put a car dealership on University Avenue? 18 19 Mr. Hayes: That was the idea. 20 21 Vice-Chair Gooyer: That was a bit interesting. Let’s see… I think that’s, that’s probably it right now. 22 23 Chair Popp: Alright, well thank you very much for the revisions that you brought forward here today. I 24 have to say I, I’m very much in favor of the diversity this project promotes on University Avenue. I agree 25 with many of the people that the mix of residential, commercial, retail, and just sort of the overall of how 26 you’ve organized the building are very appropriate for this site. However, I’m wildly concerned about the 27 mass of this building. I just think it’s too big. And part of that just has to do with the architecture and 28 part of it has to do with the square footage that you’ve accumulated on the site. At the preliminary we 29 said when we were looking at a smaller project you should evaluate this and maybe make it a little 30 smaller and now you’ve come back with something that’s bigger and it looks even bigger. 31 32 And so I’ll say very clearly that I think of you as a very capable designer, very good designer and a 33 terrific architect. And I reference your buildings as I talk about good architecture in Palo Alto. And so 34 I’m struggling here because I think that this might be a case where you’re being pushed toward 35 something by a client that’s difficult for you to manage and I don’t know if that’s the case or not, but I’m 36 hopeful that the comments that you’re hearing today are also being heard by the client and that all of 37 that will be taken to heart because in order to approve this project I think some changes really need to 38 be made. I can’t support the project as I see it today unfortunately. And I’m going to try and be very 39 specific about the things that I’m concerned about. 40 41 It does not respect the rhythm of University Avenue. I know that there’s precedent for large scale 42 buildings along University Avenue, but I don’t think those should be the norm. I think those are the 43 exception and we should try and minimize that. I think the 25 to 50 foot widths are much more in 44 character with the college campus university town feel that I hear so many people want this to be 45 consistent with. And larger and bigger is not necessarily better here (interrupted) 46 47 Mr. Hayes: So the secondary grid is something that’s not reading for you? 48 49 Chair Popp: It’s not reading enough for me. And I think the issue while I really appreciate the concept of 50 what you’re doing, it’s not something that I haven’t done myself on projects, but the dimension and 51 weight of the outer box wrapping the inner box is breaking it down to a point where I can’t read the 52 rhythm that I think should be more dominant. In some ways I don’t know if this is valid or not, but 53 they’re almost reversed. You should have something that’s breaking up the elevation and then 54 something behind it that ties it all together in a way rather than it being this way. I’d like to see you try 55 that, right? I’m not suggesting that you should do what I’m describing (interrupted) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 2 3 Chair Popp: But I just think it’s another way to do it. I appreciate that the corner treatment is one of the 4 options in the guideline, but I think that it’s the wrong choice for this corner. I think particularly because 5 of the narrowness of Kipling that we should have a little bit of relief there and pulling that corner back 6 and opening that up would help to transition University Avenue into the narrowness of Kipling and the 7 beauty of all these small homes that are along there and the varied character of that street. I think that 8 pulling out and holding the corner in the way that you have is challenging. 9 10 The Context Based Findings for this are many of them are very accurate. I think you should read very 11 carefully what the staff has said here. Finding Number 2 talks about the street building façade and staff’s 12 comments about it being a monotonous expansive storefront I think is accurate. We need to, we need to 13 find a way to using material or variation break this down so it feels more like that rhythm that I was 14 talking about. Finding Number 3 where we talk about massing and setback, minimizing the massing and 15 the form of the building I know this isn’t how we manage our zoning. These things don’t necessarily 16 count in FAR, but if you include all these balconies and spaces that contribute to the overall massing of 17 this building and I just do the math quickly we’re close to 3.2 FAR not 2.86. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: You’re saying if you include the balconies (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Popp: If you include the balconies, all these things that are incorporated into the mass of the 22 building, right? Sort of the built envelope of the building. I’m not talking about the on roof terraces on 23 the roof. I’m just talking about all of these spaces that are within the envelope as its defined by the 24 structure, but not necessarily included in the zoning because of the way our regulations are written your, 25 your when I just add up the numbers I’m getting to almost 35,000 sf of build space and (interrupted) 26 27 Mr. Hayes: No, it’s not even close. 28 29 Chair Popp: I realize that’s not how we interpret, but it is definitely how I observe it. And it’s how it is 30 perceived and that’s what we’re, that’s what we’re talking about here is, is the context and its 31 compatibility in regard to the neighborhood. 32 33 Number 4 the low density residential transition I think you’ve heard from some of the residents on 34 Kipling. I too am quite concerned about the transition to that and I think there needs to be more 35 contextual information that comes to us and we need to be able to see what the relationship of your 36 building to the buildings across the street are more clearly. I’m very troubled as Board Member [Note-37 Vice-Chair] Gooyer described by that stair tower in the back. I don’t see a reason why you need an 38 additional 15 feet for mechanical tower when you’ve got a terrace as large as it is up on the roof. Let’s 39 just let’s get this thing down a little bit. It doesn’t need to be this tall. 40 41 Mr. Hayes: There’s no mechanical though in the stair. You’re (interrupted) 42 43 Chair Popp: is that the elevator tower I’m seeing? 44 45 Mr. Hayes: That’s the elevator. It’s the elevator and the stair, yeah. 46 47 Chair Popp: Ok, alright then it needs to be there. There’s no way to get that down. I had understood 48 that to be mechanical, but I misread the drawings. Sorry about that. 49 50 The reason we have architectural review is because there is an aesthetic component to this. If it was 51 just about zoning we wouldn’t need architectural review, right? You’d be able to just do everything by 52 right that you can do, but for me I guess the statement is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. 53 And this just feels too big to me. And I think that I would, I would encourage you to bring all of your 54 skills to bear for us, come back with a revision that makes it feel less significant. I’m not saying you can’t 55 have all this square footage. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have all the square footage. I’m just saying it 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 appears too massive and right now this is, this is bigger than I’m comfortable with and it just doesn’t 1 contextually seem to fit into everything around it. Part of that is that it’s the first one of this size in this 2 particular area. There’s a little bit on the other side of the street, but it’s just, it’s just huge. And so we 3 can find a way to transition that a little bit, find a way to terrace it back, change the architecture. 4 5 Mr. Hayes: The 41 feet certainly you can’t be thinking that that’s too tall. 41 feet on University? 6 7 Chair Popp: Ken it’s not that it’s… 8 9 Mr. Hayes: You’re concerned about the breadth? 10 11 Chair Popp: Yeah, I’m not concerned about the height so much. I appreciate that you’re at only 41 feet, 12 but now incorporating the Giants Dugout building and it just getting that much bigger and it being pulled 13 out the way that it is and this band that wraps around and this giant tower on Kipling. It’s just too much 14 in too many places for me and I think it, I think there’s another way to do it. I think there’s another way 15 to skin it and to wrap it. Your materials are beautiful. Like I said the concept is great. I love the mixed 16 use. I think Robert’s right about the units, the three bedrooms versus the ones, but you know that’s your 17 (interrupted) 18 19 Mr. Hayes: That’s our… 20 21 Chair Popp: It’s your program, right? I don’t get to dictate that. 22 23 Mr. Hayes: I appreciate that. 24 25 Chair Popp: But I’d like to encourage others who consider a building like this to think about smaller units 26 because that’s better for everybody. 27 28 Mr. Hayes: It puts more impact on parking by the way. 29 30 Chair Popp: Well, but we can solve that with money, right? I mean there’s ways to solve (interrupted) 31 32 Mr. Hayes: We’re down two levels already. 33 34 Chair Popp: I know. 35 36 Mr. Hayes: Alright, well thank you for your comments. 37 38 Chair Popp: Thank you. 39 40 Mr. Hayes: We’ll be back. 41 42 Ms. French: We need to vote. 43 44 Chair Popp: So yeah do we have? 45 46 Mr. Hayes: A vote? 47 48 Ms. French: To continue it. 49 50 Mr. Hayes: Oh to continue it. 51 52 Chair Popp: Yeah, and actually I think I heard that we didn’t need a Motion, but we do, don’t we? 53 54 Ms. French: Ok I guess you need to continue, yeah we’ve recommended that it get continued and you 55 have to do it and it’s just (interrupted) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 Chair Popp: So we have to move that this project (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. French: Well, yeah I mean I guess December 18th was a target date. I don’t know with these 4 comments whether that’s given the holidays if that’s a good idea. 5 6 Chair Popp: He’s probably talking about that now. 7 8 Ms. French: But… 9 10 Chair Popp: Great. So Mr. Hayes would you like to respond whether you think you can return back to us 11 by December 18th with the kind of comments that you’ve heard today or do you need more time than 12 that? 13 14 Mr. Hayes: I can certainly return back. I need to confer with my client about the comments that were 15 made, but put us on the agenda. Please. 16 Chair Popp: Great, so you need a Motion to do that then. So do I have a? 17 18 MOTION 19 20 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Sure I’ll move that we continue this project to a date certain, December 18th. 21 22 SECOND 23 24 Board Member Lew: I will second. 25 26 VOTE 27 28 Chair Popp: And all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? So that passes 5-0-0-0. And thank you. 29 30 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-0) 31 32 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26================= This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2 3 DRAFT EXCERPT 4 5 Item No. 2: 6 7 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling 8 Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail 9 buildings with a total of 11,633 sf and construct a 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building with two levels 10 of underground parking providing 40 on-site spaces on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial 11 (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative 12 Declaration public review period was November 17, 2014 through December 12, 2014. The hearing of 13 this item was continued from the December 18, 2014 ARB meeting to this date. 14 15 Chair Popp: Al right, so we will reopen the meeting and move on to Item Number 2 on our agenda, which 16 is 429 University Avenue, request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling Post LP for 17 Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail buildings with a 18 total of 11,633 square feet and construction of a 31,407 square foot, four-story mixed use building with 19 two levels of underground parking providing 40 on-site spaces on an 11,000 square foot site in the 20 Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. The Environmental Assessment: Initial Study and 21 draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) public review period was November 17, 2014, through 22 December 12, 2014. The hearing of this item was continued from the December 18, 2014 Architectural 23 Review Board (ARB) meeting to this date. So with that we’ll turn to staff for a presentation. 24 25 Christy Fong, Planner: Thank you for the introduction and good morning Board Members. In regards to 26 the project in front of you this is the second formal hearing for 429 University Avenue. The project 27 remains as described and there are no changes to floor area and land use program. The first ARB formal 28 hearing took place on November 20, 2014. During the hearing, comments were received from public and 29 ARB members commented related to the architectural design of the project. Some of the major 30 comments are outlined in Page 1 and 2 in the staff report. Since the last hearing, the project has been 31 revised to address the aesthetic concerns. The applicant has prepared a presentation to detail these 32 changes. 33 34 Since the packet distribution last week, staff has received additional public comments. The 35 correspondence is provided at places for your consideration today. The public review period as described 36 for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was held from November 17, 2014, through December 37 12, 2014. During this period the draft initial study, MND, and the background study were made available 38 for public review and comments. Staff has not received written comments but verbal testimonies were 39 received in the public hearing on November 20, 2014. Heather Martinelli is here today to answer any 40 CEQA related questions you may have. In addition, staff has noted a minor area in the preamble 41 sections of the mitigation monitoring program. The revised preamble is presented at place. The revision 42 does not affect the content of the mitigation monitoring program. That concludes staff’s report. 43 44 Attachment G ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD January 15, 2015 VERBATIM MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Popp: So I should note that there is a member of the public here who apparently needs to leave. 1 And so we’re going to go just a bit out of order and allow them to speak first and then we’ll go to the 2 presentation of the applicant. So I’m sorry I don’t know which card is yours so if you could announce 3 your name please and then we’ll give you three minutes to speak. 4 5 Tim Orbelier: I appreciate it. My name is Tim Orbelier and I’m speaking in support of the project. My 6 family moved to Palo Alto in 1981. I went to school in Palo Alto eventually graduating from Palo Alto 7 High School and moving on to study architecture at Berkeley. After I graduated I took a job in Palo Alto 8 at Young & Borlik Architects and that’s when I met the Wongs about 10 years ago. In my experience the 9 Wongs have been a positive influence in Palo Alto; successful developers with a taste for what can work 10 in Palo Alto, especially in Downtown. They are people who have a vested interest in making Palo Alto 11 better. 12 13 The proposed design as you can all see is fantastic. The Hayes Group has a fantastic track record in Palo 14 Alto designing outstanding projects. Mediocre designers just do not stay in Palo Alto. I don’t think that 15 we should stand in the way of progress, especially responsible well executed progress. Some people 16 have argued that this building is too massive or too tall or creates canyon like alleys. In Palo Alto what 17 street other than University is better suited for high density? This is not sitting in a residential area. This 18 is exactly where it ought to be. 19 20 Palo Alto can clearly use more rentable area, more parking, more housing as the next Yahoo, Google, and 21 Facebook try to start up here. Let’s not stand in their way. Ladies and gentleman, I urge you not to be 22 swayed by voices against reasonable development. I urge you to approve this design as soon as 23 possible. 24 25 Chair Popp: Thank you very much. And so with that we’ll turn to the applicant for a presentation. And 26 we’ll set our clock for 10 minutes. Mr. Hayes, as soon as you’re ready we’ll get started. 27 28 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Thank you, Chair Popp. Good morning, my name is Ken Hayes with 29 Hayes Group Architects. I’ll be presenting on behalf of my client Kipling Post LP. Before I start let me 30 just I want to thank the Planner, Christy Fong, and Chief Planning Official Amy French for really assisting 31 us in getting this back to you. We couldn’t quite make the December date just because the revisions. 32 33 As we recall the site is the corner of Kipling and University Avenue. The surrounding context consists of 34 one, two, four, and six-story buildings both across the street and kind of in the same general on the side 35 of University Avenue. The site’s 11,000 square feet. It combines the two properties. There’s been no 36 change to the program since our last hearing as Ms. Fong pointed out. We still have ground floor retail. 37 We have a second floor of office space. We have a third floor of three apartments or yes, apartments. 38 We have a fourth floor of one apartment and some commercial office space and rooftop terrace. Below 39 grade the two levels of underground parking although there’s been some reconfiguration because of the 40 changes. We have 40 parking spaces, 5 in excess of what the requirement is at this point. 41 42 This is just some views of context. Shady Lane, we’re all familiar with that; the existing building; from 43 University Avenue, the Giants Dugout store located here, the Apple, former Apple store on that side. This 44 is the back alley condition. These trees are all being removed and the sidewalk, curb, and gutters all 45 being redone along Kipling. On the ground floor the changes primarily in plan anyway have to do with 46 what we’ve done here on the back corner where the alley is. The first thing is we removed that parking 47 space that we had here and we put bike parking in this area protected under the building. We’ve 48 relocated the entry which was formally about here and flipped it with the stair to address some of the 49 comments from the neighbors on Kipling and yours as well and that resulted in the reconfiguration of the 50 lobby, the elevator in sort of this general area. We’ve also added a transition planter kind of as the 51 building wraps the corner now and even though it’s commercial on this side of the street it is a nice 52 transition to that lower scale commercial. And then I believe the entry here was formally here and so it’s 53 relocated there. We still have the multiple entrances along University Avenue and so the majority of the 54 changes took place there in plan. There were also changes on the second floor and I’ll just show you 55 that later. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 Your comments from the initial hearing in November: the overall mass seems out of scale with the 2 immediate context, the idea of layering grids that I had talked about to reduce scale is perhaps not 3 strong enough, relate better to the University Avenue façade street rhythm, the elevator and stair 4 element on Kipling seemed out of scale/does not transition well to the scale of the buildings on Kipling, 5 and possibly study other options for the corner and provide design input. I think this was Vice-Chair 6 Gooyer’s comment on the alley elevation. So we’ve addressed these and I’d like to show you how we’ve 7 done that. I want to talk about the mass, the rhythm, the scale, and the setback of the building. 8 9 So this is the prior proposal and the big move was this block that kind of defined the building and 10 reinforced the street context. And so what we’ve done is reduced the block in height by about six inches 11 in an equal amount at the bottom so that block has gotten smaller vertically and then pulled back about 12 30 feet of it from the left side to create less mass there and get this more in scale I think with University 13 Avenue. In terms of the rhythm what it’s done is it’s really opened up the opportunity here to create a 14 rhythm now we’ve added additional elements on the block to reinforce that rhythm and that’s carried 15 down to the ground floor although we had that previously. In terms of the scale the move of having that 16 secondary grid that we had here to help kind of reduce the scale because at this point it steps back to a 17 balcony so there is a break in the building at that point, but we thought it would be interesting to take 18 that and really strengthen it now and we’ve pulled it through the building to the left side here and that 19 you’ll see in the street context provides a nice transition now to the remaining buildings on the block. 20 21 In terms of setback the portion up here is setback from this façade about 26 feet. So it’s not even in the 22 University Avenue street context. This portion here is setback, I’m sorry, this portion here is setback 40 23 feet and this portion sort of is somewhere around I believe 12 feet setback. So it creates a terrace effect 24 here and each of those terraces is for the residences that sort of that step back at that area. Up at this 25 level it creates that roof terrace that we have that is afforded to the commercial tenant. 26 27 On Kipling the same changes were made to that block because the block wraps the building, reinforces 28 the corner. So we’ve reduced the mass of that block, but really focused attention back here as well and 29 took it from a 50 foot stair tower, elevator tower, and a structural glazed glass wall with a cutout in it to 30 a continuation of that two-story element that wraps through and around the building. We flipped these 31 as I discussed earlier creating the new lobby here for the upper floors. This is an outside lobby if you 32 will, terrace that accesses the office level at the second floor and then at the third floor that accesses the 33 residential units. So this is really broken down the scale or the mass rather or this, of this corner. The 34 stair has been reduced and moved. I believe it’s at 42 feet now whereas before it was at 50 feet. This 35 syncopation is again strengthened as it wraps the corner creating the rhythm that is more in scale with 36 the streetscape. And that occurs here and the relocation of that stair has also afforded us to make that 37 change as well. The scale I think I’ve mentioned. We want to wrap that two-story element around to 38 provide a transition to the scale the buildings on Kipling. 39 40 In terms of setback this façade here at the fourth floor is about 12 feet back. We’ve moved it back an 41 additional six feet from where it was before from this façade here. And then this is between the two this 42 balcony that comes across is about 6 feet back from here and 6 feet in front of that façade which is 12 43 feet back. So we really think that we’ve reduced the mass, we’ve created this rhythm, it’s more 44 consistent I think and what we were looking for. I think this process invariably results in architecture 45 that’s better informed and a better project. So we’re happy with these changes we’ve made. 46 47 The alley elevation; this was the prior elevation. You can see how we’ve changed this here. The entry, 48 this is Kipling on the left. The planter wraps around the entry. There’s frameless glass here on the 49 ground floor, the open balcony at the second floor. On the back of the building this is all now a balcony 50 for the offices. So instead of having a window wall at that location this is now all recessed back with a 51 glass railing so kind of, it’s kind of unique to introduce activity on the alley. I think there’s not been much 52 of that in the Downtown except at 250 University at Centennial Alley. The upper floor, the third floor 53 apartments also has that similar setback as we had before and then the fourth floor is setback even 54 further and there’re balconies out on the backside there. This is the area that’s been had the car 55 City of Palo Alto Page 4 removed and so we have the bike lockers located in that area so a little bit more accessible I think to the 1 entry and for the resident’s use. 2 3 This is the elevation that faces the block. This is the prior where we had just the one cut through. Of 4 course we don’t have this framework here any longer. That’s about 30 feet pushed back here. And so 5 what we have now is the glass rail that returns and then the building basically steps up like that as it 6 steps back from University Avenue. The street context you can see the University Avenue composition 7 and how this basically steps down to the one and a half story buildings in the remaining portion of the 8 block. And then this is the view at Kipling where again the two-story element exposes itself here and 9 drops down at the ground floor to provide that transition to the rest of the commercial buildings on that 10 block. This gives you an idea of the image; I think you were provided with the renderings. Yeah, you 11 have those? Ok. So this shows the rendering from University and then the rendering from Kipling. The 12 materials are all what we had proposed before which were generally supported by the Board. So thank 13 you very much. 14 15 Chair Popp: Thank you. Let’s see… do we want to return back to the Board here? I’m sorry? 16 17 Mr. Hayes: Where there other public comments or? 18 19 Chair Popp: I was going to suggest that we could go back to the… I forget the order that we do this in, 20 New Year. We’ll go back to technical questions now and then we’ll return to the public. Is that correct? 21 22 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: That’s typically what’s done. 23 24 Chair Popp: That’s what I thought. Ok. So Board Member Ballantyne let’s begin with you. 25 26 Board Member Ballantyne: So Christy thank you for your work. I had a question about the utility area 27 that you’re referencing on Page 5, the access to the utility area on the Kipling side. This is a covered 28 space, correct? 29 30 Ms. Fong: To Board Member, yes. 31 32 Board Member Ballantyne: And the, is there any technical reason that dictates the placement of those 33 long term bicycle racks, bicycle storage units? 34 35 Ms. Fong: The placement of the bicycle rack has to have a minimum three feet distance from the electric 36 board along the wall at the back. 37 38 Board Member Ballantyne: Ok. And is there also any technical reason for having to place the bollards 39 rather than some sort of landscape planter that would echo the landscape planter on the corner of 40 Kipling? 41 42 Ms. Fong: There’s no technical reason as of why not having landscape planter instead of bollards. 43 44 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. My next question refers to the public art portion of your report 45 which is Page 4 where you invite the ARB to provide comments to the extent of the visibility of the wall 46 shown for the public art. So when I think of the word public I think of for example the egg at Lytton 47 Plaza is definitely public art. It’s right in the middle of a plaza. Is there any precedent for private lobby 48 space to be considered public display space? 49 50 Ms. Fong: We have the Public Art Manager here today who may answer your questions. So maybe I can 51 introduce her, Elise DeMarzo, and she can comment more on public arts. 52 53 Board Member Ballantyne: Right, so I know that there’s been some sort of discussion on visibility 54 through, I’m wondering if that is well established. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. French: Welcome Elise. 1 2 Elise DeMarzo, Public Art Manager: Hi, I’m Elise DeMarzo. I’m the Manager of the Public Art program for 3 the City of Palo Alto. As you may know the public art and private development ordinance just went into 4 effect last January. So this is our one year anniversary. And there has indeed been a lot of discussion 5 about how public the artwork is. So the requirement as outlined in the ordinance is that it has to be 6 accessible to the public a minimum of 40 hours per week. So definitely there’s been some discussion 7 back and forth with lobbies how public is it? Would the public know whether or not they are invited to 8 enter and experience the artwork or if there has to be a certain amount of effort to find the artwork? So 9 that has been a topic that’s been very much under discussion with the Public Art Commission. 10 11 Board Member Ballantyne: So in that discussion is there any sort of trending because I see them as 12 completely different. When I go to Mitchell Park and I see the sculpture out in the front that’s public art. 13 When I walk by a lobby that has a security person and a receptionist sitting in there I don’t think that I’m 14 invited in. So I think it’s a valid discussion to be having. I’m not sure that we’re equipped to really to 15 address it on this particular case. 16 17 Ms. DeMarzo: So when the project did come to the Public Art Commission previously for their initial 18 review some of the Commissioners did voice some concern about how public that space was, that 19 members of the public who were walking down Kipling Street may not necessarily feel invited or entitled 20 to enter into that lobby space. So that was a discussion that came up with the Commission previously. 21 22 Board Member Ballantyne: Was there any conclusion to this discussion? How is it left? How was it 23 summarized or? 24 25 Ms. DeMarzo: Well, the applicant does have to come back to the Public Art Commission with a final art 26 plan showing the artwork and the placement of the artwork prior to getting final approval. And the way 27 the ordinance is written they cannot receive their building permit until they’ve received that final approval 28 for the artwork and the placement. 29 30 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. 31 32 Chair Popp: Board Member Gooyer [Note-Vice-Chair]. 33 34 Vice-Chair Gooyer: No, [unintelligible]. 35 36 Chair Popp: Board Member Kim. 37 38 Board Member Kim: [unintelligible]. 39 40 Chair Popp: Board Member Lew. 41 42 Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. So this is on Transportation Demand Management 43 (TDM). So I think there’s a TDM requirement in the conditions of approval from the Planning side and 44 then I think if I read correctly in the environmental report it was saying that there is no TDM required for 45 the project. And so I may be misreading something, but I was wondering if you could clarify what’s 46 happening on this project. 47 48 Ms. Fong: The CEQA documentation does not require a TDM program, but as a condition of approval, the 49 applicant is requested to provide one especially for the commercial uses that include targets for bicycle 50 and public transit ridership. 51 52 Board Member Lew: Ok, so we’re saying this is voluntary? I don’t quite understand. Or it’s just you’re 53 just requesting it just because it’s Downtown? 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. French: Yes. Typically, a TDM program comes with a request for a reduction in parking. That’s what 1 we’ve seen most of the time. In this case it would be voluntary so it’s not an imposition of a mitigation 2 measure. 3 4 Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. 5 6 Chair Popp: I only have one question for staff at this point. What level of control or conditioning can we 7 impose on a project in regard to the use of residential terraces on University Avenue and what can be 8 stored on them, how they look, how they appear? I’m in favor of the terraces. I think that that will be 9 lovely space for the people who use those units, but I’m very concerned about residential clutter on 10 University Avenue and what that’s going to look like. So could you advise a little bit about what our role 11 is and how we might control that? 12 13 Ms. French: Yes, I would say that, because the applicant has not proposed a condo situation, where often 14 what we would have is a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) type document that would talk 15 about the use of the residential open area (interrupted)… 16 17 Chair Popp: But we don’t have that here. 18 19 Ms. French: But we don’t have that here. So I just thought I would start with that just because we don’t 20 have that. So that’s not a tool. And it’s awkward because your purview is the design of the building and 21 not really the use, the ongoing use of those areas. So I think to the extent that the design is going to 22 enable clutter or not is kind of the area that you would want to focus on. So I don’t think there’s a 23 possibility to put a condition that it shall remain free and clear of clutter. 24 25 Chair Popp: Ok. Alright, that’s great. I’ll get to you. We’ll get there. Let me go back to the public 26 period and then we’ll address it in the comments as we go forward. I just wanted a technical clarification 27 about what the role was. Of course. 28 29 Board Member Ballantyne: So this is a question I believe Dave Dockter we have you present. This is a 30 question to you really as the City Arborist. I was wondering if you might just confirm for us that the tree 31 protections that are described in the tree protection plan particularly for those London Plane trees being 32 retained on University Ave. whether or not you feel that is completely sufficient to sustain them during 33 the construction period when they’re digging this big hole right next to their root zone. 34 35 Dave Dockter, Arborist: Thank you, yes that’s a concern to us too and we have adequate provisions to 36 control any pruning or erection of scaffolding for the London Planes. The trunk will be protected. It’s out 37 in the D shaped island separate from the sidewalk, but the project arborist will provide an updated tree 38 protection report before the building permit is issued. So we’ll have a chance to go over every nuance 39 that may occur to the London Planes. We would not allow heavy cutting on one side, on the building 40 side just for the temporary reason of scaffolding or getting the thing built. So I think the shape of the 41 two London Planes will be still intact. Not I think, I know. 42 43 Board Member Ballantyne: Ok, so do we have any way to condition that if they don’t survive within year 44 one to three that they are required to then be replaced with exactly the matching at the cost to the 45 applicant? 46 47 Mr. Dockter: If there was mortality of one of those London Planes that would be a huge, significant 48 impact that we would… that won’t happen. If the trees actually are growing the root area along 49 University Avenue it’s not just surviving in that little planter area. They are very deeply rooted 50 underneath the existing paving, the asphalt of the roadway. 