Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-05-11 City Council Agenda Packet
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL May 11, 2015 Regular Meeting Council Chambers 6:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday preceding the meeting. 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 Applicants and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the public discussion to make their remarks and up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken. Call to Order Closed Session 6:00-7:00 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Lalo Perez, David Ramberg, Joe Saccio, Kathryn Shen, Sandra Blanch, Allyson Hauk, Val Fong, Christine Paras, Molly Stump) Employee Organization: Utilities Management and Professional Association of Palo Alto (UMPAPA) Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) Special Orders of the Day 7:00-7:30 PM 2. Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Medical Foundation linkAges TimeBank Program 3. Proclamation Recognizing the Week of May 10, 2015 as Police Week/National Peace Officers Memorial Day 1 May 11, 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. 4. Presentation on the American Public Works Association (APWA) Accreditation Process Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 7:30-7:40 PM Oral Communications 7:40-7:55 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 7:55-8:00 PM 5. March 23, 2015 April 6, 2015 Consent Calendar 8:00-8:05 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 6. Approval of a Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in the Amount of $600,000 for Design Services for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-13003 7. Approval of a Lease Agreement Between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players-Peninsula Center Stage for Office Space Use at Lucie Stern Community Center Located at 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto 8. Approval of Six Contract Amendments: (a) Amendment No. 3 to 4Leaf, Inc. Contract C13149364, Increasing Compensation by $2,100,000 to $5,100,000; (b) Amendment No. 3 to Kutzmann & Associates, Inc. Contract C13149368, Increasing Compensation by $250,000 to $976,000; (c) Amendment No. 3 to Interwest Consulting Group Contract C13149365, Increasing Compensation by $25,000 to $175,000; (d) Amendment No. 2 to CSG Consulting Contract C13149366, Increasing Compensation by $20,000 to $120,000; (e) Amendment No. 2 to TRB & Associates Contract C13149369, Increasing Compensation by $20,000 to $120,000; and (f) Amendment No. 2 to West Coast Code Consultants Contract C13149367, Increasing Compensation by $118,000 to $888,000, to Renew Contracts and Amend Scope of Work Each for a One-Year Term Extension for On-Call Inspection, Plan Check Services, and Capital Improvement Costs 2 May 11, 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. 9. Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve Changes to the Performance Measures and Strategic Initiatives of the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan 10. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board's March 17, 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regulations 11. SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinances Amending Chapters 16.14, 16.17, and 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Green Building Code and the California Energy Code (First Reading April 20, 2015 PASSED: 9-0) 12. SECOND READING: Adoption of Amended Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Outdoor Smoking Restrictions in Commercial Areas and Outdoor Dining (First Reading: April 20, 2015 PASSED: 9-0) Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 8:05-9:15 PM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Urgency Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Conversion of Existing Ground Floor Retail and Retail-Like Uses to Office or Other Uses on a Citywide Basis Effective Immediately 9:15-10:30 PM 14. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan and Approval of a Negative Declaration Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 3 May 11, 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 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting-Budget May 12, 2015 5:30 PM Sp. Policy and Services Committee Meeting May 12, 2015 7:00 PM Sp. Finance Committee Meeting-Budget May 14, 2015 5:30 PM Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Public Letters to Council Set 1 4 May 11, 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. City/School Meeting May 14, 2015 8:00 AM City of Palo Alto (ID # 5702) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Partner Presentation - Palo Alto Medical Foundation Linkeages Program Title: Community Partnership Presentation - Palo Alto Medical Foundation linkAges TimeBank Program From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Palo Alto Medical Foundation will present their linkAges TimeBank™ program and speak about their new partnership with the City of Palo Alto The linkAges TimeBank™, a neighborhood service-exchange network, launched by Palo Alto Medical Foundation in 2013, is expanding to the City of Palo Alto, in partnership with the City of Palo Alto Utilities and Zero Waste departments, Palo Alto Family YMCA, Avenidas and other community non-profit organizations. The linkAges TimeBank program is a neighborhood service-exchange network that matches members with the unique skills, talents, and needs of those who live nearby. Members contribute services in exchange for hours and use those hours to receive services in return. linkAges TimeBank members develop meaningful social connections across all generations through giving and receiving help, learning new skills and sharing hobbies and interests. The linkAges TimeBank is part of a larger initiative that supports the wellbeing and quality of life of older adults and family caregivers. Here’s how it works: Individuals sign-up to become a member and create an online profile. Members request services that they need and offer services that they can provide. Members earn hours by providing services and use those hours to receive services in return. In the TimeBank, everyone can contribute their time and everyone’s time is valued equally. Some of the many offers and requests on the TimeBank include transportation, tech support, gardening, cooking, languages, and home repair. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Potential members can learn about the program and sign up at various orientations around the community. These interactive sessions last about one hour and offer details on how the program works. Palo Alto residents can sign-up to attend an upcoming orientation at: timebank.linkages.org. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5759) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Police Week Proclamation Title: Proclamation Recognizing the Week of May 10, 2015 as Police Week/National Peace Officers Memorial Day From: City Manager Lead Department: Police Attachments: Police Week | National Peace Officers Memorial Day (DOC) CITY OF PALO ALTO PROCLAMATION Police Week | National Peace Officers Memorial Day WHEREAS, Congress and President of the United States have designated May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which it falls as Police Week; and WHEREAS, Police Week recognizes the members of the Palo Alto Police Department and the essential role they play in safeguarding the rights and freedom of citizens; and WHEREAS, Police Week enables citizens to know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their Police Department, along with helping people to gain understanding of the members of the Police Department who: safeguard lives and property against violence or disorder, who protect the innocent against deception and who defend the weak against oppression or intimidation; and WHEREAS, Police Week shows the growth of the Palo Alto Police Department, how it has become a modern and progressive law enforcement agency and how it provides a vital public service to the community; and WHEREAS Police Week exclaims the call upon all citizens of Palo Alto to observe Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled due to an act of duty. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Karen Holman, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby call upon all patriotic, civil and educational organizations to observe the week of May 10-16, 2015 as Police Week, in which all people may join in honoring police officers, past and present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities, have rendered a dedicated service to Palo Alto and have established an enduring reputation in preserving the rights and security of all citizens. Presented: May 11, 2015 ______________________________ Karen Holman Mayor City of Palo Alto (ID # 5706) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Presentation on the APWA Accreditation Process Title: Presentation on the American Public Works Association (APWA) Accreditation Process From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works The Public Works Department is in the process of obtaining accreditation from the American Public Works Association and as part of the accreditation process, agency staff must present a summary of the results of its work to its governing body at a public meeting. The American Public Works Association launched its accreditation program in 1996 and since then, only 98 public works agencies in North America out of more than 15,000 have been accredited. Palo Alto submitted its application for accreditation in March 2014 and is on track to become the 101st accredited agency later this summer and the 1st in Silicon Valley. Staff will do a short presentation on this effort at the May 11 City Council meeting. 03/23/2015 117- 114 Special Meeting March 23, 2015 Special Orders of the Day ........................................................................116 1. Presentation to Development Services Department Regarding Recognition of Achievement by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for its Administering of the Building Codes Attaining the Highest Standards for Structural Safety .........................116 Study Session ........................................................................................116 2. Update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Collection of All of Its State Water Project Costs via Property Taxes Instead of Water Rates ...116 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions ..................................................127 City Manager Comments .........................................................................127 Oral Communications ..............................................................................128 Minutes Approval ....................................................................................128 Consent Calendar ...................................................................................129 3. Approval of Two 3-Year Contracts for a Computer and Data Center Data Storage or 'Cloud Backup' Solution Totaling $618,991: 1) Exucom Contract Number C15156183 in the Amount of up to $327,121 for Data Center Backup; 2) Code42 Contract Number C151566312 in the Amount of $291,870 for Computer and Laptop Backup .......................130 4. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Expand the Number of Streets Eligible for Resurfacing Work Using Federal or State Grant Funding ................................................................................130 5. Approval of Amendment Number Seven to the City’s Lease Agreement with McCandless Limited, LLC., For Office Space at 1005 and 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto .....................................................................130 6. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract C14153010 with Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to Increase the Contract by $400,000 for an Amount Not to Exceed $784,999 for On- MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 115 Call Planning Services Needed to Support Implementation of the City's Individual Review Program ..............................................................130 7. Request for Procedural Change - Present the Results of the Animal Services Audit to the Finance Committee Rather Than to the Policy and Services Committee ........................................................................130 8. Approval of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund Contract with Precision Engineering, Inc. In the Amount of $7,405,730 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Projects 24, 25, and 26 in University South, Professorville and Old Palo Alto Neighborhoods ..................................130 Action Items ..........................................................................................130 9. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from March 2, 2015) ........130 10. Approval of a Residential Curbside Compost Collection Program and Adopting a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5314 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council of the City of Palo Alto for $387,000 for the Purchase of Kitchen Buckets and New Outreach Materials.” .....................................................................................150 Closed Session .......................................................................................152 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ........................152 11. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Potential Initiation of Litigation ....153 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 A.M. ...........................154 MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 116 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:09 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois arrived at 6:20 P.M., Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff arrived at 6:46 P.M., Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Presentation to Development Services Department Regarding Recognition of Achievement by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for its Administering of the Building Codes Attaining the Highest Standards for Structural Safety. Peter Pirnejad, Development Services Director, remarked that the award was a symbol of the work the City Manager began in 2009 with formation of the Blueprint. International Standards Organization (ISO) measured building resilience, competency of Staff, and quality of the building. The City received a Class 1 designation of a model organization. Milpitas, Newport Beach, and Beverly Hills were the only other cities in the State to obtain a Class 1 designation. Ralph Dorio, ISO President, reported a rigorously enforced Building Code offered unintended benefits. The program was recognized in insurance underwriting, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other organizations as a basis to compare communities. A Class 1 designation was awarded to few cities across the nation. Roxy Rapp appreciated the City Manager and Development Services Staff's efforts to obtain the Class 1 designation. Building resilience and safety were important for the community and building tenants. Development Services had improved greatly over the past four years. Study Session 2. Update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Collection of All of Its State Water Project Costs via Property Taxes Instead of Water Rates. Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner, reported State Water Project revenue totaled slightly more than $20 million annually countywide from property taxes. When the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) Board approved water rates each year, those rates assumed 100 percent of the State Water Project obligation would be collected via property taxes. Palo Alto residents contributed approximately $1.5 million of the $20 million MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 117 annual revenue. The City purchased all its water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC); however, property owners continued to pay the State Water Project tax. Staff investigated the contract between the Water District and the State Water Project and noted the property tax mechanism should only be used as a last resort to meet the revenue requirement. Funds could be collected through water rates or property taxes. Staff had communicated with the Water District regarding collection of revenue; however, the Water District continued to collect revenue through property taxes. The Water District claimed the City received indirect benefits from the State Water Project. The City claimed purchasing water from SFPUC provided the same benefits. Should the Delta Tunnel Project be constructed, Staff anticipated the amount of money collected from property taxes would double. SFPUC water rates were higher than Water District rates, because of vast infrastructure improvements to the Hetch Hetchy system. James Keene, City Manager, clarified that the concern was not the benefits provided by the Water District to all of Santa Clara County. The payment mechanism did not align with community expectations for transparency. Jim Fiedler, Santa Clara Valley Water District Chief Operating Officer, advised that voters approved the State Water Project and its financing in 1960. The Water District implemented the tax in 1979-1980. Prior to 1979, revenue for the State Water Project was collected as part of ad valorem property taxes. It was concluded that was an override to the mechanism set out in Proposition 13; therefore, the Water District began collecting the State Water Project Tax throughout Santa Clara County. Funds could be used solely for contractual obligations incurred by the Water District to pay for the State Water Project. The Water District relied upon the tax to recover or pay 100 percent of the obligation. The Water District Board determined the amount to be set aside for the obligation annually. Typically that amount was 10 percent of the State Water Project tax. Groundwater served as a backup supply to Hetch Hetchy water. The Water District Board directed its staff to work with Palo Alto and other northern cities to provide up to $3 million in a program that could create a greater reliance on locally sustainable, drought-proof water supplies. An advanced purification facility recently came online to blend purple pipe water to improve the quality of recycled water. In the future, the Water District envisioned using that same technology to recharge groundwater to provide further supply. Council Member Berman asked if the Water District sold water to consumers outside of Santa Clara County. Mr. Fiedler replied no. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 118 Council Member Berman inquired whether the Water District Board had considered revenue sources other than the property tax. Mr. Fiedler indicated the Water District Board provided a report that described groundwater charges and cost of service analysis. The report reflected the offset for the State Water Project tax. In July 2014, the Water District Board had greater interest in the State Water Project tax in policy discussions. In November and December 2014, the Water District Board held public sessions describing the State Water Project tax. Water District staff asked the Board whether it should change its practice of relying upon 100 percent of costs to be recovered through the State Water Project tax. The Water District Board did not provide direction to make changes. Council Member Berman asked if most water agencies collected infrastructure costs via a tax or water rates. Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the State Water Project was a special situation. In general, the contemporary philosophical underpinnings of a tax were that fees aligned with services provided. Many other water districts provided a portion of the State Water Project costs through tax rolls. Staff believed the Water District's practice of collecting all costs through the tax was unusual for an urban and semi-urban district. Council Member Burt inquired whether Palo Alto's drawdown of water helped prevent subsidence. Mr. Fiedler could not say. The basin was large, and the Water District recharged it in portions to maintain the balance. Many people benefited by the Water District's management and recharge program. Council Member Burt was referring to preventing subsidence today. He asked if the Water District drew from the water table. Mr. Fiedler advised that the Water District did not pump groundwater. Other municipalities and investor-owned utilities pumped groundwater. The Water District provided a means for water supply to remain available. Council Member Burt asked if the Water District pumped water into the water table while users throughout Santa Clara County withdrew water from the table. Mr. Fiedler responded yes. Council Member Burt asked if any water pumped from the water table served Palo Alto. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 119 Mr. Fiedler believed approximately 250 active private wells were located within Palo Alto. If those wells were used for the purposes defined by the District Act, then a groundwater production charge was levied on those wells. Council Member Burt inquired whether it was reasonable to state that wells within Palo Alto consumed only low single digits of the total water consumed by Santa Clara County. Mr. Fiedler did not have that information. Council Member Burt requested Mr. Fiedler obtain that information. The Water District's basic premise was the City was somehow benefiting from the recharge in terms of preventing subsidence and the draw. He wanted to know the degree to which that was so. If one entity received the vast majority of water from groundwater and another entity received almost no water, those two things were not equal. Mr. Fiedler commented that both entities wanted to ensure a reliable groundwater table. He asked if the City wanted to ensure a reliable water supply whether it used a lot or a little water. Council Member Burt would not care equally. He hoped the City and the Water District could move toward an open, frank, and straightforward discussion. The City paid equally for the replenishment of the aquifer and received very little draw from that aquifer. He inquired whether the City had a potential alternative water supply during a drought. Mr. Fiedler noted the Water District had an interconnect (intertie) with SFPUC. In times of need, the Water District could supply water to SFPUC and vice versa. Council Member Burt asked if that interconnect was part of the reason for Palo Alto property taxpayers to pay the State Water Project tax. Mr. Fiedler indicated that was not necessarily a reason. The question was whether or not citizens of Palo Alto derived any benefits from having State Water Project water available in Santa Clara County. That was an example of a benefit that Palo Alto citizens directly received. Council Member Burt inquired whether Mr. Fiedler meant the intertie was a benefit but not a reason to pay the State Water Project tax. Mr. Fiedler advised that the Staff Report included the Water District attorney's report about taxes, other sources of revenue, benefit assessments MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 120 or even fees or charges. There were certain tax rules that corresponded to them. The tax was designed to be collected irrespective of the amount of water consumed. Citizens paid other taxes for which they might not receive an immediate benefit. As the Water District managed the basin and attempted to keep that level high, wells in Palo Alto were relying upon value in the basin and benefited from the recharge program that occurred elsewhere in the basin. Council Member Burt believed Palo Alto did not benefit equally to other areas of Santa Clara County that actually drew water from those wells. Mr. Fiedler reported those who drew water paid the State Water Project tax and a groundwater production charge that paid for the total cost of service. Council Member Burt stated Palo Alto residents received a miniscule amount of benefit; other residents of Santa Clara County received a primary amount of benefit. He inquired whether SFPUC charged the Water District or customers in Santa Clara County for the reciprocal interconnect. Mr. Fiedler explained that the Water District had the option to use dollars for the water. However, over the past few years, the Water District kept a record of the amount of water made available to SFPUC, because the Water District could recover that at a future date. Council Member Burt understood Mr. Fiedler to state that citizens of Palo Alto received a benefit from the State Water Project tax. One of those benefits was drought resilience or some ability to have a second water supply in a drought. Mr. Fiedler's argument was that part of the reason Palo Alto citizens paid the State Water Project tax was to obtain that benefit. The Water District and customers received a reciprocal benefit for which they did not pay Palo Alto citizens. It was a one-way dollar flow. He inquired whether there was a relationship between Clean Safe Creeks, Measure B, dollars and the State Water Project tax. Mr. Fiedler reported the 2012 measure contained provisions that were not in the 2000 measure. The 2012 measure included dollars to help pay for some of the retrofit costs at the Anderson Dam. By and large, generally they were separate. Council Member Burt asked if the seismic retrofit served Palo Alto. Mr. Fiedler indicated it could. Water from Anderson Dam could feed into the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant to recharge along the western side of Santa Clara County. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 121 Council Member Burt noted the City had an allocation from Hetch Hetchy that was 30 percent above water use, and the City did not buy that water. He inquired about the relevance of the City's hypothetical benefit from improvements to the Anderson Dam. Mr. Fiedler explained that the Water District managed the water table to avoid steep shortfalls and to ensure available water supply. Those supplies or commingled local water and imported water could be used to recharge the groundwater basin. Council Member Burt stated that Palo Alto citizens had not drawn down the aquifer from the time the City began buying Hetch Hetchy water. Any subsidence or reduction in the water table occurred because Water District customers were drawing down more than pumping in. He interpreted the Water District's argument as Palo Alto citizens were to pay other Water District customers so that they would not draw down the aquifer. Palo Alto citizens were not at risk for drawing down the aquifer, because they had a water supply. Mr. Fiedler explained that without Water District management wells in Palo Alto would probably be dry. By using State water and recovering the costs, the Water District provided a benefit that allowed Palo Alto's wells to be available during an emergency. Council Member Burt asked if it was true that Palo Alto would not have caused a decrease in water supply because Palo Alto did not drawdown the aquifer. Mr. Fiedler could not say definitely because he did not know all the historic wells in the region. He did not know how Palo Alto's demands compared to other demands in the region. Council Member Burt asked if the Water District had a registry of all wells in Palo Alto. Mr. Fiedler replied yes. Council Member Burt requested that list in writing. Mr. Fiedler agreed to provide the list. In Fiscal Year 2013-2014, active wells in Palo Alto pumped approximately 185 acre feet of water. Council Member Burt inquired about the amount of water pumped in from the State Water Project. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 122 Mr. Fiedler hoped to receive around 20,000 acre feet from the State Water Project. When water was available in the State water system, the Water District could store water to further supply needs in a dry period. Council Member Burt stated Palo Alto citizens were paying for their proportionate share of the 20,000 acre feet while receiving only 185 acre feet of water. That provided a good sense of the proportionality of the amount Palo Alto citizens paid versus the benefit they received. Gary Kremen advised that Palo Alto utilized approximately 11,000 acre feet of water per year. Palo Alto was providing the Water District a $12-$13 million benefit by not pumping groundwater. SFPUC had provided more water than the Water District to the intertie. Palo Alto was not suffering from subsidence issues. In south Santa Clara County, residents received a 100 percent rebate of the State Water Project tax through the Open Space Credit. The Water District could return the State Water Project tax. Steve Jordan reported the City of Los Altos Hills met with the Water District to request water in 2008 and 2009. The Water District informed the City of Los Altos Hills that no water was available, no pipeline was available to service Los Altos Hills, and the Water District did not have sufficient infrastructure to treat water. Paying the State Water Project tax did not guarantee a water supply. The City of Los Altos Hills felt the tax was unfair and should be changed. Bob Moss advised that a monitoring well on his property indicated an aquifer depth of 105 feet. The aquifer depth did not alter significantly with varying rainfall amounts. He understood some residents of Palo Alto had wells on their property of which the Water District was not aware. He appreciated the City Manager and Staff bringing this issue to light. Council Member Filseth inquired whether the State Water Project tax totaled approximately 10 percent of Water District revenues. Mr. Fiedler answered yes. Council Member Filseth asked about sources of the remaining 90 percent of revenues. Mr. Fiedler indicated other sources of revenue were the groundwater product charges and sales of treated water. The Water District held contracts with water retailers that purchased water from one of the three water treatment plants. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 123 Council Member Filseth asked if those sources totaled approximately $200 million annually. Mr. Fiedler answered yes. Council Member Filseth inquired whether that was covered by ratepayers of Santa Clara County. Mr. Fiedler explained that much of the groundwater was used for water retailers. Some private domestic wells and agriculture irrigation wells paid a groundwater charge directly to the Water District. The Water District wholesaled treated water to San Jose Water Company, the City of San Jose and others who then paid the Water District. Council Member Filseth calculated an average rate hike of slightly less than 1 percent for Water District customers if Palo Alto's subsidy ceased. Mr. Fiedler understood it could not work in that manner. By law, the tax had to be collected countywide. Council Member Filseth presumed Palo Alto ratepayers would not pay the increase because they did not use Water District water. Mr. Fiedler was referring to the State Water Project tax. The tax was assessed countywide; therefore, he was not sure if Palo Alto could be excluded from collection of that tax. Council Member Filseth asked if there was a technical problem with excluding Palo Alto. Mr. Fiedler indicated the problem was a legal one. If Palo Alto was excluded, then the tax would have to be reapportioned among all other parcels. Council Member Filseth inquired whether the Water District could give Palo Alto citizens a rebate as mentioned by public speakers. Mr. Fiedler clarified that taxes were not rebated to anyone in Santa Clara County. The Water District offset its cost of services in south Santa Clara County by the amount of money received through the State Water Project. That was reflected in the groundwater report. Council Member Filseth stated in principle the Water District could raise rates 1 percent, and send Palo Alto the difference. Mr. Fiedler replied yes. The Water District could provide $3 million towards recycling. The Water District cost shared funding for conservation programs. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 124 Council Member Filseth felt the Water District was working diligently to construct an argument for providing a benefit to Palo Alto; however, there was no benefit to Palo Alto. Council Member DuBois requested an explanation of the rebate for south Santa Clara County. Mr. Fiedler explained that as part of the cost of services analysis, the Water District reviewed an offset for State Water Project tax revenue collected in south Santa Clara County. The Water District showed that as a credit in setting the rate for south Santa Clara County. Council Member DuBois asked if the revenue collected was tax revenue. Mr. Fiedler responded yes. The tax revenue was collected countywide on parcels eligible to pay the tax. In performing the cost of service analysis to determine the groundwater charge for south Santa Clara County, the Water District factored in the amount of State Water Project tax revenue collected from south Santa Clara County. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the cost incurred in Palo Alto was different from the cost incurred in south Santa Clara County. Mr. Fiedler reported those who pumped from the groundwater basin in south Santa Clara County paid a lower rate as a result of crediting the State Water Project tax. Again, north Santa Clara County benefited when they pumped water. Mr. Keene inquired whether the Water District credited the amount of State Water Project tax collected from south Santa Clara County against the retail sales costs for south Santa Clara County citizens. Mr. Fiedler answered yes. Mr. Keene explained that south Santa Clara County citizens did not receive a reduction in property tax but a reduction in water rates. The reduction in water rates would not necessarily match the amount of tax collected. Mr. Fiedler concurred. Mr. Keene understood Council Member DuBois was inquiring whether the Water District could provide a $1.6 million credit to the City of Palo Alto such that it could be distributed to Palo Alto ratepayers. Mr. Fiedler felt the Water District Board was thinking along those lines when it considered providing funding for recycled water. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 125 Council Member DuBois asked if the credit was related in some way to the Gavilan Water District. Mr. Fiedler replied no. The Gavilan Water District merged into the Santa Clara County Water District. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the Usage by City in Appendix F was total usage in the table. Valerie Fong, Utilities Director, advised that the total usage for 2014 from January to September was the fourth column. It did not cover the entire calendar year. For three-quarters of the year, Palo Alto's usage was 9,431 acre feet. Council Member DuBois asked if the number for San Jose reflected its total usage. Ms. Fong explained that the numbers for San Jose reflected the amount of water purchased from SFPUC. San Jose was an interruptible SFPUC customer. Council Member DuBois clarified that the total reflected the amount purchased from SFPUC not the total water for the city. Vice Mayor Schmid noted the City received all its water from the south Sierras. A water supply from the Trinity Alps and the Shasta Water Basin could be more secure. A 7 percent stake in the California Water Project could monetarily be a valuable asset. He inquired whether the City received some right to California Water Project water through its annual payments. Mr. Fiedler was not sure the Water District had rights. The Water District had contracts with the State and Federal Government that paid for facilities necessary for transporting water from either Oroville or Shasta. The Water District contracted for the delivery system to make that water available to Santa Clara County. Council Member Schmid asked if the City was buying the right to a portion of that system and the water that flowed through it. Mr. Fiedler reported the Water District held a contract for 100,000 acre feet of water. If the system could not fulfill all contracts, then the Water District would receive a portion of the 100,000 acre feet. The Water District expected to receive 20 percent of its contract amount, even though costs were fixed and would have to be recovered. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 126 Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Water District retained the right to make the allocation decision. Ms. Stump had not researched the City of Palo Alto's ability to draw on any kind of obligation the Water District could have to serve all entities in Santa Clara County. The current allocation from Hetch Hetchy was more than adequate for the City. She would provide information at a later time. Council Member Scharff requested an intellectual justification for subsidizing water rates without charging for the cost of water. Mr. Fiedler explained that the Water District had various mechanisms to recover its costs. The State Water Project tax was one mechanism. Water utilities throughout the state were struggling with fixed costs to provide service. The Water District could only charge volumetric rates for groundwater. The industry was concerned with finding other fixed components to recover costs. Trends were to recover fixed costs through fixed revenues. Legislation signed by the Governor in September 2014 allowed the Water District to consider fixed revenue in the future. Council Member Scharff did not understand why the people who consumed water did not pay for it. The people who did not use water subsidized the rest of Santa Clara County. He asked if south Santa Clara County had lower water rates. Mr. Fiedler replied yes. Rates were different between north and south Santa Clara County. The biggest differential stemmed from the fact that north Santa Clara County had much more water infrastructure to meet water needs. The same infrastructure was not present in south Santa Clara County. If south Santa Clara County had surface water treatment or additional programs, then it would have higher rates. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff correctly interpreted the language as State Water Project costs should be recovered through rates. Mr. Fiedler answered no. The Water District Board established its protocol through staff interaction. That was a vehicle by which the Board could decide whether or not to assess charges via groundwater charge or State Water Project tax. Council Member Scharff inquired whether Palo Alto formerly received a credit for the State Water Project tax. Mr. Fiedler advised that Palo Alto and other cities that relied on Hetch Hetchy water did receive a credit from the late 1970s to approximately 1984. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 127 Council Member Scharff asked why the credit ceased. Mr. Fiedler reported the Water District Board of Directors in 1984 determined a credit was no longer necessary. Council Member Scharff asked if the vote was 4 to 1. Mr. Fiedler did not know. Council Member Scharff asked if Mr. Fiedler agreed with the gentleman from Los Altos Hills that the Water District would not sell water to Los Altos Hills. Mr. Fiedler responded no. In 2008-2009, the Water District had no physical connection to Purissima Hills. They wanted to connect to the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant, but summer conditions were at peak capacity. The Water District released a bid on a project that would expand the capacity of the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant. He suggested the City of Palo Alto broker an arrangement to provide some of its surplus Hetch Hetchy water to fulfill Purissima Hills' needs. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions James Keene, City Manager, announced Agenda Item Number 4 was removed from the Consent Calendar and would be presented with additional information at a meeting in April 2015. City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, noted the Heart Across America bike ride began the previous day. The prior week, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted new emergency regulations limiting landscape irrigation to two days per week; prohibiting irrigation within 48 hours of measurable rainfall; prohibiting food service establishments from serving drinking water unless requested; and requiring hotels and motels to wash towels and linens upon request. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission continued its call for a voluntary 10 percent water reduction. In 2014, the City's voluntary water use reductions reached 16 percent, one of the highest levels in Santa Clara County. The City received Acterra's 2015 Business Environmental Award for Sustainability for its comprehensive environmental achievements. The Silicon Valley Water Conservation Awards Coalition named the City of Palo Alto as the Water Utility of the Year. The Summit for the Comprehensive Plan Update scheduled for May 30, 2015 would be noticed as a Special Meeting of the City Council. He played a video which would be used to encourage community participation at the Summit. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 128 Mayor Holman added that community members who wished to attend the Summit but failed to register would be welcome. She concurred with the Council's selection of a design for the Highway 101 Bike Bridge made the previous week. Council Member Kniss as County Supervisor secured an $8 million grant for the Bike Bridge. Oral Communications Neilson Buchanan provided a segment from the City Manager's Report of December 19, 2011 regarding a Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Program. The latest map produced by two resident survey teams indicated neighborhoods continued to suffer from lack of parking in the middle of the day. One year ago, the first stakeholder meeting for permit parking was held. After a full year of collaboration, no date had been set to implement an RPP Program. Margaret Adkins, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Palo Alto Chapter Chair, reported SEIU members did not believe they were treated fairly during the meet and confer process. SEIU ran a successful trial of two Community Service Officers (CSO) enforcing the area of the Downtown pilot RPP Program. SEIU requested the City observe a formal trial; however, City Staff did not agree. Brian O’Neill, SEIU staff member, expressed concerns about the City contracting enforcement of the RPP Program for Downtown. A contract position would have to offer wages of $17 per hour and medical benefits. SEIU offered a starting wage of $25.25 for CSOs, which was reasonable for the region. The City could save money by retaining the positions in-house. Gabriel Mora, Parking Enforcement Officer, and his coworkers concurred with retaining enforcement of the RPP Program in-house. Community members addressed positive comments to Parking Enforcement Officers while on the job. The City would not be required to hire additional employees; simply purchase necessary equipment. Stephanie Munoz had requested the Palo Alto Unified School District make the Birge Clark gymnasium available to shelter homeless women and children. Minutes Approval Omar Chatty inquired about the Council's vote not to pursue a lawsuit regarding the Caltrain Electrification Environmental Impact Review (EIR). The number of people dying on Caltrain tracks had reached 220 or 221. He MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 129 requested the City join the Atherton lawsuit as an amicus because of safety issues. Herb Borock advised that the Minutes of January 26, 2015 should include the vote or abstention of each member present on action taken in order to comply with the Brown Act. He read the legislative history from the Assembly Committee on Local Government hearing of June 26, 2013. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that Mayor Holman reported on January 26, 2015 the decision not to initiate a suit against Caltrain and the vote. That should be added to the Minutes. The Council did not identify the maker and seconder of Motions in Closed Sessions, and she encouraged the Council to continue that practice. Mayor Holman asked if the City Attorney was suggesting the Council withhold approval of the Minutes of January 26, 2015. Ms. Stump indicated the Council could approve the Minutes with the addition of the vote count. MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to approve the minutes of January 26, 31 and February 2, 2015 with the addition to the January 26, 2015 minutes, page 39 of the vote for Agenda Item Number 8 - Potential Litigation (as petitioner) – Caltrain Joint Powers Board – Peninsula Corridor Electrification: Change “Mayor Holman advised no reportable action” to “Mayor Holman reported the City will not initiate a lawsuit with Caltrain based on Caltrain’s commitment to work to resolve the issues previously stated that are concerns of Palo Alto.” MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar Mayor Holman reminded Council Members that Staff requested Agenda Item Number 4 - Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Expand the Number of Streets Eligible for Resurfacing Work Using Federal or State Grant Funding - be continued to a date in April 2015. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to approve Agenda Item Numbers 3 and 5-8, Agenda Item Number 4 continued to a date in April 2015. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 130 3. Approval of Two 3-Year Contracts for a Computer and Data Center Data Storage or 'Cloud Backup' Solution Totaling $618,991: 1) Exucom Contract Number C15156183 in the Amount of up to $327,121 for Data Center Backup; 2) Code42 Contract Number C151566312 in the Amount of $291,870 for Computer and Laptop Backup. 4. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Public Works Department to Submit a Function Classification Request to Caltrans to Expand the Number of Streets Eligible for Resurfacing Work Using Federal or State Grant Funding. 5. Approval of Amendment Number Seven to the City’s Lease Agreement with McCandless Limited, LLC., For Office Space at 1005 and 1007 Elwell Court, Palo Alto. 6. Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract C14153010 with Arnold Mammarella Architecture and Consulting to Increase the Contract by $400,000 for an Amount Not to Exceed $784,999 for On- Call Planning Services Needed to Support Implementation of the City's Individual Review Program. 7. Request for Procedural Change - Present the Results of the Animal Services Audit to the Finance Committee Rather Than to the Policy and Services Committee. 8. Approval of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund Contract with Precision Engineering, Inc. In the Amount of $7,405,730 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Projects 24, 25, and 26 in University South, Professorville and Old Palo Alto Neighborhoods. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 3 AND 5-8: 9-0 Action Items 9. Discussion and Direction to Staff Regarding Establishment of an Office/R&D Annual Growth Limit (Continued from March 2, 2015). Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported the Council had identified the loss of ground-floor retail and retail in general as a challenge in light of the robust economy and the demand for office space. The Council had provided some direction to Staff regarding that issue, and Staff would return to the Council on April 6, 2015 with a discussion of ground-floor retail. Staff sought direction regarding short-term and long-term remedies rather than a Council decision. The Council could MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 131 direct Staff to perform additional analysis prior to the Council adopting a strategy. Long-term ideas would be analyzed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The more complicated short-term ideas were, the harder it was to imagine they would be short term. If the Council wished to pursue a short-term concept, it should be instituted relatively quickly. One long-term idea was an annual limit on Office/Research and Development (R&D) that would meter the pace of office development. A second long-term idea was programs and performance measures that directly addressed impacts. A third idea was to moderate the pace of development by increasing development costs and seeking impact fees. A fourth idea was other commercial zoning changes that would modify existing development caps. A potential short-term idea was requiring a use permit for new Office/R&D uses. A second idea was some type of cap or moratorium. A third idea was to suspend temporarily the use of certain exceptions or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). A fourth idea was some type of temporary reduction in Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Within short-term ideas, pipeline applications and Council and Staff conflicts of interest had to be addressed. Pipeline applications were pending applications that would result in a net increase in office or R&D square footage. While Staff offered two data sets, they felt the better data set was the Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Using the CMP data set, Staff calculated 185,000 square feet (sq. ft.) were in the pipeline as of the end of 2014. The 185,000 sq. ft. was spread across 16 projects, of which a few projects reached close to 30,000 sq. ft. Staff was updating the pipeline snapshot and would provide a first quarter update at the April 6, 2015 discussion of retail preservation. Staff wanted to hear from stakeholders regarding short-term and long-term ideas. Mayor Holman requested the City Attorney comment on conflicts of interest and the two-pronged approach. Molly Stump, City Attorney, explained Staff had structured the item to allow the Council to have an initial discussion and to provide guidance on issues in areas they wanted to explore within the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Staff believed Council Members could participate in discussions based on Staff's reading of the law and advice received from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Following the meeting, Staff would confirm their understanding with the FPPC. The rules for conflicts of interest were complex. The rules were changing in ways that could impact the Council as they explored issues going forward. If the Council wished to discuss ideas for changes that could be made in advance of the Comprehensive Plan process, Staff encouraged the Council to identify various ideas that they wished to explore. Staff may request the Council delay a substantive discussion of issues in order to obtain advice from the FPPC to ensure Council Members participated appropriately. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 132 Mayor Holman did not anticipate conflicts of interest with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. However, discussion of short-term ideas would likely generate conflicts of interest. Ms. Stump indicated that was generally correct. Legal issues were complex and changing. Council Members' interests that could be implicated by discussions varied and had changed from 2014 with the addition of new Council Members. Mayor Holman noted Council Members were aware of previous public comments. The Council could direct Staff to explore short-term ideas and possible conflicts of interests. The FPPC would respond in approximately 30 days regarding potential conflicts of interest. Motions should provide sufficient information for Staff to determine whether conflicts of interest existed; however, Motions did not need to be perfect. Beth Rosenthal advised that most of the tenants of 550 Hamilton Avenue were mental health professionals. She noted the loss of a variety of businesses along Cowper Street. She requested the Council consider means to establish a reasonable balance between professional services and big businesses. Connie Henshall, Lockheed Martin, indicated consistent and clear land use regulations had been critical as Lockheed Martin's presence in Palo Alto had evolved over the past 50 years. Lockheed Martin was concerned about recent discussions of an annual Office/R&D growth limit. Prospective growth limits could force Lockheed Martin to redirect future R&D growth to the Sunnyvale campus. John Guisliz urged the Council to utilize quality of life as the primary metric for measuring any project. Development caps were an appropriate tool to identify permanent solutions to challenges. He urged the Council to focus on short-term, temporary caps for California Avenue and University Avenue commercial cores. Development caps should be utilized until Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Programs were operational. Neilson Buchanan suggested parking demand in the California Avenue and University Avenue commercial cores should be studied and documented with leading edge employers. Conversion of retail space to office must cease for at least 24 months. The Transportation Management Agency (TMA) and RPP stakeholder process must be elevated with oversight by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC). The RPP stakeholder group should report to the Council not less than every 60 days. Parking garages needed signage and wayfinding applications, particularly at night. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 133 Mark Weiss noted ten former music venues in Downtown had ceased operations. The City would miss many things if office space displaced other types of culture. Suzanne Keehn read Joe Hirsh's opinion that the conversation should concern a moratorium for all new nonresidential development until the appropriate amount of new development could be determined. Continued and constant development was incrementally destroying the Bay area. Traffic management should be implemented. Cheryl Lilienstein shared an analogy of lions as high-density advocates on the savanna of Palo Alto. High-density development should pause until measurements could be instituted to balance the ecosystem. Ian Irwin favored a moratorium. Commercial office development had decreased the quality of life for Palo Alto residents. The functional width of sidewalks limited the walkability of the City. Frank Ingle suggested the Council implement a selection process for commercial development projects along with a cap. Before accepting new projects, the Council should require those projects to reduce traffic impacts. Hamilton Hitchings stated diversity, density, and quality were not addressed by the traffic and parking programs as an alternative to the zoning cap. The root cause of parking and traffic problems was increased density and usage. Mixed-use office/housing projects could share parking. He liked the idea of a temporary cap on FAR for office space per project. Bob Moss referenced a Staff Report from 1986 regarding problems of overdevelopment. He suggested the Council implement a cap on total and annual growth of office space; require occupants of new office developments utilize public transit; and require adequate onsite parking. Omar Chatty felt controlled growth would work in Palo Alto. Without a cap, High Speed Rail would more easily take over the City's land use through eminent domain. Stephanie Munoz supported a cap. If the Council wanted to prevent the loss of ground-floor retail, it should adopt an Ordinance that stated there shall be no diminution of ground-floor retail in Palo Alto. Jeff Levinsky stated arguments opposing a cap were not logical. Large businesses were locking out smaller, younger, more vibrant companies. To address the jobs/housing imbalance, the City should cease approving new MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 134 offices and save capacity for housing. A moratorium on office space would focus developers on housing. Lydia Kou believed the Council should consider a moratorium of all nonresidential development. She urged the Council to enact a temporary moratorium to address negative impacts on parking, traffic, infrastructure, City services, and residential quality of life. Mayor Holman reiterated that the Council was not making precise decisions. The Council was directing Staff to review considerations and determine potential conflicts of interests. She recommended each Council Member take 5 minutes to ask questions or make comments in the first round of discussion. During a second round, the Council could entertain Motions, first regarding short-term suggestions. Vice Mayor Schmid believed the goal was for all parties to discuss the benefits and problems of growth and reducing growth. The current Comprehensive Plan was flawed. The number of jobs to employed residents was 3:1. All forecasts he had reviewed indicated office space would grow faster than the number of residents. 517,000 sq. ft. of office space had been added in the prior 15 years while retail space declined by 37,000 sq. ft. Nonresidents paid only 25 percent of property tax receipts. The business community should tell the Council the benefits of not implementing a cap on growth. Council Member Burt agreed that a cap would not solve all issues, but a cap could be successful as part of a series of measures. A cap would address the impacts of new development. If the Council did not act to moderate the rate of office growth and to improve the quality of developments, then the City would soon have a moratorium. If the Council did not implement a cap on an interim basis, then it would create a land rush. A cap should strike a balance between residential and office growth and favor residential over office. The Council should implement an interim cap at a moderate level, perhaps for Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real. Between now and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan, the Stanford Research Park should have a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program along with constraints on conversion of R&D space to office. When the Council proposed Motions for consideration, he would propose a moderate cap for those areas and a competition for quality projects, meaning projects of the highest quality and offering the fewest impacts would be built under the cap. Council Member Kniss was not in favor of a moratorium, because it was not productive. A Downtown cap and a Citywide cap were already in place. The MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 135 Staff Report indicated the City had grown by approximately 35,000 sq. ft. per year. The City would not continue to grow by that amount annually. A moderate cap would not dramatically alter the community. One program would not serve the entire community. Any solution would have to address parking and traffic. A moratorium would not significantly improve parking overnight and traffic would remain the same. Council Member Scharff possibly could support a specifically targeted cap. He could not support a cap for the Research Park. He questioned whether replacing housing with office would worsen traffic. He wanted to know the percentage of homeowners who actually lived and worked in the City; whether renters were more likely to live in the City; and the type of traffic likely generated by office development. The Council should carefully consider a moderate cap, what that meant, and how it would be applied to projects in the pipeline. He questioned whether nonprofit agencies and professional services should be excluded from a cap. He did not want to include the East Meadow area in a cap, because it would have a specific plan. The Council could choose to develop a specific plan for Downtown. That would probably be a better choice than a long-term cap. He hoped the Council would institute a short-term cap in order to target issues for resolution. Design issues should be targeted separately. He requested Staff provide the cost of services for housing versus office. Council Member Wolbach noted prior discussions proposed a severe cap, a competitive process for approval of projects, and imposition of fees and fines on development and tenants. Those proposals were not mutually exclusive. Imposing fees on new development, escalating current fees, and imposing a graduated job tax did not necessarily conflict with the concept of moderating the total amount of office development. There seemed to be a disconnect regarding the issues to resolve. He believed the primary issues were traffic, parking, housing costs, quality of the built environment, and whether infrastructure and social services could support growth of housing or office development. He asked colleagues to comment on the problems to be addressed by proposals under discussion. A cap should exclude mixed-use developments that offered more housing than jobs. A cap should include areas furthest from transit. The Council should consider excluding specific projects where the community indicated it wanted the projects. Council Member DuBois advised that after three meetings clearly there was a disconnect between businesses and citizens. Staff captured a large number of options in the Staff Report. The Council had good data but had not discussed it. He was unsure whether the community agreed on the problem or a solution. The discussion had been overly focused on traffic and parking. Traffic and parking were a subset of secondary impacts of increased density. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 136 The Council was avoiding a serious discussion of the core issue which was the amount of office space to allow by 2030. The Council had to strike a balance between office and housing in order to have a diversity of land use. The discussion was about adding new office space, not redevelopment of existing office space. Citywide proposals were needed to address Citywide growth. He wanted to focus on methods to moderate growth prior to and as a part of the Comprehensive Plan process. Prior to adopting the Comprehensive Plan, he was interested in a discussion of rebalancing mixed use, discouraging discretionary zoning projects, and reviewing current exceptions in the Municipal Code. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, he wanted to discuss establishing criteria to encourage great projects. Rather than a cap on square footage, the Council could implement an annual cycle of scored project applications and allow a specific number of projects each year based on rank scoring. Criteria for projects would award points based on several factors. Council Member Berman disagreed that the discussion concerned businesses versus residents. He understood public comment was closed after the March 2, 2015 Council discussion. Unfortunately, many residents would have spoken if they had known public comment remained open. Mayor Holman understood public comment was not closed after the prior discussion. Council Member Berman believed the idea of a moderate cap in a vacuum could be positive. Council Member Scharff raised several good questions regarding an interim cap. The Council was asking Staff to study different things and provide information to the Council. He was skeptical that a moderate cap would provide any discernible benefit that warranted the amount of time Staff, the Council, and the community would spend. He would remain open to discussing a moderate cap and any information Staff could provide. However, he was more interested in other initiatives that were delayed because the Council continuously gave Staff additional assignments. At some point, the Council had to prioritize initiatives and determine which one would lead to the largest result in the shortest amount of time. He was skeptical that a moderate cap on office space and applicable to a few areas of the City would generate benefits greater than other initiatives. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to return with discussion of elements of an interim Ordinance along the following lines, and that Staff will have discretion to provide certain alternatives under the following guidelines and other aspects that Staff recommends for consideration: MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 137 1) Cap would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan; and 2) Areas would cover University Avenue, California Avenue and El Camino Real districts; and 3) Limit of ~50,000 sq. ft. of new office/commercial development net gain per year; and 4) That it have a set of scoring standards to attempt to drive quality, including: A. Traffic impacts; and B. Parking impacts; and C. Design: Human scale of urban design, compatibility with surroundings, architectural quality; and D. Environmental quality of building; and E. Other potential public benefits. Ms. Gitelman referred to questions outlined in the Staff Report to which Staff would need the answers in order to prepare a detailed proposal. Because the Motion allowed Staff discretion, Staff could take care of most questions. However, Staff needed information regarding pipeline projects. Council Member Burt requested Staff present a range of alternatives for pipeline projects for Council consideration when the Ordinance was presented for review. Delaying a discussion of pipeline projects would allow the Council to consider alternatives. An interim cap was the more clear action at the current time. It would give the Council an opportunity to learn the correct structure and scale of a cap in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council would have an opportunity to determine the success of other measures which would ultimately influence the Comprehensive Plan. He was willing to exclude Stanford Research Park on an interim basis under two conditions. First, between the current time and adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, present and future traffic impacts in Stanford Research Park should be addressed through comprehensive measures of TDM. Second, the Council should determine a method to restrict future conversion of R&D space to office in the Research Park. He was open to suggestions for integrating those two conditions. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 138 Council Member Scharff concurred with Council Member Burt's comments. It was important to have a trial program. The public had indicated concerns about the three areas contained in the Motion. The cap allowed the City to meter growth in those areas. He agreed with strong TDM measures for the Research Park. He asked if the Motion allowed Staff to provide options which the Council had not proposed. Council Member Burt offered language of "under the following guidelines and other aspects that Staff recommends for consideration." Council Member Scharff felt the Motion moved the City forward in a direction that was good for the community and was a fair compromise. Council Member Kniss agreed the Motion was a good compromise. The City should be involved in developing the Comprehensive Plan such that it fit the vision for the life of the Comprehensive Plan. The discussion needed to address the appropriate amount of growth for the City. The limit of 50,000 sq. ft. aligned with growth over the past 15 years. The Council needed to deal with the two existing caps. The TDM was a good direction. The design elements would result in an interesting discussion. Other potential public benefits would be a good idea. Council Member DuBois offered an Amendment to add strong tenant occupancy limits as one of the criteria considered in the scoring. Council Member Burt asked or clarification. Council Member DuBois agreed for Staff to return with idea with the inclusion of ways that the intensity of use in the new building could be discussed. Council Member Burt stated that remained a very important discussion and he was not certain how that discussion would be folded into this particular measure. Council Member DuBois suggested part of the scoring projects would propose their occupancy and that would be considered as one of the factors. Council Member Burt agreed to have that as one of the elements brought back by Staff for considerations. Council Member DuBois recommended it go after environmental quality and before other benefits. Council Member Burt agreed to place under 6 “Potential Tenant Occupancy Limits”. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 139 Council Member Scharff was agreeable with different language. He preferred Staff return to explore as part of the scoring intensity of use. Council Member DuBois agreed. Council Member Burt stated all of the items would be considerations for the scoring. Mayor Holman reiterated that the Council was informing Staff of topics it wished to consider. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER: to add "potential intensity of use" under number 4. Council Member Filseth asked if the Motion should exclude retail uses. Council Member Burt agreed the Motion should be more specific. The Motion did not include residential uses and could exclude certain services. Staff should provide options for definitions of the types of uses included in the cap. Council Member Filseth asked if Council Member Burt meant to defer uses to Staff for suggestions. Council Member Burt indicated Staff would provide options rather than a single recommendation. Council Member Filseth requested Council Member Burt clarify the 50,000 sq. ft. number particularly if the Research Park was excluded from that number. He inquired whether the Council should provide Staff with a range rather than a specific number. Council Member Burt advised that the Council could elect a different number at a future discussion. There would be no perfect number. In boom years, the City did not have control of the pace of development or impacts. The limit of 50,000 sq. ft. reflected an average year. If it was adopted, it would create a lower average. The amount was an attempt to provide sufficient office growth while allowing flexibility and reining in periods of excessive growth. It would be a trial, because the Council did not know whether initiatives to address traffic and parking would be successful. Council Member Filseth noted the long-term average was 34,000 sq. ft. per year. Over the previous few years, the average was 67,000 sq. ft. Citywide including the Research Park. The average annual growth for Office/R&D from 2001 to 2015 was 34,300 sq. ft. per year Citywide. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 140 Council Member Burt believed those were not the most useful averages. The average growth from 2012 to 2016 was probably more than 100,000 sq. ft. Between 2008 and 2012, the average growth was probably less than 50,000 sq. ft. A maximum of 50,000 sq. ft. along with a successful TDM Program would be the best balance. Council Member Filseth felt removal of unlimited office growth would affect new development while TDM Programs would affect existing development. To treat areas of the City differently was sensible; however, some issues were Citywide. Staff should monitor issues, particularly since the Research Park was excluded from the limit. Council Member Berman inquired whether the current timeline to adopt a Comprehensive Plan was the end of 2015. Ms. Gitelman reported the last timeframe discussed was the end of the first quarter of 2016. Some Council Members had expressed a wish not to adhere to a strict deadline in order to thoughtfully and fully consider the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Berman recalled the Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan as a Council Priority. He asked when Staff could return with an analysis. Mayor Holman advised that in the pre-Council meeting Staff requested 30 days to receive FPPC feedback on conflicts of interest. The next available date on the Agenda was May 4, 2015. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff would need 30 days to perform analyses of all issues. Council Member Burt was not asking Staff to perform analyses. Staff was directed to provide a set of alternatives which would not require a great deal of research and analysis. Council Member Berman asked if Staff would provide a list of alternatives for Council discussion. Council Member Burt indicated Staff would identify alternatives and additional considerations not included in the Motion. Council Member Berman asked when Council Member Burt anticipated Staff providing that information. Council Member Burt replied at the May 4th meeting. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 141 Mr. Keene would report more specifically regarding a return date after the meeting. Without analysis, the Council wanted Staff to consider alternatives and implications. If the Council utilized the Motion to direct Staff to prepare an Interim Ordinance, there would be many factors. Over the next week or two, Staff would provide the Council a definitive schedule. Council Member Berman could not imagine the Council would reach any definitive conclusions regarding issues prior to the Summit. He would be surprised if the Council adopted an Ordinance prior to the Council Break. He inquired about delays to other initiatives while Staff worked on these issues. Mr. Keene was sure the Council would not provide new directives for other initiatives. Mayor Holman noted the Motion directed Staff to provide information for interim measures. Council Member Berman stated the goal was to have an Ordinance that instituted a cap. To draft that Ordinance, the Council would have to discuss all issues. Mayor Holman advised the Council not to expect to know every impact of every single consideration before adopting an Ordinance. Council Member Berman understood an interim cap would inform the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the Council would need some results. He was not opposed to some provisions of the Motion; but he did not believe those measures would reduce the amount of traffic and alleviate the lack of parking. Vice Mayor Schmid recalled that PlaceWorks would review fiscal impacts of Comprehensive Plan scenarios. He asked if they would consider this as a focal point in their work. Ms. Gitelman clarified that the contract with PlaceWorks was for a fiscal analysis of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Motion concerned an Interim Ordinance that would precede the Comprehensive Plan Update and would not be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Schmid noted the description indicated PlaceWorks would review alternatives identified for the Comprehensive Plan; yet, no alternatives had been identified for the Comprehensive Plan. The Motion provided a concrete alternative. He asked what PlaceWorks would review. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 142 Ms. Gitelman was hoping the Council would reach the question of which growth management scenarios it wanted Staff to analyze and consider as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. That was intended to occur before and continue until the Comprehensive Plan was updated. Council Member Burt reported the Motion provided a draft direction for the Comprehensive Plan. The Interim Ordinance would allow the Council to determine measures that worked or did not work when discussing the Comprehensive Plan. The Motion reflected the Council's best current thinking regarding a direction for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gitelman was responding to the portion of the Motion that stated "until adoption of the Comprehensive Plan." That could lead to a control of growth in the Comprehensive Plan. The fiscal analysis would consider the potential fiscal impacts of moderating employment growth in a variety of ways. That could be a way to provide the Council and community with some sense of potential impacts. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if it was the only way PlaceWorks would consider. Ms. Gitelman answered no. The analysis would not be specific. It would be a general analysis of strategies that moderated the pace of employment growth. Vice Mayor Schmid indicated an important date was the December date when Staff proposed a development limit. That might be a significant date in looking at distinguishing the pipeline. Ms. Gitelman reported the first date Staff came to the Council was February 9, 2015. The December date was the last time Staff created a list of pipeline projects. Staff was preparing an updated list at the current time. Vice Mayor Schmid was making the case that was when Staff publicly stated the Council should consider a development cap. It could have induced some players to come forward. Council Member Wolbach asked if the City implemented a Citywide moratorium or cap while drafting the last Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gitelman referred Council Member Wolbach to Mr. Moss' submittal. Council Member Wolbach respected the fact that office development had been harmful to Palo Alto. He shared the concern that a cap would not solve all problems; however, it was not expected to solve all problems. The Motion focused on other priorities that were secondary to traffic, parking, MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 143 and housing costs. He had misgivings about excluding Stanford Research Park and other parts of the City and imposing a cap exclusively on a few areas. Those areas were closest to transit. The Council hoped new developments would implement significant TDM Programs. Targeting a cap at only a few areas of the City could focus growth in other parts of the City. The Council should probably exclude from the cap types of development such as nonprofit agencies, governmental agencies, and mixed-use projects containing more housing than jobs. The Council should study fiscal impacts and the impact on retail. Limiting office growth in Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real could stifle the customer base for retail. The Council should consider whether to add those two studies to the PlaceWorks contract. AMENDMENT: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff, that the Cap would run until the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan or two years, whichever is sooner. Council Member Scharff felt it was important to include a timeframe for the cap should the Comprehensive Plan Update extend beyond its projected deadline. The Council could consider changing or removing the cap before extending it. Council Member Burt stated that discussion would occur within the context of the Comprehensive Plan. He did not want the cap automatically terminated if the Comprehensive Plan Update extended past the proposed deadline. Mr. Keene indicated the Council was directing Staff to return with information. Staff could have some thoughts about implications for the Council to discuss. Mayor Holman felt an expiration of the cap was unnecessary. AMENDMENT PASSED: 5-4 Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman no Council Member Wolbach wanted the Council to consider excluding specific plans or precise plans. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to return with alternatives with types of development that might be excluded from the interim Ordinance. Council Member Berman asked if the Motion should contain language regarding analysis of the fiscal impact of a cap. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 144 Council Member Burt did not believe that was feasible for an Interim Ordinance. It would inform the Comprehensive Plan discussion. A fiscal analysis for an Interim Ordinance would delay or kill the Interim Ordinance. Vice Mayor Schmid understood the PlaceWorks contract extended for 12 weeks from the beginning of March. He inquired whether PlaceWorks' report would be available prior to the Summit. Ms. Gitelman did not believe it would be complete; however, she was hoping to have a preliminary analysis of trends. Council Member DuBois noted defining and evaluating issues as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update was not explicitly stated in the Motion. He asked if the Council would entertain another Motion for issues to consider as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mayor Holman reported the Council would discuss short-term items first because of possible conflicts. Council Member DuBois asked if the Council would have another chance to consider items as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mayor Holman would have to review the Agenda for a future discussion. Ms. Gitelman intended the interim strategy to be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The Council had not mentioned whether other alternatives should be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update. She was not aware of a time when Staff could receive that direction as future Agendas were filled. Council Member Burt stated Staff had a range of alternatives that would be discussed at the Summit. The Motion did not limit those. Ms. Gitelman stated she would be happy to create alternatives that could be analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council should raise issues for Staff to study as part of that effort. Council Member Burt believed the Council needed a process to educate the community on the context for a set of alternatives before requesting the community's opinions. He hoped the Summit would be an educational process and the beginning of a discussion about the nature of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed changes. He expressed concern that Staff was attempting to accomplish too much in one Summit. Ms. Gitelman reported it was premature to expect the community to delineate and make choices at the Summit. The idea was to frame some of MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 145 the big issues or questions to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. If the Council had growth management strategies that it wanted tested and discussed at the Summit and as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, they should raise those at the current time. Council Member DuBois inquired whether one Motion should contain both interim measures and long-term measures. Mayor Holman requested the Council focus on the Motion on the table. Council Members should propose topics for consideration in the Comprehensive Plan Update in a separate Motion. Council Member DuBois asked if the Motion should explicitly state that measures were to be defined and evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mayor Holman felt it was clear to Staff from the Council's many comments that interim measures should inform the Comprehensive Plan. It did not have to be stated in the Motion. Council Member Burt agreed it was not necessary. Council Member Filseth believed the Council should proceed to a vote rather than continue to add exceptions to the Motion. Mayor Holman advised that the Motion should exclude Stanford Research Park by clearly and definitively addressing single occupancy vehicle trips and restriction of conversion of R&D to office. Council Member Burt agreed that those things should move forward. He was struggling with whether they should be included in the Interim Ordinance or as additional guidance for the Comprehensive Plan discussion. That would be a basis for excluding the Research Park from any consideration of a cap in the Comprehensive Plan. They were part of the Comprehensive Plan rather than the Interim Ordinance. Mayor Holman wanted to see progress prior to the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Burt concurred. Between now and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan those two measures should begin to move forward. By the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, they should have solidified. Mayor Holman agreed. Suggested the FAR for Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning should return to 0.9. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 146 Council Member Burt agreed. That should not be a part of the Interim Ordinance but an interim zoning measure. Mayor Holman asked where it could be included. Ms. Gitelman reported the Council had a limited number of meetings in which it could craft Interim Ordinances, permanent strategies and Comprehensive Plan Update programs. Mayor Holman was not aware of another opportunity to include the CN FAR issue. Council Member Burt suggested the City Clerk agendize it as other interim measures for the May 4th meeting. Mr. Keene reiterated that Staff would return in two weeks with a definitive schedule. The May 4th Agenda was full. The introduction of the Motion directed Staff to return with an Interim Ordinance. He understood the Council had moved away from that to an in-depth discussion of the items noted in the Motion. Council Member Burt agreed with Mr. Keene. He suggested the following language: return for a discussion of elements of an Interim Ordinance. He asked if it was acceptable to the Maker and Seconder. Mr. Keene indicated Staff would provide more details in relation to items in the Motion. At a subsequent meeting, the Council could return to those issues. Council Member Burt offered language of "in consideration of any other interim zoning measures." He believed leaving it open ended without being specific to allow for a more specific discussion at a later meeting. Mayor Holman wanted to ensure it was addressed. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to include discussion of any additional interim zoning change measures. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Holman asked the City Attorney if she had sufficiently specific information to address conflicts of interest. Ms. Stump responded yes. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 147 Council Member Berman asked if Council Members could offer alternative options to the Comprehensive Plan to study. Mayor Holman responded yes. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to direct Staff to include an alternative of no new net trip increase in the Comprehensive Plan update. Council Member Berman believed the Council could best address traffic and parking issues through policies that incentivized reduction of single occupancy vehicle trips. That type of alternative would address the issue and incentivize resources to achieve those goals. Council Member Scharff agreed with Council Member Berman. A Comprehensive Plan Update should consider alternatives. The Santa Monica model was worthy of study. He wanted to understand how a program would work and what it would look like. Council Member Wolbach offered an Amendment to change the wording to add “single occupancy vehicle” between the words “net” and “trip”. Council Member Scharff felt single occupancy vehicle was better. Council Member Wolbach would accept either single occupancy vehicle or the word car. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER: add "car" between "net" and "trip." Council Member Burt could support the language if it was not framed as an alternative to constraining office growth. Council Member Filseth asked if that would replace the limit the Council just agreed on. Council Member Scharff stated the Council had not agreed on a limit in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Filseth hoped an alternative would actually result in a no net car trip increase. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 8-1 DuBois no MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 148 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member XX to direct Staff as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update to investigate a 35,000 sq. ft. office development limit within the Congestion Management Plan. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Dubois moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to direct Staff to further define and evaluate as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update ways to encourage mixed-use projects that are not predominately office space. Council Member DuBois felt the Motion was a way to reach a balance and to encourage mixed uses. Council Member Wolbach believed mixed uses were important. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Scharff recalled that the Council had discussed encouraging smaller units. An FAR limitation as opposed to a unit limitation would allow people to build smaller units in the same building envelope and provide more housing. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to direct Staff to evaluate micro-units in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gitelman noted the item was noticed for a discussion of office space. The issue of smaller units would surface at the Summit. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY MAKER Council Member Wolbach asked if Council Members could propose an Agenda Item during Council Member Comments at the end of the meeting. Mayor Holman answered yes. Two Council Members had to support it. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to direct Staff to include consideration of an employee fee or tax in the context of the Comprehensive Plan discussion in regards to office and job growth. Council Member Wolbach preferred an employee fee or tax, because it more directly linked the jobs/housing imbalance. Funds from the fee or tax could be utilized for affordable housing or transportation infrastructure. An office MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 149 cap did not deal with the number of jobs, because a greater intensity of use could be added into existing or new offices. Vice Mayor Schmid agreed that large office developments did not appear to contribute their fair share to funding of local government activities. This was a method to identify a fee or tax that would garner their fair share. Council Member Burt supported the concept; however, he was struggling with including it in the Comprehensive Plan. A tax measure would likely be placed on a ballot in the General Election in the fall of 2016, and the City would not necessarily have a Comprehensive Plan at that time. Council Member Kniss indicated the discussion was moving far afield. The number of proposals were sufficient and she would not support any proposals after the current ones. Council Member Filseth did not believe the Motion addressed job growth or the jobs/housing imbalance. Council Member Scharff liked the concept, but he would not support it because it had not been agendized. He preferred a fee on square footage rather than employees. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY THE MAKER MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct Staff to consider under the Comprehensive Plan discussion of Stanford Research Park measures including comprehensive Traffic Demand Management and a limitation on greater conversion of R&D to office in the Research Park. Council Member DuBois recused himself as his wife worked at Stanford University. Council Member Kniss understood the topic had been dealt with. Council Member Burt answered it had not. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois not participating MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 150 10. Approval of a Residential Curbside Compost Collection Program and Adopting a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5314 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance for the Council of the City of Palo Alto for $387,000 for the Purchase of Kitchen Buckets and New Outreach Materials.” James Keene, City Manager, reminded the Council that the Finance Committee had vetted the item. Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director, reported the Finance Committee directed Staff to proceed. The Council had an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases and the length of truck trips. Ron Arp, Solid Waste Manager, advised that Staff requested the Council approve a residential curbside compost collection program. Residents would place food scraps and food-soiled paper in the green cart rather than the black cart. Staff recommended the Council adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $387,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 for the purchase of kitchen buckets and outreach materials. Staff hoped to decrease the amount of waste transported to the landfill in order to meet the goal of the Zero Waste Program. Staff would return with a commercial recycling and composting Ordinance and an amendment to the GreenWaste contract. Residential garbage contained more than 50 percent compostables. Staff was optimistic that the residential program would capture food scraps and food-soiled paper for composting. Residents could collect material in compostable bags or place them loose in the cart. Kitchen buckets would be provided to every single-family residence. Robust outreach was necessary for a successful program. Staff wanted to implement the program by July 1, 2015. The annual cost difference of the program was approximately $532,000 per year primarily comprised of a tip fee. Staff recommended food scraps be transported to the Zero Waste Energy Development Center, a GreenWaste facility in San Jose. Three thousand tons of compostable material would generate renewable energy and compost, conserve landfill space, and reduce Citywide greenhouse gas emissions. Stephanie Munoz suggested the Council reconsider the kitchen bucket as it was not attractive. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to: 1. Approve a new residential curbside collection and composting program of food scraps commingled with yard trimmings in the green carts, effective July 1, 2015; and MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 151 2. Adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $387,000 to fund the purchase of kitchen buckets and outreach materials that are needed as part of the implementation of the new residential curbside compost collection program. Council Member Scharff was pleased to be implementing the program. Council Member DuBois inquired about the effects for multiunit housing with shared compost bins attracting vermin. Matt Krupp, Environmental Control Program Manager, advised that housing of one to five units subscribed to the residential service. They shared one green cart. The City would provide those units with individual kitchen buckets. Housing of five to ten units could participate in the City's free compost service. Housing of ten units or more could subscribe to the compost service offered through the commercial program. Council Member DuBois asked if the compost service was an optional subscription for multiunit housing. Mr. Krupp explained a mandatory commercial recycling and composting Ordinance would require all units to subscribe to a compostable service. Staff was considering an exception for multifamily units, because they did not want to compel apartment residents to use a service that was optional for single-family residents. Participation in the program for single-family residents would not be enforced. Mr. Bobel added that concerns about smell or vermin were no different from the current situation. Residents could place compostable material in a compostable bag in the green cart or under the kitchen sink. Council Member Berman had not noticed any issues with vermin; however, many residents deposited food scraps in the bin the night before it was scheduled for pickup. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Mayor Holman inquired whether the Closed Session was time sensitive. Molly Stump, City Attorney, noted the Utilities Director and Staff had been waiting. If the Council was willing to continue, Staff could be directed to remain. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 152 Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff attended the Expressway Plan 2040 meeting where he learned the County of Santa Clara had not maintained expressways since 2010. The City should advocate for funding of the expressway systems as well as Caltrain. Two County Supervisors indicated they might change policy to fund expressways. By 2025, a significant portion of expressways would reach Level of Service F if no action was taken. Council Member Wolbach indicated the Gunn High School production of Anything Goes was fantastic. Council Member Burt was a panelist at the Local Government Commission Annual Conference. Topics included Climate Action Plan and carbon neutrality. Palo Alto was considered the leader in progress toward obtaining carbon neutrality as a city. Council Member DuBois noted several neighborhoods were interested in a single-story overlay. He suggested the Council consider temporarily suspending fees for six months. MOTION: Council Member DuBois moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to agendize a discussion of temporarily suspending the fees associated with a single story overlay. Molly Stump, City Attorney, would need to review the list of neighborhoods interested in an overlay in order to determine potential conflicts of interest for Council Members. Council Member Berman along with Council Member Filseth attended Mix It Up at Duveneck Elementary School. The goal of the program was to mix students of all grades. MOTION: Council Member Wolbach moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff to agendize Staff to bring to the Council: 1) explore eliminating or reducing the limitations on density of units in multifamily zoning; and MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 153 2) ease the regulations and requirements for adding second units. Council Member Scharff clarified that the Motion was to retain the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitation but eliminate the number of unit requirement to allow micro units. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised the Council rarely offered oral Colleague's Memo. The Council had offered three oral Colleague's Memos regarding complex items that had Staff impacts. A Colleague's Memo allowed Staff to determine the impact. She encouraged the Council to follow standard practice in writing Colleague's Memoranda so that Staff could add a Staff impact section. Council Member Scharff supported the Motion. Mayor Holman stated the City Attorney requested a written Colleague's Memo. Council Member Scharff indicated the City Attorney could request a written Colleague's Memo; however, Council rules allowed oral Colleague's Memos. Council Member Filseth attended meetings of the Downtown Merchants Association which was concerned about the rise of panhandling in Downtown. The Downtown Merchants Association was drafting a memo to the Council. Council Member Kniss was troubled by the casual raising of issues. A Colleague's Memo provided an opportunity for the community to be aware of upcoming issues. Mayor Holman attended the Sustainability Summit in Washington, D.C. where she made two presentations and chaired two committees. She and Council Member Kniss attended the National League of Cities Congressional Conference in Washington, D.C. She would provide a full report of both events the following week. The Council went into the Closed Session at 11:41 P.M. 11. CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY-Potential Initiation of Litigation (1 Matter) Santa Clara Valley Water District funding of State Water Project obligation through property tax levy. Govt. Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:35 A.M. MINUTES 03/23/2015 117- 154 Mayor Holman announced there was no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:36 A.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. 04/06/2015 117- 156 Regular Meeting April 6, 2015 Study Session ........................................................................................159 1. Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion .....................................................................................159 Special Orders of the Day ........................................................................166 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission ......................................................................166 City Manager Comments .........................................................................166 Oral Communications ..............................................................................166 Minutes Approval ....................................................................................167 3. January 20, 2015, February 9, 2015, February 17, 2015 .....................167 Consent Calendar ...................................................................................167 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 ...................................................................171 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 5315 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Capital Project Fund in Amount of $40,000.” ......................................................................................171 6. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2014 .................171 MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 157 7. Resolution 9496 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Structure of the Palo Alto/Stanford Citizen Corps Council / Palo Alto Emergency Services Council.” ...............................171 8. Approval of Letter of Agreement with the City of Sunnyvale for Emergency Operations Plan .............................................................171 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 5316 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the University Avenue Parking Permit Fund and the General Fund.” ...........171 10. Approval of Contract Number 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 ......................................................................................171 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 ......171 12. Adoption of Corrected Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto of the Council Ordering Weed Nuisance Abated.” .......................................................................................172 13. Confirmation of Appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager and Approval of Employment Agreement ..............................172 14. Adoption of a Contract Amendment with Val Security and a Budget Amendment Ordinance 5317 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto in the Amount of $175,000 to Increase the Project Safety Net Fund and Decrease the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement Fund.” .................................172 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 ....................................................................172 16. Approval of a Contract Amendment with Genuent USA, LLC, Intratek Computer, 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 .................172 MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 158 Action Items ..........................................................................................172 17. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project, Located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, and Adoption of a Resolution 9502 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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 ...173 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 ..................................................................174 Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements ........................200 Closed Session .......................................................................................200 19. CONFERENCE WITH CITY LABOR NEGOTIATORS ................................200 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 A.M. ............................200 MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 159 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, Filseth, Holman, Kniss arrived at 7:14 P.M., Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: DuBois Study Session 1. Cost of Services Update and Draft User Fee Cost Recovery Level Policy Discussion. Walter Rossmann, Office of Management and Budget Director, reported Staff began working with the Finance Committee in 2013 on a Cost of Services Study. The Study was comprised of two components: identifying alternative service delivery options for City-provided services and charging fees to recover the costs for providing services. Staff continued to review various services and, where appropriate, provided recommendations for alternative service delivery models. During the past few years, the City had outsourced parks maintenance, golf course maintenance, custodial services, and street sweeping services. Due to fluctuating workloads, the City had employed hybrid models to address the timely provision of services. Staff had not systematically analyzed all services provided to the public; therefore, as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Proposed Budget, Staff would request funds for consultant services to assist with the effort. One outcome of the Study was identification of potential public-private partnerships and outsourcing opportunities. Annually, the City Council approved charges for services and fees when it adopted the Municipal Fee Schedule as part of the Budget. Currently, the City was recovering some portion of fee-related services. To ensure a balanced revenue portfolio, Staff sought Council input regarding appropriate cost recovery levels. The Staff Report provided the cost recovery level for fee groups, except most Development Services fees and Planning and Community Environment fees. The Planning Department had engaged a consultant to study department fees and hoped to conclude the study within the fiscal year. For fees studied, the cost recovery level varied quite a bit. The draft policy sought to ensure consistent recovery of costs for similar fees and the level of cost recovery for fee-related activities. Community versus private benefit primarily addressed inspection fees and permits that protected the property owner and the community. Service recipients versus community benefit addressed regulatory permits. Consistency with City goals and policies provided direction to Staff to reduce fees. Elasticity of demand for services allowed Staff to increase or decrease fees based on demand. Availability of services from the private sector MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 160 considered services offered by the nonprofit and private sector to ensure the City did not undercut private and nonprofit services while maximizing the City's revenues. The policy statement was deliberately broad to allow flexibility in subsidizing fees. Some City services were consistently in high demand; therefore, higher fees would not negatively affect enrollment. Classes with low attendance incurred the same fixed costs; therefore, they might require a General Fund subsidy. The City should remain in healthy competition with the nonprofit and private sectors by not charging substantially above or below the competitive rate for similar services. Alignment with this policy statement most likely would result in a higher cost recovery level. Based on the Council's feedback regarding the draft policy, Staff would refine the policy and return it to the Council for adoption. As part of the annual budget process, the adopted policy would guide potential fee increases. Any substantive increase of fees would be phased in over several years. An alignment of fees would ensure the City continued to have a balanced revenue portfolio. Council Member Burt wanted to understand the balance between cost of service recovery, particularly for youth programs, and providing youth programs for those who could not afford them. Mr. Rossmann indicated the Council should first consider enrollment. The City offered a discount for low-income youth. Then the Council should balance City classes against classes offered by nonprofit and private sectors. Council Member Burt asked if Staff knew whether youth of modest incomes were being excluded from programs. He was aware that the City subsidized enrollment for low-income families. He asked if Staff could survey low- income families to determine whether they did not participate in youth programs because they did not qualify for scholarships, were unaware of scholarships, or suffered from stigma. Rob De Geus, Community Services Director, did not have a good grasp of information to answer that question. The City provided a generous fee reduction program which allowed $300 per person in a family annually. Many teen programs were provided at low cost or no cost. The fee reduction program was heavily used annually, but he did not know if a need remained in the community. Council Member Burt felt heavy use of the fee reduction program meant it was attractive, not that it was provided to the full spectrum of youth. Perhaps better sampling could be obtained through nonprofit housing agencies surveying their families or through a Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) list of families qualifying for support. The Council had no MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 161 data to determine whether the City was successfully addressing the issue or whether programs were inclusive or discriminatory. Mr. De Geus advised that any family who qualified for the PAUSD low- income meal program automatically qualified for the City's low-income fee reduction program. Council Member Burt inquired whether families were notified of that. Mr. De Geus answered yes. Council Member Burt felt a survey to determine whether families were participating to the extent they wished or whether other families were not being captured would be worthwhile. Families who did not qualify for the PAUSD low-income meal program might not be able to afford participation in City programs. He requested colleagues comment on whether they would like to have better data in order to make decisions. Vice Mayor Schmid questioned whether the draft policy was applicable to other areas, specifically overflow parking. The parking issue definitely favored employers in Downtown, and it brought a cost to the neighborhood. City policies provided maintenance of a barrier between office-centered and residential areas. Offering free parking in the neighborhoods created more demand. He inquired whether a user fee could be utilized to pay for parking programs. Mr. Rossmann reported the draft policy addressed all kinds of fees. He understood Vice Mayor Schmid was suggesting the City charge for on-street parking. Staff could use the policy as a starting point and return to the Council with a suggestion of charging a fee under certain policy considerations. As part of the FY 2016 Proposed Budget, Staff was including a request for funding to study fees for street parking. Vice Mayor Schmid believed it could be worthwhile to consider using the same criteria for assessing costs on the parking issue as in other fees. This might be a more effective way of raising funds for mitigation measures. James Keene, City Manager, explained that the concept of the Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program in the Downtown area was comprised of two phases. The first was a trial phase for six months with no cost for residents. Once Staff obtained a sense of parking infiltration under some sort of program, then the Council could determine costs for the RPP Program. That discussion would be related to the Council having better information about the impacts of costs after a pilot program. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 162 Vice Mayor Schmid expressed concern about the upfront costs of a nine- month trial period. Mr. Keene stated the Council could discuss that when Staff returned. Council Member Scharff asked if the Council was vetting a fee structure or broad principles. Mr. Rossmann replied broad principles. Staff was asking the Council to provide input. During the annual budget process, Staff calculated the cost recovery level for most fees based on Staff input. Now, Staff wanted to align those fees to broad policy statements. Council Member Scharff suggested the Council consider eliminating some fees. Many fees could have a societal value such that the fee should not be priced excessively high. Fees for housing were becoming substantial. He was worried that costs were escalating above inflation. The draft policy contained good, broad policies; however, he was unsure whether they would be easy to apply. He was concerned that fees would be presented to the Council in large groups or categories such that the Council could not discuss individual fees. Mr. Rossmann indicated the challenge was the number of similar fees that were not similar in cost recovery level. The first goal was to ensure cost recovery was consistent. During the annual budget process, Staff would present the fee, the cost recovery level for each fee, and the resulting fee. Thus, the Finance Committee and the Council could discuss individual fees. If Staff proposed maintaining the cost recovery level for fees, they would present those fees in groups. Mr. Keene noted the application of cost recovery levels could generate a great deal of discussion. The budget process contained too many details and categories each year for the Council to discuss each fee individually. Perhaps over the course of the year, Staff could prioritize groups of fees for periodic Council review. Council Member Scharff asked if Staff would present fees to the Finance Committee in manageable groups. Mr. Rossmann explained that Staff would return with a policy, based on the current discussion, for Council adoption. However, that would occur too late for the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. For FY 2016, Staff would propose a 3.6 percent increase, which was equivalent to the increase in salary and benefits costs. For FY 2017-2019, Staff would attempt to align groups of fees with MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 163 the policy and present them for Council review. Those incremental steps over the next three years would allow the Council to discuss fees. Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff would present the policy contained in Attachment F with revisions for Council adoption. Mr. Rossmann indicated Staff would present the policy to the Council for adoption and implement it thereafter. Council Member Berman believed Staff presented a good draft policy. Different elements of the policy could conflict. The Council could prioritize fees based on the total amount of fees paid each year or based on the change Staff proposed. He would support a policy allowing the City Manager to waive certain planning fees if the City Manager reported to the Council after the fact regarding time sensitive issues. Mr. Rossmann wanted to include that provision within the policy if the Council concurred. For FY 2016, Staff would outline fees proposed for deletion, new fees, and any fee which would increase more than 3.6 percent. Council Member Berman inquired whether Staff had a multiyear plan to align fees with the proper recovery levels. Mr. Rossmann responded yes. The City should not be charging all the fees, but a discussion of which fees to eliminate would be lengthy. Council Member Berman asked if some fees would be adjusted more than 3.6 percent in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. Mr. Rossmann answered yes. Some fees would be new and some would have a higher change. Council Member Berman encouraged Staff to present in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget any fees that obviously needed changing. Mayor Holman recalled that Staff assured the Council in 2014 that some fees would be addressed in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. One was the Alma Plaza Community Room, and the other was the return of low-income community garden fees. She did not find either one of those fees on the list. She hoped they would be addressed in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. Mr. Rossmann explained that the issue of the Alma Plaza Community Room was presented to the Policy and Services Committee. The Finance Committee could propose a subsidy for community gardeners. Mayor Holman requested clarification of the Alma Plaza Community Room. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 164 Mr. Rossmann advised that Staff wished to receive Council feedback regarding the draft policy before returning to the Policy and Services Committee to discuss free rental rooms. Mr. Keene reported the Alma Plaza Community Room would return to the Policy and Services Committee for further discussion. Council Member Scharff recalled the Policy and Services Committee making a decision regarding the Alma Plaza Community Room. Mr. De Geus recalled a long discussion about the Alma Plaza Community Room at the Policy and Services Committee. Staff recommended a fee for private use of the room. Public use of the room would be free through a co- sponsorship policy. The Policy and Services Committee approved the existing policies unanimously. Council Member Scharff agreed. Due to no change in policy, there was no need for Council action. Mayor Holman stated that should be reflected in the fee schedule. Mr. Rossmann referred to the Policy and Services Committee discussion outlined on Packet Page 16 regarding a need for Staff to return to the Policy and Services Committee. Mayor Holman expressed concern about impact fees. In a prior meeting, the consultant stated the City's impact fees were low. Delaying changes to impact fees to FY 2017 would be detrimental as the economy and development were growing at the current time. Mr. Keene noted the report stated no later than FY2017. Staff shared Mayor Holman's concern. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, clarified that the section of the Staff Report referred to user fees. It was not specific to impact fees, which Staff considered quite separate. The study of user fees was concluding, and Staff hoped to present the initial results to the Finance Committee after the budget process. Staff could work through the user fees over the summer and fall and be prepared for the next budget cycle. A nexus study was required for those fees not examined in the process in 2014. A housing nexus study was underway. For FY 2016, Staff proposed funds to complete a nexus study for transportation impact fees. Mayor Holman asked if a study of park impact fees had been funded. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 165 Ms. Gitelman did not schedule a review of park impact fees and did not know if that was included in the 2014 study. Mayor Holman did not believe impact fees adjustments would be included in the FY 2016 Proposed Budget. Ms. Gitelman concurred. Staff needed a nexus study prior to presenting increases to the Council. Mayor Holman stated the City's impact fees were low in comparison to other communities. She inquired whether the Council could make incremental adjustments. Ms. Gitelman responded no. A nexus study was needed for any changes. The current housing fee was comparable to other jurisdictions, but it could increase quite a bit based on conclusions of the nexus study. Mayor Holman asked if the Council could set a dollar amount for appeals of Planning and Community Environment matters. She was concerned that the amount of the fee would be a barrier to filing appeals. Mr. Rossmann replied yes. Vice Mayor Schmid noted the fee schedule showed a range for some fees, particularly Community Services fees. He inquired about the Council making decisions based on wide ranges. Mr. Rossmann explained that fees for Community Services programs were guided by a separate policy, adopted in 2007. Staff planned to review the Community Services Department Class Cost Recovery Policy after the broader policy was adopted. The Community Services Department reviewed the cost for providing classes and demand for classes and attempted to maintain the same cost recovery level or increased fees based upon the policy Vice Mayor Schmid felt it was important for the Council to explain increasing fees. A description would be helpful. Council Member Wolbach agreed the Council should understand if people were aware of programs and discounts and scholarships. With respect to the City Manager waiving fees, maybe such an item could be placed on the Consent Calendar if the matter was not time sensitive. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 166 Special Orders of the Day 2. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 15, 2015 for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission and the Utilities Advisory Commission. Mayor Holman noted the Council had ballots for each Board and Commission. MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Wolbach to interview all candidates for the Human Relations Commission, the Public Art Commission, and the Utilities Advisor Commission. MOTION PASSED: 6-1 Scharff no, DuBois, Kniss absent City Manager Comments James Keene, City Manager, announced the City recognized April 2 as Everyone Matters Day which focused on respect and acceptance of everyone without judgment. Mayor Holman read the Everyone Matters Proclamation into the record. Mr. Keene noted author Mike Lydon would appear at Mitchell Park Library on April 7, 2015 to discuss his book, Tactical Urbanism. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown announced a mandatory statewide reduction of water usage by 25 percent. Staff would draft implementation plans to reduce City and community water use for Council approval. On May 3, 2015, the Council would consider a Resolution implementing water use restrictions. Council Member Wolbach asked if the water reduction amount for the City of Palo Alto would be determined by the City's or Santa Clara County Water District's or San Francisco Public Utilities' conservation efforts. Mr. Keene suggested the City would not be considered as part of the Santa Clara County Water District. The City had always been proactive in planning for future possibilities, and that had served the community well. Staff would present the Urban Forest Master Plan for Council action in the next few months. In that discussion, the Council could revisit landscaping plans for the City. Oral Communications Andy Poggio believed the City should not base water rationing on a percentage reduction compared to historic consumption. That method rewarded people who wasted water and punished people who had conserved MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 167 water. He proposed the City allocate water usage. A single-family house would receive one allocation for people and another for landscape. If consumption met or fell below the allocation, then the household would pay regular rates. If consumption was above the allocation, then the household would pay a higher rate. Ruth Lowy noticed the new extension of sidewalks into California Avenue reduced the travel area for bicyclists. She requested the City measure the roadway to ensure it was sufficiently wide for bicyclists. James Keene, City Manager, reported the State Water Control Board would perform an agency-by-agency review based upon water usage numbers provided by agencies. The State Water Control Board would then set the water reduction target for each agency. Minutes Approval 3. January 20, 2015, February 9, 2015, February 17, 2015 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve the Minutes of January 20 and February 8 and 17, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 8-0-1 DuBois absent, Scharff abstaining Consent Calendar Mayor Holman advised that the usual procedure was to receive public comment prior to entertaining a Motion; however, any Motion to remove an item from the Consent Calendar could be informative for the public. MOTION: Council Member Burt moved, second by Vice Mayor Schmid, third by Council Member Filseth to pull Agenda Item Number 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, to be heard on May 4, 2015. Mayor Holman suggested members of the public wishing to address Agenda Item Number 15 make their comments on May 4, 2015, when the Council would hear the appeal. However, public comment for Agenda Item Number 15 would be heard in the current meeting. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 168 Council Member Filseth inquired whether the Motion had to include the date to which an item was continued. Mayor Holman responded no. Stuart Welte, Architect for the Applicant, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 11. He and Steve Henry were present if the Council had questions regarding the project. Susan Hyder spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The community had always had balance and character in architectural styles. Too many modern buildings had offset the balance and character of Downtown. Gregory Klingsporn, Attorney for the Applicant, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. He requested the Council provide some rationale for allowing the appeal to proceed. Staff, the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the Planning Director indicated the project complied with Zoning Ordinances and City policies. Michael Harbor, Appellant, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The building was not compatible in size, scope, and architectural detail with the surrounding area. He thanked the Council for allowing a public hearing of the matter. Ken Hays, Hays Group Architects, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. He asked the Council to support the ARB's recommendation and the Planning Director's approval of the project. The ARB held multiple hearings over 15 months. The design of the project changed significantly in response to comments from the public and the ARB. The project complied with the City's height ordinance. The façade rhythm was consistent with adjacent building patterns. The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and the South of Forest Avenue 2 (SOFA) Guidelines stated architects should not mimic prevalent architectural styles. The approved project provided five more parking spaces than required. While the retail space in the project was less than previously provided, it was not lost. Jaime Wong, Applicant, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. It was unfair of the Council not to allow a building height of 50 feet, not to allow the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), to allow a disgruntled neighbor to choose the style of the building, and to require the project to solve existing traffic problems. He urged the Council to support the ARB and Planning Director's approval of the project. Timur Bilir spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. This type of building solved many aspects of the lack of office space, parking, and housing. He MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 169 urged the Council to support the project. As a modern building, it would have more efficient construction methods. Sam Arsan, Arsan Realty, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The project complied with all requirements. The owner made every effort to accommodate suggestions of the ARB. He urged the Council to approve the project. Elizabeth Wong, Applicant, spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The Appellant leased his property on Kipling Street as office space rather than retail space. Those commercial tenants were major contributors to the traffic and parking problems about which the Appellant complained. Several architectural styles coexisted with modern buildings on University Avenue. Cecilia Hiraoka spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The ARB and Planning Director's approval indicated the project met all requirements of the City. The Appellant was wasting valuable City resources by filing the appeal. Elaine Meyer spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The project offended and inconvenienced neighbors, exacerbated the parking shortage, and was incompatible with the street. Andrew Wong spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. The project balanced the needs of City residents and businesses, improved retail space, addressed the City's need for housing, and offered more parking than required by the Code. The architecture of the building was consistent with the existing commercial space and the existing building. John Hanna spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 15. Palo Alto architecture was eclectic. Removing the item from the Consent Calendar provided a bad message. The Council should consider the broader implications of the project. Herb Borock spoke regarding Agenda Item Number 5. The City Manager previously stated that the water grant project would not proceed until questions were resolved. The Director of Community Services stated the item would not proceed until the City had talked with stakeholders. He and Ms. Renzel had not been contacted to comment as stakeholders; yet, the item was on the Agenda. The Staff Report indicated the schedule for utilizing funds had not been developed and grant funding must be utilized by July 2016. The agreement indicated the grantee should complete grant tasks by July 31, 2015. Mayor Holman asked if Staff wished to comment. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 170 Molly Stump, City Attorney, reported the City's review process was overseen by the ARB and culminated in a decision by the Planning Director. City law allowed an appeal of the Planning Director's decision. The Council was the appropriate final body on whether design findings could be made. By law, the item was placed on the Consent Calendar, and the Planning Director's approval could be approved by the Council passing it on consent. With three votes, the Council could remove the item from the Consent Calendar and hear the appeal. The Council had discretion to apply its judgment, weigh the evidence before it, and decide on the matter. The Applicant's attorney requested the Council preview some concerns. The City's process allowed the Mayor to set the matter for hearing on the night it was removed from the Consent Calendar or to select another night for a hearing. In anticipation of the Council removing the item from the Consent Calendar, the Mayor consulted Staff and announced the item would be heard on May 4, 2015. At that time, the Council could voice its concerns. All findings to approve the project were available for Council Member comments. Mayor Holman requested the City Manager respond to Mr. Borock's comments. James Keene, City Manager, advised that the original concern was use of the grant related to potential environmental impacts. Given that the amount was small and being used for a completely different purpose, Staff was satisfied that they had exercised responsibility in proceeding with the project and in responding to specific concerns raised before the Council. Mayor Holman noted Mr. Borock's concern regarding conflicting dates. Rob De Geus, Community Services Director, would research the two dates and provide the Council with information. Mr. Keene recommended the Council err on the side of expediency as the earlier date was July 31, 2015. Even with Council authority, Staff would not proceed with any project that did not comply with requirements. Mayor Holman inquired about the Council and public receiving notice that the timeline had been rectified. Mr. Keene would provide a public email to the Council. Council Member Wolbach encouraged Staff to contact the two stakeholders if they had not already done so. Mr. Keene would do so. Staff utilized their judgment to define stakeholders as the people who originally raised the substantive issue. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 171 MOTION: Vice Mayor Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-14, 16. 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 5315 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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. Resolution 9496 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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 5316 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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 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. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 172 12. Adoption of Corrected Resolution 9499 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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 5317 entitled “Budget Amendment Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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 Computer, 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. MOTION PASSED FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBERS 4-14, 16: 8-0 DuBois absent Mr. Keene reported the Council affirmed appointment of Suzanne Mason as Assistant City Manager. The City Charter required Council affirmation of many high-level Staff appointments. Suzanne Mason was honored to have been selected as Assistant City Manager and looked forward to working with the Council, Staff, and residents. She was committed to working to preserve and improve the high quality of life City residents knew and expected. For more than 30 years, she had worked in varied roles in local government. She looked forward to living and working in Palo Alto for years to come. Action Items 17. TEFRA HEARING: Regarding Conduit Financing for the Stevenson House Project, Located at 455 East Charleston Road, Palo Alto, and MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 173 Adoption of a Resolution 9502 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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. James Keene, City Manager, reported the City filled a routine and perfunctory role related to allowing public comment regarding conduit financing. Vice Mayor Schmid's question regarding affordable senior rental housing would be addressed at the April 20, 2015 Council meeting. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. Phyllis Cassel, Rehabilitation Task Force Chair, requested the Council approve issuance of bonds. Jill Harris did not understand how the acquisition would be handled. Residents of Stevenson House were unsettled by the loss of the Executive Director and staff. Stevenson House was zoned for nonprofit while the management company was a for-profit entity. Public Hearing closed at 8:09 P.M. Molly Stump, City Attorney, advised that a complex financial vehicle was used to finance rehabilitation of low-income senior housing. Perhaps Ms. Cassel could provide more tactical information. Staff was satisfied there was no concern regarding noncompliance with zoning. Joe Saccio, Administrative Services Assistant Director, suggested a representative of the conduit financing agency clarify acquisition. Ben Barker, California Municipal Finance Authority, explained that the acquisition and rehabilitation was simply restructuring the ownership entity in order to apply for tax credits. The project would continue to be held with the same nonprofit entity. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Kniss to adopt a resolution 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). Council Member Scharff recalled the Council had previously discussed the Stevenson House Project, and asked colleagues to approve the project again. Council Member Kniss stated Stevenson House had been a good example of low-income housing for many years. Supporting it was important. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 174 Vice Mayor Schmid believed Stevenson House was an important element in the City's dedication to low-income senior housing. The item allowed the public to comment on the project. He looked forward to the Council discussion on April 20, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 DuBois absent 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. Hillary Gitelman, Planning and Community Environment Director, reported the issue was first raised on March 2, 2015 in the Council's discussion of metering the pace of office development. The Council raised the concept of an urgency ordinance to cease temporarily the conversion of retail space to office use. Staff sought Council direction regarding parameters of an urgency ordinance and subsequent steps to examine and rectify zoning provisions. Data from the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) demonstrated a net loss of approximately 70,000 square feet of retail from 2008 to 2015. Mr. Bob Moss provided data regarding retail space in the El Camino Real Corridor since 1992. Mr. Moss' data indicated a 6 percent decrease in retail use, a 3 percent decrease in automotive use, and an increase of approximately 1 percent in restaurant use along the El Camino Real Corridor. City Ordinances contained a number of ground-floor retail protections. An urgency or interim ordinance was a short-term measure intended to be effective while longer-term solutions were developed. It required specific findings and a supermajority vote. It did not have to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). It could be effective for a period as short as 45 days, with an option to extend it. Staff identified eight parameters on which they sought Council input. Staff sought Council direction to create an urgency ordinance that would prohibit existing retail uses in all commercial zones in the City from converting to office use or other uses not defined as retail. Staff suggested extending those protections to eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theaters, and travel agencies. Staff sought Council input regarding the prohibition applying to uses operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no discretionary application involving a change of use had been submitted. Staff believed an urgency ordinance should establish an appeal to the Council in cases of financial hardships or if an applicant showed the facility was unsuited for successful retail use. An ordinance should state existing retail services and other protected uses could be removed and replaced as long as they were reduced only by the minimum of square footage necessary MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 175 to accommodate access to upper floors or below-grade parking. Staff suggested grandfathered uses that were legal and nonconforming not be subject to protection provisions in the ordinance. Staff suggested the use of basic definitions of retail services and other protected uses contained in the Municipal Code. Staff suggested the ordinance be effective for an initial period of 45 days with an option to extend the ordinance after that period. The ordinance would not affect the ability to change from one desired use to another. Staff suggested the ordinance not alter the site-specific characteristics of Planned Community Zoning Districts or adopted conditions of approval. Staff requested Council feedback regarding whether to continue all uses in districts which permitted other ground-floor uses with Conditional Use Permits. Staff suggested the ordinance apply to discretionary applications received after March 2, 2015. Currently three applications would have to be analyzed for applicability of the ordinance as adopted. In addition to adopting an urgency ordinance, Staff suggested adoption of a traditional ordinance which would sunset when permanent controls became effective. Staff requested Council direction to proceed immediately with consideration of permanent zoning changes. Following discussion of interim measures, Staff hoped to prepare and present an urgency ordinance and a traditional ordinance reflecting Council direction. In addition, Staff would present permanent zoning changes affecting ground-floor retail in the California Avenue area and complete an analysis of retail trends in Downtown. Council Member Scharff noted two issues for Council discussion: the urgency ordinance and next steps. Ms. Gitelman provided suggested Motions for an urgency ordinance and for next steps. Council Member Scharff recommended the Council discuss and act on an urgency ordinance prior to discussing next steps. Mayor Holman indicated Council Members should inquire regarding an urgency ordinance. Council Member Kniss had general questions, and asked if the Council should address the urgency ordinance. Council Member Scharff felt the Council should address and act on the urgency ordinance separately from next steps. Mayor Holman requested Council Member Kniss proceed with her questions. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 176 Council Member Kniss inquired whether the loss of retail shown in the CMP Report applied to the City as a whole. Ms. Gitelman responded yes. The net loss for the longer period was less than the net loss since the recession. Council Member Kniss asked if the loss likely occurred in Downtown or elsewhere. Ms. Gitelman reported Staff could analyze the CMP data to determine in general in which areas the losses and gains occurred. Staff did not have sufficient time to perform that analysis prior to the meeting. Council Member Kniss requested a rough estimate of whether losses occurred mostly in Downtown or mostly along California Avenue. Ms. Gitelman would need to analyze the data prior to responding. Ground- floor retail protections applied to most of the City. The area of Downtown outside the Ground-Floor (GF) Combining District was not subject to ground- floor protections. Council Member Kniss questioned the loss of retail space while sales tax revenue increased. Ms. Gitelman could only speculate that the strength of retail districts were responsible for increased sales tax revenue. Council Member Kniss asked if formula retail would be determined by a certain number within a certain area or the usual formula retail. Ms. Gitelman advised that the Council would need to consider that when discussing a permanent ordinance. Council Member Kniss felt restaurants had a limited cycle for success. Few restaurants remained successful for a long period of time. Council Member Burt noted Mr. Moss' data indicated retail decreased by 6 percent. Retail appeared to have decreased by 40-plus percent. Without the increase in hotel/motel, the reduction in overall retail would have been more than 6 percent. He inquired about potential retail loss in pipeline projects. Ms. Gitelman had identified three projects in the pipeline. The 429 University Avenue project represented a retail loss of approximately 1,300 square feet. The net change at the Compadre site would be a loss of 2,500 MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 177 square feet. The net change at 3045 Park Boulevard would be approximately 18,000 square feet. Council Member Burt asked if that was the totality of pipeline projects. Ms. Gitelman indicated that was the totality of pipeline projects for pending entitlements. Other ministerial permits could be pending at the Development Center and not captured on the list of projects. Council Member Burt referred to the 2001 Council Minutes when a financial hardship exemption was specifically not recommended. He asked why Staff recommended a financial hardship exemption. Ms. Gitelman did not make a distinction between financial hardship and viability of a retail use. There should be some type of exemption in cases where retail was not viable in order to avoid a takings challenge. Council Member Burt wanted to determine whether viability was defined by $5 per square foot or normal rent for retail. He inquired whether one project could claim a 25 percent reduction in retail for demolition and for below- grade parking with upstairs access. Amy French, Chief Building Official, reported there was no restriction specific to that scenario. If a building was not currently providing below-grade parking and additional uses were proposed and parking was required for those additional uses, then no language prevented ground-floor area from being utilized for a garage ramp or a staircase or an elevator. Council Member Burt asked if a project could do both. Ms. French replied yes. Council Member Burt inquired whether a building utilizing both indoor and outdoor space was required to replace retail space equivalent to the amount of indoor space only. He inquired whether the definition of replacement ground-floor retail excluded egress to downstairs parking as well as the 25 percent office or only the outdoor space. Ms. French advised that the California Avenue area did not have the same 25 percent restriction as the Downtown area. Ms. Gitelman clarified that in general gross square footage was utilized. Outdoor space that was not covered was not included in gross square footage. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 178 Council Member Burt asked if businesses that historically used basement space for retail storage had paid into the Downtown Parking Assessment District based on the basement square footage. Ms. Gitelman indicated the businesses paid into the Downtown Parking Assessment District based on the use of the basement when the Assessment District was established. If the basement was used for storage, the business was not assessed for it. Council Member Burt questioned whether a business was assessed for the basement storage space when it converted to office. Ms. Gitelman explained that records often did not clearly indicate where the assessed square footage was located in the building. If sufficient footage was assessed, Staff assumed a bit of the square footage was located in the basement. Council Member Burt asked if the Council could require a legally nonconforming office use to revert to retail upon a change in tenancy. Molly Stump, City Attorney, wanted to review that and determine whether there was a State law component that might limit the Council's ability to do that. If the Council was interested in that, it could direct Staff to do so to the extent allowed by law. Council Member Filseth asked if legal restrictions governed when an ordinance could be applied to a project. Ms. Stump answered yes. Land use law stated that rights to develop vested or became an ownership of the applicant only upon final approval, pulling a building permit and breaking ground. The Council's longtime tradition had been to allow pipeline projects to proceed under existing rules even though that was not legally required. In the previous two years, the Council had required pipeline projects conform to new requirements. Council Member Scharff asked if a demolished building which had both retail and other uses had to be replaced with all retail. If there was a requirement for ground-floor retail, then the amount of ground-floor retail prior to demolition seemed to be irrelevant. He was confused as to how that worked. Ms. French advised that districts had different requirements. The Service Commercial (CS) Zone on El Camino Real allowed demolition of retail space and replacement with other uses. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 179 Council Member Scharff asked if an urgency ordinance would require replacement with retail. Ms. Gitelman explained that the purpose of the urgency ordinance would be to preserve retail use. If retail space was removed, then it had to be replaced. Council Member Scharff assumed that was all ground-floor retail on the ground floor with the exception of 25 percent for office. Ms. Gitelman proposed an urgency ordinance that would not allow the 25 percent office exception. It would require preservation of ground-floor retail until the City reexamined exemptions such as the 25 percent exception for office. Council Member Scharff inquired about uses that could replace retail space in a demolished building. Ms. Gitelman advised that a project would have to replace the retail use with the exception of the minimum amount of space required to access the floors above and below. Council Member Scharff asked if a demolished building that formerly had 25 percent office could replace the 25 percent office with 25 percent office or all retail. Ms. Gitelman indicated that depended on whether office was a permitted use on the ground floor in that district. If office was permitted in that district, it could return. Council Member Scharff inquired about office not being a permitted use. Ms. Gitelman stated office could not be replaced with office. Council Member Scharff asked where the 25 percent office was allowed. Ms. Gitelman explained that the 25 percent office was allowed on the ground floor in the GF Combining District Downtown. Under the proposed urgency ordinance, it would not be allowed. Council Member Scharff inquired whether University Avenue was located in the GF District. Ms. Gitelman replied yes. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 180 Council Member Scharff asked if 25 percent office was allowed on the ground floor along University Avenue. Ms. Gitelman answered yes. Ms. French clarified that 25 percent office was allowed in the rear of the building, not the front-facing part of the building. Council Member Scharff inquired whether that provision was contained in the ordinance as well. Ms. French reported it was contained in the current ordinance. Council Member Scharff asked if the 25 percent office applied to side streets as well as California Avenue. Ms. French noted some side streets were subject to the GF overlay. Council Member Scharff asked if the Wells Fargo Building Downtown predated the ordinance. Ms. French responded yes. A Conditional Use Permit was required for ground-floor financial services in the GF Zone. Council Member Scharff asked if a Conditional Use Permit had to be renewed. Ms. French explained that some Conditional Use Permits ran with the land. If the use did not change, then the Conditional Use Permit continued. Council Member Scharff asked if the Council could eliminate existing Conditional Use Permits. He wanted to know if the Council could force the Wells Fargo Building to provide retail space. Ms. Gitelman did not believe the Council could eliminate a use that had been granted. The Conditional Use Permit would cease only if the building ceased to use it. Council Member Scharff suggested the Council could amortize it. Ms. Gitelman did not believe the Council could amortize a Conditional Use Permit. Staff would examine whether the City could eliminate a right that was granted in the form of a use permit. Council Member Scharff noted Staff suggested the three pipeline projects be grandfathered, but the Council had discretion over that. He inquired about MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 181 reasons for implementing an exception for retail that was not successful or feasible. If it was existing retail, then it clearly had been feasible. Ms. Gitelman reported that in an economic downturn when space was vacant for years, the property owner should be able to demonstrate that the retail space was no longer viable. Council Member Scharff believed that retail viability was based on the amount of rent. He probably would not support such an exception. Ms. Stump clarified that such an exception in the urgency ordinance would allow the urgency ordinance to survive a facial challenge on a takings claim. Having an exception process did not predict that the exception could be used successfully. Staff recommended the Council maintain control over that. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the Council or Staff would handle an exception. He would not support Staff action on an exception. Ms. Stump advised that Staff recommended it be presented to the Council. Council Member Wolbach inquired whether the Council could grant a Conditional Use Permit that would expire in two, five, or ten years in the case of a retail space not being successful in an economic downturn. Ms. Gitelman could review that in the context of a long-term ordinance. She would not do that in an urgency ordinance. The community had been interested in reexamining ground-floor uses allowed by use permit in some shopping districts. In that context, Staff could consider the duration of entitlements. Council Member Wolbach questioned whether the Council would want to permit the conversion of hotels to office and remove hotels from the list of possible uses that could be swapped back and forth. He inquired about the consultants mentioned on Page 6 of the Staff Report. Ms. Gitelman reported that the consultants were Dyett and Bhatia and the land economics firm EPS. They were reviewing retail trends, including basement conversion, and residential capacity in Downtown. Council Member Wolbach was open to a discussion of formula retail for the long term. Council Member Berman inquired whether the findings needed for an urgency ordinance were broad. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 182 Ms. Stump reported in drafting those findings Staff would likely focus on public welfare and issues such as walkability and livability. Staff believed they could draft findings to support an urgency ordinance. In the event someone disagreed with the City, Staff recommended the Council begin the traditional ordinance process simultaneously. Ms. Gitelman noted Staff included a number of ordinances from the 2001 period, one of which was an urgency ordinance that contained the type of findings the Council would have to make. Mayor Holman requested an example that fit the language of Number 5 on Packet Page 1489. Ms. Gitelman offered a hypothetical example of a retail use located on a residential street because the retail use had always been located there. The retail use was considered legal and nonconforming. In the urgency ordinance, the Council would not want to mandate that the use would remain. Because the retail use was nonconforming, it should be allowed to leave if it chose to leave. Mayor Holman asked how that was different from any number of locations where retail was not an allowed use, but it had been located there forever. She asked why a nonconforming retail use should be allowed to leave. Ms. Gitelman explained that if the Zoning Ordinance did not allow retail in a given location, it should not protect retail that happened to be there as a vestigial artifact of the past. Mayor Holman asked if Staff wanted the Council to discuss boundaries in the second ordinance. Ms. Gitelman did not believe the Council had time to discuss that in the current meeting. Staff could return for Council direction regarding the different districts. Mayor Holman noted that retaining the use also retained the square footage. She questioned the intent of that and the language for it. Ms. Gitelman understood the Council's intent was to preserve existing ground-floor retail. If the Council adopted an urgency ordinance on a temporary basis, it would prevent that ground-floor space from converting to 25 percent office. That would give Staff time to reexamine whether that was an appropriate standard in Downtown. Mayor Holman felt the Council should clarify that at the appropriate time. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 183 Susan Graf stated the Council did not understand what made a retail business successful. Success was not based on a low cost per square foot. Successful retail needed demographics, a concentrated diverse retail mix, and a strong anchor whether housing or a hotel. Robert Moss suggested adding El Camino Real as a commercial area that needed protections. His data did not include the area north of Page Mill Road, and was based on the area of the ground-floor buildings. Gross floor area reduction in vacancies was down because 3850 El Camino was larger than the other building. The Council should initially prevent conversion of ground-floor retail to office. The 45-day period for an urgency ordinance could be extended if the Council could not draft a traditional ordinance. Jessica Roth asked the Council to continue efforts to preserve Downtown areas. She wanted to maintain the uniqueness of California Avenue by limiting the number of formula-operated businesses and encouraging alternative retail. Other cities had successfully limited the number of formula retail businesses to 5-12 locations. Jessica Roth asked the Council to continue efforts to preserve Downtown areas. She wanted to maintain the uniqueness of California Avenue by limiting the number of formula-operated businesses and encouraging alternative retail. Other cities had successfully limited the number of formula retail businesses to 5-12 locations. Judy Kleinberg suggested the Council use incredible care in extending commercial zones and the ground-floor overlay. The more retail was diluted, the harder it was to create a pedestrian-friendly commercial zone. The one common theme from California Avenue businesses was the need for a parking garage. Jeff Levinsky reported Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) encouraged the Council to preserve retail throughout the City. The Council should enact all retail rather than solely ground-floor retail. The Council should require retail space equivalent to space for ramps, stairwells, and elevators be added elsewhere in the building. The 25 percent exemption for ground-floor office should end. He encouraged the Council to eliminate fake retail. Stephanie Munoz stated retail needed protection because offices made more money for the owner. If permission for ground-floor office was granted for a building and the building was demolished, the permission should be rescinded. The Council should reduce or remove the replacement of retail with office. Mayor Holman requested Council Members speak to the interim ordinance. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 184 Vice Mayor Schmid noted in 2009 the Council eased limits on retail in the Downtown District. Between 2008 and 2014, the City lost 70,000 square feet of retail space. At the micro level, the Council made three decisions in an attempt to protect retail through Planned Community (PC) Zones. The term retail was defined as the sale of goods in small quantities to the ultimate consumers. The nature of a retail block changed over time. The services element became more important when household income reached $70,000-$75,000. He questioned whether retail included private clubs, private banks, classes, conference centers, and specialized professional services. He suggested the Council review the definition of retail as the 1964 Civil Rights Act had a better definition of retail. He encouraged Council Members to consider carefully the definition of retail and attempt to capture the types of businesses they wanted to protect. Council Member Scharff felt the Council needed to reach consensus on an interim ordinance. He would not grandfather in legal, nonconforming uses or the pipeline projects. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to direct Staff to prepare and return to Council with an urgency ordinance, including at a minimum the following: 1. A Citywide prohibition on converting existing ground floor retail uses to other uses until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed. Extend the same protections to eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theatres, and travel agencies (permitted ground floor uses in the Downtown GF Combining District); 2. Apply the prohibition to those retail services operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no discretionary application involving a change of use has been submitted to the City by March 2, 2015; 3. Include within the ordinance an appeal to the City Council in cases of financial hardship or showing that the facility is unsuited for successful retail use; 4. Allow existing retail service facilities to be demolished and rebuilt provided that 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 nonconforming uses shall not be protected or required to remain; MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 185 6. The Municipal Code’s definition of retail services and the other uses cited above shall be continued; 7. The ordinance will be effective for an initial 45 days with an option to extend if the urgency continues. Staff is also directed to prepare a traditional ordinance for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council as a “backstop” to extend the interim measures until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed; and 8. Nothing in the ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community Zoning Ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Also, 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. Council Member Scharff believed an urgency ordinance was important, because the City was losing retail. The City's Ordinances incorrectly zoned for retail use. One of the best ways to protect long-term businesses was to provide more retail spaces. He would like the Council to focus soon on retail boundaries for California Avenue and Downtown and then El Camino Real. An urgency ordinance was the first step in protecting retail and vibrancy. The Council should create opportunities for retail business to exist. Council Member Burt felt a great deal of the loss of retail resulted from the City allowing other uses that commanded higher rents. Much of the Downtown periphery would be office uses without ground-floor retail requirements in that area. He asked if Conditional Use Permits in retail zones would be allowed under the interim ordinance. Ms. Gitelman noted Number 8 of the Motion was not artfully stated. The Council could clarify whether it would like to allow permitted uses to continue or only ground-floor retail uses. Council Member Burt asked if Ms. Gitelman meant whether the Council would allow additional conditional uses under the interim ordinance. Ms. Gitelman answered yes. Perhaps the Council would clarify whether it would allow uses permitted by Conditional Use Permits to continue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that conditional uses for ground floor retail areas are not permitted in retail districts during the interim ordinance. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 186 Council Member Burt did not believe the Council had considered the impact of a series of hotels driving out retail locations. He asked if any hotel projects were in the pipeline. Ms. Gitelman responded no. Council Member Burt suggested the Council consider mandating preservation of the amount of retail under the prior use for the long-term ordinance. He did not want Number 5 of the Motion to force out uses that were grandfathered in. Council Member Scharff was unsure whether Council Member Burt's proposal would accomplish his purpose. He asked if deleting Number 5 would indicate that existing nonconforming uses could not change. Council Member Burt replied no. Under the existing Motion, nonconforming retail uses would not be protected. Council Member Scharff suggested Council Member Burt's language state that existing nonconforming retail uses would be protected. He asked if the Council would require those existing, nonconforming retail uses to remain. Council Member Burt noted under the interim ordinance, all existing retail could not be converted. Number 5 exempted those from that. Mayor Holman interpreted Council Member Scharff's comments to mean that grandfathered, legal, nonconforming retail services would be protected. Council Member Burt questioned the need to state that when those uses were covered in the Motion, Number 5 carved out those uses. Council Member Scharff understood that Number 5 would not allow a nonconforming retail use to change to a conforming use. Council Member Burt concurred. The existing legal, nonconforming retail uses could close under the current market. Council Member Scharff accepted deleting Number 5 from the Motion. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete Number 5 – retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain, in the Motion. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 187 Ms. Gitelman was concerned that the Council was drafting a set of regulations that was inconsistent with Zoning Ordinances and Districts. The inconsistency could be resolved in the long-term ordinance. Council Member Burt indicated an interim ordinance's purpose was to hold things as they were. It would prevent significant degradation of retail while the Council crafted a long-term ordinance. He questioned whether a pipeline application that had not been presented to a Board or Commission should be exempt from the interim ordinance. Council Member Scharff requested Staff provide the status of those three pipeline projects. Council Member Burt asked if the three pipeline projects had received Board or Commission approval. Mayor Holman noted one of the pipeline projects was 429 University Avenue. Council Member Burt noted that project had received approval. Ms. French reported there had not been a hearing of the Compadre's site at 3877 El Camino Real. Many projects had gone through preliminary reviews, but had not gone through the entitlement process. Council Member Burt asked if preliminary review was the same as review by a Board or Commission. Ms. French explained that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted preliminary review of designs. Mayor Holman inquired whether the ARB had conducted preliminary reviews only of the Compadre's site. Ms. French answered yes. Council Member Burt asked if other projects which had undergone preliminary review resulted in a reduction of retail. Ms. Gitelman clarified that the three projects had pending entitlement applications. That did include ARB preliminary review. An ARB preliminary review did not provide a project with entitlement. Council Member Burt stated that three projects had received Board and Commission approval which constituted preliminary entitlement. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 188 Ms. French explained that an ARB preliminary review was similar to the Council's prescreening process. A formal application for ARB action was an actionable application. The Compadre's Project had submitted an actionable, formal application; however, the application had not been presented to the ARB. The ARB had not approved it. Council Member Burt asked if there were three categories of projects: projects that had received some ARB screening; projects that had not received any ARB screening; and projects that had received a recommendation for preliminary approval. Ms. Gitelman did not quantify or prepare a list of projects that had received preliminary architectural review, because that did not result in an entitlement. Council Member Burt wanted to know if there were three categories, and which projects were in those categories. He asked if the three pipeline projects cited by Staff had received ARB approval. Ms. Gitelman answered no. The three cited projects had pending applications for a planning entitlement. They either had been presented to or were destined for the ARB formal review process. Council Member Burt asked if there were other projects in the pipeline that had not moved that far in the process. Ms. Gitelman answered possibly. Staff did not present a list of preliminary ARB applications. Council Member Burt questioned whether those other projects should be exempt from the ordinance. Council Member Scharff stated they should not be exempt. Ms. Gitelman advised that under the Motion those projects would not be exempt. Council Member Burt agreed. Council Member Scharff understood the Motion captured only the three pipeline projects. Council Member Burt wanted to ensure the language reflected the Council's intentions. Number 2 of the Motion stated projects for which no discretionary application had been submitted. He asked if that language covered the three projects or potentially other projects. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 189 Ms. Gitelman reported the language referred to the three projects. Council Member Burt clarified that the language did not refer to the larger set of projects. Ms. Gitelman concurred. Those three projects were not the main point. The Council and Staff needed to move expeditiously, because a property owner could achieve a transition from retail to another use through a ministerial application. Those transitions could not be prevented prior to the date the Council adopted an urgency ordinance. Mayor Holman asked if Council Member Scharff did not wish to exempt the three projects. Council Member Scharff did want to exempt those three projects in the Motion. Personally, he opposed exempting them, but he did not believe the Council would support that. Council Member Burt wanted to ensure that retail was predominantly retail while the Council considered long-term definitions and examples of retail. An interim definition of retail should state that retail was predominantly retail in an attempt to eliminate fake retail. Council Member Scharff was unsure about the meaning of predominantly retail. He requested Staff comment on such a definition. Ms. Gitelman reported the Municipal Code contained definitions for retail services, eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theaters, and travel agencies. Those were all defined uses. The question was whether those were the correct defined uses for the current time. Council Member Burt inquired whether "predominantly retail" would empower Staff to understand the Council's intent regarding fake retail. Ms. Gitelman suggested language of "retail-like uses." That language would allow uses such as commercial recreation which did not meet the definition of retail and was not predominantly retail. Council Member Burt was unsure whether "retail-like uses" captured the Council's intent. Mayor Holman suggested amending the definition of retail services to "retail service means a use predominantly engaged in providing retail sales." Council Member Burt concurred. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 190 Council Member Scharff asked if Staff accepted that language. Ms. Gitelman answered yes. She questioned whether the Council wanted to include retail-like uses. Council Member Scharff did want to include retail-like uses. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that retail service means a use predominantly engaged in providing retail sale and retail-like uses. Council Member Filseth would support applying the urgency ordinance to projects at various stages in the pipeline. He agreed that an urgency ordinance should be simple. With respect to Number 4 in the Motion, access to upper and lower floors was a design issue. He was unclear why the Council should allow that exemption. He would be comfortable restoring the Downtown blocks that were eliminated from the ground-floor retail area in 2009. Perhaps that should be discussed in relation to a long-term ordinance. He was unclear how a 25 percent exemption for office supported protection of retail uses. It seemed to be an unnecessary complication, and he would support eliminating that exemption. Council Member Burt asked if Council Member Filseth was referring to the interim or long-term ordinance. Council Member Filseth felt that did not belong in the interim ordinance. Council Member Kniss understood the Motion needed eight votes to pass. Ms. Stump clarified that the urgency ordinance itself, which would be presented to the Council on May 11, 2015, would require eight votes to be adopted. In the current meeting, direction to Staff required only a five-vote majority. Council Member Kniss estimated that none or only one emergency ordinance affecting the entire City had been enacted. She was somewhat troubled by the Council attempting a new concept; however, the discussion was helpful. She asked if the Motion should contain the findings for an urgency ordinance. Ms. Stump responded no. The Council would direct Staff to compose those findings and present them to the Council. Just prior to Council Member Kniss joining the Council, the Council utilized the urgency procedure to remove some parking exceptions in Downtown. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 191 Council Member Kniss was aware of the urgency ordinance for Downtown; however, she stated Citywide. She asked if the urgency ordinance under discussion would affect the entire City. Ms. Stump replied yes. Council Member Kniss was comfortable with the direction of the Motion but not necessarily the final outcome. She inquired whether the Council would craft a long-term ordinance during the 45 days the urgency ordinance was effective. Ms. Stump explained that an urgency ordinance would be effective immediately upon the Council's adoption and extend for 45 days. Council Member Kniss noted an urgency ordinance could be extended from 45 days to a maximum of 22 months. Ms. Stump concurred. Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 10:00 P.M. Council Member Wolbach questioned whether the urgency ordinance should require space for elevators or ramps to underground parking be offset by space for retail offices and storage located elsewhere in the building. If the Council did not wish to require that in the urgency ordinance, he suggested it be included in the long-term ordinance. Council Member Scharff wanted to know where the offset retail space would be located in the building. Council Member Wolbach explained that every retail and retail-like use required space for offices, storage, and restrooms in order to function. That type of space did not need to be located on the first floor or facing the street. A requirement to offset space for an elevator or ramp would allow the total retail space to remain the same. The original direction to Staff was to preserve and expand retail space. The Council should consider new locations for retail uses. Perhaps the existing, legal, nonconforming uses could provide some expansion for retail. Vice Mayor Schmid noted the Municipal Code definition of retail specifically concerned sale of goods to final consumers. Number 1 of the Motion extended protections to a list of service items. Ms. Gitelman indicated the definition of retail service should be "predominantly engaged in retail." The concept of retail-like uses should be added to Number 1 of the Motion. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 192 Mayor Holman concurred as the definition of retail-like uses was not contained in the current Code. Vice Mayor Schmid asked if the purpose of including retail-like services was to include services as well as goods. Ms. Gitelman responded yes. Council Member Berman agreed with including retail-like services. He inquired about the definition of personal services. Ms. French replied beauty shops; nail salons; day spas; barbers; self-service laundry; cleaning pickup stations; repair of shoes, clothing and accessories; quick printing and copying services; internet and other consumer electronic services; and film, data, and video processing shops. Art, dance, and music studios; fitness, gyms, martial arts, and yoga required a Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Berman stated the Council had approved and identified funding for a parking garage on California Avenue; however, nothing had been done. That symbolized the Council's need to prioritize its and Staff's work. The Council continued to place work on Staff without concentrating on projects that would make a difference for the community. Mayor Holman asked if retail-like uses would include plant nurseries and commercial recreation. Ms. Gitelman would interpret retail-like in that manner; however, the Council could clarify it. Mayor Holman suggested Staff include those in the urgency ordinance. She requested a clarification that no loss of retail meant no loss of retail square footage. Ms. Gitelman advised that was the intention; although, retail uses involved some accessory activities that were not public facing. Staff could not guarantee that all square footage was utilized for retail sales. Mayor Holman would accept those ancillary uses of retail space. She wanted to be clear that the 25 percent office unrelated to retail would not be allowed. Ms. Gitelman indicated the proposed ordinance would prohibit conversion of ground-floor retail to any amount of office. Mayor Holman referred to converting existing uses. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 193 Ms. Gitelman reported that converting an existing protected use to another protected use would be allowed, because both uses were protected under the proposed ordinance. Mayor Holman asked if that was stated. Ms. Gitelman felt it was inherent in the concept. Mayor Holman did not want to encourage the conversion of retail to restaurants. Ms. Gitelman would appreciate the Council's clarification of that, because she interpreted the ordinance to protect the listed uses but to allow one listed use to convert to another. Mayor Holman did not wish to allow more restaurants, especially in the Downtown area. Council Member Burt suggested that topic be discussed in relation to the long-term ordinance. Mayor Holman did not want restaurants to displace other retail. Council Member Filseth inquired about the final disposition of the three pipeline projects. Mayor Holman advised that the three projects would be exempt from the urgency ordinance. Council Member Scharff would support an Amendment not to exempt them, but he did not believe the Council would support that. Council Member Berman likely would not support not exempting the projects; however, he would want more information about the three projects. Mayor Holman requested Staff provide additional information about the pipeline projects when the ordinance returned to the Council. The Council was aware of the 429 University Avenue Project. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent Mayor Holman requested Council Members discuss a long-term ordinance. She inquired whether Staff would present the urgency ordinance on May 11, 2015. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 194 Ms. Gitelman answered yes. The Council was scheduled to discuss California Avenue retail on May 18. The long-term ordinance would be presented in June 2015. During the summer, Staff would complete an analysis of retail trends in Downtown. Council Member Burt questioned whether the Council should discuss the long-term ordinance. He did not understand the apprehension regarding the legal standing for the interim ordinance and the need for a long-term ordinance. Perhaps the Council should further consider provisions for a long-term ordinance. Ms. Stump reported the Council, at the end of 45 days, would need to adopt either a second urgency ordinance or a long-term ordinance. Staff had not fully vetted the timeline for a long-term ordinance. Council Member Burt recalled that the 2001 Council adopted an interim ordinance and then continued it for a longer period of time. He did not believe the long-term ordinance was adopted until 2003. Ms. Stump was not familiar with the timeline of actions taken in the early 2000s; however, that timeline was logical in terms of procedure. Council Member Burt did not feel an urgency to provide Staff with guidance for a long-term ordinance in the current meeting. The Council should deliberate more and hear more from the community. Ms. Stump explained that the long-term ordinance was a technical vehicle to provide an insurance policy in the event the urgency ordinance was challenged. Staff was not suggesting and would not propose that the Council move toward additional substantive changes. Council Member Burt asked if the long-term ordinance would reflect the provisions of the urgency ordinance. Ms. Stump would recommend that. That technique had been used in other cities. Council Member Burt inquired whether a challenge would suspend the ordinance. Ms. Stump indicated it would replace actions taken on an urgency basis with the same substantive requirements used through the regular process. Council Member Burt clarified whether a potential legal challenge triggered the desire to have a long-term ordinance. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 195 Ms. Stump responded yes. Council Member Burt asked if a challenge would hold the urgency ordinance in abeyance until a ruling could be issued or would the urgency ordinance remain in place such that the Council could determine whether to adopt a long-term ordinance. Ms. Stump stated that depended on a court ruling. Legal vehicles were available to launch a challenge quickly and to ask a court to intervene quickly. Council Member Burt felt the Council could move quickly as well if necessary. Mayor Holman clarified that the Council was utilizing an urgency ordinance because it did not require a second reading. Ms. Stump added that an urgency ordinance did not require a second reading, review by the PTC, or 30 days to become effective. Mayor Holman advised that Staff was suggesting provisions that would return as a long-term ordinance that required a majority vote and a second reading. Ms. Gitelman reported that Staff would return as soon as possible with an interim ordinance based on the Council's direction. Once the interim ordinance was enacted, Staff would develop a long-term ordinance and request direction regarding permanent zoning controls. Based on prior Council direction, Staff would prioritize California Avenue. Council Member Scharff believed the Council should adopt the urgency ordinance as the long-term ordinance and continue to work on that. Later the Council could adopt a second long-term ordinance to revise the first one. MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Holman once the interim ordinance is in place, Staff is to bring forward the interim ordinance as a regular ordinance for Council adoption. Subsequently prioritize consideration of permanent retail protections starting with retail uses allowed on California Avenue and boundaries of the Retail (R) Combining District. Also prioritize an analysis of retail trends and desired adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) Combining District in Downtown, followed by consideration of other commercial zones within the City. Council Member Scharff wanted to extend the Retail Combining District to other areas of California Avenue. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 196 Ms. Gitelman added that the Council would review the boundaries and the uses. Council Member Scharff asked if the Council would review the boundaries for Downtown. Ms. Gitelman answered yes, boundaries and uses. Council Member Scharff inquired whether the pipeline project for Cambridge Avenue had been presented to the ARB. Ms. Gitelman would not consider the project as having a pending entitlement application. Council Member Scharff wanted to stop that project from building office space on the ground floor. Ms. French indicated the building had contained personal service uses. It was mostly office. Council Member Scharff requested language that would prevent that project from building office space on the ground floor. He wanted to place the GF and Retail (R) overlay on Cambridge Avenue. Mayor Holman noted the Council had directed Staff to return with California Avenue on May 18, 2015. She wished to ensure the Motion did not delay that date. She asked if the Council could discuss boundary expansion during the California Avenue Agenda Item scheduled for May 18. Ms. Gitelman expected to discuss the Council's desires for boundaries and uses in that district. Staff would not be prepared to enact a prohibition that prevented people from developing their property in conformance with existing zoning. It would require time to enact permanent controls. Council Member Scharff inquired whether Staff could prepare an ordinance to extend the Retail ® Combining District to Cambridge Avenue for the May 18 meeting. Ms. Gitelman had prior direction from the Council to focus on California Avenue and to return to the Council for further direction before preparing an ordinance. Staff could attempt to draft an ordinance prior to May 18, 2015, but it might not be thoughtful or consistent with prior Council direction. Staff intended to present a summary of community input, to discuss the concepts, and to seek Council direction prior to crafting an ordinance. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 197 Council Member Burt asked if including a pipeline definition similar to the one in the interim ordinance would resolve the issue. Council Member Scharff answered yes, as long as the Council then extended the boundaries. Mayor Holman requested Council Member Burt suggest language. Ms. Stump advised that the Council could not pass that, because it was not noticed; however, the Council could provide direction to Staff. Council Members appeared to want to signal their intention for zoning changes to apply to pipeline projects. The Council wanted property owners to be aware of their intention. Council Member Burt asked how Staff described the three projects. Ms. French reported applications for the three projects were on file. Council Member Burt inquired whether Staff described them as having filed applications. Ms. French indicated the projects had filed applications as opposed to preliminary applications. Council Member Burt suggested adding a sentence to the Motion that pipeline projects that did not have applications on file would be subject to the terms of the permanent ordinance. Council Member Scharff inquired about the amount of time needed to prepare a new ordinance. If it required a year, the applicant would have its application on file. Council Member Burt asked if he should have included applications not on file as of March 2, 2015. Ms. Gitelman would communicate the Council's desire for retail at that location to the applicant. The discussion of California Avenue on May 18 would be the appropriate time to signal that pipeline projects would be subject to the permanent ordinance as of May 18. March 2 was the date the Council discussed preservation of existing retail uses. The discussion had moved to requiring retail where it did not exist. Council Member Burt stated the Council's intent was for a permanent ordinance to apply to projects that had not filed applications. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 198 Ms. Stump reported the language would be sufficient if the Council enacted a permanent ordinance before the legal entitlement was granted. Mayor Holman inquired whether the correct language was pipeline projects that did not have applications for planning entitlements on file. Ms. French responded yes. Council Member Wolbach believed the Council was discussing three separate things: an urgency ordinance, an interim ordinance, and permanent changes. He inquired whether there was a distinction between urgency and interim. Ms. Stump explained that the Council intended to utilize the urgency procedure to enact a short-term change for 45 days and then, if necessary, 22 months. Council Member Wolbach understood an urgency ordinance was different from an interim ordinance. Ms. Stump advised it was. The first part of the Motion was to follow it up with an identical ordinance using regular ordinance procedures, which Council Member Wolbach referred to as an interim ordinance. The Motion accomplished the interim ordinance and zoning changes in one ordinance, which was acceptable for the purposes of Council direction. Council Member Wolbach suggested bifurcating the Motion or separating the text of the Motion into two paragraphs. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that the word “interim” be changed to “urgency” in the first sentence. Council Member Wolbach suggested language regarding pipeline projects be moved to the first paragraph. Council Member Scharff disagreed, because that language would be utilized in the second ordinance. Council Member Wolbach explained that an interim or urgency ordinance was expected to be effective for one or two years while the Council developed more complex and nuanced plans for expansion and protection of retail throughout Palo Alto. Pipeline projects were related to more urgent issues. He suggested moving language regarding pipeline projects to the first portion of the Motion. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 199 Council Member Scharff understood the Planning Director to state that the Cambridge Avenue Project had not submitted an application. Entitlements were not issued until a building permit was pulled. The Council was signaling that the applicant should design the project with ground-floor retail. During the discussion of California Avenue on May 18, he would attempt to direct Staff to return regarding extension of the boundaries. Moving the language did not cover his concerns. Council Member Wolbach noted Council Members had alluded to ideas regarding long-term planning for retail protection and expansion. He asked if those should be mentioned at the current time. Ms. Gitelman expected the long-term ordinances to require considerable public outreach and analysis. There would be opportunities for Staff to return for Council direction for all areas of the City. The May 18 discussion pertained to California Avenue. Council Member Wolbach inquired whether Council Members wanted to provide their ideas quickly or hold them for a future discussion. Mayor Holman advised that the Council would have an opportunity to provide its ideas in the future. In the interest of time, the Council should proceed. Vice Mayor Schmid referred to the table on Page 5 which noted seven applications, three of which contained ground-floor retail. He asked if a discussion of expanding boundaries and zoning would affect all seven projects. Ms. Gitelman explained that some of those applications added retail. Only three projects resulted in the net loss of retail. Vice Mayor Schmid was not aware of what pipeline projects were adding or subtracting. He asked if the seven projects would be subject to the new rules. Ms. Gitelman would review the situation as the discussion progressed. Staff would continuously monitor the pipeline as it was subject to change. Council Member Filseth inquired whether restoration of the 2009 boundaries of the GF Zone in Downtown was part of the ordinance. Ms. Gitelman indicated that would be part of the permanent ordinance that resulted from the analysis of Downtown trends. Council Member Filseth asked if that action would require an ordinance. MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 200 Ms. Gitelman replied yes, as it was a map change. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff inquired whether Council Members should retain the information provided for Agenda Item Number 15. Ms. Gitelman requested Council Members retain the information. Closed Session MOTION: Council Member Filseth moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Schmid to go into Closed Session. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 Scharff not participating, DuBois, Kniss absent Council went into Closed Session at 10:49 P.M. 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) Employee Organizations: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA); International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a) The Council reconvened from the Closed Session at 12:23 A.M., Mayor Holman advised no reportable action. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 A.M. ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor MINUTES 04/06/2015 117- 201 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. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5717) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Contract for Design of Matadero Pump Station Improvements Title: Approval of a Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in the Amount of $600,000 for Design Services for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Program Project SD-13003 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (Attachment A) in a not-to-exceed amount of $600,000 for engineering design services for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project, Capital Improvement Project SD-13003, including $547,190 for basic services and $52,810 for additional services. Background In 2005, Palo Alto property owners passed a ballot measure to increase the storm drain fee to implement various storm drain projects to upgrade and improve the storm drain system in the City. The Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project is one of the seven high-priority storm drain projects identified in the ballot measure. A 1,250-acre area of southeastern Palo Alto, including the Midtown and Palo Verde neighborhoods, drains to Matadero Creek via the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station. Much of the land within this watershed, particularly the eastern portion near Highway 101, is lower than the creek water level during storm events. Without the pump station, the storm drains that collect and City of Palo Alto Page 2 convey storm water runoff from this area would be unable to drain during moderate storm events until the creek recedes several hours after the rainfall stops. The Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station was constructed in 1968 to pump and discharge storm water into Matadero Creek and thereby enable the neighborhood streets to drain regardless of the water level in the creek (see Location Map, Attachment B). The 1993 Storm Drain Master Plan determined and the 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Update confirmed that the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station does not have the capacity to convey all of the projected storm runoff generated by a 10-year storm event. The 10-year storm is the nationally-recognized design standard for a modern municipal storm drain system that the City has adopted as its benchmark for evaluating drainage system performance. During large storm events, the lack of adequate pumping capacity results in storm drain backups that cause street flooding at low-lying locations in the watershed. The analysis performed for the 2015 Storm Drain Master Plan Update projects a peak flow rate of 380 cubic feet per second of storm water entering the pump station, while the existing station has a pumping capacity of only 285 cubic feet per second. The Master Plan identifies a pump station capacity upgrade as a high-priority improvement to the City’s storm drain system. Discussion Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a qualified engineering firm to design the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station improvements. The scope of work to be performed under the contract involves a full suite of professional engineering services, including preliminary design, design development, preparation of construction bid documents (plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost), bid assistance, and assistance with construction administration. Elements of the project design include selection of upsized pumps and motors, design of new electrical controls within a small building, and design of a new standby power generator and above-ground fuel tank. The consultant will also evaluate the feasibility of incorporating trash capture devices into the upgraded pump station to prevent runoff-borne trash from entering Matadero Creek and utilizing photovoltaic panels to provide electricity for ancillary equipment at the station. The pump station is located primarily out of public view off Colorado Avenue. The station is located adjacent to a multi-family residential complex, however, so the improvements will be designed to minimize City of Palo Alto Page 3 potential aesthetic and noise impacts to its neighbors. The scope of work also includes the design of modification to pump controls at the Adobe Creek and Airport Pump Stations and some minor storm drain pipeline improvements along Colorado Avenue. An RFP for the project was sent to prospective consultants and posted on the City web site on February 10th, 2015. The following table summarizes the results of the RFP solicitation: Summary of Solicitation Process Proposal Description/Number Design Services for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements Proposed Length of Project 28 Months Number of Proposals Mailed 8 Total Working Days to Respond to Proposal 28 calendar days Number of Proposals Received 2 Company Name Location (City, State) Selected for Oral Interview Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers Santa Clara, CA N/A Infrastructure Engineering Corporation (IEC) Fremont, CA N/A Range of Proposal Amounts Submitted The cost proposals ranged from $366,796 to $547,190. An evaluation committee consisting of representatives from the Public Works Engineering Services and Public Services Divisions reviewed the proposals. The committee carefully reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The committee reviewed each firm’s qualifications relative to its experience in storm water pump station design, the quality of its proposed project approach, performance on past projects, the qualifications of the specific staff to be assigned to the project, and understanding of the project goals. Infrastructure Engineering Corporation’s (IEC) proposal failed to acknowledge City of Palo Alto Page 4 Addendum Number 2, which was issued prior to the due dates for the proposals. It is the proposers’ responsibility to check the City’s website and acknowledge any addenda issued by the City modifying the RFP. As a result of the omission, staff determined the proposal from IEC to be nonresponsive. Furthermore, IEC’s proposal lacked specificity and excluded some essential tasks from the proposed scope of work, including the design of pump station wet well modifications. Since the proposal from Schaaf & Wheeler was complete and of exceptional quality, staff elected to proceed with a recommendation to Council to award the design contract to Schaaf & Wheeler. Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers was selected as the recommended design consultant because of the depth and quality of its experience with the design of storm water pump stations, the exceptional qualification of its proposed project design team, its depth of knowledge of the City’s storm drain system resulting from its recent work to prepare an update to the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan and its extensive experience with the hydrology and hydraulics of Matadero Creek through contracts with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the strength of its proposed project design approach. Timeline The design of the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements is scheduled to be completed by May 2016. The construction of the pump station improvements is expected to take place between August 2016 and September 2017. Resource Impact Funding for the design of the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvements is available from Storm Drainage Fund Capital Improvement Program Project SD-13003. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) under Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: A - Contract with Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers (PDF) B - Location Map (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C15158029 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 10th day of April, 2015, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS, a California Corporation, located at 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255, Santa Clara, CA 95050 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to implement the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to provide engineering services, including preliminary design, design development, preparation of construction bid documents (plans, specifications, and estimate of probable construction cost), bid assistance, and assistance with construction administration 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 at 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 CITY, as needed, with a Task Order assigned and approved by 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 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 all Task Orders issued under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of Compensation set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall only be compensated for work performed under an authorized Task Order and 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 at 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 Five Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($547,190.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($600,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at 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 at 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 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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 CITY’s stated construction budget, CONSULTANT shall make recommendations to 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 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 to be performed under this Agreement without the prior written authorization of the city manager Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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: Biggs Cardosa – Structural Engineering TJC & Associates, Inc. - Electrical Engineering Cornerstone Earth Group ¬– Geotechnical Investigation David J. Power & Associates – CEQA Coordination WRA Inc. – Environmental Permitting/Assessment Kier & Wright – Survey & Mapping Exaro – Utility Locating Contractor 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 Chuck Anderson as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Leif Coponen 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. CITY’s project manager is Joe Teresi, Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, P.O. Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone:(650) 329-2129. The project manager will be CONSULTANT’s point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time. SECTION 14. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS. Upon delivery, all work product, including without limitation, all writings, drawings, plans, reports, specifications, calculations, documents, other materials and copyright interests developed under this Agreement shall be and remain the exclusive property of CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use. CONSULTANT agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the work pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in CITY, and CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the CITY. Neither CONSULTANT nor its contractors, if any, shall make any of such materials available to any individual or organization without the prior written approval of the City Manager or designee. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the suitability of the work product for use in or application to circumstances not contemplated by the scope of work. CITY shall indemnify and hold CONSULTANT harmless from and against any claims, damages, losses, or fees (including attorney fees and court costs) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 that result from modification to CONSULTANT’s work product or for any use other than the project for which they were specifically produced unless specifically authorized by CONSULTANT in writing. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. [Option A applies to the following design professionals pursuant to Civil Code Section 2782.8: architects; landscape architects; registered professional engineers and licensed professional land surveyors.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, and employees(each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. [Option B applies to any consultant who does not qualify as a design professional as defined in Civil Code Section 2782.8.] 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) resulting from, arising out of or in any manner related to performance or nonperformance by CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. 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. Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability 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 Chief Procurement Officer 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 Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 19.4. Upon such suspension or termination by CITY, CONSULTANT will be paid for the Services rendered or materials delivered to CITY in accordance with the scope of services on or before the effective date (i.e., 10 days after giving notice) of suspension or termination; provided, however, if this Agreement is suspended or terminated on account of a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT’s services which are of direct and immediate benefit to CITY as such determination may be made by the City Manager acting in the reasonable exercise of his/her discretion. The following Sections will survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 19.4, 20, and 25. 19.5. No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of any of its rights under this Agreement. SECTION 20. NOTICES. All notices hereunder will be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as follows: To CITY: Office of the City Clerk City of Palo Alto Post Office Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 With a copy to the Purchasing Manager To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. 21.2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this 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. Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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 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 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 CCONSULTANT 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 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 CITY shall be purchased in accordance with 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 Division’s office. • Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, at no additional cost to 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. Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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 Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager (Required on contracts over $85,000) APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney (Required on Contracts over $25,000) SCHAAF & WHEELER, CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS By:___________________________ Name:_________________________ Title:________________________ Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: HOURLY RATE SCHEDULES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Professional Services DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 President Charles D. Anderson EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES The general scope of services is for the CONSULTANT to provide planning, design, bid support, and construction administration services to complete improvements needed to replace pumps and motors at the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station with equipment adequately sized to discharge storm runoff from the design 10-year event. Construction documents shall also be prepared for a 12-inch diameter storm drain along Colorado Avenue to connect an existing storm drain manhole at Greer Road with an existing storm drain manhole at Higgins Place. Contract documents to upgrade pump control and SCADA equipment at the Adobe Creek and Airport Storm Water Pump Stations shall also be furnished, as will construction documents for the installation of photovoltaic solar energy panels to provide ancillary power at the latter two pump stations, pending a demonstration of feasibility. General work tasks are described herein and a detailed scope of work follows the major task breakdown. Task A: Preliminary Design Preliminary designs equivalent to a 30 percent submittal, to be titled “Bases of Design” will be prepared for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project, the Colorado Avenue Storm Drain Improvements, and control upgrades at the Adobe and Airport Storm Water Pump Stations. Preliminary design for the Matadero Creek Pump Station improvements will also include the geotechnical investigation described in the detailed project approach as Task 3. The Basis of Design will document equipment selection; system hydraulic performance including the impact to Matadero Creek, if any; proposed pump station elements and features including those to facilitate operations and maintenance; the impact of future sea level rise and pump station adaptability; construction sequencing; and estimated construction cost. Preliminary drawings will show the improved site plan, building elevations, equipment layout, and wet well enhancements. Trash capture device location and selection will be included. Preliminary drawings for the Colorado Avenue Storm Drain Improvements will include base mapping and location of existing utilities, plan and profile views of the storm drain improvement, and required utility relocations. An assessment of the existing controls at the Adobe Creek Storm Water Pump Station and the Airport Storm Water Pump Station will be provided as part of the preliminary design, with equipment replacement lists furnished for City concurrence. Task B: Final Design Construction documents suitable for public bid will be prepared for each of the project elements described above, based on their respective bases of design developed in Task A. Submittal packages including plans and specifications shall be furnished at the 60 percent and 90 percent design stages. Schedules of proposed sheets for the Matadero Creek Pump Station project are listed in the detailed project approach. Task C: Cost Estimates Construction cost estimates with design contingencies commensurate with the level of plan completion shall be furnished at the preliminary (30 percent), 60 percent and 90 percent design stages. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Task D: Meetings Regular bi-weekly progress meetings by teleconference with CITY staff or at City Hall are provided for in the budget. Additional meetings during construction are included in construction administration support services. Meeting frequency may be adjusted during the course of the work depending upon the general activity level at any particular time. Task E: Work Product Submittals Schedules of work product submittals are listed below for the different project elements. Plan sets and other documents will be furnished in conformance with the Schedule of Submittals. PS&E Submittal Schedule for Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Submittal Type / Plan Sheet Prelim. 60% 90% Final Basis of Design Report ● Geotechnical Investigation Report ● Cover Sheet, Project Location Map and Index ● ● ● Notes, Abbreviations, and Legend ● ● ● General Site Plan (topographic boundary survey) ● ● ● ● Site Utility Plan ● ● ● ● Demolition Plans ● ● ● Site Grading and Drainage Plan ● ● ● Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ● ● Pump Station Improvements ● ● ● ● Outfall Improvements ● ● ● ● Foundation Plans and Details ● ● Building Plans and Elevations ● ● ● Mechanical Details ● ● ● Trash Rack Details ● ● Structural Details ● ● Miscellaneous Details ● ● Electrical Symbols, Abbreviations and Notes ● ● ● Electrical Site Plan ● ● ● ● Power Plan ● ● ● Lighting and Receptacle Plan ● ● Conduit Schedule ● ● MSB-MCC Single Line Diagram and Elevation ● ● ● Control Schematic Diagrams ● ● PLC Connection Diagrams ● ● SCADA System Integration ● ● Electrical Details ● ● CEQA Document (Categorical Exemption) ● Regulatory Permits if Applicable ● Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 PS&E Submittal Schedule for Colorado Avenue Storm Drain Project Submittal Type / Plan Sheet Prelim. 60% 90% Final Cover Sheet, Project Location Map and Index ● ● ● Notes, Abbreviations, and Legend ● ● ● Street Right-of-Way and Utility Plan ● ● ● ● Plan and Profile ● ● ● ● Utility Relocation Plans ● ● ● Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ● ● Miscellaneous Details ● ● CEQA Document (Categorical Exemption) ● PS&E Submittal Schedule for Adobe Creek and Airport Storm Water Pump Stations Submittal Type / Plan Sheet Prelim. 60% 90% Final Basis of Control Recommendations Report ● Solar Auxiliary Power Feasibility Analysis ● Cover Sheet, Project Location Map and Index ● ● ● Notes, Abbreviations, and Legend ● ● ● General Site Plan ● ● ● ● Station Layout Plans ● ● ● ● Control Selective Demolition Plans ● ● ● Solar Power Electrical Modifications ● ● ● Control Schematic Diagrams ● ● PLC Connection Diagrams ● ● SCADA System Integration ● ● Miscellaneous Details ● ● Task F: Construction Documents CONSULTANT shall prepare detailed project plans and technical specifications for each of the project elements. Plan preparation will follow the schedules provided above using the standard 24” x 36” City of Palo Alto title block. AutoCAD layer conventions, symbols and line types will be in conformance with City standards. Special and Technical Provisions will be written in CSI format and generally include: Division 1 through 16 (City to provide Division 0) Bid Schedule Regulatory requirements including permit conditions Seasonal constraints (special species avoidance and outfall work) Project scheduling requirements and order of work Submittal requirements and submittals list O&M manual requirements Warranties Operator training Protection of existing improvements Protection of environmentally sensitive areas and special status species avoidance if applicable Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Task G: Regulatory Permits It is anticipated that the projects will qualify for Class 1 or Class 4 Categorical Exclusions under CEQA per Section 15301 (repair, maintenance, or minor alterations to existing facilities) or 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land). Regulatory approval through the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) will be limited to work that encroaches into Matadero Creek, although this work should be limited to the replacement of the existing gravity bypass flap gate and the pump discharge flap gates. CONSULTANT will verify whether regulatory permits are needed to complete the proposed work, and prepare the requisite JARPA. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding the replacement of flap gates within the existing concrete outfall structure and increasing the discharge capacity of the pump station from 285 cfs to 380 cfs. This coordination will include additional hydraulic analyses using the risk- based Monte Carlo analysis previously accepted by FEMA, and starting water surface elevations based on a recent update of the Palo Alto Flood Basin hydraulic model completed for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to demonstrate that adequate freeboard is preserved in Matadero Creek with the higher pump station discharge rates. Other permits will be obtained as necessary including those that may be issued by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department, the City of Palo Alto Fire Department, the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division, and the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Task H: Construction Administration Services CONSULTANT shall furnish construction administration services including support during the public bid period, site observation at appropriate intervals during the progress of work, the preparation of responses to Contractor Requests for Information (RFI), Construction Change Orders (CCO), Contractor submittal review and logging, a final punch list and inspection, and project record drawings, including one complete set of record drawings reflecting the as-built conditions in digital format for archiving. Additional Services Subject to Additional Compensation The scope of work provided in this Exhibit is all-inclusive in terms of the services believed necessary to complete the projects as proposed. This includes the preparation of CEQA documentation assuming Categorical Exemption applies. Services also include an allowance for potholing the existing 60,000 volt underground electric utility that transects the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station site prior to detailed design. Additional services that may potentially be required to complete the design of the projects include biological assessments within Matadero Creek should this be deemed necessary; more complex architectural services should they be deemed necessary; and physical pump sump modeling should the design advice provided by pump manufacturers prove to be inadequate. Such services would be scoped and a fee negotiated with the CITY and authorized as an Additional Service under the contract prior to beginning any additional work. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Detailed Project Approach and Scope of Work The detailed scope of services presented herein includes engineering calculations, preliminary and final designs, construction documents, bid assistance and construction administration services. The fee and schedule are also keyed to this detailed scope of services. Task 1: Project Management and Coordination Task 1 includes project management during design, coordination of subconsultants, project coordination with CITY and coordination with agencies not tasked elsewhere. Obtaining reports and plans relevant to the City’s storm drain collection system and system model to analyze pump settings has been completed under separate contract. CONSULTANT shall: • Obtain information regarding underground utilities in project vicinity. • Arrange access for geotechnical borings, site surveys and other investigations. • Coordinate subconsultants and their work. • Regularly meet with City of Palo Alto as needed to coordinate work items. (Bi-weekly meetings are assumed until frequency adjusted by mutual agreement.) • Prepare and submit all meeting minutes to City for review. • Prepare and submit monthly progress reports with all invoices. • Coordinate proposed improvements with City staff and other City departments. • Coordinate and meet with City of Palo Alto Utilities staff. • Prepare submittals as defined in the schedules contained herein. • Conduct general project management and coordination. Task 2: Design Development Task 2 encompasses site mapping; preliminary engineering necessary to begin geotechnical, electrical, environmental (if applicable), and structural assessments; and design development through the bid documents. CONSULTANT will use the PCSWMM model it prepared to iteratively establish and verify design parameters. We will then coordinate and lead a preliminary design workshop with CITY engineering and operations staffs to understand and prioritize operation and maintenance (O&M) needs and desires at the pump stations. Task deliverables include preliminary (30%), 60%, 90% and bid set plans, specifications, and engineer’s construction cost estimate (PS&E) as shown in the submittal schedules furnished herein. CONSULTANT shall coordinate with CITY staff during the 30% and 60% design phase of the work, so desired and practicable pump station features can be incorporated into the design. A basis of design memorandum will be submitted along with the 30% PS&E that details the calculations, assumptions, and features to be included in the design. A review period will follow each submittal, after which CONSULTANT will meet with CITY staff to discuss the comments, answer questions, and determine subsequent steps in the design process. Task 3: Geotechnical Engineering CONSULTANT’s geotechnical engineering subconsultant (SUBCONSULTANT) shall perform a geotechnical investigation for the Matadero Creek Pump Station site and one remote trash capture device site to be determined. Geotechnical services will not be provided for the work at the Adobe Creek and Airport Pump Stations. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 3.1 File Review Prior to investigation, SUBCONSULTANT will review select information available at the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara Valley Water District along with information available in their files pertinent to the site conditions in the vicinity of the project. 3.2 Field Exploration Subsurface explorations will be conducted to characterize soils for design and technical specification. 3.2.1 Geotechnical Reconnaissance This subtask includes a reconnaissance of the Matadero Creek Pump Station; a remote trash capture device site; and the nearby site vicinities to evaluate the potential presence of geologic hazards, including fault rupture, slope instability, springs, expansive soil, and other features indicative of potential geologic hazards. 3.2.2 Exploratory Borings This subtask includes drilling, logging and sampling of one (1) exploratory boring at each site (total of two (2) borings) to explore the subsurface conditions. Conventional truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling equipment will be used. The conventional borings will extend to depths of approximately 20 to 50 feet. Soil samples will be collected from the borings for visual classification, laboratory testing, and for correlation with CPT exploration data. 3.2.3 Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) To supplement the exploratory borings, SUBCONSULTANT will perform one (1) Cone Penetration Test (CPT) using 20-ton truck-mounted CPT equipment. The CPT will extend to a depth of approximately 75 to 100 feet, or practical refusal. CPT data will be used in the engineering analyses, including a liquefaction analysis. 3.2.4 Traffic Control SUBCONSULTANT shall provide signage and a flagman to caution on-coming cars as necessary to complete the geotechnical investigations. If necessary, a traffic control plan will be prepared and submitted for review to CITY. 3.2.5 Utility Clearance Boring locations will be marked at least five working days prior to beginning explorations as required by City policies, and SUBCONSULTANT shall also notify the regional utility notification center – Underground Service Alert (USA) at least five days in advance, so that public and private utilities can be identified and marked at the ground surface. Where practical locations will be marked in white paint, or otherwise designated as exploration locations; as requested by USA. Utility operators/owners are required to mark their utilities at the ground surface prior to the start of work. To reduce the risk of damaging unidentified underground utilities during drilling, a private utility locator will be contracted. 3.2.6 Permits, Site Access and Disposal of Drill Spoils The explorations will be permitted and backfilled with cement grout in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District guidelines. Fee for the permits (one permit per site) are included with the fee as a reimbursable expense. Encroachment permits will be obtained from CITY for the proposed subsurface explorations. (It is assumed that there is no fee for the City permits.) Spoils generated during drilling will be placed in 55-gallon drums, moved to a secure location near each site, and analytically tested for off- site disposal. A subcontractor will transport the drums to an appropriate disposal facility. The disposal of up to three (3) drums of spoil is included in the fee as a reimbursable expense. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 3.2.7 Environmental Conditions Proper health and safety precautions will be taken during site exploration to handle any environmental contamination or other specific existing conditions. This scope of services specifically excludes the assessment of environmental characteristics at the site, particularly those involving hazardous substances. If impacted materials are encountered during geotechnical exploration, work will be discontinued and a notification of condition encountered will be made. Added costs incurred because of suspected hazardous substances will be charged on a time-and-expense basis over and above the established fees for the site investigation, but only upon CITY authorization. 3.3 Laboratory Testing To evaluate the index and engineering properties of site soils, the following laboratory tests will be completed by the SUBCONSULTANT: In-situ Moisture/Density, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D2937 Test Procedure Grain Size Distribution, ASTM D1140 and D422 Atterberg Limits, ASTM D4318 Unconfined Compressive Strength, ASTM D2166 Corrosion (Resistivity, pH, and Sulfate and Chloride Concentrations) 3.3 Engineering Analysis and Report Preparation SUBCONSULTANT shall complete analyses to develop site grading recommendations and geotechnical design parameters for trenching, backfilling, foundations, retaining structures and pavement areas. The data obtained from the field investigation and the laboratory testing program will be utilized in the engineering analyses. Following the completion of the engineering analysis, a report will be prepared with geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations. The report will include the following items: Site plan showing exploratory boring and CPT locations Logs of exploratory borings and the CPT, including depth to ground water Laboratory test results A detailed discussion of geotechnical findings and recommendations, including: • Site conditions • Subsurface conditions • Geologic hazards and seismicity including liquefaction potential • Site preparation and earthwork recommendations • Pipe bedding and backfill recommendations • Discussion of shallow ground water • Potential and mitigation of flow in pipe bedding materials • Discussion of reuse of native materials as trench backfill • Foundation type and design recommendations • Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design • Temporary shoring design recommendations Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 • Temporary dewatering recommendations, if needed • Recommendations for wet-well design • Flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavement recommendations 3.4 Geotechnical Plan Review SUBCONSULTANT shall review 90 percent submittal plans and specifications for conformance to their geotechnical recommendations. Recommendations for dewatering during construction will be given for inclusion in project specifications. A brief letter confirming that final completed plans meet the intent of the geotechnical recommendations will be provided. Task 4: Environmental Services David J. Powers and Associates (SUBCONSULTANT) shall document that the projects qualify for a Class 1 or a Class 4 Categorical Exclusion under CEQA per Section 15301 (repair, maintenance, or minor alterations to existing facilities) or 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land). SUBCONSULTANT will prepare the Categorical Exemptions based on the requirements of CEQA and CITY. A biological analysis will be completed for the Matadero Creek/Colorado Avenue project by WRA (SUBCONSULTANT) only if there is a significant encroachment affecting biologic resources. If SUBCONSULTANT concludes that impacts to Matadero Creek will be minimal, this biological opinion will be attached to the Categorical Exemption document for the Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Project and filed by DJPA at the County Clerk’s office. The County filing fee is included in the estimated project fee. The scope of services assumes that proposed improvements/upgrades contemplated for the Adobe Creek and Airport Pump Stations will also qualify for a Categorical Exemption. Two Categorical Exemptions as part of this scope of work: one for the Matadero Creek/Colorado Avenue project(s) and one for the combined Adobe Creek and Airport pump station upgrades. Task 5: Construction Documents After CITY and applicable regulatory agency approval, a final set of construction documents suitable for public bid will be delivered to CITY in reproducible form for each project. The Contract Books shall include bid and contract documents including bid notice, proposal forms including bid schedule with quantity takeoffs, certifications, general conditions, special provisions, and technical provisions. Front end specifications (Division 0) will be obtained from CITY and incorporated into a complete, camera-ready double-sided document for reproduction. Task 6: Bid and Construction Support Services CITY will conduct the public bidding and provide daily inspection and management services during construction. CONSULTANT shall: • Attend pre-bid and preconstruction conferences • Issue letters of clarification and addenda as required • Review bids with CITY • Review Contractor submittals and maintain a submittal transmittal and dispensation log throughout construction (40 submittals with 20 resubmittals assumed) • Respond to Contractor Requests for Information (RFIs) and maintain an RFI transmittal and dispensation log throughout construction (20 RFIs assumed) • Observe the progress of construction at milestone activities (up to three days for electrical site inspection, two structural site inspections before concrete is poured, one day of geotechnical site inspection, and five days of general site inspection are assumed) • Prepare punch list and project closeout documents • Prepare Record Drawings based on CITY and Contractor records Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Deliverables The following table summarizes the anticipated schedule of formal submittals for CITY review. Schedule of Submittals Item Submittal Number of Copies/Sets Digital Report/ Specs ½ Size Full Size Site Survey Base Mapping 5 5 Geotechnical Report Subsurface Info 5 Control and SCADA Assessments Adobe Creek and Airport PS 5 Preliminary Design 30% PS&E 5 5 Environmental Documentation Cat Ex Letter 1 Design Development Documents 60% and 90% PS&E 8 8 8 Final Unsigned Contract Documents Final PS&E 8 8 8 Reproducible Contract Documents Bid 8 1 1 Record Drawings Post-Construction 1 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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 weeks From NTP 1. Project Management & Coordination 106 2. Design Development 52 3. Geotechnical Investigation 40 4. Environmental Services 13 5. Construction Documents 54 6. Construction Support Services 106 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Task Name Duration Notice to proceed 1 day Project Management and Coordination 128 days Arrange Site Access for Surveys and Geotechnical Work 5 days Coordination with City Building and Fire Departments 15 days Coordination with City of Palo Alto Utility 15 days Design Development 257 days Base Mapping 15 days Bases of Design Reports 20 days 30% PS&E 10 days 30% Design Package to City 1 day City Review of Bases of Design and 30% PS&E 10 days Review Meeting with City 1 day 60% PS&E 60 days 60% Design Package to City 1 day City Review of 60% Plans 15 days Review Meeting with City 1 day 90% PS&E 60 days 90% Design Package to City 1 day City Review of 90% Plans 30 days Review Meeting with City 1 day Final PS&E 25 days Final Design Package to City 1 day City Review of Final Plans 10 days Geotechnical 195 days Field Exploration 5 days Laboratory Testing 10 days Engineering Evaluation & Report 10 days Geotechnical Plan Review 10 days Environmental Services 16 days Project Description 5 days Preparation of CEQA Document (Cat Ex Letter)10 days City Adopts CEQA Document 1 day Regulatory Permits Not Anticipated per Concept Design 0 days Construction Documents 10 days Prepare Final Bid Documents 10 days City Approval to Advertise 1 day 4/27 Notice to proceed 10/22 60% Design Package to City 10/1 Review Meeting with City 10/23 90% Design Package to City 1/18 Review Meeting with City 3/1 Final Design Package to City 4/6 Regulatory Permits Not Anticipated per Concept Design 7/29 City Approval to Advertise 5/5 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 2 Apr '15 May '15 Jun '15 Jul '15 Aug '15 Sep '15 Oct '15 Nov '15 Dec '15 Jan '16 Feb '16 Mar '16 Apr '16 May '16 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Task Name Duration Construction Support Services 361 days Project Management / General Coordination 332 days City Advertises for Bid 1 day Bid Period 45 days Council Approval 24 days Construction Notice to Proceed 1 day Building Related Submittals and Approval 45 days Long Lead Contractor Submittals 30 days Long Lead Submittal Review and Resubmittals/Approval 30 days Long Lead Items (MCC, Pumps, EG-Set)20 wks New Control Building and Low Flow Wet Well 26 wks Electrical Equipment Delivered 10 days Electrical Equipment Installed and Tested 20 days Begin Dry Weather Period 0 days Remove Existing Pumps and Trash Rack 5 days Minor Wet Well Modifications and New Trash Rack Installation 20 days Pump and Motor Replacement and Testing 24 days Pump Station Fully Operational 10 days Site Work Completed 30 days Record Drawing Submittal and Project Closeout 15 days 5/5 City Advertises for Bid Council Approval 8/10 8/11 Construction Notice to Proceed Begin Dry Weather Period 5/1 Site Work Completed 8/31 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 2, 2016 Qtr 3, 2016 Qtr 4, 2016 Qtr 1, 2017 Qtr 2, 2017 Qtr 3, 2017 Qtr 4, 2017 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 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 $547,190. 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 $600,000. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to 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 $547,190 and the total compensation for Additional Services does not exceed $600,000. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $ 30,000 (Project Management & Coordination) Task 2 $ 73,363 (Preliminary Design) Task 3 $ 22,523 (Geotechnical Investigation) Task 4 $ 8,125 (Environmental Services) Task 5-1 $ 277,968 (Construction Documents - Matadero Pump Station) Task 5-2 $ 26,818 (Construction Documents - Colorado Ave. SD) Task 5-3 $ 7,902 (Construction Documents - Adobe Creek and Airport PS) Task 6 $ 99,241 (Bid and Construction Support) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Sub-total Basic Services $545,940 Reimbursable Expenses $1,250 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $547,190 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $52,810 Maximum Total Compensation $600,000 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. Reproduction of bid documents All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s project manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Pr o j e c t E n g i n e e r As s i s t a n t E n g i n e e r Hourly Rate $220 $205 $164 $126 $102 $110 Task 1 Project Management & Coordination 112 0 0 0 0 0 24,640$ 4,044$ 1,061$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 255$ -$ 30,000$ A Design Phase (2015/2016)48 10,560$ 4,044$ 1,061$ 255$ 15,920$ B Construction Phase (2016/2017)64 14,080$ -$ 14,080$ Task 2 Preliminary Design 16 46 80 24 40 0 33,254$ 17,666$ 10,333$ -$ 10,200$ -$ -$ -$ 1,910$ -$ 73,363$ A Coordination with SWMM 4 8 24 6,480$ -$ 6,480$ B Matadero Creek PS Basis of Design 4 16 8 24 8,504$ 7,076$ 354$ 15,934$ C Adobe Creek PS Basis of Design 8 1,320$ 2,858$ 143$ 4,321$ D Airport PS Basis of Design 8 1,320$ 2,858$ 143$ 4,321$ E Matadero Creek 30% PS&E 4 8 8 40 7,920$ 9,433$ 472$ 17,825$ F Matadero Creek PS Site Survey 4 820$ 5,400$ 270$ 6,490$ G Colorado Avenue Survey 2 410$ 4,800$ 240$ 5,450$ H Trash Capture 24 3,960$ -$ 3,960$ I 30% Design Document Review 4 8 2,520$ 4,874$ 900$ 289$ 8,583$ Task 3 Geotechnical Investigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ 21,450$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,073$ -$ 22,523$ A Field and Laboratory Work -$ 17,600$ 880$ 18,480$ D Engineering Review of Documents -$ 3,850$ 193$ 4,043$ Task 4 Environmental Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5,500$ -$ 2,500$ 400$ -$ 8,125$ A Cat Ex Letter -$ 5,500$ 5,500$ B Misc. Permit Coordination -$ 2,500$ 125$ 2,625$ Task 5-1 Construction Documents Matadero Creek Pump Station 80 240 96 144 300 240 157,784$ 64,380$ 53,304$ -$ -$ -$ 2,500$ -$ 6,009$ 1,000$ 278,968$ A 60% PS&E 16 60 24 32 80 60 38,572$ 36,000$ 4,599$ 2,500$ 81,671$ B 90% PS&E 40 80 32 60 100 80 57,040$ 18,000$ 29,796$ 104,836$ C Final PS&E 16 60 24 32 80 60 38,572$ 6,000$ 12,456$ 57,028$ D Bid Documents 8 40 16 20 40 40 23,600$ 4,380$ 6,453$ 1,000$ 35,433$ Task 5-2 Construction Documents Colorado Ave. SD 16 40 0 0 84 48 25,568$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,250$ -$ 63$ -$ 26,818$ A 60% PS&E 4 8 20 16 6,320$ 1,250$ 7,570$ B 90% PS&E 4 16 40 16 10,000$ 10,000$ C Final PS&E 4 8 16 8 5,032$ 5,032$ D Bid Documents 4 8 8 8 4,216$ Incl 4,216$ Task 5-3 Construction Documents Adobe Creek and Airport PS 0 0 16 0 0 0 2,640$ 5,262$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 263$ 250$ 8,152$ A 60% PS&E 4 660$ 2,906$ 3,566$ B 90% PS&E 4 660$ 1,400$ 2,060$ C Final PS&E 4 660$ 478$ 1,138$ D Bid Documents 4 660$ 478$ 250$ 1,388$ TOTAL ENGINEERING & DESIGN (2015/2016)160 326 192 168 424 288 229,806$ 91,352$ 64,698$ 21,450$ 10,200$ 5,500$ 3,750$ 2,500$ 9,973$ 1,250$ 433,869$ Task 6 Bid and Construction Support (2016/2017)48 120 40 56 48 16 55,472$ 24,248$ 18,781$ 740$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,188$ -$ 99,241$ A Bidding Period 4 8 8 16 5,856$ 2,232$ Incl 8,088$ B Construction Meetings 12 24 7,560$ 3,200$ Incl 10,760$ C Submittal Review 8 32 8 24 32 15,928$ 4,528$ Incl 20,456$ D Construction Period Docs (RFIs, CCOs)4 24 8 6,808$ 4,096$ 18,781$ 29,685$ E Construction Observation 16 24 16 8 16 13,720$ 1,548$ Incl 740$ 16,008$ F Punch List and Project Closeout 4 8 8 16 5,600$ 8,644$ Incl 14,244$ PROJECT TOTALS 272 446 232 224 472 304 299,358$ 115,600$ 83,479$ 22,190$ 10,200$ 5,500$ 3,750$ 2,500$ 12,161$ 1,250$ 547,190$ Bi g g s C a r d o s a , S t r u c t u r a l En g i n e e r i n g S u b c o n s u l t a n t Da v i d J . P o w e r s a n d A s s o c i a t e s En v i r o n m e n t a l D o c u m e n t a t i o n Ki e r & W r i g h t La n d S u r v e y S u b c o n s u l t a n t Co r n e r s t o n e E a r t h G r o u p , Ge o t e c h n i c a l S u b c o n s u l t a n t Ju n i o r E n g i n e e r Exar o T e c h n o l o g i e s C o r p o r a t i o n Ut i l i t y P o t h o l i n g City of Palo Alto Matadero Creek Storm Water Pump Station, Colorado Avenue Storm Drain, Adobe Creek Stormwater Pump Station and Airport Storm Water Pump Station Improvement Projects Schaaf & Wheeler Fee Proposal - March 10, 2015 TJ C A , E l e c t r i c a l E n g i n e e r i n g Su b c o n s u l t a n t De s i g n e r ( d r a f t i n g ) Sub so n s u l t a n t Ma r k u p ( 5 % ) To t a l Sch aa f & W h e e l e r S u b t o t a l Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r Se n i o r E n g i n e e r Di r e c t R e i m b u r s a b l e s WR A E n v i r o n m e n t a l Su b c o n s u l t a n t DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULES Hourly Rates for Schaaf & Wheeler Personnel Charges Hourly rates are derived from direct labor costs multiplied by 3.15 to reflect a 186 percent multiplier for indirect costs (in conformance with our most recent federal DCAA audit summarized below) and a ten percent profit. Charges for personnel engaged in professional and/or technical work are based on the actual hours directly chargeable to the project. Project rates by classification are listed below: Classification Direct Rate/Hr Markup Rate/Hr Project Manager $70.00 $220 Project Engineer $65.00 $205 Senior Engineer $52.00 $164 Associate Engineer $44.50 $140 Assistant Engineer $40.00 $126 Junior Engineer $32.50 $102 Designer $35.00 $110 Technician $25.00 $79 Calculation of Overhead Rate Categories are modified to match the Federal DCAA Audit for Schaaf & Wheeler. Employee and Fringe Benefits Vacation, Sick, Holiday 11.2% PST Contribution 9.6% Payroll Tax 8.7% Benefit Insurance 6.5% Workers Compensation 0.8% 36.8% General Overhead Expense General Administration 92.1% Rent and Maintenance 24.6% Office Expenses and Supplies 11.5% Depreciation 6.3% Corporate Insurance 4.5% Automobile and Travel 3.8% Legal and Accounting 2.5% Prof. Dues and Training 2.0% Miscellaneous 1.6% Taxes and Licenses 0.3% 149.2% + 36.8% = 186.0% Indirect Cost Multiplier Materials and Services Subcontractors, special equipment, outside reproduction, etc., will be charged at 1.05 times cost. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” Schedule of Hourly Rates and Costs TJC AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Labor Engineer Level 10 (E10) $211.00/hour Level 9 (E9) $200.00/hour Level 8 (E8) $184.00/hour Level 7 (E7) $179.00/hour Level 6 (E6) $177.00/hour Level 5 (E5) $169.00/hour Level 4 (E4) $162.00/hour Level 3 (E3) $146.00/hour Level 2 (E2) $129.00/hour Level 1 (E1) $113.00/hour Drafting Level 7 (C7) $159.00/hour Level 6 (C6) $138.00/hour Level 5 (C5) $124.00/hour Level 4 (C4) $116.00/hour Level 3 (C3) $100.00/hour Level 2 (C2) $83.00/hour Level 1 (C1) $66.00/hour Administrative Level 10 (A10) $200.00/hour Level 9 (A9) $168.00/hour Level 8 (A8) $138.00/hour Level 7 (A7) $118.00/hour Level 6 (A6) $99.00/hour Level 5 (A5) $82.00/hour Level 4 (A4) $69.00/hour Level 3 (A3) $58.00/hour Level 2 (A2) $47.00/hour Level 1 (A1) $36.00/hour Reimbursable Expenses Auto Mileage: Standard set by IRS Outside Services: Cost + 10% Materials and Other Expenses: Cost + 10% Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” BIGGS CARDOSA, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SUBCONSULTANTCHARGE RATE SCHEDULE Principal $205 to 265.00/hr. Associate 180.00 Construction Manager 185.00 Engineering Manager 155.00 Senior Structural Representative 160.00 Project Administrator 128.00 Senior Engineer 138.00 Structural Representative 134.00 Project Engineer 124.00 Staff Engineer 112.00 Assistant Engineer 103.00 Junior Engineer 98.00 Senior Computer Drafter 113.00 Computer Drafter 98.00 Junior Computer Drafter 88.00 Secretarial Services 82.00 Subconsultants Cost Plus 10% Expenses Cost Plus 15% In-House CADD Plots Prints $0.30/ sq. ft. Plots $1.50/ sq. ft. Mylar Plots $3.00/ sq. ft. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP Hourly Fee Rates and Equipment Charges Senior Principal Engineer or Geologist $240 Principal Engineer or Geologist $220 Senior Risk Assessor $195 Senior Project Engineer or Geologist $195 Principal Construction Services $175 Project Engineer or Geologist $165 Senior Staff Engineer or Geologist $140 Senior Supervisory Technician $140 Staff Engineer or Geologist $130 Supervisory Technician $120 Technical Illustrator/CAD Operator $110 Dispatch $105 Engineering Technician II $100 Engineering Technician I $95 Administrative Assistant $85 Charges for personnel will be made in accordance with the above rates. For field engineers, geologists and technicians, regular rates are normal workday construction hours (Monday through Friday). For time spent over 8 hours in a day, time spent after 5 p.m., time spent on swing shifts, and time spent on Saturdays by field personnel, overtime rates will be charged at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Work on Sundays and holidays and work in excess of 12 hours in one day will be charged at 2.0 times the hourly rate. Field rates are based on a 48 hour notice. For less than a 48 hour notice, a 10 percent surcharge will be added. All field personnel, vehicle and equipment charges are portal to portal. Reproduction of project documents will be charged as a project expense. The hourly rate for professional staff to attend legal proceedings will be 2.0 times the hourly rate specified above. Equipment Charges Geotechnical Laboratory Tests Vehicle $16 per hour Tests Run Tests Run Nuclear Density Gauge $9 per test During Normal Outside Slope Inclinometer $150 per day Workday Hours Workday Hours GPS Unit $30 per day Compaction Curve $300 each $450 each Hand Auger Equipment $45 per day Compaction Check Point $150 each $225 each Power Auger $100 per day Plasticity Index $220 each $330 each PDR-1000 Dust Meter $150 per day or $700 per week Sieve/Hydrometer $220 each $330 each Organic Vapor Meter $125 per day $600 per week Moisture Content $6 each $9 each Air Pump $75 per day or $350 per week Moisture/Density $25 each $38 each Weather Station $75 per day or $350 per week -#200 Wash $50 each $75 each Benkelman Beam $150 per day or $700 per week Sieve < ¾ inch Liner (small) $115 each $170 each Double Ring Infiltrometer $100 per day Sieve > ¾ inch Bucket (Large) $200 each $300 each Dynamic Cone $100 per day Lime Stability $330 each $495 each Insulated Sample Carrier $5 per day Depth Sounder $40 per day Liner and Two Caps $10 each Core N One Sampler $45 each triplicate sample Core N One Handle $50 each Modeling Software $20 per hour Plotter $5 per plot 55-gallon Drum $90 each Direct Expenses Reimbursement for the direct expenses listed below incurred in connection with the Work will be billed at cost plus 18 percent. 1) Drillers, utility locators, laboratories, contractors, hygienists, and consultants 2) Rented vehicles, public transportation, tolls, and air flights 3) Permits and special fees, insurances and licenses required to perform Work 4) Computer programs and rented field equipment 5) Large volume copying of project documents 6) Maps, photographs, and environmental databases 7) Overnight or same day delivery charges 8) Copying or production of over-sized figures and plans Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” CHARGE RATE SCHEDULE1 SENIOR PRINCIPAL $ 255.00 PER HOUR PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER $ 225.00 PER HOUR SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST $ 200.00 PER HOUR SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER $ 180.00 PER HOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST $ 165.00 PER HOUR PROJECT MANAGER $ 155.00 PER HOUR ASSOCIATE PROJECT MANAGER $ 140.00 PER HOUR ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER $ 115.00 PER HOUR RESEARCHER $ 100.00 PER HOUR DRAFTSPERSON/GRAPHIC ARTIST $ 90.00 PER HOUR DOCUMENT PROCESSOR/QUALITY CONTROL $ 90.00 PER HOUR ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER $ 90.00 PER HOUR OFFICE SUPPORT $ 75.00 PER HOUR MATERIALS, OUTSIDE SERVICES AND SUBCONSULTANTS INCLUDE A 15% ADMINISTRATION FEE. MILEAGE WILL BE CHARGED PER THE CURRENT IRS STANDARD MILEAGE RATE AT THE TIME COSTS OCCUR. David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. provides regular, clear and accurate invoices as the work on this project proceeds, in accordance with normal company billing procedures. The cost estimate prepared for this project does not include special accounting or bookkeeping procedures, nor does it include preparation of extraordinary or unique statements or invoices. If a special invoice or accounting process is requested, the service can be provided on a time and materials basis Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” WRA ENVIRONMENTAL SUBCONSULTANT PREFERRED CLIENT RATE SCHEDULE Effective: January 1, 2015 PRINCIPALS Timothy DeGraff, Chief Executive Officer $250/HR Geoff Smick, President 196/HR Sherry Maloney, Chief Financial Officer 196/HR Thomas Fraser, Senior Plant Ecologist 206/HR Michael Josselyn, Senior Wetland Scientist 300/HR Douglas Spicher, Senior Wetland Ecologist 194/HR Philip Greer, Senior Biologist 185/HR George Salvaggio, Senior Landscape Architect 180/HR Dana Riggs, Senior Wildlife Biologist 170/HR Justin Semion, Senior Aquatic Ecologist 170/HR ASSOCIATE PRINCIPALS 180/HR SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER 180/HR SENIOR ASSOCIATE 160-180/HR ASSOCIATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER 150/HR ASSOCIATE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 140/HR GIS PROFESSIONAL 123-138/HR ASSOCIATE 136/HR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 133/HR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER 126/HR SCIENTIST 121/HR SENIOR GIS TECHNICIAN / SENIOR LANDSCAPE 116/HR DESIGNER SENIOR TECHNICIANS / ASSISTANT 114/HR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER II GIS TECHNICIAN / LANDSCAPE DESIGNER 104/HR TECHNICIAN / ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL 102/HR PLANNER CLERICAL 69/HR Necessary project expenses are billed at cost plus 10%. Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” Other Direct Costs Breakdown – Effective January 1, 2015 Before Markup Type of Cost: GPS Unit $100 per day GPS Tablet $25 per day Plotter Bond $2.00 per sq ft. Vellum $2.25 per sq ft. Film $3.00 per sq ft. Telephone Cost Long Distance only (outside the San Francisco Bay Area) Postage Cost by weight Delivery Cost by messenger or Federal Express Outside Copy Service Cost Mileage IRS Reimbursable Rate Bridge Tolls Cost Parking Cost Boat $100 day Kayak $30 day Fleet Vehicle Toyota $100 day Fleet Vehicle Subaru $90 day Fleet Vehicle Nissan $30 day Bat Detectors $50 day Nets (Seine) $25 day Water testing Equipment $25 day Aquatic Gear $25 day Well Construction Kit $15/kit Flowatch Flowmeter $25 day Soil Testing Equip. $25/kit Projector $50 day All above Costs are charged plus 10% Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” Kier & Wright Civil Engineers & Surveyors, Inc. Hourly Rate Schedule HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE PRINCIPAL $ 220.00/Hour PRINCIPAL ENGINEER $ 200.00/Hour SENIOR ENGINEER $ 180.00/Hour OFFICE ENGINEER $ 161.00/Hour SENIOR SURVEYOR $ 180.00/Hour SURVEY SUPERVISOR $ 180.00/Hour OFFICE SURVEYOR $ 161.00/Hour SURVEY COORDINATOR $ 154.00/Hour ENGINEERING TECH $ 138.00/Hour SURVEY TECH $ 138.00/Hour SENIOR DRAFTSMAN $ 112.00/Hour DRAFTSMAN $ 107.00/Hour SURVEY DRAFTSMAN $ 85.00/Hour 1-MAN SURVEY CREW 2-MAN SURVEY CREW $ 154.00/Hour $ 276.00/Hour 3-MAN SURVEY CREW $ 350.00/Hour TESTIMONY (TRIAL OR DEPOSITION) $ 431.00/Hour ENGINEERING COORDINATOR $ 73.00/Hour ENGINEERING INTERN $ 46.00/Hour All blueprinting and reproduction will be billed at cost plus 10%. Time spent for preparation for testimony will be billed in accordance with the above hourly rates. ® Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “C-1” EXARO Technologies Corporation 1831 Bayshore Highway* Burlingame, CA 94010 [Tel] (650) 777-4324 [Fax] (650) 777-4326 General Engineering Contractor # 860376 Rate Schedule Rate Potholing - (Day rate minimum) $2,576.00 Hot Asphalt Paving - (Day rate minimum) $2,576.00 Slurry backfill (requires dump truck during potholing for debris removal) $2,576.00 Night Work - project based Other Labor $/Hr or unit Extra Traffic Control Person / Day $896.00 Job Layout Crew USA, mark & notification $150.00 Permitting labor (excludes permit fees) $150.00 Pre-work preparation $300.00 Transcribe field data/hour $93.00 Other Rate Equipment - Arrow board In house unit (IHU) $155.00 Equipment - Steel Plates for slurry $10.00 Material - Class II Aggregate back-fill - includes native disposal / pothole $30.00 Material - Cold asphalt patch /concrete/pothole $21.00 Material - Disposal Spoils ave/pothole $3.00 Material - Hot Mix Asphalt $170.00 Material - supplies paint, sand, cutbk - ave/day (in house stock) $22.00 Material Slurry / day - varies w/project - approximation $750.00 Mobilization-in/out - Project based $70.00 Subsistence / crew ($80/person) $160.00 Traffic Control Drawings 'Standard' (none engineer stamped) $150.00 Truck Pickup IHU $100.00 Truck Support IHU $205.00 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRED TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE MAILED TO: PURCHASING AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CITY OF PALO ALTO P.O. BOX 10250 PALO ALTO, CA 94303 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACTPRODUCERNAME: FAXPHONE(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ADDL SUBRINSR POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITSPOLICY NUMBERLTR (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY)INSD WVD COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $JECT $OTHER: COMBINED SINGLE LIMITAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY $(Ea accident) BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS AUTOS NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $HIRED AUTOS (Per accident)AUTOS $ UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $OCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $DED RETENTION $ PER OTH-WORKERS COMPENSATION STATUTE ERAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / NANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $N / AOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH)E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2014/01) SCHA&WH-01 COSTAM 3/26/2015 License # 0E67768 Michelle Costa IOA Insurance Services 3875 Hopyard Road Suite 240 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 416-7862 (925) 416-7869 Michelle.Costa@ioausa.com RLI Insurance Company 13056 Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers 1171 Homestead Road, Suite 255 Santa Clara, CA 95050 A X 1,000,000 X PSB0001578 06/01/2014 06/01/2015 1,000,000 10,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 X 2,000,000 1,000,000 A PSB0001578 06/01/2014 06/01/2015 X X X 3,000,000 XA PSE0001370 06/01/2014 06/01/2015 3,000,000 X A PSW0001278 12/11/2014 12/11/2015 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 A Professional Liab.RDP0015476 06/06/2014 06/06/2015 Per Claim 3,000,000 A Professional Liab.RDP0015476 06/06/2014 06/06/2015 Aggregate 3,000,000 RE: Matadero PS Improvement Project General Liability: The City of Palo Alto, its Council Members, Officers, Agents, and Employees are included as Additional Insured on Primary & Non-Contributory basis with Waiver of Subrogation included, as required by written contract. Hired & Non-Owned Auto Liability includes Blanket Additional Insured and Blanket Waiver of Subrogation. City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 DocuSign Envelope ID: 40915B56-6619-4A69-B1FD-8E78AD8936D1 Policy Number: PSB0001578 RLilnsurance Company Named Insured: Schaaf & Wheeler, Consulting Civil Engineers THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. RLiPack® FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESSOWNERS COVERAGE FORM -SECTION II -LIABILITY 1. C. WHO IS AN INSURED is amended to include as an additional insured any person or organization that you agree in a contract or agreement requiring insurance to include as an additional insured on this policy, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused in whole or in part by you or those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing operations; b. In connection with premises owned by or rented to you; or c. In connection with "your work" and included within the "product-completed operations hazard". additional insured under this policy must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such additional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with that other insurance, provided that: a. The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs after you have entered into that contract or agreement; or b. The "personal and advertising injury" for which coverage is sought arises out of an offense committed after you have entered into that contract or ag reement. 2. The insurance provided to the additional insured by this endorsement is limited as follows: 4. The following is added to SECTION III K. 2. a. This insurance does not apply on any basis to any person or organization for which coverage as an additional insured specifically is added by another endorsement to this policy. b. This insurance does not apply to the rendering of or failure to render any "professional services", c. This endorsement does not increase any of the limits of insurance stated in D. Liability And Medical Expenses Limits of Insurance. 3. The following is added to SECTION III H.2. Other Insurance -COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS (BUT APPLICABLE ONLY TO SECTION II - LIABILITY) However, if you specifically agree in a contract or agreement that the insurance provided to an Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us -COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS (BUT APPLICABLE TO ONLY TO SECTION II - LIABILITY) We waive any rights of recovery we may have against any person or organization because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of "your work" performed by you, or on your behalf, under a contract or agreement with that person or organization. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of a contract or agreement with such person or organization entered into by you before the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "personal and advertising injury" offense is committed. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED. PPB 304 0610 Page 1 of 1 127-27-076 127-58-051127-58-052 127-58-053 127-58-050 127-58-005 -26-172 127-26-180 127-26-179 26-178 127-26-187 127-52-037 127-52-035 127-52-032 127-52-031 7-52-036 127-26-160 127-58-041 127-58-049 127-58-012 127-58-044 127-58-042 127-58-043 127-58-045 127-58-046 127-58-047 127-58-048 127-58-007 127-58-004 127-58-003 127-58-002 127-58-001 127-26-191 127-26-207 127-26-206 127-26-188 127-26-073 127-26-083 127-59-015 127-59-016 127-59-001 127-59-017 127-59-018 127-59-002 127-59-014 127-59-011 127-52-034 127-52-033 127-52-051 127-52-052 127-52-053 127-51-001 127-58-008 127-58-009 127-58-010 127-58-011 127-26-082 127-58-006 127-27-073 127-27-075 127-27-077 127-27-078 127-27-023 127-27-024 127-27-025 127-27-026 127-27-027 7-27-028 127-40-001 6-143 127-26-144 127-26-145 127-26-146 127-26-147 127-27-079 127-27-080 127-27-020 127-27-021 127-27-022 127-40-002 127-40-025 127-40-024 127-40-018 127-40-020127-40-023 127-40-021 127-26-148 127-26-149 127-26-150 127-26-151 127-26-152 127-26-153 127-26-209 127-26-077 127-26-078 127-26-079 127-26-080 127-26-081 127-26-074 127-40-022 127-59-068 127-59-066 127-59-065 127-59-064 127-59-063 127-59-062127-58-013 127-58-039 127-58-033 127-58-034 127-58-030 127-58-029 127-58-018 127-58-014 127-58-019 127-58-027 127-58-025 127-58-024 127-58-023 127-58-021 127-58-040 127-58-032 127-58-031 127-58-020 127-58-022 127-25-084 127-25-085 127-25-070 127-25-086 127-25-088 127-25-087 127-25-051 127-25-089 127-59-046 127-59-067 127-58-026 127-58-028 127-59-054 127-59-053 127-59-052 127-59-051 127-59-050 127-59-049 127-59-042 127-59-004 127-59-003 127-59-005 127-59-006 127-59-007 127-59-008 127-59-009127-59-010 127-59-013 127-59-012 127-59-033127-59-034127-59-035 127-59-036 127-59-037 127-59-038 127-59-029 127-59-032 127-59-031 127-59-030 127-59-028 127-24-031 127-59-044 127-59-045 127-59-047 127-59-048 127-59-061 127-59-060 127-59-059 127-59-058 127-58-016127-58-015 127-58-017 127-22-016 127-22-156 127-22-155 127-25-003 127-25-002 127-25-049 127-25-048 127-25-047 127-25-046 127-25-045 127-25-033 127-25-034 127-25-042 127-25-041 127-25-040 127-25-036 127-25-037 127-25-090 127-25-035 127-25-052 127-25-027 127-25-028 127-25-029 127-25-044 127-25-039 127-25-030 127-25-031 127-25-032 127-25-001 127-22-017 127-22-023 127-22-063 127-22-062 127-22-024 127-22-158 127-22-157 127-22-022 127-22-021 127-22-020 127-22-019 127-22-160 127-22-159 127-25-043 127-59-057 127-59-056 127-59-055 127-24-021 127-24-013 127-24-014 127-24-015 127-24-022 127-24-023 127-24-024 127-24-025 127-24-026 127-24-027 127-24-028 127-24-029 127-24-030 127-24-012 127-59-020 127-59-041 127-59-040 127-59-024 127-59-025 127-59-026 127-59-039 127-59-027 127-24-036 127-24-037 127-24-038 127-24-039 127-24-040 127-24-041 127-24-042 127-24-050 127-59-021 127-59-023 127-59-022 127-59-019 127-59-043 127-26-072 127-26-071 127-26-070 127-26-069127-26-075 127-26-076 127-26-068 127-26-067 127-24-048 127-24-074 127-24-073 127-24-053 127-24-052 127-24-051 127-24-054 127-24-056 127-24-055 127-24-057 127-23-027 127-07-059 127-07-060 127-07-061 127-07-062 127-07-010 127-07-008 127-07-007 127-07-006 127-07-005 127-07-004 127-07-003 127-07-002 127-07-001 127-40-014 127-40-015 127-40-019 127-24-046 127-07-009 127-07-079 127-23-052 127-23-013 127-23-014 127-23-015 127-23-016 127-23-017 127-23-018 127-23-039 127-23-009 127-23-011 127-23-012 127-23-042 127-23-041 127-23-043 127-23-040 127-24-035 127-24-072 127-24-071 127-24-070 127-24-068 127-24-069 127-24-066 127-24-067 127-24-065 127-24-063 127-24-062 127-24-061 127-24-077 127-24-076 127-24-059 127-24-058 127-24-004 127-24-005 127-24-007 127-24-006 127-24-008127-24-009127-24-010 127-24-016 127-24-020 127-24-017 127-24-019 127-24-018 127-24-034 127-24-033 127-24-032 127-23-010 127-24-064 127-24-011 127-23-031 127-23-020 127-23-019 127-23-021 127-23-022 127-23-023 127-23-024 127-23-025 127-23-026 127-23-034 127-23-033 127-23-032 127-23-030 127-23-029 127-23-028 127-23-065 127-23-062 127-23-063 127-23-064 127-24-075 127-23-038 127-23-037 127-23-036 127-23-035 127-23-069 127-23-071 127-23-070 127-23-061 127-23-060 127-23-072 127-23-059 127-23-058 127-23-073 127-23-075 127-23-074 127-23-057 127-23-056 127-23-076 127-23-055 127-23-054 127-23-077 127-23-078 127-23-053 127-08-042 127-08-048 127-08-049 127-08-050 127-08-051 038 127-52-050 127-52-049127-52-048 127-58-035 127-51-003 127-51-002 127-58-036 127-58-038 127-25-071127-25-083 127-25-072 127-25-082 127-46-062 127-46-061 127-25-069 127-25-054 127-25-053 127-25-004 127-25-005 7-02-038 127-02-075 127-02-077 127-02-076 127-02-105 8-020 127-38-026 127-54-033 -007 127-02-008 127-46-065 127-46-064 127-46-063 127-22-015 127-22-014 127-22-013 127-22-012 127-22-028 127-22-027 127-22-026 127-22-025 127-22-029 127-22-030 127-22-010 127-22-011 127-22-031 127-22-032 127-22-054 127-22-053 127-22-052 127-22-055 127-22-056 127-22-057 127-39-048 127-39-035 127-39-049 127-39-034 127-39-033 127-39-050 127-22-044 127-22-045 127-22-060 127-22-061 127-22-046 127-22-047 127-22-048 127-22-059 127-22-058 127-22-049 127-23-007 127-23-047 127-23-046 127-23-004 127-23-005 127-23-006 127-23-045 127-23-008 127-23-079 127-23-051 127-23-050 127-23-049 127-08-013 127-08-012 127-08-037 127-08-038 127-08-014 127-08-039 127-08-040 127-08-041 127-08-043 127-08-044 127-22-064 127-22-065 127-22-066 127-23-044 127-22-043 127-22-042 127-22-041 127-22-040 127-22-050 127-22-051 127-23-001 127-23-002 127-23-048 127-23-003 127-08-011 127-08-017 127-08-018 127-08-029 127-08-030 127-08-031 127-08-034 127-08-016 127-08-015 127-08-035 127-08-036 127-22-067 127-22-068 127-22-069 127-22-070 127-22-076 127-22-075 127-22-077 127-22-078 127-39-015 127-39-008 127-39-007 127-39-014 127-39-005 127-39-006 127-39-017 127-39-018 127-39-019 127-39-020 127-39-021 127-39-022 127-39-023 127-39-027 127-39-028 127-39-029 127-39-030 127-39-031 127-39-032 127-39-037 127-39-036 127-22-036 127-22-035 127-22-034 127-22-033 127-39-016 127-09-118 127-09-119 127-09-120 127-09-108 127-09-109 127-39-011 127-39-009 127-39-010 127-39-001 127-39-002 127-39-004 127-09-117 127-09-135 127-09-136 127-39-003 127-10-084 127-09-015 127-09-014 127-09-013 127-09-012 127-09-011 127-09-010 127-09-009 127-09-071 127-09-070 127-09-087 127-09-086 127-09-084 127-09-085 127-09-146 127-09-147 127-09-074 127-09-125 127-09-126 127-09-121 127-09-083 127-09-082 127-09-134 127-10-098 127-10-094 127-09-017 127-09-018 127-09-019 127-09-016 127-10-076 116-01-049 127-10-099 127-10-100 127-22-038 127-22-037 127-22-039 127-22-073 127-22-074 127-22-143 127-22-144 127-22-145 127-22-146 127-22-147 127-22-148 127-22-149 127-22-086 127-22-087 127-22-088 127-22-089 127-22-090 127-22-091 127-22-092 127-39-026 127-39-025 127-39-024 127-09-127 127-09-128 127-09-129 127-09-116 127-09-101 127-09-102 127-09-140 127-09-139 127-09-052 127-09-098 127-09-097 127-09-096 127-36-040 127-08-028 127-08-032 127-08-033 127-08-027 127-08-026 127-08-025 127-08-024 127-08-023 127-08-022 127-08-067 127-08-068 127-08-069 127-08-070 127-08-071 127-08-072 127-08-021 127-08-020 127-08-019 127-08-074 127-08-073 127-22-072 127-22-071 127-09-044 127-09-045 127-09-046 127-09-047 127-09-048 127-09-040 127-09-039 127-09-041 127-09-042 127-09-043 127-09-053 127-09-057 127-09-055 127-09-054 127-09-056 127-09-058 127-09-036 127-09-037 127-09-038 127-09-049 127-09-050 127-36-041 127-09-027 127-09-026 127-09-025 127-09-024 127-09-023 127-09-022 127-09-021 127-09-020127-09-088 127-09-124 127-09-123 127-09-089 127-09-130 127-09-090 127-09-141 127-09-142 127-09-064 127-09-091 127-09-063 127-09-062 127-09-095 127-09-094 127-09-093 127-09-092 127-09-103 127-09-133 127-09-112 127-09-131 127-36-029 127-36-032 127-36-031 127-09-132 127-09-035 127-09-034 127-09-033 127-09-032 127-09-031 127-09-030 127-09-029 127-09-028 127-09-059 127-09-061 127-09-060 127-36-025 127-36-026 127-54-037 127-54-035 127-54-036 127-54-030 127-54-031 127-54-045 127-54-046 127-54-044 127-54-043 127-54-038 127-54-029 127-54-032 127-04-062 127-04-063 127-04-064 127-04-061 127-05-031 127-05-030 127-05-020 127-05-019 127-05-025 127-05-024 127-05-021 127-05-033 127-05-032 127-05-008 127-05-009 127-05-012 127-05-011 127-05-010 127-05-023 127-05-022 127-05-042 127-05-041 127-05-040 127-02-007 127-02-006 127-05-039 127-38-008 127-38-007 127-38-006 127-38-005 127-02-044 127-02-106 127-38-021 127-38-022 127-38-023 127-38-024 127-38-025 127-02-047 127-02-046 127-02-045 127-02-035 127-02-039 127-02-040 127-02-041 127-02-034 127-02-120 127-02-124 127-02-123 127-02-033 127-41-033127-41-032 127-41-031 127-41-030127-41-029127-41-028127-41-027127-41-026127-41-025127-41-024127-41-023127-41-022127-41-021 127-41-020127-41-019127-41-018127-41-017127-41-016127-41-015 127-41-014 127-41-013 127-41-012127-41-011 127-41-010127-41-009127-41-008127-41-007127-41-006127-41-005 127-41-004 127-41-003 127-41-002127-41-001 127-41-034 127-41-035127-41-036127-41-037127-41-038127-41-039 127-41-040 127-41-041127-41-042 127-41-043 127-41-044127-41-045127-41-046127-41-047127-41-048 127-41-049127-41-050 127-41-051127-41-052127-41-053 127-41-054127-41-055127-41-056127-41-057127-41-058127-41-059127-41-060 127-41-061127-41-062 127-41-063 127-41-064 127-41-065 127-41-066127-41-067127-41-068127-41-069 127-41-070 127-41-071127-41-072 127-41-073 127-41-074 127-41-075 127-41-076 127-41-077127-41-078127-41-079127-41-080127-41-081 127-41-082 127-41-083127-41-084 127-41-085127-41-086127-41-087127-41-088 127-41-089 127-41-090127-41-091127-41-092 127-54-041 127-54-042 127-54-040 127-54-039 127-54-028 127-54-026 127-54-027 127-40-003 127-40-004 127-40-005 127-40-006 127-40-007 127-40-008 127-40-009 127-40-010 127-40-011 127-40-012 127-40-017 127-40-016 127-07-030 127-05-048 127-05-065 127-05-061 127-05-044 127-05-043 127-05-059 127-05-060 127-05-018 127-05-017 127-54-002 127-54-003 127-54-004 127-54-001 127-54-005 127-54-006 127-54-009 127-54-053 127-54-052 127-54-054 127-54-021 127-54-020 127-54-011 127-54-010 127-54-025 127-04-065 127-04-066 127-04-067 127-04-068 127-04-069 127-04-070 127-04-071 127-04-058 127-04-059 127-04-060 127-04-052 127-04-051 127-04-050 127-04-049 127-04-048 127-04-034 127-05-028 127-05-026 127-05-015 127-05-014 127-05-013 127-05-051 127-05-029 127-05-052 127-05-027 127-05-016 127-04-047 127-04-046 127-04-056 127-04-053 127-04-054 127-04-055 127-04-057 127-04-045 127-04-044 127-04-036 127-04-037 127-04-035 127-04-033 127-04-032 127-04-031 127-04-029 127-04-022 127-04-021 127-05-049 127-05-050 127-05-054 127-05-053 127-05-055 127-05-057 127-05-056 127-01-157 127-04-030 127-07-029 127-07-028 127-07-027 127-40-013 127-07-021 127-07-022 127-07-023 127-07-024 127-07-025 127-07-026 127-07-077 127-07-078 127-07-019 127-07-020 127-07-068 127-07-011 127-07-012 127-07-013 127-07-014 127-07-075 127-07-076 127-07-071 127-07-067 127-07-070 127-07-069 127-07-033 127-07-034 127-08-097 127-08-096 127-08-095 127-08-056 127-08-094 127-07-058 127-07-057 127-07-056 127-07-055 127-07-054 127-23-068 127-23-067 127-23-066 127-07-072 127-08-099 127-07-064 127-07-066 127-07-039 127-07-038 127-07-037 127-07-036 127-07-041 127-07-042 127-07-043 127-07-044 127-07-045127-07-035 127-07-040 127-07-046 127-07-047 127-07-048 127-07-049 127-07-050 127-07-051 127-07-074 127-07-065 127-04-090 127-04-082 127-04-081 127-54-012 127-54-013 127-54-014 127-54-019 127-54-018 127-54-017 127-54-016 127-54-015 127-04-091 127-04-092 127-04-093 127-04-094 127-04-089 127-62-003 127-62-004 127-62-006127-62-005 127-36-030 127-08-084 127-08-083 127-08-082 127-08-092 127-08-093 127-08-003 127-08-002 127-08-001 127-08-066 127-08-065 127-08-059 127-08-058 127-08-057 127-08-004 127-08-063 127-08-064 127-08-005 127-08-006 127-08-081 127-08-080 127-08-079 127-08-075 127-08-076 127-08-077 127-08-078 127-08-062 127-08-007 127-08-008 127-08-009 127-08-010127-08-045 127-08-046127-08-060 127-08-061 127-08-047 127-08-052 127-08-053 127-08-054 127-08-055 127-08-098 127-62-007127-62-008 127-62-012 127-08-086 127-08-085 127-08-087 127-08-088 127-08-089 127-08-090 127-08-091 127-62-011127-62-010 127-62-009 127-04-027 127-04-023 127-04-024 127-04-025 127-04-088 127-04-087 127-04-086 127-04-085 127-04-084 127-04-083 127-04-002 127-04-003 127-04-004 127-04-005 127-04-074 127-04-075 127-04-076 127-04-077 127-04-038 127-04-039 127-04-040 127-04-042 127-04-043 127-04-041 127-04-020 127-04-019 127-04-018 127-04-016127-04-017 127-04-015 127-04-014 127-04-078 127-04-095 127-04-028 127-04-026 127-01-154 127-01-164 127-01-165 127-01-163 127-01-162 127-01-161 127-01-160 127-01-159 127-04-013 127-04-080 127-01-105 127-04-079 127-62-013127-62-014 127-62-015 127-62-020 127-62-017 127-62-016 127-62-018127-62-019 127-62-001127-62-002 127-38-032 127-38-009 127-38-010 127-38-011 127-38-012 127-04-072 127-38-017 127-02-119 127-02-002 127-02-001127-02-042 127-02-043 008-03-053 008-03-052 008-03-062 008-03-075 127-38-031 008-03-076 008-03-015 008-03-058 127-04-096 127-04-097 127-26-208 127-36-039 127-36-110 127-36-111 127-36-112 127-36-113 127-36-114 127-36-115 127-36-116 127-36-117 127-36-118 127-36-119 127-36-120 127-36-121 127-36-122 127-36-123 127-36-124 127-36-125 127-36-126 127-36-127 127-36-128 127-36-130 127-36-129 127-36-131 127-36-132 127-36-133 127-36-134 127-36-135 127-36-136 127-36-137 127-36-084 127-36-106 127-36-087127-36-086127-36-085 127-36-083 127-36-082 127-36-081127-36-080127-36-079127-36-078 127-36-077127-36-076127-36-075127-36-074127-36-073127-36-072127-36-071 127-36-109127-36-108127-36-107 127-36-105127-36-104127-36-103 127-36-102127-36-101127-36-100127-36-099127-36-098127-36-097127-36-096127-36-095 127-36-088127-36-089127-36-090127-36-091 127-36-092127-36-093127-36-094 127-36-067127-36-066 127-36-068127-36-069127-36-070 127-36-060127-36-061127-36-062127-36-063127-36-064 127-36-065 127-36-054127-36-055127-36-056127-36-057 127-36-058127-36-059 127-36-048127-36-049127-36-050 127-36-051127-36-052 127-36-053 127-36-042127-36-043127-36-044127-36-045127-36-046127-36-047 810 818 837 825 3078 3081 3090 3112 789 785 781 777 3048 3114 842 834 826 3093 3067 3061 3055 3049 3054 3060 3066 3072 3090 3161 31553149 313531213125 3109 3091 3093 3087 797 793 3162794 3152 3084 3094 3098 3102 3106 894 2928 2946 886 879 4 855 861 867 873 6 842 848 898 2966 2982 895 899 891 885 9072975 9252911 908 2901 849 850 854 860 866 872 878 884 890 3064 3106 3104 3110 3112 2997 2931 2933 869 865 3187 3193 3110 3168 3151 3165 3177 3185 831 837 3186 318031743147 3146 3145 3150 31643177 3163 3116 3264 838 850 844 3250 3248 851 3175 3191 3170 3160 3193 3187 3141 3143 3153 3159 3145 3181 3169 3188 3194 3200 3182 3176 883 887 873 3152 3158 3175 879 3125 3129 3135 3103 312831263124 3144 3132 3122 3097 3101 3198 3107 3128 3134 31403122 3164 3224 884 895 3333 3247 869 3263 3271 881 875 882 886 888 3246 3290 883 889 3310 3330 874 880 886 887 3302 3307 978 3313 3261 3263 3275 3299 3325 3324331833123306 940 920 910 892 895 891 32183212 3206 3256 3264 3272 925917 903 909325132313201 3101 3105 3117 3125 3133 3141 3121 3110 3120 3130 3138 3144 3150 3135 3133 31393127 868 876 860 3137 3070 891 883 3111 3119 859 875 867 3105 3103 3102 3065 927 925 915 3075 920 910 3085 3095 921 931 927 3059 912 906 918 924 942 936 930 954 931 2984937 947 919 913 943 948 3298 32753259 3291 32433227321132123200 3224 3188 3196 3185 3179 928922 931 923 927 919 914 915 910 3175316531573149 319731893181 933 941 949 3280 3208 3248 3240 3232 3292 32003188 926 924922 918 930 3178 3224 3214 3197 3288 3124 938 930 3108 3116 3113 3119 3125 3131 3137 3143 31403132 31093101 929 932 921 925 935 3149 31563148 3164 3161 3167 3180 3172 3173 3204 3229320931893181 317331653157 3142 3134 3141 3149 31333125 3126 3117 31183110 3149 3125 3131 3137 3143 3185 31583150 31743166 3155 3182 782 786 790 3170 3178 3190 31963211 3195 3174 3178 180 82 832 826 835 843 888 882 877 871 3270 3284 3292852 868 862 10351033 2651 2631 108074 1098 2491 2455 2468 1085 2450 2452 7 2897 908 922 2 1015 6 894 3360 3370 3330 3336 3342 3348 3354 3363335733493341 3369 3375 3349 3355 3360 3366 3458 3385 3236 3248 967959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 3198 3202 3173 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 3331 3330 3325 3320 3319 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 31843176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 3309 3301 3343 3360 3370 3350 3337 3387 3345 333533253315 986 988 990 992 3469 3436 3444 3440 3395 3405 2 3470 3476 3464 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 3475 3481 3487 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 3458 34683491 3432 3428 3422 3407 3454 3450 3421 3415 3439 3451 3445 3490 3421 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3485 3458 3469 3477 3463 3455 3452 3448 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 1040 1036 1050 1041 3449 3453 3445 3457 3461 3465 3512 3520 3600 3530 3304 3310 337533653355 3315 3334 3328 33223316 3331 3343 3321 3340 3330 3320 3311 3310 3303 3395 3385 3396 3390 3410 3416 3360 3350 3391 3406 3340 3347 3341 3403 3209 3219 3229 3239 3249 3259 3269 3279 3289 3274 1077 1099 1055 1033 1011 3281 3265 3250 3258 3242 3234 32663249 3257 996 994 998 3333 3327 3321 1008 1018 1028 1038 3339 3345 3351 3357 3361 1048 3358 3352 3346 3370 3376 3364 33713361 1058 1068 3363 3429 3441 3437 3433 3425 3449 3444 3435 3422 3441 3440 3436 3418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 3466 3418 3452 3460 3803 3409 3407 3415 3424 3440 3500 35103421 3417 34133409 3405 34013393 33873381 33733371 3367 3365 3400 3390 3382 3381 3391 3405 3430 3400 3350 958954 950 925 929 909 947 914 918 271827081002 1008 2701 1020 1026 1027 2879 909 915 921 924 916 949 941 933 925 946 1069 10811075 1047 1063 1045 1086 1031 1037 1041 1039 2495 2496 2641 1090 2467 2479 1087 1081 1083 962 966 970 974 978 982 2882 927 932 940 933 939 945 948 951 950 957 965 971 979 973 993 983 962 958 957 963 969 910 914 924 930 936 2924 2944 2914 916 968 1082 1088 1096 1092 2707 2743 2719 2731 1032 1038 1044 1050 1056 27422730 2768910 906 2754 902 951 905 955 959 997901 963 993 1098 1095 1021 1075 1071 1049 1012 1016 2755 10621072 1076 2809 2767 27912779 998 2792 2808 994 2826 990 986 2842 2862 2964 3024 3032 3040 3048 3056 3064297929632947 972 966 960 29722950 29652945 2925 957 965 956 946 978 1013 1023 3095 937 941 951 961 971 3094 3102 960 2928 2970 2960 991 988982 985981 975 2993 1003 1001 2975 2965 970 3016 2931 968 3023 3039 3055 3068 3052 3020 3036 3017 3029 3041 3053 3065 3077 3084 3089 30711010 1020 1030 990 978 3160 3136 3124 3112 1044 1032 31133107 1088 1066 3113 3125 3137 3149 3161 316831603152 31443136 3128 3112 3120 3148 31553119 3189 31813173 31653157 3149314131333125 3117 10931083 3109 3101 10731063 1053 10431033 1034-1036 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 1054 1056 1058 1060 1062 1064 1066 1068 10701072107410761078 1014 1010 10311005 1083 1079 1073 1047 1026 1022 1052 1056 1046 1042 1036 1032 10241020 1064 1060 1070 1074 1084 1080 1090 1094 2873 28572841 2963 2955 2960 2956 2905 2889 1031-1045 1030 1040 1034 1050 1044 1054 1011 297829722968 2901 2903 29072905 29092911 2913 2915 29172919 2850 1125-1139 1090 1080 1071 1073 10751077 1079 1062 1068 1074 1087 1095 1069 1067 1065 1049 1093 24582456 2454 2464 2462 11711177 1183 1089 2800 1066 2666 2601 1091 1093 1072 1094 2570 2586 1139 1145 1151 1163 1157 2468 2460 2466 2595 2585 2525 2600 2575 2656 2650 3281 2480 2995 877 3262 2891 32012925 1082 3241 1047-1061 1063- 1075 1077-1091 1095-1107 1109- 1123 1143-1151 2999 2860 1098 1076 1078 1088 1181 1183 1185 1189 1199 1180 1182 1186 1188 1190 1192 1198 329832923290328832823280327832723198319231903188318231803178 1111 1113 1115 1119 1100 1102 1106 1110 3180 3182 31863188 31903192 3198 1112 1116 1118 1120 1122 1126 1128 1130 1151 1153 1155 1159 1150 1152 1156 1158 1160 1161 1163 1165 3280 328232863288 3290 3181 3189 3281 3289 3291 3270 2550 3120 1199 3633 3100 912 899 3199 1080 2800 1105 2870 2465 1129 1179 1178 3292 3178 1167 1132 3285 3299 3300 882 Lo m a Verde Avenu e n Court Court Court A Janic East M Bayshore Free w ay reen W ay Drive Stelling Drive Ro ss Road David Avenue MurrayWay Stelling DriveStelling Ct ManchesterCourt Kenneth Drive Thomas Dr ive Gr ee r Road Stockton Place Vernon TerraceLouis Road Janice Way T ho m as DriveKenneth Drive L o m a V erd e A venu e Cli fton Court ElbridgeWay Clara Drive BautistaCourt Stockton Place Morris Drive M ad dux Drive Piers Ct Louis Road Moraga Ct ca more D rive V an Auken Circl e Pl Tanland Driveue Amarillo Avenue W est B ayshore R oad Sandra Place Clara Drive C olora d o A v e n u e Greer Road C olora d o Av e n u eSimkins Court Otterson Ct Higgins PlaceLawrence L a ne Maddux Drive Ge nevieve Ct M e t roCi r cle M o f fett Circle Greer Roa d E ast Bayshore R oad Terrace W est B ays hore R oad Tanland Drive E a st Bay sh o re Ro a d David Ct re g o n Ex press w a y Bayshore Free w ay B aysh ore Fre e w ay B ayshore Freew ay W est B ayshore R o ad E ast B ayshore R oad E ast B aysh ore Ro ad East Bayshore R oad W est Bayshore R oad EF Colorado Pl Ke n n eth Driv e B oro nda Lan e T ah oe L ane Lake Av enue D onn er L ane Alm a n or Lan e Fallen Leaf Street Berryessa Stre et PS-030-2-01 M at a d e r o P u m p S tati o n Matadero Pump Station This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'693' Matadero Pump Station 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 2015 City of Palo Altorhada, 2015-01-28 15:43:08 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\meta\view.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 5719) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Palo Alto Players Office Space Lease at Lucie Stern Title: Approval of a Lease Agreement Between City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players-Peninsula Center Stage for Office Space Use at Lucie Stern Community Center Located at 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a three (3) year lease agreement (Attachment A) between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players-Peninsula Center Stage. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Palo Alto Players-Peninsula Center Stage (Lessee) currently leases from the City of Palo Alto (City) approximately 500 square feet of office space (“the Premises”) at Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, California pursuant to that certain lease dated as of November 1, 2012. The current lease will expire on June 30, 2015. Therefore, the lease term needs to be extended to accommodate the continuation of use and the support of the theater programs by the tenant. The new lease will extend the lease term for an additional three years and will grant the parties an option to extend the term for an additional three years. BACKGROUND On November 1, 2012 the City entered into a thirty-two (32) month lease with Palo Alto Players for 500 square feet of office space at Lucie Stern Community Center. The purpose of the lease was to supply office space for the Lessee to deliver administration support for the benefits of providing quality theater work for the residents of local communities. The Lessee has been using the office space to manage, administer and support the theater programs at the Lucie Stern Theater. City of Palo Alto Page 2 DISCUSSION Brief History Born in the Great Depression, Palo Alto Players became the Peninsula’s first theatre company in 1931 when a group of 100 like-minded citizens gathered together to create a theatre dedicated to its community. Initially, productions were held at a makeshift performance space in the Palo Alto Community House adjacent to the train station (now MacArthur Park Restaurant). The Players soon gained a patron in their front row center - audience member Lucie Stern, who donated funds to give them a home, the Palo Alto Community Theatre, now a part of the city- owned Lucie Stern Community Center, at Rinconada Park. Truly a home-grown organization, Palo Alto Players’ productions are seen by over 1,100 season subscribers and more than 13,000 residents throughout the Peninsula annually. Palo Alto Players has been shaping the artistic scene in Silicon Valley long before there was a Silicon Valley, and this opportunity to impact the artistic landscape of California is a responsibility Palo Alto Players takes seriously. True to its mission, Palo Alto Players casts local actors in all five main-stage productions, highlights the work of local directors and designers, and fills its orchestra pit with local musicians. Much has changed in the 84 years since Palo Alto Players first began, but the Players is proud to continue its storied tradition of live theatre, born of the community and performed for the community. Palo Alto Players is the oldest theatre group on the Peninsula, currently in its 84th year of producing diverse programming that highlights local talent and tells stories of particular resonance for the local community. Mission Palo Alto Players is committed to providing a meaningful theatre experience for both audience and production participants. Intrinsic in this is the belief that theatre benefits the community- at-large and enhances the quality of life of those who are touched by it through education, enlightenment, and enrichment. In support of this mission, we are committed to: 1.) Diversity in programming; 2.) Accessibility to all those interested; and 3.) Support of theatrical training and career development. Budget Palo Alto Players’ annual budget for staffing, general operations, and direct production costs for its season of five plays and musicals at the City-owned Lucie Stern Theater is approximately $725,000. An estimated 60% of each annual budget is earned in ticket sales and other earned income, 25% is contributed, and the remaining is derived from investments. In addition, per the agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Players, all tickets sold are assessed an additional “facility usage fee” of $2 per ticket. These fees are collected and remitted to the City of Palo Alto following each production. In the 2013-14 season, these fees totaled nearly $24,000. Premises The five hundred square foot Premises is located in the Lucuie Stern Community building. Specifically, it provides office space for the administrate staff to support and run the theater programs. The Lessee currently pays $2.36 per square foot for rent, the new lease rate will City of Palo Alto Page 3 adjust by 2.5% on July 1, 2015 and it will increase by 2.5% annually during the term of the lease. Lessee and the City have an option to renew the lease for an additional three years at the end of the lease term on June 30, 2018. RESOURCE IMPACT Beginning July 1, 2015, the lessee will pay monthly rent at a rate of $2.42 per square foot for a total of $14,514 in FY 2016. Thereafter, rent will be increased by 2.5% at the beginning of FY 2017 and FY 2018. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies to support the cultural program in the City of Palo Alto to enrich the lives of residents in the local communities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of the lease for City owned office space is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: Lease Agreement Between the City & Palo Alto Players (DOCX) Attachment A A LEASE AGREEMENT TEMPLATE-USER INSTRUCTIONS WHEN TO USE FORM: This form should only be used when the City is leasing City owned property to someone else. If the City is leasing property from a private party DO NOT USE this form. HOW TO COMPLETE FORM: To use this form, you will need to fill in the information requested in bold. Below is a summary of the major items of information and lease references that will need to be customized before completing the agreement: o Tenant: PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE o Address of Property: 1305 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 o Square Footage and Description of Property: 500 Square Feet of Office Space Located at Lucie Stern Community Center o Lease Term with Start and End: Date 7/1/2015 to 6/30/2018 o Length of Option Period: Three (3) years – Based on City and Tenant mutual agreement o Monthly Rent: $1,211.50 & Yearly Adjustment o Amount of Security Deposit: $1125.00 o Required Uses of Property: Office & Administration Functions o Who Will Pay Utilities: Included in the Lease o Who Will Perform Maintenance: Tenant Will Maintain the Interior of the Premise o Who Will Maintain Common and other Areas: City o What Construction Lessee Will Perform, Permission Needed, and End Date: N/A o What Construction Cost Requires City Approval: N/A o Parcel Map of Property (Exhibit A) o General Map (Exhibit B) o Premise (Exhibit C) Attachment A B LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS LEASE PROVISIONS 1. PREMISES. 2. TERM. 3. RENT 4. SECURITY DEPOSIT 5. USE OF PROPERTY 6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 7. UTILITIES AND OPERATING EXPENSES 8. TAXES 9. MAINTENANCE 10. CONSTRUCTION BY LESSEE 11. ALTERATIONS BY LESSEE 12. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION 13. DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND TERMINATION 14. SIGNS 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING 16. DEFAULTS; REMEDIES 17. INTEREST ON PAST-DUE OBLIGATIONS 18. HOLDING OVER 19. CITY’S ACCESS 20. INSURANCE 21. RESERVATION OF AVIGATIONAL EASEMENT Attachment A C 22. EMINENT DOMAIN 23. POST-ACQUISITION TENANCY 24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 25. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY 27. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 28. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 29. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE 30. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE 31. LIENS 32. VACATING 33. ABANDONMENT 34. NOTICES 35. TIME 36. AMENDMENTS 37. SIGNING AUTHORITY 38. CAPTIONS 39. SURRENDER OF LEASE NOT MERGER 40. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT 41. WAIVER 42. INTERPRETATIONS 43. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 44. GOVERNING LAW 45. VENUE 46. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 47. BROKERS 48. ATTACHMENTS TO LEASE 49. EXHIBITS - 1 - LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE This lease agreement (herein "Lease") is made and entered into this 1st, day of July 2015, by and between the City of Palo Alto, a California chartered municipal corporation (herein "City") and Palo Alto Players-Peninsula Center Stage, a non- profit, tax-exempt organization, (herein "Lessee"). City and Lessee may be referred to individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties” or the “Parties to this Lease." The City Manager serves as Contract Administrator for this Lease on behalf of the City Council. RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts: A. The City is the fee simple owner of the real property commonly known as Lucie Stern Community Center located at 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, situated County of Santa Clara, State of California, Assessor's Parcel Number 116-01-013 and site plan shown respectively on Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B” of this Agreement (the “Property”) B. Lessee desires to occupy and use a portion of the Property which consists of an office suite of 500 square feet, more particularly described and shown in Exhibit “C” of this Agreement (the “Premise”), for the general purpose of administration support for the benefits of providing quality theater work for the city of Palo Alto residents C. The City of Palo Alto is willing to grant a Lease for the specific and limited uses described in this Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of these recitals and the following covenants, terms, and conditions, Lessee and City mutually agree as follows: LEASE PROVISIONS 1. PREMISES. City hereby leases to Lessee, certain real property located in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, commonly known as office space within Lucie Stern Community Center and more particularly shown in Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Property consists of approximately Five Hundred (500) square feet of office space. Unless specifically provided, Lessee accepts the Premise “as-is” on - 2 - the date of execution of this Lease. 2. TERM. 2.1 Original Term. The term of this Lease shall be for three (3) years commencing on July 1, 2015 ("Delivery Date") and ending on June 30, 2018. Lessee shall, at the expiration of the term of this lease, or upon its earlier termination, surrender the Property in as good condition as it is now at the date of this lease. The Parties expect reasonable wear and tear. 2.3 Early Termination by City. If City in its sole discretion determines that it requires the Property for any public purpose, City may terminate this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice. 2.4 Option. City and Lessee have the option based on mutual agreement to extend the Lease for an additional three (3 ) years after the expiration of the original term on June 30, 2018. 