51 52 Board Member Ballantyne: Right, but we’re cutting down one side very deeply. 53 54 Mr. Dockter: On the back of, yeah, back of sidewalk there will be a deep basement and yeah, for the 55 garage. The shoring will not allow, we won’t allow a lot of cutback. It’ll be a vertical shoring scenario 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 and we wouldn’t expect that the London Plane roots to be growing in the back of the sidewalk area 1 anyway. The existing foundation is kind of an impediment to the London Plane roots I think right now. 2 They’ve been growing for 28, 30 years. 3 4 Chair Popp: The fact that there’s an existing building there now in roughly the location where the cut will 5 be made and the shoring will be placed is consistent with other projects that we’ve seen and I think that 6 Dave’s indicating that he’s comfortable with the placement and the organization of the structure. 7 8 Mr. Dockter: Yeah, just to clarify the parking garage removal of roots at the level of parking garage 9 would be insignificant to the trees. Even if there were root pruning which there probably will be some it’s 10 not a significant mortality issue with the London Planes at all. Just general sidewalk repair does worse 11 things in town than this project will impact to these two London Planes. 12 13 Board Member Ballantyne: Ok, I, my concern was really if there is a mortality then what? That’s really 14 my concern, but we can move on and maybe address that. 15 16 Mr. Dockter: They would be replaced if the, if a tree died it would be replaced with the value of the tree 17 discussed and required of the applicant. The mortality would be a very unusual event. I mean that 18 would be a serious unexpected element. 19 20 Ms. French: Yes, I just wanted to add the mitigation monitoring program does contain a bullet there 21 about performance evaluation criteria with respect to trees. So we could beef that up if need be, but it 22 says “Field inspections conducted to verify adherence to conditions.” So over what time period? 23 Typically a two year period would be to establish the growth of the trees Dave? I believe? But yeah. 24 25 Mr. Dockter: Yes. 26 27 Ms. French: Yeah. So we’d keep our eye on the trees for an extended period beyond completion of 28 construction. 29 30 Board Member Ballantyne: Thank you. 31 32 Chair Popp: Alright, so with that we’ll open the public comment period and I’d like to first call Vita 33 Gorbunova and then we’ll have Michael Harbour. You’ll have three minutes to speak. If anyone else 34 here from the public wishes to speak please fill out a public speaker card and get that in to us as quickly 35 as possible, thank you. 36 37 Vita Gorbunova: Hello, I thought I can understand the reasons for the Wong’s family to push this project 38 forward. I can totally understand the architect’s reasons. He is paid for it. That’s his job. So I urge the 39 City Council to keep the comments to consider them with a grain of salt. It’s a job family really wants to 40 have to maximize benefits. Architect is doing his job and he has gained the reputation to build pretty big 41 buildings everywhere in Palo Alto. I don’t know if it’s to attest to his ability as an architect or to his other 42 abilities. And I could see these modifications to the plan and from the big box it becomes a big 43 deconstructed box, but I don’t even think that it makes sense to talk about aesthetics of box versus non-44 box of this project. Even if we put the palace with all the bells and whistles every resident of Palo Alto 45 was considered beautiful it still so out of place and out of scale. So hopefully City Council who basically is 46 supposed to be our representatives I hope you will hear me out. 47 48 I can consider myself as an expert on that. I live two blocks from here in Downtown Palo Alto. I walk by 49 this particular site every morning, back and forth sometimes several times. So I know Kipling very well. 50 I know this particular site very well. And I had lived around in Downtown Palo Alto for 15 years and I 51 was looking in our Downtown which is mostly nice because of all the vitality Stanford students bring in. 52 So let’s face it, it’s not the most beautiful Downtown in the neighboring cities. It’s mostly beautiful 53 because of people. And if you walk on University Avenue you’ll definitely notice how the sense of this 54 vitality drains when you walk by this big building. Just look across the street from this particular site you 55 will have the four-story high building and you will see is that it’s in front of it’s kind of empty and when I 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 was on my way here to the hearing I walked by this site again. And I can say is that in the morning the 1 west side of University was already getting some sun and it was very nice looking. Are my minutes up? 2 I’m sorry. So but basically look on the other side. It was this building was in the shade, was cast in the 3 shade on the other side (interrupted) 4 5 Chair Popp: If you could wrap up, please. 6 7 Ms. Gorbunova: Ok, I can wrap up easily. I notice that this building never shown in the context of the 8 neighboring buildings except this photo (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Popp: I’m sorry, we have three minutes for you and you’ve used (interrupted) 11 12 Ms. Gorbunova: One second please. 13 14 Chair Popp: You can just (interrupted) 15 16 Ms. Gorbunova: Look at the photo. If you, if you need to propose this building, this proposed building 17 will have to be two and a half, three times higher (interrupted) 18 19 Chair Popp: I’m sorry, we’re out of time. Thank you very much. 20 21 Ms. Gorbunova: Thank you. 22 23 Chair Popp: Alright so Michael Harbour and that’s the last card I have today. Again you’ll have three 24 minutes. 25 26 Michael Harbour: Hi, good morning. I’m Michael Harbour. I own the building at 421-423 Kipling Street 27 and I just want to remind you that Kipling is such a unique street for all of Downtown Palo Alto. It is 28 lined by Victorian homes that are both being used as residences and offices and it’s a throughway 29 between University Avenue into Johnson Park. It does have a very unique sense when walking down it. 30 The other small, it’s only 29 feet wide, which makes it much different than all the other major 31 thoroughfares like Bryant and Waverley yet still have the same zoning height restrictions. So when you 32 put a 50 foot building on the corner of a 29 foot street it has a much different sense than if you’re 33 building on Waverley like a parking structure. So if they build this the building itself within by itself is a 34 lovely building. I have no problem with the architecture, but on a different corner it would make a lot 35 different sense. When you put it there on this little tiny narrow street which essentially acts as a one-36 way street if you’ve ever tried to go down two cars you can’t do it; one has to stop, one has to go, and 37 you go around each other. I’ve been hit on that street twice. I’ve had my side mirrors sideswiped. You 38 start putting four stories of people working in this building it’s just not going to work for that. And you 39 haven’t even considered the building that’s right across the street, which is the old Apple store. What 40 happens when they want to build a four-story building? Now you have this huge corridor effect on this 41 little tiny street. It just doesn’t make sense. So I just call to your attention that although the zoning may 42 be the same and they’re working within the guidelines 29 feet does not equal 49 feet for this most unique 43 street in Palo Alto. 44 45 If I had my way we would designate Kipling Street as Victorian way and give it special designation 46 because it’s so unique. At the last meeting Mr. Hayes talked about these buildings as just being wooden 47 structures. They aren’t wooden structures, they are very unique homes. And the perspective that he 48 shows of the proposed building on Kipling Street from across the street is not accurate at all. It’s 49 showing like there’s almost a park there, like you have all this space there. It’s not, take a look at it. 50 There’s a home there with a woman living there with a fence around her yard. You cannot have I would 51 say inaccurate almost deceitful picture that they’re proposing there from that view. It just doesn’t make 52 sense. It just does not fit and the traffic’s going to be a real concern all that coming in and out around 53 the corner. I have no problem with Ms. Wong wanting to develop that. I do think it could be made into 54 a beautiful corner. It’s just too big and doesn’t fit right there and I ask you to please consider that for 55 this lovely little street. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Chair Popp: Thank you very much for your comments. So with that we’ll close the public hearing and 2 we’ll move back to the Board for comments. And again I’ll begin with Board Member Ballantyne. 3 4 Board Member Ballantyne: I have distilled my comments to five pieces. The first one, I would love to be 5 able to commend the applicant and the architect team for a fantastic improvements on this revision. I 6 think that I can appreciate the change in rhythm and the effect that it’s having on the step down on the 7 University frontage. I wonder if there’s any way to replicate that same step down on the Kipling side. I 8 think you’ve heard some of the concerns, but we can go there in just a moment. I would also number 9 two like to acknowledge, excuse me, the splendid guidance and the considered slog by staff through this 10 marathon of compiling and assists and I think, I think everyone involved has put forth a commendable 11 effort so especially Christy Fong who has been tirelessly attached to this to make sure that we’re 12 equipped to make a value, a valuable opinion. 13 14 I would also number three just like to state for the record and for those who might be watching that like 15 it or not this project is a perfect example of continuing an unfunded parking liability for Downtown. 16 There, you know it utilizes all the loopholes created by the needs of a prior construction era; 5,000 17 square feet are exempt from parking requirements coupled with years of in lieu parking fees takes 92 18 required parking spots down to 40 with 35 being provided. So that’s 40 percent of the required parking. 19 So over the next 50 years the lifetime of this building we’ve got a 60 percent parking deficit. 20 21 Now I’d like to go to the elements of my analysis of the structure and the impacts. I spoke regarding the 22 University frontage and I think that this is far improved. I’m not sure that we’ve landed best yet, but 23 we’re definitely at better. I wonder if with respect to Finding Number Two, the project is compatible in 24 the Downtown urban context when… so you notice that staff has very carefully defined the constraint of 25 how we’re finding the design to be compatible with the immediate environment of the site we define the 26 immediate environment of the site to be the whole of the streetscape of University Ave. when in fact I 27 would contend that the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site also requires 28 that it be compatible with the Kipling side as well. That’s one of the problems of a corner site. So on the 29 North elevation I’m not sure, but I think after studying it yesterday and walking around some of the other 30 four-story buildings Downtown Palo Alto that there seems to be sufficient wiggle room on that fourth 31 floor to make that four-story read less visible, which would help me with Finding Number Two. I think 32 we need to say that the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site on all sides. 33 34 Number two, with respect to this massing idea on the Kipling side they have, you have this 42 foot 35 stairwell now and I, I was really inspired in Paris there’s a museum that has a 50 foot tall living wall. And 36 I’m sure that you don’t want to go through the technicalities of adding a living wall to 42 feet of stairwell 37 space, but it’s an idea that would turn a cement structure into public art perhaps. Number three, so I 38 would suggest that a better way to treat the alleyway is to continue that planter on the corner side and 39 pull it though and have that be the buffer to the utility area rather than the bollards that are proposed. 40 41 So I’d like to talk first about I guess fourth about the pedestrian findings. So I’m referencing Attachment 42 E, I’m referencing the context based design criteria findings, and I’m thinking that where we talk about 43 pedestrian use I think that the well we can make perhaps flip there in the context based design criteria 44 findings we say that any development which will promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design 45 and that we are achieving pedestrian oriented design when new construction shares these characteristics 46 they’re… you can set your watch, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, you can set your watch by the 47 residents of University Avenue that walk down there in the mornings and use that corner in particular for 48 resting. Particularly the elder senior citizens that live at Lytton Gardens that’s their walking route and 49 they go around that awkward wall that’s existing into that diagonal plaza and that’s sort of their resting 50 spot. So I think the existing design is far more pedestrian friendly than the proposed design. I know 51 that we brought this up in the last meeting and you, your response which I believe can be found in the 52 notes I think on Page 13 of the transcript where you say, “It was important for the client to have a 53 window on that corner in this proposal,” I think that there’s a way to have the window on the corner and 54 to have a truly pedestrian friendly moment there. You also mentioned that the design context guidelines 55 have five different options proposed for the corners only one of which is actually the corner that you 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 used. The other 80 percent are actually some version of a diagonal corner and 50 percent of the corners 1 from Kipling on up towards Alma are diagonally treated. So that’s number four my, the pedestrian 2 findings. I think it would be more appropriate to follow the pattern of having an open corner where 50 3 percent of the corners are open than to choose otherwise. 4 5 And I think my fifth comment would just be referencing the public art. I think for me public art is 6 accessible all the time. And I know that the Public Art Commission might think otherwise and say as long 7 as it’s accessible for 40 hours a week it’s public, but I like to call a spade a spade. And if it’s public art 8 then we can see it and enjoy it and if it’s inside a lobby and there’s a receptionist there I don’t, that 9 doesn’t read or feel to me as public art. That concludes my comments. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 12 13 Chair Popp: Vice-Chair Gooyer. 14 15 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Ok, first of all I think this is a great improvement over what you showed us the last 16 time. 17 18 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 19 20 Vice-Chair Gooyer: The breaking up especially on University Avenue I think is helped tremendously. An 21 interesting point that you mentioned as far as the glass if you want to call it guardrails that having the 22 opportunity to show clutter, things like that on the balcony, the private balcony of residences in another 23 municipality where I’m involved is the concept is they should be, they’re not allowed to be open or clear 24 hence so you don’t see anything. What’s worked successfully is having something like this same material 25 only it’s fogged so you don’t see what’s going on back there realistically and yet it still doesn’t have the 26 perception of the wall going up another three and a half feet. So it and it does wonders as far as hiding 27 possible clutter. Please let me finish my thoughts and then you can. 28 29 Couple of other things, we keep hearing the whole thing about the mass and everything else and I 30 understand that, but again there have also been comments people made that of anything if we’re going 31 to do massing it’s probably better on University Avenue or at least right at that intersection then it would 32 be further down off University Avenue. Although I think this design could lend itself to cutting back a 33 little bit the as in other buildings we’ve seen the large eyebrow if you want to call it at the corner could 34 be cut back to at least give the perception of, now I’m talking about on the actual Kipling/University 35 Avenue corner, that eyebrow could be cut back. It really isn’t going to change the function of the, I’m 36 talking about well, I don’t know… right there. 37 38 Mr. Hayes: Oh, you’re calling that an eyebrow? 39 40 Vice-Chair Popp: Basically right there. Again, because you never see anything in true elevation, you see 41 it in perspective. So with that moved back it makes it look a great deal more like a two-story building 42 than it does a four-story building. It’s been very successfully done on the fourth floor that it almost looks 43 like a three-story building as you’ve (interrupted) 44 45 Mr. Hayes: This does look three stories right here. This is three stories. 46 47 Vice-Chair Popp: I understand that, but I’m saying the building totally is a four-story building. That’s 48 what I meant. And then on the other, again on the backside with the Kipling and alleyway corner again 49 the perception is you know I’m not saying that I think what you’ve done here is a great improvement 50 over what was done previously, but again by pulling the balcony if you want to call it out further you’ve 51 just enhanced the massing of it. If you reduce the or get rid of the eyebrow on the third floor and cut 52 back the balcony somewhat on the, I’m sorry, the eyebrow on the fourth floor or whatever and the 53 balcony on the third floor it would help again the perception of massing on that corner. 54 55 Mr. Hayes: So there is no fourth… so this is third floor. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Cut that back. 2 3 Mr. Hayes: This is third floor. 4 5 Vice-Chair Gooyer: The eyebrow of the third floor and the actual balcony of the third floor cut that back a 6 little bit. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: So you’re saying this right, this part right here then? 9 10 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Right, cut that back a little bit because you brought it out. It sticks out further than 11 the adjacent (interrupted) 12 13 Mr. Hayes: It does, yes it does. 14 15 Vice-Chair Gooyer: And I understand from an architectural view. It’s always the conflict of do I do it 16 because it looks better in an entity onto itself or how do I do it to adapt to the adjacent surroundings. So 17 it’s a game to get the balance just right. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: Just an FYI (interrupted) 20 21 Vice-Chair Gooyer: The eyebrow again, same thing that about that holding that. I liked it, but again it 22 does give a perception of mass. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: So this is, this is 28 feet right here. 25 26 Vice-Chair Gooyer: It’s what? 27 28 Mr. Hayes: Twenty-eight feet. Just to give you an idea of the size. 29 30 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Right. No, I understand that. 31 32 Mr. Hayes: So it’s two (interrupted) 33 34 Vice-Chair Gooyer: And like I said I’m not saying get rid of the whole thing altogether. You need to have 35 that movement around there, but again it’s perception. I’m not expecting you to cut the floor off the 36 back there, but (interrupted) 37 38 Mr. Hayes: No, I really like how this line continues down the back alley as well. (Interrupted) 39 40 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Again, I’m not arguing that. But you have to look at this in the context and also that 41 with a one-story building next to it there are things that you sometimes have to give up on the design to 42 accommodate those. Other than that like I said it’s definitely a tremendous step to the right direction. 43 44 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 45 46 Vice-Chair Gooyer: And I think that’s it for right now. 47 48 Mr. Hayes: I just I want to respond to (interrupted) 49 50 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Yeah, go ahead. 51 52 Mr. Hayes: The terrace comment and so many, many apartments that you see in Downtown settings 53 have terraces that are very shallow and there so there’s really nowhere else for someone to put their 54 barbeque or their bike or their broom or their mop or whatever they have and it adds to clutter. It was 55 deliberately decided to make these terraces 16 feet deep and create places to be able to put, pull that 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 kind of personal property back so you would leave it kind of back near wherever your, where the wall is 1 as opposed to out on (interrupted) 2 3 Vice-Chair Gooyer: But for what I’m saying is I’m not asking you to cut back anybody’s private balcony so 4 they can’t put their barbeque out there. 5 6 Mr. Hayes: No, I know. You were saying to perhaps frost the glass. 7 8 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Right, exactly. But again (interrupted) 9 10 Mr. Hayes: I think it is necessary. 11 12 Vice-Chair Gooyer: If you’ve got a 16 foot like with anything if you’ve got a storage space it’s amazing 13 when you assume it’s huge and three weeks later it’s full. So I mean it if it’s there they’ll use it. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 16 17 Chair Popp: Board Member Kim. 18 19 Board Member Kim: Thanks for coming back with your presentation. For members of the public I just 20 hope that you realize how incredibly difficult this process is and just the amount of time and design 21 muscle that it’s taken to get here and I really applaud your revisions and I think that almost everything 22 all around it has really made the building better. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 25 26 Board Member Kim: Not just for the sake of design, but for its neighbors as well and I’m really 27 appreciative of the new rhythm that’s created by separating out kind of the that fourth piece to the left. 28 And I think there are also a lot of little minor revisions that maybe haven’t been presented that really 29 make the building read better and nicer such as lifting the stone on the first floor there and… 30 31 Mr. Hayes: And that reveals the body of the white (interrupted) 32 33 Board Member Kim: Right, right. I think there’s a lot of things in articulation and the way that the 34 building elevations read that make it not only better in elevation, of a straight on elevation, but they’ll 35 actually improve it quite a bit from a perspective standpoint of someone that’s walking down the street or 36 driving down the street. I like that the building really reads as a three story mass, which it always did, 37 but I think it reads a lot better now that it doesn’t read quite as long because you’ve separated out that 38 one piece at the end. 39 40 Just a comment about the public art; I did realize that the public art space was maybe reduced, but I 41 could almost argue that it’s actually more visible now that the way it is because it’s kind of a straight shot 42 into that lobby rather than trying to read it on the sidewall of the lobby as you had it previously. 43 44 Mr. Hayes: The lobby is also a corner of frameless glass now whereas before it was just a front. 45 46 Board Member Kim: Right. I think it’s like I started saying that it was difficult. I think it’s so difficult to 47 try to make this such a great design and to with the restraints that you’re given how to make it blend in 48 and I think a lot of it has to do with zoning and not just architectural aesthetic that it has to be the way 49 that it is and I think that it’s a much better building. I think it addresses both University and Kipling sides 50 much better and I guess the only comment that I would have and anything that I would like to see 51 possibly improved upon is the corner of University and Kipling. Whether that’s an angled corner, a 45, or 52 a window on the corner I think maybe it could be a little bit more generous to funneling in people onto 53 Kipling because it is such a small street, but just because it’s a larger building I don’t think it’s going to 54 cause any more people hitting cars or side mirrors then there are now. It’s a single story building as it is 55 and there’s already so much of that going on so I don’t see how we could really mitigate those problems. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 Let me just see if I’ve missed anything here. Yeah, I’m just appreciative of a lot of little things that 2 maybe weren’t presented upon, but to me make a big difference in the way the building reads and the 3 way the building presents itself to the public. Thank you. 4 5 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 6 7 Chair Popp: Board Member Lew. 8 9 Board Member Lew: Ok, so I’ve got… Ken just in general I’m very happy with the revisions. I do have a 10 lot of questions for you. I was wondering if you could walk us through the materials and as a note in 11 particular the Haussmann stone that I saw like on the website looked substantially darker than all of your 12 elevations and yeah, so, yeah so I was wondering what you were thinking about this. This, I mean that’s 13 like completely different than this sort of the beige. I understand renderings are always hard to 14 reproduce, but yeah. So really you’re thinking of the medium grey as opposed to this sort of beige-ish 15 color. Yeah? 16 17 Mr. Hayes: So yes, the Board Member Lew, the main framework of the building form is that pietra serena 18 in that finish and it wraps down obviously Kipling as well and it returns back on the balconies. That is 19 then contrasted with the Neopariés ceramic glass that everything that you see white on the model, on 20 the model… on the rendering is that material so that the main materials of the building are essentially a 21 stone or stone like material. That Neopariés is also the base of the storefront as it wraps around so it’s 22 very nice contrast, very refreshing and light. The plaster finishes are primarily towards the back of the 23 building on the side of the building. And the other stone that you see is actually on the rooftop terrace. 24 So that’s not something unless you are living there that you would see. There’s another board there that 25 has that. And then the concrete, the sandblasted concrete is essentially the planters on Kipling. This 26 wall here as it wraps out the planters comes across and then up the stairs so it’s sort of like holding the 27 lobby form. 28 29 Board Member Lew: On the glass… 30 31 Mr. Hayes: Yes, the Neopariés glass or the? 32 33 Board Member Lew: No, actually just the window, window glass. So I mean I did notice on your, like on 34 a recent one of your recent buildings like 278 University the glass is really dark. I mean for retail. 35 36 Mr. Hayes: It shouldn’t be. It’s just clear glass. It’s not (interrupted) 37 38 Board Member Lew: It looks (interrupted) 39 40 Mr. Hayes: It’s not low iron, it’s just clear glass. 41 42 Board Member Lew: Yeah, I know. I know, but even clear glass… I know. But even clear glass I mean 43 you can’t even see from a retailer point of view (interrupted) 44 45 Mr. Hayes: Alex, it’s clear glass. I don’t know what else to do. I mean we could do, you could do a low 46 iron glass, which would get you as light as you could possibly be. A lot of it has to do with the 47 illumination. 48 49 Board Member Lew: Illumination is key and then the double pane is part of the problem and just the 50 solar orientation. 51 52 Mr. Hayes: We want it as clear as possible. 53 54 Board Member Lew: Is it possible to do low iron on the first floor, on the just the storefronts? I mean I 55 realize that’s very expensive. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 Mr. Hayes: Right. 2 3 Board Member Lew: I mean it’s partly that you have, well you don’t have to decide at the moment. I 4 would just say consider. 5 6 Mr. Hayes: We would certainly consider that. 7 8 Board Member Lew: Consider it because it’s really important. I see so many new mixed-use buildings 9 and the windows are too dark. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 12 13 Board Member Lew: I mean it’s just, it’s not isolated to you. I’m saying it’s a widespread. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Storefront glass typically uses Solarban 70. 16 17 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: And then sometimes Solarban 60, but which also has the low, the low iron pane. 20 21 Board Member Lew: Ok, so thank you for that. And then on the also on the I noticed that there’s no 22 landscape and so I was also thinking about the plants in the planters and also the sidewalk replacement 23 colors and this comes up on all of our Downtown projects. We don’t have anything. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: The side we were just going to match the standard lamp black and the existing sidewalk 26 pattern as it wraps around; nothing special on them. 27 28 Board Member Lew: Ok. 29 30 Mr. Hayes: There’s no custom paving. 31 32 Board Member Lew: And then you’re going to, and then is there a landscape plan that we haven’t seen? 33 Is there something in the works or I know there’s not much, but? 34 35 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, there’s not Alex. We can certainly put a list of what we’d like to use in this planter. 36 This planter came about in the last month and we didn’t engage a landscape architect at that point, but 37 we think it’s a nice place for a planter. But if you’re interested in what kind of plant material we would 38 have in there we could certainly provide that. 39 40 Board Member Lew: I think also in the descriptions and I think in your rendering you’re showing planters 41 up on the fourth floor roof terrace, but we don’t actually have anything submitted for it. I think they’re 42 just (interrupted) 43 44 Mr. Hayes: Correct. 45 46 Board Member Lew: They’re illustrative only. 47 48 Mr. Hayes: I think there’s a photograph of the planter, but not the kind of plant. 49 50 Board Member Lew: Yeah. And I mean and you’re showing stuff in the prospectus. And then also on the 51 lighting I think that there is photo-metrics of the first floor, but I was wondering if you could provide 52 them for the exterior balconies. Yeah, I’m sorry. Actually let me ask that for staff. Can they since the 53 exterior balconies are all open to the streets and alleys can we require those light fixtures be included in 54 the photo-metrics? Because they are all, it’s all out, I mean it’s outdoors. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. French: Yes, so we would support that condition or request. 1 2 Board Member Lew: Ok. And in my mind can the one the thing that just drives me crazy is like on your 3 AT&T building on Page Mill Road I know you didn’t do the working drawings, but there’s that one ugly 4 florescent light fixture over the exposed stairway and I know that, I’m sure that keeps you up at night. 5 6 Mr. Hayes: It does. 7 8 Board Member Lew: That’s the kind of thing that I want to avoid and I would expect on a project like this 9 that you would not do that on University. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: It’s visible too. 12 13 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. We didn’t have the opportunity to continue with that project. 16 17 Board Member Lew: Yeah. So I understand that and it’s one of the things that but I think that’s 18 important. 19 20 Mr. Hayes: So Board Member Lew the owner just informed me and I had forgotten the on the terrace 21 their boxwood hedges in the planters. 22 23 Board Member Lew: Ok. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: On the third floor. 26 27 Board Member Lew: Good. And then I have one question, one more question is detail 15 on Sheet 28 [A.8.1]. I could not make, I could not understand that and I was wondering if I’m misreading it? So I 29 think that’s a transition between the first floor and the second floor on Kipling near the… it’s keyed on 30 A3.1 sort of above the Kipling Street retail entrance. So there’s a column like say between the, yeah. 31 32 Mr. Hayes: That should actually be the Neopariés ceramic glass. 33 34 Board Member Lew: Right with the stone. Yeah. 35 36 Mr. Hayes: Correct. 37 38 Board Member Lew: So I think that detail is just it’s either not keyed correctly or something. 39 40 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 41 42 Board Member Lew: Yeah. Ok, so that’s I think those are all of my questions. 43 44 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 45 46 Board Member Lew: So I have some comments. One is I think that there’s a lot of neighbors are 47 concerned about the massing and so I would say this one project is a little different because it’s a 2.86 48 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and normally and that’s because the transfer of development rights. And that’s so 49 an unusual circumstance here. I mean normally Amy stated that is normally 2.0 maximum floor area for 50 mixed-use? 51 52 Ms. French: Correct, 1:1 FAR for each type of use (interrupted) 53 54 Board Member Lew: For each use. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Ms. French: 1:1 for commercial and 1:1 for residential. 1 2 Board Member Lew: Right, so it’s a little different circumstance because of that and then we don’t I mean 3 we can require compatibility, but I mean but we can’t reduce the TDR component of that at the Board 4 level. Is that my understanding correct? 5 6 Ms. French: Yes. The applicant has the ability to transfer development rights to this property and so we 7 get into a conversation of how that’s executed as that it’s a lot of floor area. 8 9 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: Well 5,000 of it is the exempt from parking. 12 13 Board Member Lew: Right. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: The balance is we provide the parking for it. 16 17 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: So the 4,200 we’re providing the parking for that. 20 21 Board Member Lew: Right. And then the 5,000 square feet that is exempt is because this project was 22 already in process. Is that correct? And that the Council has changed that rule for subsequent projects 23 so but that’s the way it is. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: Correct. That was earned prior to Council’s action. 26 27 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 28 29 Ms. French: Right. Yeah, that’s correct. Back when the in October 2013 when things changed if 30 somebody had already secured transferable floor area, bonus floor area with parking before that time it 31 was allowed to continue with that. 32 33 Board Member Lew: Ok, there is I think one of the residents was asking for like a Victorian district or 34 something or something on Kipling and I think that there was some mention of it in our draft urban 35 design plans for Downtown, but there isn’t any official district like Professorville or whatnot and we don’t 36 really have the purview to create something like that. There’s another concern just about sort of the 37 canyon effect and the height relative to a narrow street and what I’ve always been taught is that if you 38 have a right of way so Kipling is 50 foot right of way. I know that people are mentioning 29 foot street, 39 but I’m saying the building to building is 50 that you can go up 50 feet and that proportion is sort of the 40 maximum you would want to go. And I think that on this particular project you’re going up about 40 feet 41 to the third floor and then you have a substantial setback for the, for the rest of it. 42 43 Mr. Hayes: The glass rail goes up another foot, but yeah. Correct. 44 45 Board Member Lew: Yeah. So I’m comfortable with that. Those are with that proportion. 46 47 Mr. Hayes: Great. 48 49 Board Member Lew: I would say like if in your previous scheme where you had the stair tower 50 foot 50 going right up to Kipling that would be very challenging for me, but with the revisions that you’ve made 51 I’m comfortable with that. And I do like the changes that you’ve made on University Avenue. I think 52 that’s all great. 53 54 Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Lew: So I’m pretty good to go on this project. I would support other Board Members are 1 concerned about the corners and I would I’m willing to go along with that with those potential revisions. 2 And I think that’s all that I have. Thank you. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 5 6 Chair Popp: Alright, great comments today. Christy, very nice staff report. Thank you. We started our 7 day today with Mr. Orbelier, I’m not sure I’m getting his last name right, but the first member of the 8 public who spoke and then he had to leave. And one of the things he said is that he believes this project 9 makes Palo Alto better. And I have to say as I sat down to review the project and as I was walking 10 around the site and I’m thinking about this project the question for me is not will it make Palo Alto better 11 because I know that it will. I think it’s an improvement over what’s there. The question is, is it good 12 enough? Have you gone far enough? Have you, have you refined this enough to give us a building that 13 will last for the next 100 years and we’re going to all be happy that it’s here. 14 15 And I think about the beauty of the Kipling homes. It’s this unique little pocket. It’s definitely a 16 consideration, but and I want to make clear that I want the expectations of the applicant, not Mr. Hayes, 17 but his client who has written a number of letters to us and is very clear about wanting to move this 18 project forward is that most projects that are in the Downtown area go through three reviews. Three 19 serious significant reviews and while the applicant might be impatient to get this over with it’s really 20 important for us to get this right. And so I think that what you’re hearing from the Board today is really 21 positive and we’re all, we’re all saying that this is headed in a very good direction. And I’ll echo 22 comments made by others that the refinements that you’ve made based on the comments that you heard 23 are really very nicely done. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 26 27 Chair Popp: Very nicely done. And Board Member Kim made a good point about how complex this is to 28 do and I don’t think people really realize how complex this is and how much when we say to you can you 29 come back to us in two weeks the amount of work that goes into that and the fire drill you have to go 30 through to get that done is enormous and so (interrupted) 31 32 Mr. Hayes: That’s why we weren’t here in December. 33 34 Chair Popp: I actually I have to say that I’m really happy that you didn’t come back so fast and that 35 you’ve taken the time to try and get it right, that you’re making the effort to try and make it good 36 enough for us. There were really major issues the last time we looked at this and we were talking about 37 just general building massing. Now we’re talking about details and that’s the right kind of conversation 38 for us to be having. 39 40 This is what the Comp Plan anticipated. This kind of project is what, what our rules anticipate. The 41 ability to transfer development rights, the height limitations, the goals for University Avenue. The 42 documents that guide us guided you to this solution and I appreciate that. If people aren’t happy with 43 that this is the right time to get involved. Add your voice to the conversation, help author the new Comp 44 Plan. Please get involved, but Alex sort of exactly captured what I think which is 50 foot wide street, a 45 50 foot wide height, a 50 foot height. Those are the general rules that I was taught in architecture 46 school and have played out over my career and I feel are very valid. And I think that contextually this 47 building is really compatible today with its surroundings and that the methodology that you’ve taken to 48 minimize the appearance of height and massing are generally very successful. 49 50 I’ll just start with the corner. I happen to think that at a narrow street it’s important not to erode the 51 corner. Let’s hold it. And I think the choice that you’ve made to square off the corner is the right one. 52 And so we’ll let that play out wherever it plays out, but I feel actually very strongly that you’ve done the 53 right thing by holding the corner and identifying the way this building turns. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Let’s talk about the terraces. They’re enormous. I’ve never ever had a client say to me, jeez, I’ve got 1 too much storage. It’s just never, it’s never come up. Stuff’s going to get stuck out there. You can’t 2 control what people lean against the glass. You can’t control how this looks and I’m not comfortable with 3 the project moving forward with clear railings the way they’re designed. So from my perspective you’ll 4 need to do something different to get me to say yes to this. Whether it’s fritted glass or whether you 5 choose to use some kind of a perforated panel or something that conceals what’s going on behind 6 (interrupted) 7 8 Mr. Hayes: And not restrictions in the apartment leases? Because they are apartments. 9 10 Chair Popp: We don’t have the ability to do that. 11 12 Mr. Hayes: No, but the owner can. 13 14 Chair Popp: The owner can, but I don’t think that the City has purview over that from what I understand. 15 I mean I’d appreciate if the owner would do that. I think it would be appropriate and I think it’ll help 16 because I think even shadows and things behind the glass will appear. Things that stick up above the 17 railings, stuff like it’s going to be we can’t control everything. 18 19 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 20 21 Chair Popp: But I’d like to control what I can and I think that (interrupted) 22 23 Mr. Hayes: Well so then frosted glass would be what I would recommend. 24 25 Chair Popp: Ok, that’s great. We’ll look forward to that. That’s great. I wanted to just ask I know 26 you’ve done a lot of work refining this and I wanted to just ask you one quick question about the way 27 you designed the dark I don’t know how to describe it this, this two-story piece that wraps the corner. 28 The bottom border of that is four tiles high and the top of it is four tiles high. 29 30 Mr. Hayes: Right. 31 32 Chair Popp: The way you’ve got it. Did you ever look at it with three tiles high at the top to try and just 33 get it to be a little bit lighter up there? 34 35 Mr. Hayes: I felt it was important for that framework to be consistent on the top and the bottom. We 36 looked at a bunch of different, different during this latest revision and we came back to wanting… we 37 lowered the top but at the same time we brought the bottom up because (interrupted) 38 39 Chair Popp: Right. 40 41 Mr. Hayes: The way it looked. 42 43 Chair Popp: I was just wondering if you ever looked at them being different? 44 45 Mr. Hayes: That would have been different. We brought the bottom up because we didn’t like the way it 46 looked. 47 48 Chair Popp: Ok. 49 50 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 51 52 Chair Popp: Alright, great. Well I’ll leave it to you to have studied that and that works. I’m fine with 53 that. I was just thinking it might be a way to lighten that elevation just a little bit more, expose a little 54 bit more of the frosted glass at the top. But I think it’ll be fine the way it is. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 I agree with Robert about the rear corner. I appreciate your intent about this eyebrow element 1 continuing across the lot 30 elevation, but I think that that’s to me that’s less of a priority than trying to 2 really open that corner up, lessen its impact. I mean the elegance of this neighborhood it’s at the back 3 and that facing directly towards these homes I think is, is a big priority and while I wouldn’t suggest 4 cutting the terrace back I think that the organization of this building and these big blocky forms that are 5 moving around and transferring past each other are really important to hold on to. I think that pulling 6 that eyebrow back up at the top there wouldn’t do damage. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Let me make sure I’m clear, are you referring to this sticking out towards the alley? 9 10 Chair Popp: Yeah, I’m fine with that corner the way it was. I thought what Vice-Chair Gooyer was 11 suggesting was cutting that terrace back and I’m saying I wouldn’t support that. I think leaving the 12 terrace the way it is is fine. It’s the eyebrow at the top of the third floor, yeah. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: That? That. 15 16 Chair Popp: That’s it. 17 18 Mr. Hayes: Well that can certainly push back. We were trying to provide weather protection for anyone 19 that wants to take the stair, but coming out the elevator (interrupted) 20 21 Chair Popp: And maybe there’s a different material, a different material some other, maybe it doesn’t 22 have to come all the way to the lot 30 elevation that it starts to step back and the same way you, you’ve 23 done such a nice job of stepping the upper floors back on the University side I’m looking for pieces to 24 step back. 25 26 Mr. Hayes: Do you realize this is metal panel? I thought maybe you thought it was (interrupted) 27 28 Chair Popp: I can’t tell exactly what it was and I wasn’t looking through my drawings quickly enough to 29 find it. 30 31 Mr. Hayes: Ok. 32 33 Chair Popp: But just in terms of massing and form it feels like it’s, it’s creating a big shadow. I mean 34 that’s the, it’s the East elevation but it’s really the Northeast elevation. And so there’s a lot of shadow 35 that’s going to come off of that thing. 36 37 I think we do need some landscape information from you. I’d like to really understand what that is. 38 There’s an inconsistency between the civil drawings and your drawings. I think you’re calling out 39 Maidenhair trees for the replacement trees and the civil drawings are calling out something, Ginkgo 40 Biloba. And so we just need to get clarification about which one it’s going to be. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: It’s ginkgo. 43 44 Chair Popp: I’m sorry? 45 46 Mr. Hayes: It’s a ginkgo, right? 47 48 Chair Popp: Is that the… oh, Maidenhair is the common name for… thank you. 49 50 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 51 52 Chair Popp: What a novice. Alright, and that’s ok, thank you. And I guess I would prefer to see a real 53 tree up on the terrace, not a boxwood shrub. Something small but something that would really, would 54 really stand up and have some character up there. Give some softness to the top edge of the building. I 55 think it would be great for us to understand that you’re irrigating those and draining those carefully and 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 what the material is that’s going to be in them. And so if you can be clear about that I would encourage 1 something that’s got some, some height and shape to it to add some character to that, that edge of the 2 building. But be happy to see what you propose for that. 3 4 And I will be very forthright in saying that art in the lobby is not public to me. That that’s like a picture 5 that the owner hangs on a wall or a piece of sculpture that they put in the lobby, but I think the Public 6 Art Commission needs to grapple with this a little bit, but for me I think that the intent, the spirit of this 7 effort is to do something that’s public in nature and not hidden or concealed or I appreciate that 40 hours 8 a week is a statement, but to me that’s not what I’m looking for in public art. So I’ll hope that you might 9 go a different direction with that and we’ll let that play out with the Art Commission. 10 11 I have a number of comments on the report and some language in here that I’ll just run through really 12 quickly if you don’t mind. So on Page 2 of Attachment B the draft conditions of approval, oh, I’m sorry, 13 I’ve gone too far. I’ll do that one first. Number 11 it says, “All future signage, outdoor furniture for this 14 site shall be submitted for Architectural Review.” Is it inappropriate for the ARB to also take a look at 15 what the public art is and how it’s being placed? 16 17 Ms. French: I think that can be a return item that you get to see; I mean obviously at the very next 18 meeting they probably won’t have it all, but certainly (interrupted) 19 20 Chair Popp: Future item (interrupted) 21 22 Ms. French: Getting to see that and a sign program is probably (interrupted) 23 24 Chair Popp: We can handle that (interrupted) 25 26 Ms. French: A good idea. 27 28 Chair Popp: Or something like that, but I’d like to have public art added to that comment. I’m sorry back 29 a few pages I went a little too far. So Page Number 1 and Catherine had mentioned this, this word in 30 Finding Number 2, the word when in the middle of the paragraph. And I was thinking that maybe 31 rewording this finding to say that the project is compatible in a Downtown urban context where the 32 immediate environment along University Avenue is comprised of buildings, not just when. And in the last 33 sentence the proposed building with in place of careful I would say contextual consideration of massing 34 and setbacks. 35 36 Then in Item Number 4 in the middle of the paragraph again I would strike the words a strong 37 concentration of so that it just reads that the finding can be made in the affirmative and that the project 38 is generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide particularly when the project reinforces 39 University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining ground floor retail uses. 40 That’s enough. And I would actually take out the last sentence. I think that that’s not, not appropriate 41 for this finding. 42 43 And then in just a second, I’ll come back to you. So wanted to just make sure that we’re clear that 44 Finding Number 5 is accurate; there are no other land uses this is transitioning that we’re going from the 45 CD-C (GF)(P) to the CD-C (GF). Is there no reason to make a finding about that? I just want to make 46 sure we’re covering all of our bases in case of… 47 48 Ms. French: Yeah, sure. The P is more of a design zoning combining district than a use. It doesn’t 49 specify uses. 50 51 Chair Popp: Alright that’s perfect. Thank you. And then in Finding Number 12 I always react to this. I’d 52 prefer not to use the word modern. I think it’s contemporary. And then Finding 13 I’m not able to 53 actually evaluate that now because we don’t have the landscape documents. And as well Finding 14; so 54 we’ll study those when we get to them. And I’m sorry I know these are nitpicky things, but I’m expecting 55 that we’re going to have careful review. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 So I’m jumping now to Attachment E, the Comprehensive Plan table which is I don’t know, a big chunk of 2 the way back here. And in Policy L20 I think it’s just been miswritten that it reinforces street corners not 3 concerns. And I’m sorry jumping up one level one Program L19 the first note there, reinforce University 4 Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining. Just strike the word which. And then 5 the very last thing is in Attachment H. See if I read this right. It lists out 429 University Avenue project 6 mitigation monitoring program and right in the middle of the page it actually says 385 Sherman Avenue. 7 8 Ms. Fong: The staff report of today notes the error in Attachment H, the revised preamble introductions 9 is at places right now. 10 11 Chair Popp: Ok, great. Thank you very much. So sorry for all those nitpicks, but just want to make sure 12 we’re on it. So I think Board Member Ballantyne had another comment. 13 14 Board Member Ballantyne: Back to nitpicking I guess. On Finding Number 4 of Attachment A that Chair 15 Popp just referred to the finding can be made in the affirmative that the project is generally consistent 16 with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. I redlined the word generally. I wrestle with that. I’m not 17 convinced. When I read the guidelines I think the finding should be that we can find in the affirmative 18 that the project is consistent and we don’t have to qualify it with the use of the word “generally.” So I’m 19 just concerned because first we say it’s only generally consistent and then we define the parameters 20 under which we are finding it to be generally consistent. So for me it’s either consistent or it’s not and 21 we shouldn’t have to qualify our findings. 22 23 Chair Popp: So there are a lot of items in the guidelines and I don’t think we’re consistent with all of the 24 items in the guideline and so I think that’s why they used the word generally. We’re not suggesting that 25 it’s totally 100 percent consistent, but it’s generally consistent. I’m actually comfortable with that 26 language and if you’re not feel free to say so, but I’m ok with it the way it is. 27 28 Ms. French: I might offer an option two, instead of saying ‘generally consistent’, ‘consistent with the 29 applicable guidelines.’ 30 31 Chair Popp: Perfect. 32 33 Ms. French: If that’s? 34 35 Board Member Ballantyne: Better. 36 37 Chair Popp: That’s great. 38 39 Board Member Ballantyne: Better, thank you. Thank you, yeah. 40 41 Chair Popp: Anyone else have additional comments? So we’re looking for some type of action here, 42 whether it’s a continuance to resolve these additional items or if someone wants to craft a Motion. 43 44 Board Member Lew: I think in the past I would just say that normally if there’s something revolving 45 around massing then we have it come back to the Board. If it’s details and other things like that then it’s 46 usually subcommittee or consent calendar, whatnot. Sounds like I would say that the corner is important 47 or both corners are important and so my inclination would be for it to come back to the Board. 48 49 Chair Popp: So do you want to move that? 50 51 Board Member Lew: Well I was just doing a poll, informal poll. 52 53 Chair Popp: I’ll agree with that. 54 55 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Want to set it for a time certain? 56 City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Chair Popp: Going to make a Motion? 2 3 MOTION 4 5 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Ok in the Motion then for 429 University Avenue I move that we set this for a time 6 certain, I guess two weeks from now is what everybody’s agreed to, to come back for review 7 (interrupted) 8 9 Chair Popp: Let’s check with the staff and the applicant about what date we might be able to get back. 10 11 Ms. French: Excuse me, but two weeks from now is January 29th. We do not have a regular meeting on 12 that date so (interrupted) 13 14 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Well, ok, whatever. But I mean the next meeting (interrupted) 15 16 Ms. French: Yeah, just let’s hone that a little bit. So our next meeting is February 5th and we would not 17 be able to generate a staff report for that meeting so the 19th is a better choice for our review process 18 timeline. 19 20 Vice-Chair Gooyer: Ok, if everybody’s happy with that or actually that’s about the first one we can go. 21 Ok, so it’s the let’s say the February 19th meeting then. 22 23 Chair Popp: All those in favor? Any opposed? Great, so that passes 5-0-0-0 to the 19th. 24 25 MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-0) 26 27 Mr. Hayes: Thank you very much for your time this morning. 28 29 Chair Popp: Thank you for your presentation; great progress. 30 31 32 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5310) Architectural Review Board ARB Staff Report Report Type: New Business Meeting Date: 11/20/2014 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 429 University Avenue - 14PLN-00222 Title: 429 University Avenue [14PLN-00222]: Request by Ken Hayes Architects, Inc. on behalf of Kipling Post LP for Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing, one-story commercial/retail buildings totaling 11,633 square feet (sf) of floor area and construct a 31,407 sf, four - story, mixed use building with two levels of underground parking providing 41 on-site spaces, on an 11,000 sf site in the Downtown Commercial (CD-C (GF)(P)) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: The draft Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is available, in accordance with California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and comments may be submitted through December 12, 2014 From: Amy French Lead Department: Architectural Review Board RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review this formal application and provide comments. The public hearing must be continued to a date certain, December 18, 2014, because the public review period for the CEQA Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration will not end until December 12, 2014. Members of the public may wish to address the ARB after reviewing the document, and staff will need some time to respond to comments received during the review period. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, environmental review must be completed before final action may be taken on a project. To permit full environmental review, to inform the ARB’s decision, staff recommends that no formal recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment be made at this hearing. BACKGROUND Site information Located at the southwest corner of Kipling Street and University Avenue, the project site is comprised of two parcels. One is an interior lot, 2,750 square feet (sf) in area (425 University Avenue) and the other is a corner lot, 8,250 sf in area (429-447 University Avenue); the total site area is 11,000 sf (0.25 acre). The parcel located at 425 University Avenue is developed with Attachment H City of Palo Alto Page 2 a 4,425 sf, one-story commercial/retail building with a mezzanine, and 429-447 University Avenue is developed with a 7,208 sf, one-story commercial/retail building. Both properties are located within the central portion of the downtown area surrounded by commercial zoning districts (as shown on the location map, Attachment A). The properties are bounded by University Avenue to the east and Kipling Street to the north. The site is surrounded by commercial uses to the north, south and east. A mix of commercial and residential uses is located to the west. A public parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for nearby uses. Another public parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. Parking and service/loading spaces for the sites are currently provided at the rear of the property via Lane 30, a 20 foot wide one-way traffic alley. Both properties are located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District (District). With the assessed square footage of the existing buildings, 425 University Avenue would require 18 parking spaces and 429-447 University Avenue would require 29 parking spaces. However, both properties have participated in payment into the District, 16 parking spaces and 21 parking spaces respectively, for a total of 37 parking spaces to an annual fee for the bonds that were created to provide public parking spaces within the District. There are two (2) on-site parking spaces currently provided for 425 University Avenue and eight (8) on-site parking spaces currently provided for 429-447 University Avenue. Preliminary Review A preliminary review for the corner property (only) was considered by the ARB on November 7, 2014. The project then included a four-story mixed use development containing 24,750 sf. Two design options were presented to the ARB at that time. While board members appreciated the design intent and site planning of the project, many requested the applicant to pay more attention to design detail and revise the massing to respect the existing low-density context and provide a quality pedestrian experience on the ground level. Current Proposal The current project is different from the one that was presented in the preliminary review. Some of the main changes include: (1) an increase in project area by combining the parcel from 429-447 University Avenue (8,250 sf) with 425 University Avenue (2,750 sf) to make a total project site of 11,000 sf; (2) a building setback of approximately 4 feet from the rear property line; and (3) an increased number of entrances to the ground floor retail spaces. The current design retains the solid and cubic framework similar to the previous plan. Some major modifications include: (1) the removal of roof form over the fourth floor terrace; (2) the provision of greater setbacks at the third floor and fourth floor from street sides, with terraces; (3) the removal of vertical elements from the north and south elevations; and (4) an increased overall thickness of the roof overhang element. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish two existing one-story commercial/retail buildings at 425 University Avenue and 429-447 University Avenue, and construct a new 31,407 sf, four-story mixed use building on an 11,000 sf site. The new building would cover 9,523 sf of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 sf. The proposed building would provide 20,407 sf of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 sf) and 11,000 sf of residential use. The applicant has no intention to subdivide into condominium units. A total of four (4) residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The building would include parking facilities located on two levels underground, providing 41 on-site parking spaces with access from the rear alley on the southwest corner of the building. Proposed retail uses would be located on the ground floor and office use would be located on the second floor. Three residential units are proposed on the third floor, and one residential unit and space for office use are proposed on the fourth floor. A large rooftop terrace would be accessible by office tenants only; one residential tenant will be able to view the terrace. The ground floor retail space would be accessible via the three entrances on University Avenue and one entrance on Kipling Street. The primary entrance to the upper floors would be on Kipling Street. Service and loading area would be accessible from Lane 30 (Attachment D). DISCUSSION Comprehensive Plan Conformance The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is regional/Community Commercial. The Community Commercial land use designation allows larger shopping center and districts that have wider variety goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. The proposed uses are consistent with this designation with non-residential Floor Area Ratios (FAR) ranging from 0.35 to 2.0. The project’s overall relationship with the Comprehensive Plan is discussion within Attachment C. Zoning compliance Both 425 and 429-447 University Avenue are located within the Downtown Commercial- Community CD-C(GF)(P) zoning district with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts. Retail, general business office and multi-family uses are permitted in this zoning district. The development standards of this zoning designation do not include required setbacks from property lines and maximum site coverage, with the exception of a ten foot rear setback for the residential component of the building. The project meets the setback requirements for the commercial component. The enclosed residential portion is setback ten feet from the rear property line. The open terrace/balcony of the residential component on the third and fourth floor is encroaching six (6) foot into the required setback, which would meet the minimum setback requirements. The building meets the 50 foot height limit. Zoning Code regulations allow utility and mechanical features to exceed the height limit by no more than 15 feet. City of Palo Alto Page 4 A new mixed use building in the CD-C zoning district may have a 2.0:1 FAR. In the case of this 11,000 sf site, the total allowable FAR for a new building is 22,000 sf, with a maximum of 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sg) for residential and 1.0:1 FAR (11,000 sf) for commercial uses. Additional floor area is allowable up to 10,000 sf on this site, which is considered an “eligible” receiver site, with the transfer of development rights (TDR) in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.080(f)(2)). Properties that are not on the City’s Seismic list nor a Historic Resource Category 1 or 2 are allowed to request a one-time 200 square feet bonus (PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1)), but the total floor area on the site cannot exceed the maximum of 3.0:1 FAR. This site is also subject to Ground Floor (GF) Combining District Zoning designation, which would prohibit office uses on the first floor. The proposed project is comprised of 20,407 sf of commercial space and 11,000 sf of residential space. The applicant has purchased 5,000 sf of TDR area from two properties on Homer Avenue and 4,207 sf of TDR area from 340 University Avenue, for a total of 9,207 sf TDR available for this project. Along with the one-time 200 square feet bonus request, a total of 20,407 sf (1.86 FAR) of commercial space is proposed in the new building. The proposed residential use of 11,000 sf is at the maximum 1.0:1 FAR. The proposed total floor area of the project is 31,407 sf and is at 2.86 FAR. The attached zoning compliance table (Attachment B) indicates the project’s compliance with zoning regulations. Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The site is subject to the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires projects to incorporate design features that foster a lively pedestrian environment and an economically healthy retail district. Projects with this designation must incorporate the following features: (1) Display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 1.5 feet; and (3) Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The project design incorporates frameless storefront glass clad with glass ceramic panels on the ground level, which meets the retail/display window requirements to provide visual interest for pedestrians. The three entries on University Avenue and two entries on Kipling Street are recessed from property lines, each featuring a glass canopy. Aside from street trees, no landscaping is proposed along University Avenue and Kipling Street. Downtown Urban Design Guide The site is also subject to the Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide), which was developed to provide guidelines regarding development and design in the downtown area. The project site is located within the University Avenue District. The Guide reinforces University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto by maintaining the strong concentration of ground floor retail uses between Alma and Cowper Streets. Storefront rhythm of 25-50 feet wide can City of Palo Alto Page 5 generally be found on University Avenue. The project site has 100 feet of frontage along University Avenue. The applicant proposes to have a unified design on the ground floor, with frameless glass façade and three recessed entries (set back seven feet from the property lines). Staff is concerned that minimal architectural detailing at the ground floor is not complementary to adjacent buildings and encourages the ARB to explore other design solutions with the applicant. The project site is also located within the Kipling secondary District and is located directly across the visual terminus of this district – the Varsity Theater. The Guide encourages a corner treatment to enhance the terminus at University Avenue. Consistent with one of the corner options in the Guide, the project includes tall display windows. Similar ground floor façade treatments are found on the Kipling side to allow pedestrians to see through the corner of the building, and to continue retail use to the side street. Context-Based Design Consideration and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Considerations and findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18 are applicable to this project. The following findings that appear relevant to this project are listed for discussion purposes: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment: The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. The proposal appears to be bike friendly in that it would provide at-grade bike racks as well as secured bike parking within the parking garage. A shower is provided within the building to promote bicycle ridership. There are aspects of the proposal that appear to meet the Context-Based Design Criteria relative to pedestrian experiences, in that the majority of the building would be located at the setback line, which would improve the visibility and access at the street level on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The proposal would include canopies over recessed entries for weather protection on primary pedestrian routes. 2. Street Building Façade: Street facades shall be designed to provide strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourage pedestrian activity through design elements. The proposed placement and orientation of doorways and windows would be suitable for a mixed use project in the commercial urban setting. The indoor spaces on upper floors would step back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. The entries are clearly defined and scaled at the front façade, to respect the street’s pedestrian scale. However, the proposed frameless glass panels appear to be monotonous in design with little vertical articulation to break down the façade of the building at the ground level. Although the residential balconies are oriented toward active streets, they are not affecting the public view of the façade as they are not visible due to the shadow created by the overhang, which is very visible. City of Palo Alto Page 6 3. Massing and Setbacks: Building shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The proposed design includes a large open terrace on the fourth floor; the fourth floor mass is set back behind the terrace, so the mass is minimized from street level views. The proposed light color palette, glazed windows and third floor terraces are intended to minimize the scale of the building and add visual interests. The emphasis of the horizontal roofline at each level and the 50 foot tall stair shaft would be the predominant design features that would add to the perception of massing. It is also not apparent that the proposed design contains distinctive architectural elements to reinforce the important terminus of Kipling Street to University Avenue. Staff alerted the applicant that there may be two opportunities to reduce the building mass, through the reduction of the third floor building overhang/amount of fourth floor terrace area. The below specific calculations were developed further during the staff report preparation: (1) Approximately 1,700 sf of roofed or enclosed terrace spaces (upper floor white areas on Plan Sheet A1.1) are located above ground floor. These are are not counted toward floor area, because they are not used for required access (per PAMC 18.04.030 (65)). However, these spaces contribute to the proposed building mass, and could be reduced in area; and (2) Approximately 3,816 sf of uncovered rooftop area (brown area on Plan Sheet A1.1) is proposed as landscaped open space, plus 2,396 sf of covered open space (beige area on Plan Sheet A1.1) for the four residential units. The project has much more open space than required by code (1,616 sf additional landscaped area at rooftop, and 1,596 sf additional residential open space). As a mixed use development in the CD-C zoning district, this project would be required to dedicate 20% of landscape open space (2,200 sf) plus 200 sf per residential unit (in total, 800 sf), for a total of 3,000 sf. 4. Low Density Residential Transition: Where new projects are built abutting existing lower- scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighborhood properties. The project is located at the heart of the Downtown District, surrounded by commercial uses. The proposed frontage at University Avenue is compatible with the urban context. Although the parcels abutting the project site along Kipling Street have a commercial zoning designation, most of the built forms have a low density residential appearance. The proposed height of the building is a concern to many of the adjacent neighbors, as evidenced in the attached email correspondence. While the height is taller than most of the buildings in the neighborhood, the proposed building height of 50 feet is compliant with the City of Palo Alto Page 7 height limit in the Downtown Commercial District. The proposed design includes at least a 10 feet setback with open terraces at the upper stories to transition into neighboring properties with lower density. Potential privacy concern is at a less than significant level as the buildings behind the project site are mostly one-story with commercial/office uses and mature trees along Kipling Street would provide some degree of screening. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and would have limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and would receive more sunlight exposure. The proposed design includes storefront glass on both frontages to introduce a daylight source on the ground level. 5. Project Open Space: Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents, visitors, and/or employees of a site. The project includes ample private open balconies/terraces for residential use. Residents have convenient access to these spaces. These balconies/terraces are proposed to be located on four sides of the building, which would encourage ‘eyes on the street’. The roof- top terrace for office tenants would provide ample solar exposure. In addition to the ten planters, pietra cardosa and French limestone are proposed as paving materials for this space. 6. Parking Design: Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. The parking for the project proposes to be located below grade such that the parked cars are hidden from view. Consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guide, the garage would have access at the rear of the site from Lane 30 and side streets. The project would improve pedestrian visibility as the new building has a general four (4) feet setback from the alley and the setback would increase to six (6) feet at the intersection of Lane 30 and Kipling Street. Exterior building lighting would be included to ensure safety at building entrances and parking area on the ground level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project property lines. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design: Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. The project is required to meet the Cal Green requirements for the commercial portion of the project and Build-It-Green standards for the residential portion of the project. Design Review Findings City of Palo Alto Page 8 The project complies with the design review findings. Those findings are discussed in depth in Attachment XX. Trees and Landscaping The proposed landscaping would include the retention of the existing London Planes trees along the project sites at University Avenue, the removal of several older destructive trees and the upgraded planting of four new 36” box sized golden maidenhair trees along the Kipling Street frontage. To prevent potential sidewalk destruction caused by confined rooting, a special construction measure would be employed with the installation of Silva Cells to reduce soil compaction. The project proposes minimal landscaping on the ground, second and third floor. Ten concrete planters would be placed on paved terrace on the fourth floor. Public Art The project is subject to public art requirement. The proposal includes a preferred location for the installation of on-site public art, which would be located on the wall in the ground floor lobby to the upper floors on Kipling Street. ARB may provide advice on the placement of public art in relation to the site design and specially comment on the extent of the visibility of the wall shown in plans for the art, seen from the public right of way. The public Art Commission will approve the final location of public art. Parking and Circulation The proposed project would require 82 automobile parking spaces for 20,407 sf of commercial use (at a ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet) and 10 residential uses for 4 residential units (at a ratio of 2 spaces for each unit, with guest parking), for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, both 425 and 429-447 University Avenue were previously assessed and had paid ‘in lieu’ for a total of 37 parking spaces via the University Avenue Parking Assessment District. The project utilizes a total of XX sf of TDR. 5,000 sf of TDR (equivalent to 20 parking spaces) was recorded under Section 18.18.070 prior to the effective date of Interim Ordinance No. 5214 on November 4, 2013 and thus qualifies for a parking exemption. The remaining XX sf of TDRs were perfected after the interim parking ordinance and thus must be parked. Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 parking spaces, of which 10 must be designated for residential parking. The project plans indicate a total of 41 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by six spaces. All of the 40 parking spaces would be provided on site in the two-level underground parking garage and one space would be provided at-grade. Seven (7) long term bicycle parking spaces would be provided within the underground parking garage, and six (6) short term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. A Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in October 2014 in a manner consistent with the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. The result of the analysis indicates that the proposed project would not cause a significant impact on signalized City of Palo Alto Page 9 and un-signalized intersections, and local intersections would operate at acceptable service levels. The TIA also found that impacts would be less than significant for pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. To mitigate the impact on the service level at Lane 30, mitigation measure TRA- 2 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at the garage entrance/exist. An adequate corner sight distance is also required at the exit of the alley to ensure drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. The proposed project would provide a four (4) foot setback from the edge of the alley, to improve visibility for vehicles and pedestrians. Public Feedback Since the submittal of the current application, staff has received comments from 35 people. These letters are included as Attachment E. For those who are in support of this project, the general comments are related to the mixed use opportunity, retail space and parking improvement. For those who expressed concerns, the general comments are related to the height of the building, massing relative to the context, street character and safety, noise, parking and traffic. The applicant has submitted a letter to respond to these concerns (Attachment F). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The attached Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared in accordance with CEQA, analyzes the proposed project and its potential environmental impact. The public comment period for the environmental document began on November 17, 2014 and ends on December 12, 2014. The Initial Study and the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are included as Attachment G. The Initial study determined that there were items that would trigger the thresholds of significance, and provided mitigation measures, which would incorporated into Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Program with the second ARB staff report, to ensure that the impacts of these items would be less than significant. The areas identified as needing mitigation are listed below:  Biological Resources: related to the removal of four protected trees along Kipling Street;  Cultural Resources: related to the potential to discover subsurface cultural resources;  Hazards and Hazardous Materials: related to the demolition of existing buildings;  Noise: related to ensuring proposed residential development and mechanical equipment will meet the noise ordinance and;  Transportation and Traffic; related to visibility on the parking garage ramp. COURTESY COPIES Key Hayes, applicant Elizabeth Wong, property owner Prepared by: Christy Fong, Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 10 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director Attachments:  Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Zoning Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Compliance Table (DOC)  Attachment D: Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment E: Public Comment Letters (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment G: Draft Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (ARB Members Only) (DOCX) All Saints Episcopal Church 7-11 Garden Court Hotel Prolific Oven Palo Alto Sport Shop W FLORENC E ST REET KIPLIN G STREET LYTTON AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET TREET ETT AVENUE VENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET KIPLING STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO WPER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HAMILTON AVENUE WPER STREET TASSO STREET LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LANE 20 WEST 301 337 339 323 317 400 420 332 30 353 355 367418431 401 366 436426 #1-7 369 390 375 373- 377 416- 424 314 338 340 560 318-324 326 352 425 439-441 435429425 415-419 405 403 453 461 383 460 502 510 526 520 540 4 467 459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364 360 431 440-444 423 499 475 421-423 431-433 432 428 460-476 450 4 302- 316 379 320 328 332 340 437327 333 407 401 385 411 452 344-348 328 456 321 325 330 460 474 333 335- 337 351 457 451 465 463 489-499 360 530 480 420 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 419 405401 441 480-498 34 351 355 359 525 430 473 332- 342 500-528 54 0 530 531-535 579 567 555 408 412 440 435 445 32 8 447 515 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 435433 37 5 530 415 305 -313 405 508 482 330 349 312 443 445 447 335 506 327 469 321319 PF 74 CD-C(GF)(P))PF 4611 RMD(NP) PC-4052PF CD-C(P)PC-429 6 PC-4436 Varsity Theatre This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'150' 425 and 429-447 University AveProject Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2014 City of Palo Alto rrivera, 2014-11-13 13:52:22429University CF (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ATTACHMENT B Page 1 of 1 ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 11PLN-00222 CD-C ZONE (Mixed Use Development Standards) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMS Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required 0 Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 10’ for residential portion with permitted setback encroachment up to 6’ for balconies Yes Interior Side Yard None Required 0 Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 9,523 sf Yes Maximum Height 50’ 50’ Yes Daylight Plane Same as abutting residential zones Not Applicable Yes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 22,000 sf - 2.0:1 32,000 sf - With Transferable development rights 33,000 sf- Maximum 3.0:1 2.86:1 31,407 sf Yes Parking Requirement (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 92 spaces 1 space/250 sf commercial area 2 spaces/living unit 41 on-site spaces 57 spaces not required [per PAMC 18.18.080(g) & 18.18.090(b)(4)] Yes* Bicycle Parking Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Long Term: 7 Short Term: 6 Yes * At the time of the Downtown Parking Assessment, the two sites were determined to be 11,631square feet and required 47 parking spaces, ten spaces were identified on-site. The project shall comply with the parking requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Specifically, the applicant shall address the need to accommodate the 57 spaces otherwise proposed to be exempted under Section 18.18.080(g) and 18.18.090(a)(4). Measures to comply may include: a) payment of in-lieu parking fees, b) certification of FAR bonuses pursuant to Section 18.18.070(a)(1), c) certification of Transfer of Development Rights prior to November 4, 2013 pursuant to Section 18.18.080(g), d) approval of underground parking pursuant to 18.52.070(d), or e) some combination thereof. The method of compliance shall be presented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to submittal for building permits. ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 429 University Avenue / File No. 14PLN-00222 Program L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The Downtown Urban Design Guide is not mandatory but provides useful ideas and direction for private development and public improvement in the Downtown area. The project incorporates many of the goals of the Downtown Urban Design Guide including: (1) Reinforce University Avenue as the retail core of Downtown Palo Alto which by maintaining strong concentration of ground floor retail. (2) Create ground floor architectural interest with windows and displays (3) Continue retail vitality onto the side streets. Policy L-20 Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street concerns with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plaza. The project incorporates design to reinforce street corners and integrate with nearby sidewalks with great building frontage. Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The project incorporates several design considerations contained in the Downtown Urban Design Guide in that the project design would: (1) provides pedestrian friendly amenities such as recessed entries, canopies, and new street trees, (2) includes attractive display windows at frequent intervals that invite shoppers, (3) promotes a mixed of uses including housing and commercial. Policy L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/ Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian. The project incorporates pedestrian-friendly design and support bicycle use to complement the nearby Caltrain transit hub. Public art is proposed to be located onsite to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrian and building tenants. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The design of the new building fits well with the retail pedestrian environment of the downtown commercial district. Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. The project is consistent with this policy in that the proposed building would incorporate clear glass windows to promote a sense of safety. A variety of recessed entryways, glass canopies and balconies on both the University Avenue and Killing Street frontages would promote ‘eye-on-the-street’. Policy H-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. The proposed mixed use project provides two housing units. October 20, 2014 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 429 University ARB Major Review Project Description, Revised 10/20/14 To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect’s re-submittal package for 429 University Ave. for ARB major review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of Kipling Post LP. This package includes 6 sets of half-size drawings and 1 set of full-size drawings, plus 1 additional full- size set for public display, illustrating contextual photos, proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, section, and perspectives. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the northwest corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. It comprises two existing parcels, 425 University and 429 University. 425 University Ave. is a 4,425 SF, one- story commercial/retail building with mezzanine, while 429 University Ave. is a 7,208 SF, one- story commercial/retail building. Both are served by a 20-foot wide alley, Lane 30, at the rear of the sites. The property is surrounded by commercial buildings on all street frontages as well as across the alley Lane 30. Across University Avenue are the Varsity Theater, an historic resource, and the modern, Lululemon Athletica / Accel Partners retail/office, 4-story building. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT We propose to demolish and recycle, in accordance with Palo Alto’s waste and recycling requirements, both of the existing buildings and combine the two parcels to form one 11,000 SF parcel. The Applicant proposes a new four-story commercial, retail, and residential mixed-use building of 31,407 SF. The 2.86:1 FAR is achieved by replacing the existing above grade square footage, transferring 4,207 parked TDR and 5,000 TDR that is exempt from parking, TDR from separate properties, and a (1) one-time 200 SF parked bonus for the project. The project has no intention for subdivision. As a pedestrian oriented corner property, the project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue, extending down Kipling Street. Along this frontage, the building addresses the street with frameless glass that is intended to maximize visibility for the retail experience. Further down Kipling St. is the entry lobby for the upper floor professional office, residential, and fourth floor office and/or break room servicing the office tenant. The building above is clad with stone and crystalized glass panels that carry around the University/Kipling corner to the concrete tower at the northern edge of the property. The building has a solid, cubic framework that is both clean and modern. The third floor residences are stepped back layered from the façade to create relief, depth, and visual interest while at the same time providing terraces that overlook the lively street below. The fourth floor has been set back from the floors below in response to the Preliminary ARB and neighbor comments, lowering the height of the building and providing a rooftop terrace. 3. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES The number of parking spaces required after application of the Existing Assessment District credit and TDR exempted parking are 35 spaces. The building provides two levels of below- grade garage with a total of 40 spaces and one space at grade for a total of 41 spaces. Short-term bicycle parking spaces are located near the main entrances on University Ave. and Kipling St. Long-term bicycle parking spaces are provided at the basement parking area. 4. TRASH/RECYCLING Trash and recycling facility serving the needs of the commercial area is located in the building and is accessible for the waste truck from the alley. A separate facility is provided for the residences and is also accessible for the waste truck from the alley driveway. 5. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD In accordance with the city’s Green Building Ordinance, this project will comply with California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The building seeks to use both conventional as well as sustainable materials, including a concrete frame, high efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems as well as an energy efficient cool roof. Provisions have been made for car pool/ clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. We look forward to a staff review and scheduling of an ARB Major hearing so that we can proceed with the development of this project. Please call me at (650) 365-0600 x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal CC: Elizabeth Wong, Kipling Post LP 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT Initial Study NOVEMBER 2014 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................2 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS ...................5 A. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................... 6 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 9 C. AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................... 10 D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 13 E CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 15 F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ........................................................ 17 G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 19 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.............................................. 20 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................... 23 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING .......................................................................... 25 K. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................. 27 L. NOISE .................................................................................................................. 28 M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................... 31 N. PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................... 32 O. RECREATION ................................................................................................... 33 P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ............................................................ 33 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 39 R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................... 40 III SOURCE REFERENCES ...............................................................................................41 SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY)................................................................................... 41 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................. 41 IV DETERMINATION ........................................................................................................43 FIGURES 1 Regional Map 2 Vicinity Map 3 Aerial Map 4 Site Plan 5 Elevations 6 Perspective Renderings 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 1 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. PROJECT TITLE 429 University Avenue 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Christy Fong, Planner City of Palo Alto 650.838.2996 4. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Kipling Post LP Contact: Elizabeth Wong PO Box 204 Palo Alto, California 94302 650.323.5295 5. APPLICATION NUMBER 14PLN-00222 6. PROJECT LOCATION 429 University Avenue Palo Alto, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 120-15-029 and 120-15-028 The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto (City), in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101 (Figure 1, Regional Map). The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map, and Figure 3, Aerial Map. All figures are provided at the end of this document. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 2 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Palo Alto 1998–2010 Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan; City of Palo Alto 2007). This land use designation includes larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters, and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Non-residential floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.35 to 2.0. The project site is part of a Regional/Community Commercial district that extends from Alma Avenue on the south to Webster Street on the north and between Lytton Avenue on the west and Hamilton and Forest Avenues on the east. 8. ZONING The Zoning designation of the project site is Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.18. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The CD-C (community) subdistrict is intended to modify the site development regulations to allow specific variations to the uses and development requirements of the CD district. The project site is also within the pedestrian shopping (P) and ground floor (GF) combining districts. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The ground floor combining district is intended to modify the uses allowed in the CD district to allow only retail, eating and drinking, and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor. 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The proposed building plans are provided in Appendix A. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86 (Figure 5, Elevations). The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR will be achieved through the transfer of 9,207 square feet of development rights from separate properties, of which 4,207 square feet require parking and 5,000 square feet are exempt from parking requirements. The project is also eligible for a one-time 200-square-foot bonus, which is subject to the City’s parking requirements. Together, these TDRs and bonuses would allow the project to achieve the proposed 2.86 FAR. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 3 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner to the concrete tower at the northern edge of the property. The third-floor residential units would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for the residences. The fourth floor would be set back from the floors below and would provide a rooftop terrace. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 41 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by six spaces. Forty parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage and one space would be provided at-grade. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING As shown on Figures 2 and 3, the project site is located on University Avenue in Downtown Palo Alto. The project site is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Located directly across University Avenue from the site is a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three- story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The surrounding uses on Kipling Street serve as a transition between the primarily commercial University Avenue and the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north. Lower-intensity commercial/office uses and single-family residential line both sides of Kipling Street. A yoga studio is located behind the project site, accessed from an alley off Kipling Street (the alley is referred to as Lane 30 E). A public surface parking lot is located on Kipling Street, less than a block north of University Avenue, which provides parking for nearby uses. Another public surface parking lot is located on Cowper Street, between University and Hamilton Avenues. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 4 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. (A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, “Earlier Analysis,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The second column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 5 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 2, 3 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a public view or view corridor? 1, 3 (Map L4) X c) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 1, 3 (Map L4) X d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan policies regarding visual resources? 1, 2, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project includes replacing two existing one-story retail buildings with a new four-story mixed-use building. While the proposed project would result in a change in the existing visual character of the site, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As shown on Figure 5, Elevations, and Figure 6, Perspective Renderings, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the project would not exceed the allowable height (50 feet) for the site. The design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The façade would be divided into 25-foot sections consisting of the solid stair element, the glass entry element with recessed residential terrace, and the secondary grid inside the main building form. The fourth floor of the building would set back 10 feet from the alley property line and 7 feet from the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. Although the proposed stair element would be taller, anchoring the corner of the alley, it would be similar in style to vertical accents in the façades of existing homes along Kipling Street. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District, including the four-story Lululemon Athletica/Accel Partners building located directly across University Avenue. The University Avenue façade would appear to be three stories tall. The fourth floor would be set back 30 feet from the front of the building creating a terrace for use by building occupants and guests. The fourth-floor terrace would extend along the length of the building as would the main three-story building block, giving definition to the street edge and presence to 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 6 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the building when seen in the context of the street. The main rectangular mass of the building would be elevated so the bottom aligns with the first floor openings of the adjacent buildings along University Avenue. Frameless glass would create display windows and entries that would activate the sidewalk through visual and physical connections. Retention of existing trees along the project site’s University Avenue frontage and the planting of new trees along the Kipling Street frontage would soften the views of the new building from public roadways and adjacent uses. The building would be built within the buildable area of the property and no public views or view corridors would be affected by the proposed building. The project site is located in a developed area of the City, is not within a state scenic highway; therefore, it would not damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Land Use and Community Design Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes several policies related to visual resources, including the following: • Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. • Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. • Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. • Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. As described above, the proposed project would comply with the height and setback requirements for the project site. In addition, the project has been designed to blend into the existing development on both Kipling Street and University Avenue. The proposed building design recognizes that the uses along Kipling Street are smaller in scale and lower in intensity than those on University Avenue, and the project design responds to the adjacent uses by minimizing the appearance of an abrupt change in scale between the two areas. The University Avenue frontage would create an inviting retail environment and provide a pleasant pedestrian experience, thereby enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the City’s central business district. In addition, as described above, the proposed building design would activate the sidewalk through the use of human-scale architectural details and frameless glass windows on the ground floor. The project site is currently developed with retail uses, which include sources of light and glare. Uses associated with the proposed structure would not create a substantial amount of additional lighting and glare. Glare is defined as a light source in the field of vision that is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. Glare can result from sunlight or from artificial light 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 7 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto reflecting off building exteriors, such as glass windows or other highly reflective surface materials. Glare is particularly associated with high light intensity. It can be reduced by design features that block direct line of sight to the light source and that direct light downward, with little or no light emitted at high (near horizontal) angles, since this light would travel long distances. Cutoff-type light fixtures minimize glare because they emit relatively low-intensity light at these angles. Glare resulting from sunlight reflecting off building exteriors can be reduced with design features that use low-reflective glass and exterior materials and colors that absorb rather than reflect light. The proposed building would increase the number and surface area of windows compared to the existing building. The Kipling Street frontage faces northeast and has limited direct sunlight exposure, while the University Avenue frontage faces southeast and receives more sunlight exposure. At the street level along these frontages, the project proposes a series of storefront system windows with canopies over the entrances. On the second floor, windows would also be provided on these frontages and would be shaded by canopies to reduce glare. The third floor would be set back from the building façade on the University Avenue frontage and Lane 30 E, creating a large overhang that would shade windows along this side. The fourth floor would be set back even farther along University Avenue, such that glare from windows would not be visible from the street. The Kipling Street frontage would receive less sunlight exposure and the windows on this side of the building are not anticipated to create substantial glare. The primary use of exterior building lighting would be to ensure safety at building entrances. Exterior building lighting is proposed at the rear entrance of the building on Lane 30, as well as within the ramp to the underground parking level. This lighting would be controlled to minimize spillover beyond the project site property lines. The project is also required to meet the City’s lighting standards, including PAMC Section 18.23.030, which establishes that “Exterior lighting in parking areas, pathways and common open space shall be designed to achieve the following: (1) provide for safe and secure access on the site, (2) achieve maximum energy efficiency, and (3) reduce impacts or visual intrusions on abutting or nearby properties from spillover and architectural lighting that projects upward.” PAMC Section 18.23.030 also requires that “lighting of the building exterior, parking areas and pedestrian ways should be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose, and be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture.” Although the project would result in increased building height compared to the existing buildings, which could increase shading, there are no adjacent public spaces other than streets and sidewalks that would be affected by additional shadows. Specifically, the proposed building would increase shading on Kipling Street and Lane 30 E, which are public streets. The project is subject to design review and approval by the City through the Architectural Review process, which ensures compliance with City standards to promote visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. Therefore, for the reasons described above, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 8 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 3 (Map L9), 4 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)1) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 45262)? 1, 4 X d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 1 X X DISCUSSION As reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, the project site is located in a developed urban area in Downtown Palo Alto and does not contain and land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation (2011). The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not subject to any Williamson Act contracts. The project site is within a fully developed urban area and does not support forest or timberland. No impacts to agricultural and forestry resources would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. 1 California Public Resources Code 12220(g): “Forest land” is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. 2 California Public Resources Code 4526: “Timberland” means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 9 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto C. AIR QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1, 2, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: i. Direct and/or indirect operational emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)? 1, 2, 6 X ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations exceeding the State Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling, which would be performed when a. project CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day or 100 tons per year; or b. project traffic would impact intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service (LOS) D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to D, E or F; or c. project would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10% or more)? 1, 2, 6, 17 X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1, 2, 6 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1, 2 X i. Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) exceeds 10 in one million? 1, 2 X ii. Ground-level concentrations of non- carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEI? 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 10 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 2 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, which is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin attains and maintains compliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD regulates air quality through its permit authority over most types of stationary emissions sources and through its planning and review process. The California ambient air quality standards are generally more stringent than federal standards. The federal and state Clean Air Acts define allowable concentrations of six air pollutants, which are referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” When monitoring indicates that a region regularly experiences air pollutant concentrations that exceed those limits, the region is designated as nonattainment and is required to develop an air quality plan that describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented to reduce air pollutant emissions and concentrations. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone (O3) standard. The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other federal standards. The area is designated nonattainment for state standards for 1-hour and 8-hour O3, 24-hour coarse particulate matter (PM10), annual PM10, and annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5). To address the region’s nonattainment status, the BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAAQMD 2006) and the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010a), which is an update to the 2005 document and provides “an integrated, multi-pollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate.” The 2010 plan addresses O3, PM2.5 and PM10, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 2010 plan identifies a number of control measures to be adopted or implemented to reduce emissions of these pollutants. As the proposed project is consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the project site, it is consistent with the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD has adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) air quality guidelines (2010 BAAQMD Guidelines; BAAQMD 2010b) that establish air pollutant emission thresholds that identify whether a project would violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compared with the previous set of guidelines adopted in 1999, the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines lower the level of pollutant emissions and health risk impacts that are considered a significant environmental impact. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the thresholds has been challenged in court. However, the litigation is procedural in nature and does not assert that the BAAQMD failed to provide substantial evidence to support its adoption of these thresholds. Because the 2010 thresholds are more conservative than the BAAQMD’s prior thresholds, this impact analysis is based on the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate air pollutant emissions is necessary. Table 1 lists several examples of screening levels set by the 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 11 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Table 1 BAAQMD Screening Criteria Land Use Type Construction Related Screening Size Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Screening Size* General office building 277,000 sf (ROG) 346,000 sf (NOx) Office park 277,000 sf (ROG) 323,000 sf (NOx) Regional shopping center or strip mall 277,000 sf (ROG) 99,000 sf (NOx) Quality restaurant 277,000 sf (ROG) 47,000 sf (NOx) Single-family residential 114 du (ROG) 325 du (ROG) Apartment, low-rise, or condo/townhouse, general 240 du (ROG) 451 du (ROG) City park 67 acres (PM10) 2,613 acres (ROG) Daycare center 277,000 sf (ROG) 53,000 sf (NOx) Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1. Notes: sf = square feet; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; du = dwelling units. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project size is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. Construction Emissions The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the screening thresholds of 277,000 square feet (office or regional shopping center/strip mall space) and 240 dwelling units (apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general) for construction emissions. While the project size is less than the screening criteria size for construction, the project would require demolition of existing buildings. The BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommend that the screening criteria should not be applied to projects that include demolition. Therefore, project-specific modeling of construction emissions has been completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2. Table 2 presents the estimated air pollutant emissions for each construction phase; the CalEEMod output results are included as Appendix B. As shown in Table 2, emissions during each construction phase would remain below the BAAQMD threshold, which is 54 pounds per day. Further, the project would implement all of the construction emission control measures as identified in Table 8-2 of the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines recommended for all proposed projects, as required by the City of Palo Alto standard conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 2 Proposed Project Construction Emissions by Phase Phase ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 (maximum pounds per day) Demolition 1.62 14.21 10.98 2.56 1.94 Excavation 2.95 35.30 23.50 3.15 1.86 Building construction 1.62 15.25 10.26 1.22 0.99 Parking structure paving 1.29 11.64 8.50 0.90 0.72 Architectural coatings 28.48 2.59 2.11 0.25 0.22 Source: Air Quality Modeling Results (see Appendix B). Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 12 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Operational Emissions The project would result in a total of 20,407 square feet of retail and office space, which is a net increase of 8,774 square feet compared to the existing conditions. In addition, four new dwelling units would be constructed. This total increase in development is substantially below the screening thresholds of 346,000 square feet (office space), 99,000 square feet (regional shopping center or strip mall), and 451 dwelling units (apartment, low rise or condo/townhouse, general) for operational emissions (see Table 1). As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. Project operation would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with the air quality plan; impacts would remain less than significant. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national O3 standards and state PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin’s nonattainment status is attributed to the region’s development history. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. As described in the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, “by its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant” (BAAQMD 2010b). Because operation of the proposed project would not result in emissions that violate any applicable air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures None required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1), 11 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, including federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 1, 2, 3 (Map N1) X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 13 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or as defined by the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.10)? 1, 2, 3, 5 X e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1 X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located on a parcel that is almost entirely developed with existing buildings and paved parking, which would be removed to accommodate the project. Due to its developed nature, the site does not support sensitive habitats and has a very low potential to support candidate, sensitive, and special-status species. The site is not subject to any habitat conservation plans. The project site supports trees protected by Palo Alto’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. The PAMC regulates specific types of trees on public and private property for the purpose of avoiding their removal or disfigurement without first being reviewed and permitted by the City. Three categories within the status of regulated trees include protected trees, street trees, and designated trees. As documented in the Tree Survey Report prepared for the site by Davey Resource Group (provided in Appendix A), the site includes six street trees, two in bulb-outs into the parking area along University Avenue and four in the sidewalk along Kipling Street. These trees were determined to be in poor to fair condition. The proposed project includes the retention of the two existing street trees on University Avenue (London plane trees (Platanus x acerifolia)), removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street (two ornamental pears (Pyrus calleryana) and two carob trees (Ceratonia siliqua)), and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees. Construction of the project could impact the two trees to be retained on University Avenue if the trees are not properly protected. In addition, removal of the four street trees on Kipling Street would result in a significant impact if not completed in accordance with requirements for tree removal and replacement; therefore, mitigation is provided to ensure that these potential impacts remain below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 14 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. E CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1, 7 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1, 3 (Map L8) X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1, 3 (Map L8), 7 X e) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or eligible for listing on the National and/or California Register, or listed on the City’s Historic Inventory? 1, 3 (Map L7), 8 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 7, 8 X DISCUSSION The proposed project involves excavation and construction activities within a fully developed and previously disturbed site. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan map of archaeologically sensitive areas (Figure L-8, Archaeological Resource Areas) indicates that the project site falls within an area of "Moderate Sensitivity" based on topographic setting, including proximity to major drainages, and potential to encounter undocumented subsurface archaeological deposits. A Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search records search was conducted by Dudek on September 25, 2014 and found that no cultural resources have been recorded in the project site (see Appendix C). The only archaeological site identified within the 0.5-mile radius of the project site as a result of the records search is CA-SCL-598. This site was first identified in 1922 and was described as a 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 15 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto “mine” of bones encountered 10 feet below the surface, including the skeleton of one adult human. Because no associated artifacts were reported and no additional details about the find were reported, the context of the find is not clear. An extended history of past disturbance suggests that there is a very low potential for encountering intact subsurface cultural deposits. Based on these findings, potential for the inadvertent discovery of subsurface archaeological or historical resources at the project site is very low. However, there is the potential to discover unknown cultural resources during site excavation. In the event any archaeological or human remains are discovered on the site, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant by ensuring appropriate evaluation, recordation, and protection procedures are undertaken. Historical architectural evaluations were prepared by Preservation Architecture for the existing buildings located on the project site to determine the potential for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (see Appendix D). The existing building at 429 University Avenue, which was built in 1927, has not been identified as a potential historical resource by the City or the state, nor is the building included in a historic district. Moreover, no architect, engineer, designer or builder of the original building has been identified. The exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, such that the original façade and storefronts are entirely lost, and the architectural building form has lost its characteristic design and material integrity. The historical evaluation determined that the building does not have historical architectural or historical resource potential and is therefore not eligible for listing on the CRHR. The existing building at 425 University Avenue was constructed circa 1937 and has since been used for office and commercial uses. The original architects of the building at 425 University Avenue, Birge M. Clark and David B. Clark of Palo Alto, are recognized as local masters. However, the exterior of the building has been extensively altered over time, including the complete loss of the original façade and storefront. The building was evaluated for historical resource eligibility and although the building has the potential for significance under the CRHR, the loss of integrity of the structure renders it ineligible for listing on the CRHR. Since the project site does not include any eligible historical resources or examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, no impacts to historical resources would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 16 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. F. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? 9 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 3 (Map N-10), 9 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3 (Map N5), 12 X iv) Landslides? 3 (Map N5) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 9 X c) Result in substantial siltation? 1 X d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 3 (Map N5), 9 X e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 3 (Map N5), 9 X f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1 X g) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 2, 9 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 17 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto DISCUSSION Murray Engineers Inc. (Murray Engineers) prepared a geotechnical investigation report for the project site in September 2013 (see Appendix E). The geotechnical report identifies potential geologic hazards that may affect the project site and presents recommendations for design and construction of the project. Given the project site’s location in a seismically active area, there is potential for severe ground shaking during an earthquake. High levels of ground shaking during potential future earthquakes and soil conditions that may be unsuitable to support construction-related excavations and site improvements are typical issues of concern related to development in seismically active areas. These issues are routinely encountered in California, and there is no evidence that unique or unusual geologic hazards are present on site (e.g., mapped landslide, collapsible soils, lateral spread) that would require additional mitigation beyond what is already required as part of the City’s standard development approval processes. Seismic ground shaking and the presence of adverse soil conditions would be addressed through required compliance with the California Building Code (and local amendments) as well as incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into the project’s construction and design plans. The geotechnical report indicates the project site is located in an area where there have been historical occurrences of earthquake-induced liquefaction and there is the potential for “permanent earthquake-induced ground displacement.” The Association of Bay Area Governments indicates the site is in an area with a moderate chance of liquefaction. However, there are no active or potentially active faults that cross the project site, and the project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Fault Zone (USGS 2013). The closest active fault is the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles southwest of the site. It is the opinion of Murray Engineers that the potential for fault rupture at the site is very low. The project site is flat and is not located in an area susceptible to landslides. The geotechnical report did not indicate that there are expansive soils, corrosive soils, and/or soils subject to settlement present. Soils found on the project site consist of layers of fine- and coarse-grained alluvium to a depth of 45 feet. The upper approximately 5 to 8 feet consist of very stiff to hard surficial silty clay, underlain by 4 to 6 feet of medium dense to very dense gravelly to silty sand, and then underlain by 20 to 25 feet of very stiff silty clay. The clay is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey to silty sand to a depth of 45 feet. Murray Engineers conducted additional soil testing to determine the likelihood of liquefaction occurring. Based on their analysis, the silty sand was determined to be very dense and therefore likely too dense to be considered liquefiable. In addition, the report concluded the “site should have a sufficiently thick and relatively dense, non-liquefiable layer above the groundwater table capping the potentially liquefiable layers at greater depths to mitigate the potential for sand boils or surface venting during an earthquake.” All new construction is subject to the earthquake design parameters contained in Chapter 16, Section 1613, of the 2013 California Building Code, directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life and property in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City’s standard conditions of approval will ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil remain less than significant. These conditions require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits. Requirements and standards of adequacy for the grading and drainage plans are contained in the PAMC. The project site would be connected to the City’s sewer system and would not involve use of septic tanks. Impacts to geologic resources and soils and impacts associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 18 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impacts Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 2, 6 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2, 6 X DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The state’s plan for meeting the reduction target is outlined in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008 Scoping Plan; CARB 2008). CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan fact sheet states, “This plan calls for an ambitious but achievable reduction in California’s carbon footprint—toward a clean energy future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emissions levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today’s levels. On a per-capita basis, that means reducing annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020.” CARB’s GHG emissions inventory report found the total statewide GHG emissions in 2011 were equivalent to 448.1 million tons of CO2 (CARB 2013). Compared with the emissions in 2001, this is a 6% decrease. As described in Section C, Air Quality, the BAAQMD adopted the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines, which establish screening criteria based on the size of a project to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary (BAAQMD 2010b). Projects that are smaller than the GHG screening criteria size are considered to have less than significant GHG emissions and would not conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions. Table 3 presents GHG screening level examples taken from the BAAQMD 2010 Guidelines. Table 3 BAAQMD Operational GHG Screening Criteria Land Use Type Operational GHG Screening Size* Single-family residential 56 du Apartment, low-rise or condo/townhouse, general 78 du Apartment, mid-rise 87 du Condo/townhouse, general 78 du Regional shopping center 19 ksf Strip mall 19 ksf Hardware/paint store 16 ksf Daycare center 11,000 sf General office building 53,000 sf Medical office building 22,000 sf Office park 50,000 sf Quality restaurant 9,000 sf Source: BAAQMD 2010b, Table 3-1, Operational-Related Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Screening Level Sizes. Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; du = dwelling unit; sf = square feet. * If the project size is less than the screening size, the project would have less than significant impacts. If the project is greater than the screening size, detailed project-specific modeling is required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 19 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The project would result in a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space along with four new dwelling units; this is substantially below the BAAQMD screening thresholds of 53,000 square feet (office space), 19,000 square feet (commercial space) and 78 dwelling units (condo/townhouse) for operational GHG emissions. As the project is substantially smaller than the screening criteria size, GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would remain below the BAAQMD thresholds. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements identified in Chapter 16.14 of the PAMC, including attainment of a minimum Build It Green score of 70 for the residential portion of the project. Project operation would not result in GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures None required. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Note: Some of the thresholds can also be dealt with under a topic heading of Public Health and Safety if the primary issues are related to a subject other than hazardous material use. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 1, 2 X d) Construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions or accidental release? 1 X e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 20 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? 1 X h) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 1, 3 (Map N7) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 3 (Map N7) X j) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment from existing hazardous materials contamination by exposing future occupants or users of the site to contamination in excess of soil and ground water cleanup goals developed for the site? 1, 2, 10, 11, 12 X DISCUSSION Phase I environmental site assessments (ESAs) were prepared for the project site and include a general assessment of the nature and extent of past activities, if any, on the site that could have used hazardous materials, and whether the site appears to have evidence of soils or groundwater contamination. A Phase I ESA was prepared for the commercial buildings located at 429, 435, 441, and 447 University Avenue by Professional Service Industries Inc. in August 1999. In June 2010 an environmental transaction screen (ETS) for buildings located at 429–447 University Avenue was prepared by AEI to identify any potential environmental issues associated with past and present activities in the handling, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, a follow-up Phase I ESA was prepared for 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street3 by Transaction Management Corporation (TMC) in April 2014. The Phase I ESAs and ETS are included in Appendix F. Both of the Phase I ESAs and the ETS report indicate that due to the age of the buildings there is the potential for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint to be present. TMC recommends preparation of an operations and maintenance plan for ACMs given the potential for occurrence in the 425 University Avenue building. The 2014 Phase I ESA indicates that the property at 425 University Avenue is not on any state or federal list of potentially hazardous sites. In addition, the 2010 ETS and the 1999 Phase I ESA indicate that the project site does not contain a recognized environmental condition, as defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Both reports conclude there also is no evidence of a recognized environmental condition off site that could impact the project site. In addition, the project site is not listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups database and there was no evidence of soil or groundwater contamination. The project involves the demolition of two buildings and construction of a new building. Demolition activities could release hazardous building materials into the air. Construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During project construction, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations. Operation of the proposed project would not include any uses that would require the transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials, other than typical household and landscaping materials. The types 3 450 Kipling Street is not part of the project. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 21 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto and quantities of these common household chemicals would not be substantial and would not pose a health risk to residents of the project or any adjacent uses. Groundwater was identified in the geotechnical investigation at depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. It is not anticipated that construction of the subsurface garage would require dewatering due to the depth of groundwater; however, if required, the project applicant would comply with standard conditions of the City’s architectural review process, which require special procedures for dewatering. Specifically, the City’s Public Works Department, Water Quality Control Plan section, would require that prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including ROGs) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Method 601/602. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If the concentration of any VOC exceeds 5 micrograms per liter (5 parts per billion), the water may not be discharged to the storm drain system and an Exceptional Discharge Permit for discharge to the sanitary sewer must be obtained from the RWQCB prior to discharge. Additionally, any water discharged to the storm drain system is required to be free of sediment. Based on the construction date of the existing buildings (1927), it appears that the buildings may contain ACMs and may contain lead-based paints. Lead-based paints could also be present and the light ballasts may be a source of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Therefore, demolition of the existing buildings could result in hazards related to the release or disposal of these hazardous materials. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require surveys and proper disposal methods to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school, Addison Elementary School, is located approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impacts to schools associated with hazardous materials at the project site would occur. There are no airports within 2 miles of the project site. The nearest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. Therefore, no impact related to safety hazards associated with aircraft would occur. The proposed project would not impair or interfere with the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. The nearest evacuation route to the project site is University Avenue. The project would not result in any changes to this evacuation route, would not substantially increase traffic or roadway congestion such that use of the evacuation route would be hindered, and would not otherwise impair implementation of the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. Therefore, no impact related to emergency response or evacuation would occur. The project site is located in a developed urban area that is not identified as a high or medium fire hazard area in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, no impact related to fire risks would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Any demolition activities likely to disturb LCMs or ACMs shall be carried out by a contractor trained and qualified to conduct lead- or asbestos-related construction work. If found, LCMs and ACMs shall be disposed of in accordance with state and federal regulations, including the EPA’s Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, the Cal-OSHA Construction Lead Standard (CCR Title 8, Section 1432.1), and California Department of Toxic Substances Control and EPA requirements for disposal of hazardous waste. If PCBs are found, these materials shall be managed in accordance with the Metallic Discards Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185) and other state and federal guidelines and regulations. Demolition plans and contract specifications shall incorporate any necessary abatement measures in compliance with the Metallic Discards Act, 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 22 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto particularly Section 42175, Materials Requiring Special Handling, for the removal of mercury switches, PCB- containing ballasts, and refrigerants. Level of Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1, 2, 3 (Map N2), 13, 14 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 1, 2, 13, 14 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1, 2, 13, 14 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 2, 13, 14 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 1, 3 (Map N6) X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 3 (Map N6) X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam or being located within a 100-year flood hazard area? 1, 3 (Map N8) X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3 (Map N6) X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 23 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact k) Result in stream bank instability? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project site is fully developed, and the proposed project would not substantially change the amount of impervious surface area on the project site, nor would the project rely on groundwater for its water supply. With the exception of some street trees on University Avenue and Kipling Street, the existing site is composed of buildings and paved surface parking lots and thus is largely impervious. According to the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments (included as Appendix G to this document) prepared for the project, the project site currently contains 11,000 square feet of impervious surface with the existing buildings and parking lot area. The project is proposing to maintain the same development footprint (0.252 acre). The project would not alter existing grades in the area and would not change drainage patterns or lead to increased erosion or sedimentation of nearby waterways. Groundwater was identified at a depth of approximately 33.5 to 35 feet below existing grade level. In addition, stormwater runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from surface water discharge. Locally, the NPDES project is administered by the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB worked with cities and counties throughout the region to prepare and adopt a Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit. This Regional Permit identifies minimum standards and provisions that the City of Palo Alto, as a permitee, must require of new development and redevelopment projects within the city limits. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes. The proposed project would be required to comply with all city, state, and federal standards pertaining to stormwater run-off and water quality. Under the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB generally requires new development projects to implement Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to treat stormwater runoff. However, the regional permit also allows LID treatment reduction credits for three categories of “smart growth” projects – urban infill, high-density, and transit oriented development projects. These are called “Special Projects” in the regional permit, and are approved for reductions in the requirements for LID treatment in recognition of the fact that smart growth development projects can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less “accessory” impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. The RWCQB recognizes that these types of projects have inherent water quality and other environmental benefits. The project applicant has applied for and obtained a C.3 Special Project Category A determination based on the following: the project would preserve or enhance a pedestrian-oriented type of urban design, would be located in a Commercial downtown zone, would replace less than 0.5 acre of impervious surface area, would have minimal surface parking, and more than 85% of the site would be covered by the proposed building. Due to the small project site and its location in a developed urban commercial corridor, it would not be feasible to construct grassy swales or other LID features to treat stormwater. There is not sufficient space to accommodate biotreatment facilities or to route runoff to an appropriate discharge point. Since the project meets the criteria listed above, the project would receive 100% LID treatment reduction credit and be allowed to treat 100% of the amount of storm water runoff with non-LID treatment measures. Stormwater runoff from the site would be collected and piped to a mechanical device (manufactured by Contech Stormwater Solutions) which is an accepted storm filter treatment facility. The mechanical device would be located onsite and stormwater runoff would be treated prior to flowing by gravity into the street and ultimately into the City’s storm drain system. The applicant would also be required to enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee that the project provide the required maintenance and/or replacement of the device for the life of the project. By providing approved and appropriate stormwater runoff collection and conveyance, and ensuring long- 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 24 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto term maintenance of the collection and conveyance infrastructure, the project would have less than significant impacts related to violating water quality standards or contributing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project includes a subsurface garage with a maximum depth of 27 feet below grade. Reducing the number of exposed parking spaces also reduces the potential for stormwater to carry pollutants such as litter and/or leaking motor fluids. Due to the depth of groundwater, dewatering is not anticipated; however, due to fluctuations in groundwater it is possible that construction activities could encounter groundwater. Since the garage would be designed to be watertight and no permanent dewatering system would be required, it is expected that the impact to groundwater flow would be less than significant. The nearest surface water in the vicinity of the project site is San Francisquito Creek, located approximately 0.5 mile west of the site. Stormwater runoff is directed toward storm drain grates located in one covered parking space and in the adjacent alleyway that parallels the northwest boundary of the project site. The project site is located within Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 06085C0010H (FEMA 2009). This indicates that the project site is not in a zone expected to be subject to inundation in a 100-year flood event. Additionally, the project site is not located within an area identified as a dam failure inundation area as shown on maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG 2003). The project site is not subject to flooding or inundation and construction of the project would result in no impacts associated with exposure of people to flood-related hazards. The project site is located in Downtown Palo Alto on relatively flat ground and is not near an open body of water or near a hillside; therefore, there is no risk for seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazards. No impacts related to these hazards would result from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, there are no streams within or adjacent to the site, and the project would have no impacts related to streambank stability. Mitigation Measures None required. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 2, 3, 4 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 2 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1, 2, 3, 4 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 25 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact area, including density and building height? f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1, 2 X g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to non-agricultural use? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The proposed project, a 31,407-square-foot, four-story commercial, office, and residential building, is an allowed use as regulated by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan (PAMC; City of Palo Alto 2007). The project would replace two single-story buildings currently used for retail with the proposed mixed-use building. The increase from one story to four stories on the site would change the existing scale; however, buildings in the surrounding area include a modern four-story mixed-use office and retail building across the street, with ground floor retail and upper story offices. Larger mixed-use and office buildings are located farther east along University Avenue, including a six-story building and a three-story building on the corner of University Avenue and Cowper Street. The project would increase the existing retail, office, and residential land uses in the immediate vicinity and would not introduce any incompatible land uses. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the project site is Regional/Community Commercial, per the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed-use development in the project area through the following policies: • Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. • Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. • Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. • Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. Since the project proposes a mixed-use development in an area where mixed-uses are encouraged and the project design reflects a pedestrian scale, the project would be consistent with the policies listed above. The zoning designation is Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining Districts (CD- C(P)(GF)). This zone’s regulations are set forth in PAMC Chapters 18.18 and 18.30. The CD district provides for a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The project would also include construction of two levels of underground parking and installation of new landscaping. The project is in compliance with the applicable CD-C (community) subdistrict zoning and parking regulations. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The maximum building height in this district is 50 feet. The base FAR in the CD-C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with TDRs and/or bonuses for seismic and historical rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project includes TDRs and bonuses to achieve the maximum 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 26 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto allowable FAR of 2.86. The project would not conflict with existing zoning. In addition, the Pedestrian Shopping (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining district regulations that apply to this site are intended to enhance the pedestrian environment through the continuity of retail stores and design windows in retail districts and allow only service-oriented commercial uses on the ground floor. The proposed project is designed to comply with the combining district regulations with ground-floor retail and façade details to enhance the pedestrian experience. In addition, the project would be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria for development in a commercial district, which promotes pedestrian oriented design that is compatible with adjacent development. The project site is surrounded by primarily mixed-use and commercial buildings along University Avenue, ranging in height from one to six stories. As described in Section A., Aesthetics, the proposed building would be larger in scale and mass than some of the adjacent buildings along Kipling Street; however, the project would be similar in scale and mass to other buildings in the vicinity along University Avenue in the Downtown area. In addition, the design of the building’s Kipling Street façade would reflect the smaller scale of the existing development along Kipling Street. The fourth floor of the building would be set back 10 feet from the alley property line and 7 feet from the Kipling Street property line resulting in a street façade that would appear as a three-story building. The University Avenue façade is designed to respond not only to the buildings immediately adjacent and west of the subject property but to the taller, higher density development of the University Avenue Commercial District. The design of the proposed building is intended to minimize the potential for incompatibility with surrounding uses. In addition, as described in Section A., Aesthetics, the project design will be reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board to ensure that compatibility concerns are addressed and it does not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project would comply with all plans for conservation of biological resources, and would not impact farmland. See Sections B and D for further discussion of these topics. Mitigation Measures None required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 3 X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1, 3 X DISCUSSION The City has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The Division of Mines and Geology has not classified the City for other resources. There is no indication in the Comprehensive Plan that there are locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed mixed-use building on the currently developed project site would result in no impacts related to mineral resources. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 27 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1, 2, 3, 15 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels? 1, 2, 15 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 2, 15 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1, 15 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1, 2 X g) Cause the average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an existing residential area, even if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X h) Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area, thereby causing the Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1, 2, 15 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1, 2, 15 X k) Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or greater? 1, 2, 15 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dBA or more? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Noise would be generated during the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of the proposed mixed-use project. The magnitude of the construction noise would depend on the type of construction activity, the noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment, site geometry (i.e., shielding from intervening structures), and the distance between the noise source and receiver. Construction noise levels are 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 28 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto based on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study (EPA 1971), which measured average noise levels during construction stages for a variety of typical projects. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing and 60 dB corresponding roughly to the noise level of a typical conversation. Typically, a weighting system is applied to sound levels to more closely correlate sound levels with human perception, recognizing that humans are less sensitive to sounds in frequency ranges below 1,000 hertz (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz. This system is called the A- weighted sound level, and is abbreviated as dBA. As shown in Table 4, average noise levels generated on a construction site could be as high as 89 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet during the loudest phases of construction. Typically, construction noise is cyclical in nature and noise levels vary throughout the day. All development in the City, including the proposed construction activities, must comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels associated with construction activity. Short-term temporary construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would result in less-than- significant impacts to nearby land uses and sensitive receptors. The project is located in a busy commercial district with an active train station in the vicinity. Although there are residential uses in the project vicinity, the existing noise conditions are not quiet and the temporary construction activities will not create any new significant noise impacts. Table 4 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Activities Construction Activity Average Sound Level at 50 feet (dBA Leq) 1 Standard Deviation (dB) Ground Clearing 84 7 Excavation 89 6 Foundations 78 3 Erection 87 6 Finishing 89 7 Source: EPA 1971 1 Sound level with all pertinent equipment operating. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed with two one-story retail buildings and is surrounded by primarily two-story buildings with ground floor retail and restaurant spaces on University Avenue and a mix of small-scale commercial/office as well as residential uses on Kipling Street. Residential land uses are located approximately 60 feet to the north and northwest. The proposed office building is not anticipated to result in significant levels of on-site noise or traffic noise because of the nature of the proposed land use and the relatively small size (which would generate a less than significant increase in traffic as discussed in Section P., below). The Environmental Noise Study for the project was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. (Appendix H). This assessment found that existing noise levels in the project area range from 64 dB to 70 dB during the peak traffic hours and between 63 dB and 73 dB when measured as a day-night-level (DNL), which assigns a penalty to noises generated during nighttime hours to reflect heightened sensitivity to noise in those hours. Policy N-39 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan requires that the average interior noise level in multi-family dwellings be limited to DNL 45 dB. However, the City also states that residences exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater should limit maximum instantaneous noise levels to 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. Since 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 29 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto the existing noise levels in the project area exceed 60 dB, architectural upgrades (as detailed in Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2) would be required to meet interior noise standards. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment noise from exhaust fans was analyzed, as shown in Table 5, to assess whether the equipment noise would comply with Section 9.19.040 of the City’s Noise Ordinance, which states: “No person shall produce, suffer, or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight decibels above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane.” Table 5 Predicted Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels Property Line Predicted Noise Level (dB) Criteria (dB) At Nearest Receiver At Property Plane North 49 65 57 East 47 58 56 South 48 69 54 West 49 68 54 Currently there are no adjacent receivers at or near the property plane that are 50 feet in height; therefore, adjacent receivers would not be exposed to noise levels in excess of the City’s standard due to rooftop mechanical equipment noise, as shown in Table 5. However, as shown in Table 5, noise levels at the property plane would be above the criteria; therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is required to reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. Potential project-related noise effects from traffic were analyzed by comparing existing, future (existing plus cumulative growth), and estimated project-related traffic volumes, as provided by the traffic impact analysis prepared for the project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (Appendix I). It was determined that the “future with project” traffic noise levels would increase by approximately 1 dBA along University Avenue and 2 dBA along Kipling Street. Based on the Federal Transit Administration noise impact criteria, a 2 dB increase in noise levels due to a project would result in a significant noise impact where the ambient noise levels without the project are in excess of 76 dB. Where noise levels are less than 76 dB, a project-generated noise level increase of more than 2 dB is required for a finding of significant noise impact. Since the ambient noise levels in the project area are less than 76 dB without the project, the maximum noise increase of 2 dBA would result in a less-than-significant impact to noise levels as a result of project generated traffic. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or in the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest airport is the Palo Alto Airport, which is located approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the site. There would be no impact associated with noise from planes. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Residential Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating up to 45 and upgraded exterior walls shall be used in the residential portion of the proposed building to achieve the City’s maximum instantaneous noise guideline for residential uses. The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Commercial Uses: Window and exterior door assemblies for the commercial portions of the building shall have a minimum STC rating of 32 at the corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street, and a minimum STC of 28 at all other commercial locations within the proposed building to comply with the State of California CalGreen noise 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 30 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto standards (maximum interior noise level of 50 dB during the peak hour of traffic). The City of Palo Alto shall ensure that these standards are met through review of building plans as a condition of project approval. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The residential portion of the proposed building shall have a ventilation or air- conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment when windows are closed. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Noise levels from rooftop equipment shall be reduced to meet the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance requirements. An enclosure or other sound-attenuation measures at the exhaust fans shall be provided to reduce rooftop equipment noise is no greater than 8 dB above the existing ambient level at potential future neighboring buildings to meet the property plane noise limit. Use of quieter equipment than assumed in this analysis may support reduced mitigation, which shall be evaluated by a qualified acoustical consultant. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1, 2, 3 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1, 2 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1, 2 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The project would replace two existing one-story retail buildings with a four-story mixed-use building that would include a net increase of 8,774 square feet of commercial and office space and four residential dwelling units. The increase of four residential units would not add substantial population, nor is the increased commercial or office space expected to induce substantial population growth. The addition of four dwelling units in the University Avenue/Downtown area would provide a small amount of housing in the Downtown area, thereby improving the jobs-housing balance in this employment center. The project would not displace any housing or people. Standard conditions of approval require fees to cover any increased need for housing. The City addresses the community’s cumulative affordable housing needs through the Affordable Housing Fund, which is a local housing trust fund that provides financial assistance for the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate-income households within the City. The Affordable Housing Fund is made up primarily of two sub-funds composed of local sources of housing monies: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. The Commercial Housing Fund is funded 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 31 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto through fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 16.47 of the PAMC. Under this requirement, the project applicant would be required to pay into the City’s Affordable Housing Fund at the time that building permits are issued. This fee is currently set at $18.44 per square foot for nonresidential development and would be applied only to the new gross square footage of commercial space proposed to be constructed at the site. The Residential Housing Fund is funded through the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Program, as expressed in Policy H-36 of the Housing Element and Chapter 18.14 of the PAMC. The BMR Program is intended to meet the City’s goal of retaining an economically balanced community. Specifically, residential projects with four or fewer dwelling units are exempt from the City’s BMR Program ordinance based on the City’s determination that construction of four or fewer units would not have a significant effect on affordable housing in the City, even in a cumulative context. As the project proposes construction of four residential units, it is exempt from the BMR program. With compliance with the PAMC and standard conditions of approval regarding payment of the Affordable Housing Fee, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 X X X X X DISCUSSION The proposed project is located in an urban area that is currently served by the City Police and Fire Departments and the four proposed residential units would not cause a substantial increase in population that would demand additional services. In addition, the conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to address all fire prevention measures. Standard conditions of approval require fees to address any increased need for community 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 32 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto facilities, schools, and housing. With payment of development impact fees for community facilities, schools, libraries, and parks, the project’s impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 1, 2 X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would construct a new mixed-use building with commercial and office space and four residential units replacing two existing retail buildings. The 8,774-square-foot increase in commercial and office space and the addition of four residential units are not expected to have a significant effect on existing recreational facilities. Development impact fees for parks and community facilities for the increase in floor area and residential units are required per City ordinance. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. P. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1, 2, 17 X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1, 2, 17 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels 1, 2 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 33 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1, 2 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 2 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 1, 2 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & bicycle facilities)? 1, 2, 3 X h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS) D and cause an increase in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more and the critical volume/capacity ratio (V/C) value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X i) Cause a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average stopped delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more? 1, 2, 17 X j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause critical movement delay at such an intersection already operating at LOS F to increase by four seconds or more and the critical V/C value to increase by 0.01 or more? 1, 2, 17 X k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1% of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F? 1, 2, 17 X l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1, 2, 17 X m) Cause queuing impacts based on a comparative analysis between the design queue length and the available queue storage capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are not limited to, spillback queues at project access locations; queues at turn lanes at intersections that block through traffic; queues at lane drops; queues at one intersection that extend back to impact other intersections, and spillback queues on ramps. 1, 2, 17 X n) Impede the development or function of 1, 2, 3 X 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 34 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1, 2, 17 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis for 429 University Avenue Mixed-Use (Transportation Impact Analysis; Hexagon 2014, included in Appendix I). The analysis was completed in a manner consistent with other transportation impact studies in the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines. This includes use of the level of service (LOS) methodology described in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (2000 HCM; TRB 2000) for signalized intersections, use of the LOS methodology described in Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM for unsignalized intersections, and use of the methodologies and standards described in the VTA 2013 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) for intersections included in the CMP (VTA 2013). The magnitude of traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated by Hexagon by applying applicable trip generation rates to the existing and proposed building. These calculations (see Table 6) are based on the trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, ninth edition (ITE 2012). The project would replace existing retail/restaurant space of the same size; therefore, trip generation from the first floor retail/restaurant space is excluded from the analysis. In addition, the rooftop office/lunchroom is intended for use by office employees and it therefore included in the office space calculation for trip generation purposes only. The trip generation estimates do not reflect potential reductions from the robust transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the project location. In this respect, the project trip generation estimates are conservative. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Land Use Type Size Daily Rate Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate1 In Out Total Rate1 In Out Total General Office 12.603 ksf 6.65 139 1.56 17 2 20 1.49 3 16 19 Apartment 4 du 11.03 27 0.51 0 2 2 0.62 1 1 2 Net Project Trips 166 17 4 21 4 17 21 Source: Hexagon 2014. 1 Trip rates based on ITE 2012, Office (710), Apartment (230). ksf = 1,000 square feet; du = dwelling units The proposed project is calculated to cause 21 new AM peak hour trips and 21 new PM peak hour trips. Hexagon applied the project’s trip generation and trip distribution estimates to each of the study intersections to determine whether the project would result in a significant change in LOS at any location. The Transportation Impact Analysis evaluated the following five intersections: 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 35 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street The project would create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project conditions, or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS E or F under no project conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by 4 seconds or more and the critical-movement volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by .01 or more. An exception to this rule applies when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average delay for critical movements (i.e. the change in average delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold of significance is an increase in the critical V/C value by .01 or more. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 7. Table 7 Project Effects on LOS and Delay Intersection (control) Peak Hour Average Delay (in seconds) and LOS Existing Existing Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C Cumulative No Project Cumulative Plus Project ∆ Critical Delay ∆ Critical V/C 1. University Avenue and Kipling Street (Signal) AM 9.5 A 9.7 A 0.1 0.003 10.6 B 10.7 B 0.2 0.004 PM 9.9 A 10.6 B 0.1 0.006 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.008 2. Lytton Avenue and Kipling Street (TWSC) AM 17.6 C 17.7 C -- -- 22.9 C 23.0 C -- -- PM 15.0 B 15.1 C -- -- 18.6 C 19.1 C -- -- 3. University Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 28.2 C 28.2 C 0.0 0.001 28.6 C 28.6 C 0.0 0.001 PM 31.3 C 31.3 C 0.0 0.000 260.5 F 260.3 F 0.0 0.000 4. Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road (Signal) AM 30.6 C 30.6 C 0.0 0.001 36.1 D 36.1 D 0.1 0.001 PM 37.0 D 37.0 D 0.0 0.001 158.5 F 158.8 F 0.1 0.001 5. Lytton Avenue and Alma Street (Signal) AM 18.0 B 18.1 B 0.2 0.002 18.6 B 18.7 B 0.2 0.003 PM 20.9 C 21.0 C 0.2 0.002 23.6 C 23.8 C 0.2 0.002 TWSC = two-way stop control Bold indicates a substandard level of service. The results in Table 7 show that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic under existing plus project conditions. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 36 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto The results in Table 7 also show that two of the signalized study intersections (University Avenue & Kipling Street and Lytton Avenue & Alma Street) would continue to operate adequately (LOS D or better) under cumulative plus project conditions. Two other signalized intersections (University Avenue & Middlefield Road and Lytton Avenue & Middlefield Road) are expected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS F) under cumulative conditions both with and without the project. The project traffic would not cause a significant impact on the operation of these intersections, based on the significance criteria described above. As shown in Table 7, project traffic would only increase the critical delay by 0.1 second and the critical V/C value by 0.001, which are less than the significance thresholds of 4 seconds and 0.01, respectively. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities The Transportation Impact Analysis conducted by Hexagon also considered impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The project location is approximately 0.5 miles from the Caltrain station and transit center and in a pedestrian and bicycle friendly downtown area, and the underground parking garage is proposed to include bike lockers and a shower room for employees. It is reasonable to assume that some employees would utilize transit or bicycles. Due to the project size, it is unlikely to produce significant bicycle trips or pedestrian trips or impact the nearby trains and buses. It is expected that these additional trips could easily be accommodated by the existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Site Access and Onsite Circulation Access to the alley adjacent to the site (Lane 30) would be assisted by breaks in traffic on Waverly Street created by the nearby traffic signals at Lytton Avenue and University Avenue. In the event that a vehicle making a right turn out of the alley onto Kipling Street encountered a significant queue, the driver might choose to make a left turn onto Kipling Street and then onto Lytton Avenue to circle around the block. Such maneuvers are common in downtown settings during commute periods. Based on the estimated traffic generated during the peak periods, it is anticipated that the project’s garage access to and from Lane 30 at Waverly and Kipling Streets, respectively, would operate acceptably and would be typical of a development in an urban setting with underground parking. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires that mirrors and/or a warning light be installed at garage entrance/exit. Truck access and loading would be provided adjacent to the project site via the alley (Lane 30). The alley is 20 feet in width and truck loading requires a width of 10 feet, which leaves the remaining 10 feet available for vehicles to pass in this one-way alley. The alley currently provides adequate truck access for other adjacent businesses, and it is expected that it would provide adequate access for the proposed project as well since the width of the alley would remain the same. Adequate corner sight distance is required at the exit of the alley to ensure that drivers can see approaching vehicles on Kipling Street. Sight distance is typically measured approximately 10 feet back from the traveled way. The proposed project would provide a 4-foot setback from the edge of the alley. The project would also replace the large street tree nearest this corner which would improve the visibility of the roadway. The combination of the setback and the tree removal is expected to provide adequate visibility of other vehicles and pedestrians. The onsite circulation was reviewed in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. Generally, the proposed plan would provide one main drive aisle that would lead to an underground parking structure. Parking is shown at 90 degrees to the main drive aisle. This drive aisle makes several 90 degree turns to spiral down to the farthest parking spaces. The City parking facility design standards specify a minimum width of 16 feet for two-way underground ramps; 25 feet for two-way drive aisles lined with 8.5 foot wide, 90 degree spaces; and maximum slope of 2% adjacent to accessible parking spaces. Additionally, bike lockers require a five foot aisle in front of the door openings. The proposed parking plan meets these minimum specifications, as well as providing the minimum dimensions for standard, accessible, and van-accessible spaces. However, due to the 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 37 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto limited footprint of the underground parking, vehicles are required to navigate tight 90 degree turns near the ends of both ramps and the middle of the lower ramp, where sight lines may be restricted. To ensure safety for vehicles using the parking garage, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires that mirrors be installed in the parking garage to provide adequate site distance. Parking The project was also found to meet the applicable parking requirements of the PAMC. Specifically, the PAMC requires that the project provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of new commercial space and two spaces for each of the residential units plus guest spaces (one space plus 10%). The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for four residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in-lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 41 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by six spaces. Forty parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage and one space would be provided at-grade. The project would also meet the applicable bicycle parking requirements. PAMC Section 18.52.040 requires 1 bicycle space per 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, with a mix of 80% for long-term parking and 20% for short-term parking. In addition, 4 long-term bicycle spaces (1 per unit) are required for the residential units. The project is required to provide 13 total bicycle parking spaces. As reflected in the site plans, the project proposes to provide 7 long-term bicycle parking spaces within the underground parking garage and 6 short-term bicycle parking spaces near the entrances of the building on University Avenue and Kipling Street. The bicycle parking spaces provided on the project site meet the requirements of Ordinance 18.52.040 and follow layout requirements of PAMC Section 18.54.060. While this project does not include an explicit transportation demand management (TDM) plan, several elements common to TDM are present. Most importantly, the project is located in a transit-rich and pedestrian friendly location. Second, the project proposes to include both bicycle lockers and a restroom with a shower. Both of these features should result in some reduction in automobile trips generated by the project and reduce the amount of parking needed by employees. In addition, the project is in a good location for transit-related TDM strategies that may be implemented by future tenants, such as Caltrain and VTA Go Passes or reimbursement of transit fares. However, due to the small project trip generation, a TDM plan is not necessary to reduce peak hour trips. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure-TRANS-1: Mirrors shall be installed at the parking garage driveway to allow drivers to see when a pedestrian or vehicle is approaching in Lane 30. Mitigation Measure-TRANS-2: Mirrors shall be installed at each turn within the parking garage to provide adequate sight distance. Significance after Mitigation Less than significant. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 38 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1, 2 X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1, 2 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1, 2 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1, 2 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1, 2 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1, 2 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off-site water, sewer, and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow demands. The project would tie into the City’s existing water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project would comply with the green building requirements set forth in the California Green Building Code and the City’s Build It Green program. This would ensure that water conservation and solid waste reduction measures are included in the project to reduce demands for utility services. The project’s impacts on utility services would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures None required. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 39 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1, 2 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 1, 2 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1, 2 X DISCUSSION The proposed project would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural or historic resources with mitigation as described in Sections D and E. As described in Section A, Aesthetics, the proposed use is appropriate for the site and although the project would alter the visual character of the site, the building has been designed to ensure that it does not result in an adverse visual impact. The project’s impacts would all be reduced to below a level of significance through implementation of the mitigation measures described in the previous sections. The project would therefore not result in any cumulatively considerable impacts. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings, or other life or environmental impacts once mitigation is implemented to reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise as described in Sections H and L. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 40 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto III SOURCE REFERENCES SOURCES (CHECKLIST KEY) 1. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Project Plans (Appendix A) 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998–2010 (City of Palo Alto 2007) 4. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning Ordinance 5. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 8.10.030, Tree Technical Manual 6. Air Quality Modeling Results, 2014 (Appendix B) 7. Cultural Resources Memorandum (Appendix C) 8. Historic Architectural Evaluations, 2014 (Appendix D) 9. Geotechnical Investigation, 2013 (Appendix E) 10. Phase I ESA 425 University Avenue and 450 Kipling Street, 2014 (Appendix F) 11. Phase I ESA for the Commercial Buildings, 1999 (Appendix F) 12. Environmental Transaction Screen, 429–447 University Avenue, 2010 (Appendix F) 13. Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments, 2014 (Appendix G) 14. Special Projects Worksheet, 2014 (Appendix G) 15. Environmental Noise Study, 2014 (Appendix H) 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10, Noise Ordinance 17. Traffic Impact Analysis, 2014 (Appendix I) REFERENCES CITED 14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended. ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2003. “Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map for Palo Alto/Stanford.” http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/dfpickc.html. BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2006. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. Adopted January 4, 2006. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20 Research/Plans/2005%20Ozone%20Strategy/adoptedfinal_vol1.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2010%20Clean%20Air%20P lan/CAP%20Volume%20I%20%20Appendices.ashx. BAAQMD. 2010b. Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BAAQMD_CEQA_ Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. California Department of Conservation. 2011. Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map 2010. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. June 2011. California Public Resources Code, Chapter 8, Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973, Article 2, Definitions, Section 4526, “Timberland.” California Public Resources Code, Article 3, Definitions, Section 12220(g), “Forest land.” California Public Resources Code, Sections 42160–42185. Metallic Discards Act of 1991. CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 41 November 2014 Environmental Checklist City of Palo Alto CARB. 2013. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2011 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” October 2, 2013. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. City of Palo Alto. 2007. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. July 17, 2007. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances. Prepared by Bolt, et.al., Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Boston, MA. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Santa Clara County, California. Map Number 06085C0010H. May 18, 2009. PAMC (Palo Alto Municipal Code). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center – U.S. Seismic Design Maps webpage with seismic design value application. Accessed September 25, 2013. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php. REPORT PREPARERS DUDEK 465 Magnolia Avenue Larkspur, California 94939 Heather Martinelli, AICP Katherine Waugh, AICP Christine Kronenberg, AICP 429 University Avenue Initial Study Page 42 November 2014 Milpitas SanJose MountainView PaloAlto Gilroy Campbell SanRamon BlackhawkDanville Moraga Town Alamo DiscoveryBay Orinda Lafayette WalnutCreek Clayton Brentwood PleasantHill OakleyConcord PrunedaleElkhorn Ho AptosHills-LarkinValley Interlaken SantaCruz Soquel Aptos Corralitos Felton DayValley ScottsValley BenLomond BoulderCreek MorganHill LexingtonHills SanJose LosGatos Saratoga Cupertino LosAltosHills LosAltos SantaClaraSunnyvale PortolaValley Woodside Atherton SanCarlosHalfMoonBay MenloPark BelmontEl Granada RedwoodCity Montara Hillsborough SanMateo FosterCity Burlingame San Bruno Pacifica South SanFrancisco SanFrancisco Newark Fremont Union City Hayward PleasantonFairview Livermore DublinSanLeandroCastroValley Alameda Oakland Berkeley Antioch VineHill Richmond BethelIsland Martinez Pittsburg WestPittsburg Pinole Rodeo Hercules Tracy Mill Valley SanRafael Lagunitas-ForestKnolls Lucas Valley-Marinwood Inverness Novato Benicia Vallejo AmericanCanyon Santa C r u z County San MateoCounty San Francisco County Marin County Co n t r a C o s t a Co u n t y S t a n i s l a u s C o Contra Costa C o u n t y nty Marin Count y Sonoma Co u n t y Sacramento County Monter e y County Santa C l a r a C o u n t y S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y oun t y Santa C r u z C o u n t y Santa Clara County Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y Santa Cruz County San Mateo County Alameda Co u n t y Alameda County Al a m e d a C o u n t y Sa n J o a q u i n C o u n t y 35 82 113 24 131 121 29 123 13 61 185 156 25 237 37 17 129 152 12 130 9 160 84 92 4 1 101 101 780 80 205 238 680 280 580 880 FIGURE 1 Regional Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 1 _ R e g i o n a l . m x d 0115.5 Miles Project Site 82 101 FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Palo Alto Quadrangle. Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ F i g u r e 2 _ V i c i n t y . m x d 02,0001,000 Feet Project Site FIGURE 3 Aerial Map 8576 429 UNIVERSITY AVENUE INITIAL STUDY SOURCE: BING 2014 Pa t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 1 9 4 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ M A P S \ I S \ F i g u r e 3 _ A e r i a l _ M a p . m x d 0 200100Feet Project Boundary Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Site PlanFIGURE 4 TRUENORTH PRO J E C T NORTH UP DN UP DN NO PARKING RAMP DN TO LV. 1 PARKING 18 ' - 0 " CU R B T O C U R B 100 ' - 0 " 110'-0"20'-0"12'-0"SIDEWALKALLEY/ (E) DRIVEWAY 25'-6"TO C OF UNIV. AVE. L 10 ' - 0 " 15' TO C O F K I P L I N G S T . L UN I V E R S I T Y A V E N U E LA N E 3 0 KIPLING STREET (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE(APPROVED BY CITY)TYP. OF 3 PAIRS (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA SIDEW A L K PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PR OP E RT Y L I N E PR OP E RT Y L I N E (E) STREET TREETO REMAIN, TYP. PROVIDETREE PROTECTION PERCITY'S TREE TECHNICALMANUAL SECTION 2.00 0 5 10 15 20 FT (N) BIKE RACK BY CREATIVE PIPE OR SIM(APPROVED BY CITY) FDC, TYP. (E) STREET TREETO BE REPLACED W/ GINKGO BILOBA PLANTED AREA 4'-0" 4'-0" 6'-0" 1 STORM FILTER,SEE CIVIL DWG.1 1 4'-0" 6'-0" 1'-8 1/4" (N) WALL MOUNTED GAS METERS 3 4'-6 1/2" 20 ' - 0 " 8'-0"9'-0" 4'-0" 3'-1 1/2" SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" TR R C TR R C Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 ElevationsFIGURE 5 UNIVERSITY AVE. STREETSCAPE ELEVATION 1 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" KIPLING ST. STREETSCAPE 2 SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL UNIVERSITY AVE.WAVERLEY ST.KIPLING ST. 429 UNIVERSITY AVE. UNIVERSITY AVE. PLPL LANE 30 428 UNIVERSITY AVE. Z:\ P r o j e c t s \ j 8 5 7 6 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ I S \ 429 University Avenue Initial Study8576 SOURCE: Hayes Group Architects, Inc. 2014 Perspective RenderingsFIGURE 6 UNIVERSITY AVE. PERSPECTIVE 1 N.T.S. KIPLING ST. PERSPECTIVE 2 N.T.S. ALLEY AERIAL PERSPECTIVE 3 N.T.S. UNIVERSITY AERIAL PERSPECTIVE 4 N.T.S. DRAFT ADOPTED ON: __________________________________ City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: November 17, 2014 Project Name: 429 University Avenue Project Location: The 0.25-acre project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa Clara County, east of State Route 82 (El Camino Real) and west of U.S. Highway 101. The project site is located on the northwestern corner of University Avenue and Kipling Street. Project Proponent: Elizabeth Wong for Kipling Post LP City Contact: Christy Fong Planner, Department of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Description: The proposed project involves demolition of two one-story retail buildings located at 425 University Avenue (APN 120-15-029) and 429 University Avenue (APN 120-15-028) totaling 11,633 square feet (4,425 square feet and 7,208 square feet, respectively) on separate parcels, and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with two levels of underground parking (Figure 4, Site Plan). The two parcels would be combined to create a single 11,000-square-foot parcel. The new building is proposed to be 31,407 square feet in gross floor area and would cover 9,478 square feet of the site in approximately the same location as the existing buildings. The total increase in gross floor area would be 19,774 square feet. The proposed building would provide 20,407 square feet of commercial space (an increase of 8,774 square feet) and 11,000 square feet of residential land uses. A total of four residential apartment units would be provided, for a residential density of 16 units per acre. The maximum proposed building height is 50 feet and the FAR would be 2.86. The base FAR in the CD- C district is 1.0; however, the FAR may be increased with transfers of development rights (TDRs) and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0. The proposed project FAR is achieved through the transfer of 4,207 square feet that requires parking, 5,000 square feet that is exempt from parking, TDR from separate properties, and a one-time 200-square-foot parked bonus for the project. Building design would include stone and crystalized glass panels around the University Avenue/Kipling Street corner to the concrete tower at the northern edge of the property. The third-floor residential units would be stepped back from the façade to create depth and visual interest, while also providing terraces for the residences. The fourth floor would be set back from the floors below and would provide a rooftop terrace. The project proposes retail entrances along University Avenue and Kipling Street. The entry lobby for the residential and office uses would be located on Kipling Street. The building would be set back approximately 4 to 6 feet from Lane 30 to allow for pedestrian accessibility in the rear of the building. The proposed project would require 82 parking spaces for 20,407 square feet of commercial use and 10 parking spaces for 4 residential units, for a total of 92 parking spaces. However, the property was previously assessed and paid in lieu fees for 37 parking spaces in the University Avenue Parking Assessment District and is eligible to receive 5,000 square feet of TDRs exempted from parking (equivalent to 20 parking spaces). Based on these adjustments, the project is required to provide a total of 35 vehicle parking spaces. The project proposes to include a total of 41 parking spaces, exceeding the parking requirement by six spaces. Forty parking spaces would be provided in the two-level underground parking garage and one space would be provided at-grade. Seven long-term bicycle parking spaces would also be provided within the underground parking garage, and six short-term bicycle parking spaces would be located near the building entrances on University Avenue and Kipling Street, for a total of 13 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project is designed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which requires compliance with California Green Building Code Tier 1 and Green Point rater (for the residential portion) with Local Amendments. The project would use both conventional and sustainable building materials, including a concrete frame, high-efficiency glazing systems, cut stone, glass tile, plaster finishes, abundant day-lighting and sun-shading systems, and an energy-efficient cool roof. The project would also include facilities for carpool/clean air vehicles and electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would involve the removal of four existing street trees on Kipling Street, and the replacement of these trees with four new street trees on Kipling Street. Both of the two existing street trees on University Avenue would be retained. II. DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. X Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study prepared for this project incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to protected trees: Page 2 of 5 • City of Palo Alto (City)-approved Modified Type III fencing shall be installed for the two street trees to be retained along University Avenue. City-approved tree protection signs shall be posted on all fencing. • Soil conditions for the four new trees to be planted along Kipling Street shall be improved by preparing a planting area at least 6 feet square for each tree and installing Silva Cells to reduce compaction. The Silva Cells shall be filled with proper soil amendments and growing medium as determined by the City Arborist. • Unless otherwise approved, each new tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Drawing #604/513. Rootable soil is defined as compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas. • Two bubbler drip irrigation units shall be installed for each new tree to adequately water the new planting area. • New sidewalk shall be installed such that the final planting space opening is at least 5 feet by 5 feet for each new tree. • Kiva tree grates shall be used around each new tree. • Replacement tree size shall be a 36-inch box, properly structured nursery stock. • Based on growth habit and proven performance, Ginkgo biloba “Autumn Gold” is highly recommended for the replacement trees. Other tree species may be approved by the City Arborist. • All work within the Tree Protection Zone, including canopy pruning of protected trees, shall be supervised by a Certified Arborist approved by the City. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to commencement of site clearing and project grading, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to train construction personnel regarding how to recognize cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains) that could be encountered during construction activities. If artifacts or unusual amounts of shell or bone or other items indicative of buried archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during earth disturbance associated with the proposed project, the on-site contractor shall immediately notify the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Native American Heritage Commission as appropriate. All soil-disturbing work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) and the City, completes a significance evaluation of the finds pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any human remains unearthed shall be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, and California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98, and 5097.99, which include requirements to notify the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office and consult with Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants, as appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on State Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 (archaeological sites). Mitigation measures prescribed by the Native American Heritage Commission, the Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office, and any Native American representatives determined to be the Most Likely Descendants and required by the City shall be undertaken before construction activities are resumed. If disturbance of a project area cultural resource cannot be avoided, a mitigation program, including measures set forth in the City’s Cultural Resources Management Program and in compliance with Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to building demolition, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto that a survey of the existing buildings has been conducted by a qualified environmental specialist who meets the requirements of the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations for suspected lead-containing materials (LCMs), including lead-based paint/coatings; asbestos containing materials (ACMs); and the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls Page 3 of 5 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE INITIAL STUDY AND DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT DESCRIBED ABOVE AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED THEREIN. Project Applicant's Signature Date Page 5 of 5 Attachment H: Project Plans – delivered to ARB Board Members only    Also available online at:   http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2449&TargetID=319    Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: Elizabeth L <laskyea@gmail.com> Friday, March 20, 2015 3:31 PM Council, City Elizabeth Wong 429 University Please stop the appeal of 429 University A venue, Palo Alto, and approve the project. Thank you. -'Elizabeth Lasky Waverley St, Palo Alto Ol¢Y 0F PALO AU'tl; C,A mnx til ERK'S QfFfCE 15 MAR 20 PH ~: 22 Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear City Council members, Kenneth Fang <ksfongdna@gmail.com> Friday, March 20, 2015 8:30 PM Council, City 429 university ave OilY OF PALG i\LUJ,QA l!ITY GLEHK'S QFFl®E 15 MAR 23 AH 1ft: 43 I am writing to support the approval ofthe building project at 429 university ave that was originally approved by the Planning committee but was appealed by Michael Harbour. I read the argument of Mr. Harbour from the local newspaper and it seems his points are mostly opinions of his own and indeed rather arbitrary. I believe this building would add both charm and value to our city for the foreseeable future. Kenneth Fang Kenson Ventures LLC 400 Hamilton ave., PA Sent from my iPhone '-Carnahan, David \fimm: :Sent: IJ";o: '&dJject: ,flear City Council members QhiY OF PALO ;\LTO. CA CllY CLERK'S OfF!QE Kumiko Yoshinari <kumikoyoshinari@gmail.corrf::5 MAR 23 AH 10: 1+3 Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:58 PM Council, City; Elizabeth Wong Stop the appeal on 429 University Avenue 1fhe proposed building at 429 University Avenue is precisely the kind of buildings we need more of, in Palo Alo. It is mixed use, with parking, retail, office and housing. It is at a scale appropriate for the downtown area. As a homeowner in downtown Palo Alto, I am dismayed by the nay-sayers who wish to stop any Qievelopment, even this type of reasonable development. Our City can not move forward if we are hostage to <:tbese nay sayers. Please stop the appeal. twmiko Yoshinari Carnahan, David From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Vernon E. Altman G:ltrY 0F flALO ALHkQA CfiTY CLERK'S OfFl~E Altman, Vernon <Vernon.Aitman@Bain.com> 15 MAR 23 AM IQJ: 43 Saturday, March 21, 2015 1:54 PM Council, City Elizabeth Wong Please Stop Appeal on 429 University Avenue -Please see Attached Letter 429 University Appeal.pdf Bain & Company, Inc. I 2 Palo Alto Square, lOth Floor I Palo Alto, CA 94306 I United States Tel: +1 650 845 3666 I Mobile: 650-575-7777 Web: www.bain.com I Email: Vernon.Aitman@Bain.com This e-mail, inci!Jding any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It may be read, copied and used only by the intended recipient. Any use by a person other than its intended recipient, or by the recipient but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. Attachment J Attachment J City of Palo Alto (ID # 5454) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment to IT Temporary Staffing Contracts Title: Approval of a Contract Amendment with Genuent USA, LLC, Intratek Comuter, Inc., Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC, GTC Systems, Inc., Modis, Inc., Bodhtree Solutions, Inc. and Signature Technology Group, Inc. For IT Temporary Staffing Support Services in a Total Amount Not to Exceed $650,000 Per Fiscal Year for All Seven Contracts From: City Manager Lead Department: IT Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment with each of the seven approved IT temporary staffing vendors, Genuent USA, LLC; Intratek Computer, Inc.; Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC; GTC Systems, Inc.; Modis, Inc.; Bodhtree Solutions, Inc.; and Signature Technology Group, Inc. to add $150,000 a year to the existing contract of $500,000 for an aggregate amount not to exceed $650,000 annually. Staff will administer these seven contracts to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven IT temporary support services providers will not exceed $650,000. The contract amendment will not completely obligate the City also, as it will be subject to annual appropriation of funds. The original term of each of these seven contracts is from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2019 and does not change with this action. Executive Summary The IT Department has increasing needs to fill specialized position(s) for a short period of time, such as an SAP Analyst or System Administrator. Short-term contractor positions provide significant flexibility to the dynamic technology needs of the City and assist with a lower cost approach to staffing going-forward. This approach, now in place for two years, enables the City to meet critical technology needs without adding new full-time staff. The contractor approach also allows for temporary backfill of staff absences. The Not-to-Exceed amount for the total seven contracts is currently set at $500,000 annually. Additional funds are necessary to complete current City prioritized assignments as well as to fill temporary SAP related roles. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The seven consultants are: Genuent USA LLC, C15152474 Intratek Computer, Inc., C15154381 Digital Intelligence Systems, LLC (DISYS), C15154388 GTC Systems, Inc., C15154389 Modis, Inc., C15154390 Bodhtree Solutions, Inc., C15154391 Signature Technology Group, Inc., C15154392 Background In the beginning of 2014, the Purchasing Division issued an RFP for Temporary IT staffing services. IT selected seven vendors and contracts were approved by Council on 6/16/14 (Staff Report 4677). The RFP process sought to identify a number of qualified firms that could provide temporary staffing services on an as-needed basis. The City does not guarantee any minimum quantity of work or compensation and expenditure with any of these consultants during the contract period. The contracting services that staff typically seeks are as follows, but not limited to: Project Management System Administration Program Management Data Analysis SAP Analysts Each of the seven contracts’ scope of work identifies all seven consultants and states that the City is hiring the seven consultants to collectively perform the Temporary Staff Support services; none are guaranteed or assured of any specific quantity of work to be performed. Discussion Currently, there is a Senior Technologist position that is vacant in the IT Department as of March 1, 2015. The incumbent served as the SAP team lead. Staff is looking to fill this lead role along with an SAP Analytics Programmer to help with SAP integration and support, system development and release, SAP system tuning, and SAP contract administration which includes vendor license and management support. These specialized roles have a higher dollar per hour rate and require additional funding. From FY14 to FY15, the IT Department will have increased the actual spend of temporary staffing by 55%. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Savings from the Information Technology Department’s Fiscal Year 2015 Adopted Budget will be used to fund this request. These savings are derived from approved budgeted projects coming in under budget as well as vacancy savings. In order to fund these contracts through June 30, 2019, additional funding will be recommended for appropriation as part of the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget process. While this amendment and its approval does extend through FY 2019, the contract makes it clear that spending is subject to annual appropriation of funds. If Council chooses not to approve additional funding for future fiscal years in future budgets, the contract does not obligate the City to spend money it does not have. Resource Impact The funds for the payment of these seven contracts are budgeted in the Information Technology Internal Service Fund and subject to annual budget appropriation of funds. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, no Environmental Assessment is required. Attachments:  Attachment A: IntraTek Computer INC Amendment C15154381 (PDF)  Attachment B: Signature Technology Group INC Amendment C15154392 (PDF)  Attachment C: GTC Systems INC Amendment C15154389 (PDF)  Attachment D: Genuent USA Amendment C15152474 (PDF)  Attachment E: MODIS INC Amendment C15154390 (PDF)  Attachment F: Bodhtree Solutions INC Amendment C15154391 (PDF)  Attachment G: Digital Intelligence Systems LLC Amendment C15154388 (PDF) 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154381 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTRATEK COMPUTER, INC. This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15154381(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTRATEK COMPUTER, INC., a California Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 9950 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92618 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: 767ECE2B-3E7E-4CE0-822B-BD6147BAC7F7 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney INTRATEK COMPUTER, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: 767ECE2B-3E7E-4CE0-822B-BD6147BAC7F7 Contract Manager 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154392 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SIGNATURE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15154392(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SIGNATURE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., an Arizona corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 2424 West Desert Cove Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85029(“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: B1E77B54-3F6E-493C-93A7-47F96E2E5F9C 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney SIGNATURE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: B1E77B54-3F6E-493C-93A7-47F96E2E5F9C Vp solution dev 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154389 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GTC SYSTEMS, INC. This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15154389(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and GTC SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 9855 Business Park Avenue, San Diego, CA 92131(“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: 0004ED83-C704-41E7-A8C0-46A782580B36 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney GTC SYSTEMS, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: 0004ED83-C704-41E7-A8C0-46A782580B36 CFO/Controller 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15152474 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND GENUENT USA, LLC This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15152474(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and GENUENT USA, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 110, Roseville, CA 95661 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: A38A1EB1-AD77-4D09-8CEB-F2B1B5672E4E 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney GENUENT USA, LLC DocuSign Envelope ID: A38A1EB1-AD77-4D09-8CEB-F2B1B5672E4E Sr Business Development Manager 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154390 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MODIS, INC. This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15154390(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MODIS, INC., a Florida corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 4100 East 3rd Avenue, Foster City, CA 94404 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more DocuSign Envelope ID: A9A7EB87-9819-4DE4-A506-157551C07331 2 Revision July 25, 2012 CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney MODIS, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: A9A7EB87-9819-4DE4-A506-157551C07331 Vice President 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154391 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND BODHTREE SOLUTIONS, INC. This Amendment No.1 to Contract No. C15154391(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and BODHTREE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A4A80CD-9AD6-428D-B5B6-7E4DCDA8BA59 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney BODHTREE SOLUTIONS, INC. DocuSign Envelope ID: 5A4A80CD-9AD6-428D-B5B6-7E4DCDA8BA59 Account Executive 1 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154388 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS LLC This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15154388(“Contract”) is entered into March 2, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS LLC (DISYS), a Delaware limited liability company, dba DISYS, authorized to do business in the State of California, located at 8270 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1000, McLean, VA 22102 (“CONSULTANT”). R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of temporary staffing of various Information Technology positions and functions to have Consultant provide temporary Information Technology staffing services; WHEREAS, and the City intends to increase the compensation by an additional One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000), thereby increasing total contract compensation from Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) to a not-to-exceed total compensation amount of Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) for continuation of Information Technology staffing services; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Contract; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this Amendment, the parties agree: SECTION 1. Section 4 “NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION” is hereby amended to read as follows: 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, in an aggregate amount which shall not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year; provided, however CONSULTANT acknowledges that the compensation paid to it likely will be less than $650,000 per fiscal year, as CITY has appropriated that amount to payments to be made under seven contracts, of which this Agreement is one. The seven contracts shall be administered by Information Technology to ensure the total aggregate of compensation paid per fiscal year for these seven Information Technology support services will not exceed Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) annually. In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Zero Dollars ($0). Applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out in Exhibit “B-1”, entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE,” which is attached to and made a part of this Agreement. The CITY is hiring seven CONSULTANTS, none of whom will be guaranteed or assured of any DocuSign Envelope ID: F6D26846-8562-41DE-8BFC-67146E307C69 2 Revision July 25, 2012 specific quantity of work to be performed. If work is performed by ay one or more CONSULTANTS, CITY will ensure that total compensation to all seven CONSULTANTS will not exceed in the aggregate Six Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($650,000) per fiscal year. SECTION 2. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of the Contract, including any exhibits and subsequent amendments thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Amendment on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney DIGITAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS LLC (DISYS) DocuSign Envelope ID: F6D26846-8562-41DE-8BFC-67146E307C69 General Counsel City of Palo Alto (ID # 5655) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: TEFRA Hearing for the Stevenson House to Issue Bonds Title: TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project Located at 455 East Charleston Road Palo Alto, and Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing under the requirements of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1983 (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code); and 2) Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the issuance of the bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) for the benefit of Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. Stevenson House LP (Borrower). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A TEFRA hearing was held on April 7, 2014 where Council adopted a resolution for the issuance of tax exempt bonds for rehabilitation of the Stevenson House. A new public hearing and resolution are needed tonight because the public hearing and approval must be within 1 year of the bond closing. The closing did not occur in the required timeframe; hence the new hearing and resolution. CMFA and the Stevenson House are expected to close the not to exceed $20,250,000 financing on 4/30/15. This report is virtually the same as that presented on April 7, 2014 with the exception of a date change for public noticing. BACKGROUND The Related Companies of California, working with the Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc., (PASHPI) a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, is undertaking a major rehabilitation of the Stevenson House, a low income senior rental facility. Like most affordable housing rehabilitations, this project is being funded by a variety of different sources, including loans City of Palo Alto Page 2 from the City and County, tax credits, and the subject tax exempt bonds. Related and PASHPI requested that the CMFA serve as the municipal issuer of bonds for the Stevenson House project in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,250,000 of tax exempt revenue bonds. Proceeds from the issuance of the bonds will be used to: (1) finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 120 unit multifamily rental housing facility for seniors located at 455 East Charleston Road in the City of Palo Alto, known as Stevenson House; and (2) pay certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds. The facility to be financed is to be owned by PASHPI Stevenson House LP, a California limited partnership. The facility will be managed by the Borrower or another entity selected by the Borrower. All or a portion of the rental units in the facility will be rented to seniors of low or very low income. In order for all or a portion of the bonds to qualify as tax-exempt bonds, the City of Palo Alto must conduct a public hearing (TEFRA Hearing), providing the members of the community an opportunity to speak in favor of or against the use of tax-exempt bonds for the financing of the project. Prior to the hearing, reasonable notice must be provided to the members of the community. Following the close of the TEFRA hearing, an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit hosting the proposed project must provide its approval of the issuance of the bonds for the financing of the project. DISCUSSION Since the facilities to be financed with the proceeds of the CMFA’s debt are located within the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto, the City has been asked to conduct a TEFRA hearing and adopt a resolution (Attachment A) that approves both the issuance of bonds by the CMFA for the benefit of PASHPI Stevenson House LP. As cited in the published notice of March 20, 2015, the public hearing is simply an opportunity for all interested persons to speak or to submit written comments concerning the proposal to issue the debt and the nature or location of the facility to be financed; however there is no formal obligation on the part of the borrower or the Council to respond to any specific comments made during the hearing or submitted in writing. The bonds are intended to finance the acquisition, and rehabilitation of a multifamily rental housing facility located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, California 94306. The CMFA is a joint exercise of powers authority that the City became a member of on April 14, 2008. The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement provides that the CMFA is a public entity, separate and apart from each member executing such agreement. The debts, liabilities and obligations of the CMFA do not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of the members executing such agreement. The bonds to be issued by the CMFA for the project will be the sole responsibility of the borrower, and the City of Palo Alto will have no financial, legal, moral obligation, liability or responsibility for the project or the repayment of the bonds for the financing of the project. All financing documents with respect to the issuance of the bonds will City of Palo Alto Page 3 contain clear disclaimers that the bonds are not obligations of the City of Palo Alto or the State of California but are to be paid for solely from funds provided by the borrower. The City is in no way exposed to any financial liability by reason of its membership in the CMFA. In addition, participation by the City in the CMFA does not impact the City’s appropriations limits and will not constitute any type of indebtedness by the City. Outside of holding the TEFRA hearing, adopting the required resolution, no other participation or activity of the City or the City Council with respect to the issuance of the bonds will be required. Based on the benefits of the project to the Palo Alto community and the lack of any financial obligations on the part of the City, staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution. RESOURCE IMPACT As stated, the City will incur no financial obligation from approval of the recommendations. The Related Companies of California, working with the Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc. is requesting authority to issue up to $20,250,000 million in bonds through the CMFA. The City will receive a fee for its services when the bonds are issued. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Actions recommended in this report are consistent with Council’s prior actions in supporting non-profit financings under the TEFRA (e.g., approving tax-exempt financing through the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Stevenson House project, CMR: 184:08). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Action on this item does not constitute a project under Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. Attachments:  Attachment A: TEFRA Resolution for Stevenson House (PDF) Not Yet Approved Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Issuance of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority for the Purpose of Financing the Acquisition and Rehabilitation of a Multifamily Rental Housing Facility Known as Stevenson House A. Pursuant Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”), certain public agencies (the “Members”) have entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, effective on January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”) in order to form the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”), for the purpose of promoting economic, cultural and community development, and in order to exercise any powers common to the Members, including the issuance of bonds, notes, or other evidences of indebtedness. B. The City of Palo Alto (the “City”) is a member of the Authority. C. The Authority is authorized to issue and sell revenue bonds for the purpose, among others, of financing or refinancing the acquisition, rehabilitation and rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing projects. D. The Related Companies of California, working with the Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, has requested that the Authority issue one or more series of revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $20,250,000 (the “Bonds”), and lend the proceeds of the Bonds to PASHPI Stevenson House LP, a California limited partnership (the “Borrower”) for the purpose of financing the costs of the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 120 unit multifamily residential rental housing facility for seniors located at 455 East Charleston Road in the City known as Stevenson House (the “Project”), to be owned by the Borrower and to be operated by the Borrower or another entity selected by the Borrower. E. In order for the interest on Bonds to be tax-exempt, section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) requires that an “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit, the geographic jurisdiction of which contains the site of Project to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds, hold a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds and approve the issuance of the Bonds following such hearing. F. The Authority has determined that the City Council (the “Council”) is an “applicable elected representative” for purposes of holding such hearing. G. In response to a request by the Authority, the Council held a public hearing on April 7, 2014, regarding the issuance of Bonds by the Authority to finance the Project and, following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 9400 approving the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds. H. For reasons beyond the control of the Borrower, the issuance of the Bonds has been delayed, and the Bonds are now expected to be issued on April 30, 2015. 150317 jb 0131325 1 Not Yet Approved I. Applicable Internal Revenue Service regulations require that the public hearing and Council approval occur within one year of the date of issuance of the Bonds, so the Authority has requested that the Council hold another public hearing regarding the financing of the Project, and adopt a resolution following the new public hearing approving the issuance by the Authority of the Bonds proceeds of which will be used to finance the Project. J. Notice of the new public hearing has been duly given as required by the Code and the Council has heretofore held the new public hearing at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard on all matters relative to the financing of the Project and the and the Authority’s issuance of the Bonds therefore, and the Council now desires to again approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1: The Council hereby affirms its approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the purpose of providing funds to make a loan to the Borrower to enable the Borrower to finance costs of the Project. It is the purpose and intent of the Council that this Resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds (a) by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the Project is located in accordance with section 147(f) of the Code, and (b) by the Council in accordance with Section 4 of the Agreement. SECTION 2: The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to repayment or administration of the Bonds. SECTION 3: The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or rehabilitate the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, rehabilitation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein. SECTION 4: The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all agreements, documents and certificates which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby. SECTION 5: The City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the bond counsel for the Bonds, addressed as follows: Paul J. Thimmig, Esq. Quint & Thimmig LLP 900 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 270 Larkspur, CA 94939-1726 150317 jb 0131325 2 Not Yet Approved SECTION 6: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager or Designee Director of Administrative Services 150317 jb 0131325 3 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5587) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2015 Summary Title: Retail Preservation Discussion Title: City Council Direction Regarding: (1) Parameters of an Interim Ordinance to Prohibit Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and Services to Other Uses, and (2) Subsequent Steps to Establish Zoning Regulations to Preserve and Promote Active Ground Floor Uses in the City's Commercial Areas From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding (1) parameters of an interim ordinance to prevent conversion of ground floor retail and services to other uses, and (2) subsequent development of zoning regulations to ensure active ground floor uses and neighborhood-serving retail in the ity’s commercial areas, potentially including clarification of permitted ground floor service uses. Specific recommendations in each of these areas are provided in the Discussion section below. Executive Summary On March 2, 2015, the City Council identified the loss of ground floor retail and services as one impact of increased office rents and office development in the City and directed staff to return with an urgency ordinance and subsequent zoning amendments to address this issue. Because the March 2, 2015 agenda item was not specifically noticed as a discussion of ground floor retail and services, tonight’s discussion has been agendized to receive public input and more specific Council direction. Data provided to the City Council for the March 2, 2015 discussion shows that there has been an overall loss of retail square footage in the City over the last 15 years, although sales tax revenues are robust.1 !lso, while the ity’s primary retail areas, Downtown, Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country, and California Avenue are thriving, there are concerns about rising rents and many examples of long-time retail tenants and spaces converting to other uses. 1 Congestion Management Plan (CMP) data shows a net loss of retail square footage of approximately 37,500 square feet between 2001 and 2015, and a net loss of approximately 70,500 square feet between 2008 and 2015. City of Palo Alto Page 1 These concerns affect all commercial areas of the City, and suggest that existing ground floor retail protections may not be sufficient where they exist, and may be needed where they do not. An “urgency” or “interim” ordinance is a short term, emergency measure adopted to address an immediate need while a longer term strategy is being developed (California Government Code Section 65858). Urgency or interim ordinances require specific findings and a super majority (eight out of nine votes) for adoption. They do not require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and do not require two readings before becoming effective. They can be effective for up to 45 days, and extended for just over 22 months. If the City Council is interested in considering adoption of an urgency ordinance, staff recommends concurrent preparation of a traditional ordinance as a “backstop” or alternative in case the urgency ordinance fails to garner eight votes or is challenged based on the required findings. In either (or both) instances, the City Council will need to clarify precisely what types of existing land uses they wish to preserve, which geographic areas it applies to and whether the ordinance will apply to applications that are already in the review process. The ordinance will also need to provide a safety valve or process for exempting sites where it can be shown that retail use is not economically viable. Background Retail and related uses are permitted in commercial and mixed-use areas of the City and there are a variety of mechanisms used to preserve or promote ground floor retail in some areas. More detail can be provided regarding any of these areas: Downtown Retail use is permitted in all areas of the Downtown Commercial (CD) District and required in the core where ground floor overlay or combining district regulations applies (PAMC Section 18.30(c)). The purpose of these regulations is to allow only retail, eating and drinking and other service-oriented commercial development uses on the ground floor within the boundaries of the combining district. Permitted uses on the ground floor include: (1) Eating and drinking; (2) Hotels; (3) Personal services;2 (4) Retail services; (5) Theaters; (6) Travel agencies; (7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving non-ground floor uses. The regulations also allow up to twenty-five percent of the ground floor area not fronting on a street to be occupied by another use permitted in the CD district (e.g. office). 2 “Personal services” are defined to include “beauty shops, nail salons, day spas, and barber shops” as well as laundries, print shops, “internet and consumer electronics services,” film shops, art or dance studios (18.040.030(114)). The term “internet and consumer electronic services” was added in 2001 with the intent of permitting “cyber cafes.” Staff has interpreted “internet and consumer electronics services” to include such uses as “Hana Haus,” but has not permitted internet office startups under this definition. While there still may be a desire to carve out an exception for unique internet retailers, Council may want to direct staff to re-examine this particular language. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Use permits may be obtained by property owners seeking to use a ground floor for a business or trade school, commercial recreation, day care, financial services, or general business services. Office and other permitted uses can be located in basements and on the upper floors. Ordinance 4098 which enacted controls on ground floor uses in the CD and GF overlay district in 1992 is attached as Exhibit A. SOFA In the SOFA II area, retail use is allowed within the Residential Transition (RT) zones established by the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. The goal of RT zones is the continuation of neighborhood service commercial uses, retention of some ground floor office and limited provision of new offices. The RT zones allow office use, schools, institutions, financial services, general business services, eating and drinking services, and personal services. A use permit is needed for automotive services and service stations, warehousing and distribution uses, and commercial recreation. New office space is limited in floor area and conversions to office are limited as well. Sites in the Homer Emerson Corridor cannot have ground floor office except under specific circumstances, and ground floor residential use outside the Homer Emerson Corridor cannot be converted to office use. California Avenue Retail is allowed in the Community Commercial (CC) Subdistrict (2) zone and ground floor retail is specifically required in the retail combining district (R) or “overlay” zone that applies to the core of the California Avenue district (PAMC Section 18.30(A)). Within the R overlay zone, only eating and drinking, personal services, and retail services are permitted; financial service use is allowed via a conditional use permit. Professional and business offices, eating and drinking services, liquor stores, shopping centers, personal services, and other service uses are allowed in CC(2) where there is no R overlay. A use permit is required for medical offices, commercial recreation, and general business services. Ordinance 3519 which enacted controls on ground floor uses in the CC2 and R districts in 1984 is attached as Exhibit B. Other Areas Retail use is permitted in other commercial areas (El amino Real’s N, S, and  zones, San !ntonio’s S zone, Midtown and harleston enter’s N-GF-P zones, and one Middlefield property’s N-R zone) and as part of a mixed use (retail-residential) project within any site City of Palo Alto Page 3 rezoned PTOD. Retail use is conditionally permitted in the ROLM, Research Park and GM zone districts. Section 18.16.050 of the Municipal Code restricts the presence of Medical, Professional, and Business offices on the ground floor except in certain circumstances. These controls were first adopted in 2001 following a comprehensive review of ground floor retail issues. Ordinance 4730 is attached as Exhibit C. A series of urgency ordinances were adopted in early 2001 regarding uses allowed in the Midtown Shopping District and the Charleston Center, and lead to adoption of Ordinances 4786 and 4787 in April 2003, establishing permitted and conditional uses in those areas (Exhibit D). These provisions are currently found in Municipal Code Section 18.16.040(c), (d), and (e). Discussion On March 2, 2015, the City Council has expressed its desire to consider two things: (1) an urgency or interim ordinance that could go into effect quickly and remain in place until permanent zoning changes are adopted; and (2) consideration of those permanent zoning changes. (The ouncil’s motion is included as Exhibit E.) These two things – and staff’s recommended approach --are discussed further below. !s noted above, the ouncil’s current interests are similar to those expressed in 2001. At that time, the Council adopted a number of temporary urgency ordinances, the permanent ordinance provided in Exhibit C, and ultimately the permanent ordinance included in Exhibit D. (These ordinances are today codified in Municipal Code Section 18.16). A sample urgency ordinance from this period is included as Exhibit F.3 Urgency and/or Interim Ordinance If the ouncil’s desire is to prevent existing retail and service uses from converting to other uses Citywide, staff recommends that the City Council specify the parameters of an urgency or interim ordinance, including at a minimum the following: 1. Prohibit existing retail uses in all commercial zones (or alternatively in designated zones with the highest risk of retail conversion) from converting to office use. Extend the same protections to eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theatres, and travel agencies. (This list is consistent with uses permitted in the GF combining district Downtown.) 2. The prohibition would apply to those retail services operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no application involving a change of use has been submitted to the City by March 2, 2015. 3. The ordinance should establish an appeal process to allow conversion in cases of financial hardship or showing that the facility is unsuited for successful retail use. 3 This urgency ordinance was adopted in April 2001 to be effective until 2003. It replaced earlier, shorter-term urgency ordinances on the same subject adopted first in January 2001 and again in February 2001. City of Palo Alto Page 4 4. Existing retail service facilities can be demolished and rebuilt as long as the retail square footage is only reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floors and/or lower level parking. 5. Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain. 6. The basic definition of retail services in the Municipal Code shall be continued. (Note: these points are virtually identical to recommendations presented in the discussion section of CMR: 416:01 in 2001.) In addition, staff recommends that: 7. The ordinance will be effective for an initial 45 days with an option to extend for an additional 10 months and 15 days if the urgency continues, with the potential for another year extension if a permanent ordinance(s) has not been adopted by the end of the first year. 8. Clarify that the ordinance does not affect the ability to change from one of the preserved uses to another (e.g. from retail to eating and drinking), and that nothing in the ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Also, clarify that nothing in the ordinance shall affect the need for a conditional use permit for certain allowed uses where such requirements currently exist, although use permit requirements and affected uses could be adjusted in the permanent ordinance that follows. Please note that these are complex issues and the staff has had minimal time to give them careful consideration; as a result, staff would appreciate some flexibility in drafting an ordinance that would address the ouncil’s objectives and legal constraints. A draft ordinance could be prepared and noticed for hearing within 60 days. State law authorizes interim urgency ordinances prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the Council is or intends to study within a reasonable time. In an urgency ordinance, the Council would need to include findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that the approval of additional retail conversions would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare. In addition, staff would recommend that the ordinance contain findings, supported by evidence in the record, that the urgency ordinance would not have a material effect on the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing. Longer Term Zoning Changes Commercial districts of Palo Alto vary greatly from each other and are currently governed by different zoning districts and combining districts. As a result, staff recommends that long-term City of Palo Alto Page 5 zoning changes be tailored to each district after consultation with property owners, merchants, and residents in the vicinity. ased on ouncil’s prior direction, the alifornia !venue district has been prioritized, and staff has been focusing on that district first. In addition, the City has a contract with the consultants who prepared the Downtown Cap studies in 2014 to analyze retail-related issues in the Downtown, suggesting this area as the second priority. In each area, it will be important to identify the issue(s) or problem(s) we are trying to solve, collect available data, and consider:  Whether boundaries of the current ground floor combining districts should be expanded and if so, how?4  Whether the list or definition of uses allowed in the combining districts should be modified?  Whether the districts should continue to allow office use in 25% of the floor area?  Whether there should be a maximum or minimum size for retail establishments or eating and drinking establishments?  Whether a quota or limit on certain types of uses (e.g. personal services, restaurants, or “formula” retail) should be established?  Whether there are other, related zoning adjustments that are needed? Staff would appreciate ouncil’s prioritization of areas to examine following the California Avenue and Downtown districts, and thoughts as to whether these other commercial areas are sufficiently protected by PAMC Sections 18.16.040 and 18.16.050. Staff also suggests that the City Council refer the planning process for longer term zoning changes to the PT given the ouncil’s prioritization of the omprehensive Plan Update and the number of related issues to resolve. Whatever recommendations the PTC develops after public hearings and work sessions would be subject to the City ouncil’s review and adoption or modification. Timeline Depending on the ity ouncil’s direction this evening, staff may be able to return to the ouncil with an urgency ordinance for the ouncil’s consideration within 60 days. Permanent revisions to the ity’s zoning ordinance will take considerably more time, involving City Council input and direction, discussions with residents, property owners, merchants, and other stakeholders, review and recommendation(s) by the PTC, and adoption (two readings) by the Council. Allocation of staff resources to this effort may mean that other priorities have to be set aside. 4 The GF combining district in Downtown was adjusted to eliminate certain blocks in 2009, and one simple idea would be to again include these blocks, but the Council may ultimately wish to include other areas as well. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Resource Impact Planning staff and staff in the ity !ttorney’s office will have to set aside other projects to prepare the urgency or interim ordinance discussed here. Policy Implications The ity’s omprensive Plan identifies the desireability of neighborhood serving retail (Policy L- 16) and envisions inviting, pedestrian-scale “centers” with a mix of uses as focal points for neighbohroods (Goal L-4). Policy L-20 suggests that the ity “encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality/” and Policy -5 calls on the ity to “maintain distinct business diestricts within Palo Alto as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the ity’s economic base.” Environmental Review Adoption of an urgency or interim ordinance will be categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) if it is crafted to perpetuate existing conditions. Longer term zoning changes may require CEQA review depending on the nature of the proposed changes and their potential to result in physical environmental impacts, either directly or indirectly. Attachments:  A: Ordinance 4098 Amending Title 18 Relating to Ground Floor Uses in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zone District (PDF)  B: Ordinance 3519 Adding Chapter 18.44 and Chapter 18.46 Regarding Conditional Uses to PAMC (PDF)  C: Ordinance 4730 Amending Sections 18.04.030, 18.41.030, 18.43.030, 18.45.030 and 18.49.050 To Prohibit Conversion in Commercial Districts of Ground Floor Non-Office Uses to Business Offices (PDF)  D: Ordinance 4786 Amending Title 18 to Add Section 18.41.037 Preserving and Supporting Ground Floor Neighborhood Serving Uses in the CN District in Portions of Midtown Shopping District (PDF)  E: Excerpt Action Minutes of the March 2, 2015 City Council Meeting on Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (PDF)  F: Ordinance 4689 To Preserve And Support Neighborhood Serving Uses in CN District at Portions of Charleston Center on an Extended Interim Basis which Amends and Extends Ord. 4684 (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 7 PLACEHOLDER