3. RENT. 3.1 Base Rent. The rent to be paid by Lessee shall be at $2.42 per square foot in the amount of $1,121.00 per month without deduction or offset. Rent shall be payable on the first day of each and every month commencing on the Delivery Date, at a place (or places) as may be designated in writing from time to time by City. 3.2 Annual Increase. During the Term of this Lease, the Base Rent shall be increased two percent (2.5 %) on each July first following the Lease Commencement Date. The first adjustment date will take place on July 1, 2016. 3.3 Late Charge. Lessee acknowledges late payment of rent will cause City to incur costs not contemplated by this Lease, the exact amount of such costs being extremely difficult and impracticable to fix. Such costs include, without limitation, processing, accounting and late charges that may be imposed on City. Therefore, if City does not receive any installment of rent due from Lessee within ten (10) days after the date such rent is due, Lessee shall pay to City an additional sum of five percent (5%) of the overdue rent as a late charge. The parties agree this late charge represents a fair and reasonable estimate of the costs City will incur by reason of late payment by Lessee. Acceptance of any late charge shall not constitute a waiver of Lessee’s default with respect to the overdue amount, nor prevent City from exercising any of the other rights and remedies available to City. 3.4. Rent Payment Procedures. Lessee’s obligation to pay rent shall commence upon the commencement of this Lease. If the term commences or terminates on a date other than the first of any month, monthly rent for the first and last month of this Lease shall be prorated based on a 30-day month. Rent payments shall be delivered to City’s Revenue Collections Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, PO Box 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303. The designated place of payment may be changed at any time by City upon ten (10) days’ written notice to Lessee. Lessee - 3 - specifically agrees that acceptance of any late or incorrect rentals submitted by Lessee shall not constitute an acquiescence or waiver by City and shall not prevent City from enforcing Section 3.3 (Late Charge) or any other remedy provided in this Lease. Acceptance of rent shall not constitute approval of any unauthorized sublease or use, nor constitute a waiver of any non- monetary breach. Payments shall be effective upon receipt. City may apply any payment received from Lessee at any time against any obligation due and owing by Lessee under this Lease, regardless of any statement appearing on or referred to in any remittance from Lessee or any prior application of such payments. 3.5. Partial Payment. The receipt by City of a partial payment of any amount due to City endorsed as payment in full will be deemed to be a partial payment only. City may accept and deposit said check without prejudice to its right to recover the balance. Any endorsements or statements on the check or any letter accompanying the check shall not be deemed an accord and/or satisfaction. Lessee's obligation (without prior notice or demands) to pay rent and all other amounts due hereunder shall be absolute and unconditional, and not subject to any abatement, set off, defense, recoupment or reduction. 4. SECURITY DEPOSIT. 4.1 Security Deposit. City has already holds an amount of $1,125.00 as a security deposit. City may use these funds as are reasonably necessary to remedy any Lessee default(s) in the payment of rent, to repair damages caused by Lessee, or expenses incurred to clean the Property upon termination of tenancy. If any portion of the security deposit is used towards rent or damages at City's sole discretion, Lessee agrees to reinstate the total security deposit upon receipt of ten (10) days written notice. 4.2 Return of Security Deposit. The balance of security deposit, if any, shall be mailed to Lessee’s last known address within thirty (30) days of surrender of Property. 5. USE OF PROPERTY. 5.1 Required Uses. Throughout the term of this Lease, Lessee shall provide the following uses, services and activities (“Required Uses”) The Palo Players shall use the leased space (offices) for the purpose of administration and management of the Palo Alto Players and their productions, including but not limited to planning, ticket sales, fundraising management, storage of office and membership records, and the transaction of business associated with the production of play performed by the Plays at the Lucie Stern Community Theatre. The office shall not be sub-let to other agencies but may be used, with the permission of the Players, by staff or performers of other theatre productions, such as preparation before performances. 5.2 Permitted Uses. In addition to the Required Uses, Lessee may also use the Premises for the following uses: staff development, employee training, script review, meetings with business contacts of the Players. Premises may not be used for any other purposes without City's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of the City. - 4 - There may be times when access to the offices via the Lucie Stern patio is limited or restricted because of events, rentals or maintenance of the patio. During such times access will be through the theatre building entrances. Premises may not be used for any other purposes without City's prior written consent, which consent may be withheld in the sole and absolute discretion of the City. 5.3 Prohibited Uses. Lessee shall not use Premises for any purpose not expressly permitted hereunder. Lessee shall not create, cause, maintain or permit any nuisance or waste in, on, or about the Premises, or permit or allow the Premises to be used for any unlawful or immoral purpose. Lessee shall not do or permit to be done anything in any manner which unreasonably disturbs the users of the City Property or the occupants of neighboring property. Specifically, and without limiting the above, Lessee agrees not to cause any unreasonable odor, noise, vibration, power emission, or other item to emanate from the Premises. No materials or articles of any nature shall be stored outside upon any portion of the Premises. Lessee will not use Property in a manner that increases the risk of fire, cost of fire insurance or improvements thereon. No unreasonable sign or placard shall be painted, inscribed or placed in or on said Property; and no tree or shrub thereon shall be destroyed or removed or other waste committed of said Property. No bicycles, motorcycles, automobiles or other mechanical means of transportation shall be placed or stored anywhere on the Property except for the garage or driveway. No repair, overhaul or modification of any motor vehicle shall take place on the Property or the street in front of said Property. Lessee, at his/her expense, shall keep the Property in as good condition as it was at the beginning of the terms hereof, except damage occasioned by ordinary wear and tear, and except damage to the roof, sidewalks and underground plumbing, which is not the fault of Lessee. 5.4 Condition, Use of Premises. City makes no warranty or representation of any kind concerning the condition of the Premises, or the fitness of the Premises for the use intended by Lessee, and hereby disclaims any personal knowledge with respect thereto, it being expressly understood by the parties that Lessee has personally inspected the Premises, knows its condition, finds it fit for Lessee’s intended use, accepts it as is, and has ascertained that it can be used exclusively for the limited purposes specified in Section 5.1. 6. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 6.4 Hazardous Materials Defined. The term “Hazardous Material(s)” shall mean any toxic or hazardous substance, material or waste or any pollutant or contaminant, or infectious or radioactive material, including but not limited to, those substances, materials, or wastes regulated now or in the future under any of the following statutes or regulations and any and all of those substances included within the definitions of “hazardous substances”, “hazardous waste”, “hazardous chemical substance or mixture”, “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture,” “toxic substances,” “hazardous air pollutant”, “toxic pollutant” or “solid waste” in the (a) CERCLA or Superfund as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq., (b) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq., (c) CWA., 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., (d) CAA, 42 U.S.C. 78401 et seq., (e) TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq., (f) The Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 407, (g) - 5 - OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq. (h) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq., (i) USDOT Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments) or the EPA Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments), (j) California Superfund, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25300 et seq., (k) Cal. Hazardous Waste Control Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25100 et seq., (l) Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq., (m) Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25220 et seq., (n) Proposition 65, Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.5 et seq., (o) Hazardous Substances Underground Storage Tank Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25280 et seq., (p) California Hazardous Substance Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 28740 et seq., (q) Air Resources Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 39000 et seq., (r) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, Cal. Health & Safety Code Secs. 25500-25541, (s) TCPA, Cal. Health and Safety Code Secs. 25208 et seq., and (t) regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws or any replacement thereof, or as similar terms are defined in the federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations, orders or rules. Hazardous Materials shall also mean any and all other substances, materials, and wastes which are, or in the future become, regulated under applicable local, state or federal law for the protection of health or the environment, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic substances, materials or wastes, pollutants or contaminants, as defined, listed or regulated by any federal, state or local law, regulation or order or by common law decision, including without limitation: (i) trichloroethylene, tetracholoethylene, perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents; (ii) any petroleum products or fractions thereof; (iii) asbestos, (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls; (v) flammable explosives; (vi) urea formaldehyde; and, (vii) radioactive materials and waste. 6.2. Compliance with Laws. Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material (as defined below) to be brought upon, kept or used in or about the Premises or Project by Lessee, its agents, employees, contractors or invitees. 6.3 Termination of Lease. City shall have the right to terminate the Lease in City’s sole and absolute discretion in the event that: (i) any anticipated use of the Premises by Lessee involves the generation or storage, use, treatment, disposal, or release of Hazardous Material in a manner or for a purpose prohibited or regulated by any governmental agency, authority, or Hazardous Materials Laws; (ii) Lessee has been required by any lender or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating the Premises, if the contamination resulted from Lessees’s action or use of the Premises; or (iii) Lessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal, or storage of a Hazardous Material on the Premises. 6.4 Assignment and Subletting. It shall not be unreasonable for City to withhold its consent to an assignment or subletting to such proposed assignee or sublessee if: (i) any anticipated use of the Premises by any proposed assignee or sublessee involves the generation or storage, use, treatment, disposal, or release of Hazardous Material in a manner or for any purpose; (ii) the proposed assignee or sublessees has been required by any prior landlord, lender, or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating a property, if the contamination resulted from such partys action or use of the property in question; or, (iii) the proposed assignee or sublessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by - 6 - any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal or storage of a Hazardous Material. 6.5 Hazardous Materials Indemnity. Lessee shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to City), protect, and hold Landlord harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses, and/or expenses, including without limitation, diminution in value of the Premises, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Premises, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Premises and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, attorneys’ fees, consultant and expert fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, costs of death of or injury to any person, or damage to any property whatsoever (including, without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems, and atmosphere), arising from, caused, or resulting, either prior to or during the Lease Term, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by the presence or discharge in, on, under, or about the Premises by Lessee, Lessee’s agents, employees, licensees, or invitees or at Lessee’s direction, of Hazardous Material, or by Lessee’s failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability. For purposes of the indemnity provided herein, any acts or omissions of Lessee or its employees, agents, customers, sublessees, assignees, contractors, or subcontractors of Lessee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. Lessee’s indemnification obligations shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary Hazardous Materials management plan, investigation, repairs, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises, and the presence and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans, and shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the Lease Term. 6.6 City’s Right to Perform Tests. At any time prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, City shall have the right to enter upon the Premises in order to conduct tests of water and soil. 7. UTILITIES AND OPERATING EXPENSES. 7.1. Operating Cost. City shall furnish to the Property reasonable quantities of gas, electricity, water, sewer and refuse collections services as required for Lessee’s use. The Lessee shall also be allowed use of internet access as exists within the Premises. However, if City is required to construct new or additional utility installations, including, without limitation, wiring, plumbing, conduits, and mains, resulting from Lessee’s special requirements, Lessee shall on demand pay to City the total cost of such items. Lessee will be responsible for cost of any additional upgrade for new electrical circuits and wiring to accommodate its new office computer information system. 8. TAXES. 8.1 Real Property Taxes Defined. The term “real property taxes” as used herein shall mean all taxes, assessments, levies and other charges, general and special, foreseen and unforeseen, now or hereafter imposed by any governmental or quasi-governmental authority or special district - 7 - having the direct or indirect power to tax or levy assessments, which are levied or assessed against or with respect to: (i) value, occupancy, use or possession of the Premises and/or the Improvements; (ii) any improvements, fixtures, equipment and other real or personal property of Lessee that are an integral part of the Premises; or, (iii) use of the Premises, Improvements public utilities or energy within the Premises. The term “real property taxes” shall also mean all charges, levies or fees imposed by reason of environmental regulation or other governmental control of the premises and/or the Improvements, new or altered excise, transaction, sales, privilege, assessment, or other taxes or charges now or hereafter imposed upon City as a result of this Lease, and all costs and fees (including attorneys’ fees) incurred by City in contesting any real property taxes and in negotiating with public authorities as to any real property taxes affecting the Premises. If any real property taxes are based upon property or rents unrelated to the Premises and/or the Improvements, then only that part of such tax that is fairly allocable to the Premises and/or the Improvements, as determined by City, on the basis of the assessor’s worksheets or other available information, shall be included within the meaning of the term “real property taxes.” 8.2 Payment of Real Property Taxes. Lessee shall pay Lessee’s share of all real property taxes (as defined in Section 8.1 above) which become due and payable to City on or before the later of ten (10) days prior to the delinquency thereof or three (3) days after the date on which Lessee receives a copy of the tax bill and notice of City’s determination hereunder. Lessee’s liability to pay real property taxes shall be prorated on the basis of a three hundred sixty-five (365) day year to account for any fraction or portion of a tax year included in the Lease term at the commencement or expiration of the Lease. 8.3 Revenue and Taxation Code. Lessee specifically acknowledges it is familiar with section 107.6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. Lessee realizes that a possessory interest subject to property taxes may be created, agrees to pay any such tax, and hereby waives any rights Lessee may have under said California Revenue and Taxation Code section 107.6. 8.4 Personal Property Taxes. Lessee shall pay before delinquent, or if requested by City, reimburse City for, any and all taxes, fees, and assessments associated with the Property, the personal property contained in the premises and other taxes, fees, and assessments regarding any activities which take place at the Property. Lessee recognizes and understands in accepting this Lease that its interest therein may be subject to a possible possessory interest tax that City or County may impose on such interest and that such tax payment shall not reduce any rent due City hereunder and any such tax shall be the liability of and be paid by Lessee. 9. MAINTENANCE. 9.1 City and Lessee Responsibilities. Lessee at Lessee’s expense, shall perform all maintenance and repairs, including all painting, and all maintenance of landscaped areas necessary to keep the Premises and all improvements thereto in first-class order, repair, and condition, and shall keep the Premises in a safe, clean, wholesome, and sanitary condition to the complete satisfaction of City, and in compliance with all applicable laws, throughout the term of - 8 - this Lease. In addition, Lessee shall maintain, at Lessee’s expense, all equipment, furnishings and trade fixtures upon the Premises required for the maintenance and operation of a first-class business of the type to be conducted pursuant to this Lease. OR, IF APPLICABLE: City shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the structure located on the Premises and main support systems not exclusively serving the Premises, including roof repair, electrical system repair, exterior painting and structural repairs. 9.2 Waiver of Civil Code. Lessee expressly waives the benefit of any statute now or hereinafter in effect, including the provisions of sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code of California, which would otherwise afford Lessee the right to make repairs at City’s expense or to terminate this Lease because of City’s failure to keep Premises in good order, condition and repair. Lessee further agrees that if and when any repairs, alterations, additions or betterments shall be made by Lessee as required by this paragraph, Lessee shall promptly pay for all labor done or materials furnished and shall keep the Premises free and clear of any lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever. If Lessee fails to make any repairs or perform any maintenance work for which Lessee is responsible within a reasonable time (as determined by the City Manager in the City Manager’s sole discretion) after demand by the City, City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to make the repairs at Lessee’s expense; within ten (10) days of receipt of a bill, Lessee shall reimburse City for the cost of such repairs, including a fifteen percent (15% administrative overhead fee. The making of such repairs or performance of maintenance by City shall in no event be construed as a waiver of the duty of Lessee to make repairs or perform maintenance as provided in this Section. 9.3 Maintenance of Common Areas. City shall maintain or cause to be maintained, including repair and replacement as necessary, the following common areas serving the Premises and other premises. Although the City provides for the maintenance of the restrooms, the Players are to be good “roommates” by helping to keep the restrooms tidy and clean (take out the trash when the baskets are full) rather than totally relying on the contracted janitor. The janitor will take care of the heavy maintenance tasks, such as sealing the restroom floors. 10. CONSTRUCTION BY LESSEE. 10.1 Minimum Construction. If needed, Lessee shall in an efficient and workmanlike manner, cause to be designed, constructed, and installed within the Premises, at no cost to City, appropriate improvements to adequately accommodate the services and uses required and permitted by this Lease. Lessee shall prepare the plans and specifications for approval by the City’s Building Division and Planning & Community Development Divisions as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code for construction done or caused to be done by Lessee on the Premises as permitted or required by this Lease. Lessee shall keep the Premises free and clear of all claims and liens resulting from construction done by or for Lessee. Promptly after completion of construction, Lessee shall provide to the City Manager a statement of the reasonable and actual costs of construction for the initial improvements, which statement shall be certified as to accuracy and signed by Lessee under penalty of perjury. - 9 - 10.2 Ownership of Improvements. All improvements constructed, erected, or installed upon the Premises must be free and clear of all liens, claims, or liability for labor or material and shall become the property of City, at its election, upon expiration or earlier termination of this lease and upon City's election, shall remain upon the Premises upon termination of this Lease. Title to all equipment, furniture, furnishings, and trade fixtures placed by Lessee upon the Premises shall remain in Lessee, and replacements, substitutions and modifications thereof may be made by Lessee throughout the term of this Lease. Lessee may remove such fixtures and furnishings upon termination of this Lease if Lessee is not then in default under this Lease, provided that Lessee shall repair to the satisfaction of City any damage to the Premises and improvements caused by such removal and provided that usual and customary lighting, plumbing and heating fixtures shall remain upon the Premises upon termination of this Lease. 10.3 Indemnity for Claims Arising Out of Construction. Lessee shall defend and indemnify City against all claims, liabilities, and losses of any type arising out of work performed on the Premises by Lessee, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by City in negotiating, settling, defending or otherwise protecting against such claims. 10.4 Assurance of Completion. Prior to commencement of any construction or alteration expected to cost more than $5,000, Lessee shall furnish the City Manager evidence that assures City that sufficient monies will be available to complete the proposed work. The amount of such assurance shall be at least the total estimated construction cost. Evidence of such assurance shall take one of the forms set out below and shall guarantee Lessee’s full and faithful performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease: A. Completion Bond; B. Performance, labor and material bonds, supplied by Lessee’s contractor or contractors, provided the bonds are issued jointly to Lessee and City; C. Irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution; or D. Any combination of the above. All bonds and letters of credit must be issued by a company qualified to do business in the State of California and be acceptable to the City Manager. All bonds and letters of credit shall be in a form acceptable to the City Manager, and shall insure faithful and full observance and performance by Lessee of all of the terms, conditions, covenants, and agreements relating to the construction of improvements or alterations in accordance with this Lease. 10.5 Certificate of Inspection. Upon completion of construction of any building, Lessee shall submit to the City Manager a Certificate of Inspection, verifying that the construction was completed in conformance with Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for residential construction, or in conformance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for non- residential construction. - 10 - 10.6 As Built Plans. Lessee shall provide the City Manager with a complete set of reproducible “as built plans” reflecting actual construction within or upon the Premises upon completion of any: (i) new construction; (ii) structural alterations; or, (iii) non-structural alterations costing more than $25,000. 11. ALTERATIONS BY LESSEE Lessee shall not make any alterations or improvements to the Premises without obtaining the prior written consent of the City Manager. Lessee may, at any time and at its sole expense, install and place business fixtures and equipment within the Premises, provided such fixtures and installation have been reviewed and approved by the City Manager. 12. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION. 12.1 Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, Lessee agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify City, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising therefrom for which City shall become legally liable arising from Lessee's negligent, reckless, or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Lease. Lessee shall give City immediate notice of any claim or liability hereby indemnified against. This indemnity shall be in addition to the Hazardous Materials indemnity contained in this Lease and shall survive shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the Lease Term. 12.2 Waiver of Claims. Lessee waives any claims against City for injury to Lessee’s business or any loss of income therefrom, for damage to Lessee’s property, or for injury or death of any person in or about the Premises or the City Property, from any cause whatsoever, except to the extent caused by City’s active negligence or willful misconduct. 13. DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION AND TERMINATION. 13.1 Nontermination and Nonabatement. Except as provided herein, no destruction or damage to the Premises by fire, windstorm or other casualty, whether insured or uninsured, shall entitle Lessee to terminate this Lease. City and Lessee waive the provisions of any statutes which relate to termination of a lease when leased property is destroyed and agree that such event shall be governed by the terms of this Lease. 13.2 Force Majeure. Prevention, delay or stoppage due to strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, Acts of God, inability to obtain labor, inability to obtain materials or reasonable substitutes, governmental restrictions, governmental regulation, governmental controls, judicial orders, enemy or hostile governmental actions, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, and other causes beyond the reasonable control of Lessee (financial inability excepted), shall excuse the performance by Lessee for a period equal to the prevention, delay, or stoppage, except the - 11 - obligations imposed with regard to rent to be paid by Lessee pursuant to this Lease. In the event any work performed by Lessee or Lessee’s contractors results in a strike, lockout, and/or labor dispute, the strike, lockout, and/or labor dispute shall not excuse the performance by Lessee of the provisions of this Lease. 13.3 Restoration of Premises by Lessee. 13.3.1 Destruction Due to Risk Covered by Insurance. If, during the term, the Premises are totally or partially destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), rendering the Premises totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, Lessee shall restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as it was in immediately before destruction, whether or not the insurance proceeds are sufficient to cover the actual cost of restoration. Such destruction shall not terminate this Lease. If the laws existing at that time do not permit the restoration, either party can terminate this Lease immediately by giving notice to the other party. A. Minor Loss. If, during the term of this Lease, the Premises are destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and the total amount of loss does not exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), Lessee shall make the loss adjustment with the insurance company insuring the loss. The proceeds shall be paid directly to Lessee for the sole purpose of making the restoration of the Premises in accordance with this Lease. B. Major Loss-Insurance Trustee. If, during the term of this Lease, the Premises are destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and the total amount of loss exceeds the amount set forth in paragraph (1), Lessee shall make the loss adjustment with the insurance company insuring the loss and on receipt of the proceeds shall immediately pay them to an institutional lender or title company as may be jointly selected by the parties ("the Insurance Trustee"). 13.3.2 Destruction Due to Risk Not Covered by Insurance. If, during the term, the Premises are totally or partially destroyed from a risk covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), rendering the Premises totally or partially inaccessible or unusable, Lessee shall restore the Premises to substantially the same condition as it was in immediately before destruction, whether or not the insurance proceeds are sufficient to cover the actual cost of restoration. Such destruction shall not terminate this Lease. If the laws existing at that time do not permit the restoration, either party can terminate this Lease immediately by giving notice to the other party. If the cost of restoration exceeds ten percent (10%) of the then replacement value of the Premises totally or partially destroyed, Lessee can elect to terminate this - 12 - Lease by giving notice to City within sixty (60) days after determining the restoration cost and replacement value. If Lessee elects to terminate this Lease, City, within thirty (30) days after receiving Lessee's notice to terminate, can elect to pay to Lessee, at the time City notifies Lessee of its election, the difference between ten percent (10%) of the replacement value of the Premises and the actual cost of restoration, in which case Lessee shall restore the Premises. On City's making its election to contribute, each party shall deposit immediately the amount of its contribution with such institutional lender or Title Company as may be jointly selected by the parties ("the Insurance Trustee"). If the Destruction does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the then replacement value of the Premises, Lessee shall immediately deposit the cost of restoration with the Insurance Trustee as provided in Exhibit (c). This Lease shall terminate if Lessee elects to terminate this Lease and City does not elect to contribute toward the cost of restoration as provided in this section. If the Premises are destroyed from a risk not covered by the insurance described in Section 20 (Insurance), and Lessee has the obligation to restore the Premises as provided in subsection (B), both parties shall deposit with the Insurance Trustee their respective contributions toward the cost of restoration. All sums deposited with the Insurance Trustee shall be held for the following purposes and the Insurance Trustee shall have the following powers and duties: The sums shall be paid in installments by the Insurance Trustee to the contractor retained by Lessee as construction progresses, for payment of the cost of Restoration. A 10% retention fund shall be established that will be paid to the contractor on completion of restoration, payment of all costs, expiration of all applicable lien periods, and proof that the Premises are free of all mechanics' liens and lienable claims. Payments shall be made on presentation of certificates or vouchers from the architect or engineer retained by Lessee showing the amount due. If the Insurance Trustee, in its reasonable discretion, determines that the certificates or vouchers are being improperly approved by the architect or engineer retained by Lessee, the Insurance Trustee shall have the right to appoint an architect or an engineer to supervise construction and to make payments on certificates or vouchers approved by the architect or engineer retained by the Insurance Trustee. The reasonable expenses and charges of the architect or engineer retained by the Insurance Trustee shall be paid by the insurance trustee out of the trust fund. Both parties shall promptly execute all documents and perform all acts reasonably required by the Insurance Trustee to perform its obligations under this section. If the sums held by the Insurance Trustee are not sufficient to pay the actual cost of restoration Lessee shall deposit the amount of the deficiency with the Insurance Trustee within fifteen (15) days after request by the Insurance Trustee indicating - 13 - the amount of the deficiency. Any undisbursed funds after compliance with the provisions of this section shall be delivered to City to the extent of City's contribution to the fund, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to Lessee. All actual costs and charges of the Insurance Trustee shall be paid by Lessee. If the Insurance Trustee resigns or for any reason is unwilling to act or continue to act, City shall substitute a new trustee in the place of the designated Insurance Trustee. The new trustee must be an institutional lender or title company. 13.3.3 Procedure for Restoring Premises. When Lessee is obligated to restore the premises within sixty (60) days Lessee at its cost shall prepare final plans, specifications, and working drawings complying with applicable Laws that will be necessary for restoration of the Premises. The plans, specifications, and working drawings must be approved by City. City shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the plans and specifications and working drawings to either approve or disapprove the plans, specifications, and working drawings and return them to Lessee. If City disapproves the plans, specifications, and working drawings, City shall notify Lessee of its objections and City's proposed solution to each objection. Lessee acknowledges that the plans, specifications, and working drawings shall be subject to approval of the appropriate governmental bodies and that they will be prepared in such a manner as to obtain that approval. The restoration shall be accomplished as follows: A. Lessee shall complete the restoration within 60 working days after final plans and specifications and working drawings have been approved by the appropriate governmental bodies and all required permits have been obtained (subject to a reasonable extension for delays resulting from causes beyond Lessee's reasonable control). B. Lessee shall retain a licensed contractor that is bondable. The contractor shall be required to carry public liability and property damage insurance, standard fire and extended coverage insurance, with vandalism and malicious mischief endorsements, during the period of construction in accordance with Section 20 (Insurance). Such insurance shall contain waiver of subrogation clauses in favor of City and Lessee in accordance with the Provisions of Exhibit B. C. Lessee shall notify City of the date of commencement of the restoration at least ten (10) days before commencement of the restoration to enable City to post and record notices of nonresponsibility. The contractor retained by Lessee shall not commence construction until a completion bond and a labor and materials bond have been delivered to City to insure completion of the construction. D. Lessee shall accomplish the restoration in a manner that will cause the least - 14 - inconvenience, annoyance, and disruption at the Premises. E. On completion of the restoration Lessee shall immediately record a notice of completion in the county in which the Premises are located. F. The restoration shall not be commenced until sums sufficient to cover the cost of restoration are placed with the Insurance Trustee as provided in this section. 14. SIGNS. Lessee shall not place, construct, maintain, or allow any signs upon the Premises without prior written consent of City. 15. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. 15.1 City's Consent Required. Lessee shall not assign this lease, nor any interest therein, and shall not sublet or encumber the Property or any part thereof, nor any right or privilege appurtenant thereto, nor allow or permit any other person(s) to occupy or use the Property, or any portion thereof, without the prior written consent of City. This Lease shall be binding upon any permitted assignee or successor of Lessee. Consent by City to one assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another person shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another person. No assignment, subletting, or encumbrance by Lessee shall release it from or in any way alter any of Lessee's obligations under this Lease. Lessee may have the Property delivered to a subsidiary company of Lessee, but such arrangement shall in no way alter Lessee's responsibilities hereunder with respect to the Property. Any assignment, subletting, encumbrances, occupation, or use contrary to the provisions of this Lease shall be void and shall constitute breach of this Lease. City may assign any of its rights hereunder without notice to Lessee. 15.2 No Release of Lessee. No subletting or assignment as approved by City shall release Lessee of Lessee’s obligation or alter the primary liability of Lessee to pay the rent and to perform all other obligations by Lessee hereunder. The acceptance of rent by City from any other person shall not be deemed to be a waiver by City of any provision hereof. In the event of default by any assignee of Lessee or any successor of Lessee in the performance of any of the terms hereof, City may proceed directly against Lessee without the necessity of exhausting remedies against said assignee. 16. DEFAULTS; REMEDIES. 16.1 Defaults. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall constitute a material default, or breach of this Lease, by Lessee: 16.1.1 Abandonment of the Premises by Lessee as defined by California Civil Code section 1951.3; - 15 - 16.1.2 Failure by Lessee to make any payment of rent or any other payment required to be made by Lessee hereunder, as provided in this Lease, where such failure shall continue for a period of ten (10) business days after written notice thereof from City to Lessee. In the event City serves Lessee with a Notice to Pay Rent or Quit pursuant to applicable Unlawful Detainer statutes, such Notice to Pay Rent or Quit shall also constitute the notice required by this subparagraph; 16.1.3 Failure by Lessee to observe or perform any of the covenants, conditions or provisions of this Lease in any material respect where such failure shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from City to Lessee; provided, however, that if the nature of Lessee’s default is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for its cure, then Lessee shall not be deemed to be in default if Lessee commenced such cure within said thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes such cure to completion; 16.1.4 Making by Lessee of any general arrangement or assignment for the benefit of creditors; Lessee’s becoming a “debtor” as defined in 11 U.S.C. §101 or any successor statute thereto (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Lessee, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee or receiver to take possession of all or substantially all of Lessee’s assets located at or on the Premises or of Lessee’s interest in this Lease where possession is not restored to Lessee within thirty (30) days; or the attachment, execution or other judicial seizure of all or substantially all of Lessee’s assets located at or on the Premises or of Lessee’s interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. 16.2 Remedies. In the event of any material default or breach by Lessee, City may at any time thereafter, following any notice required by statute, and without limiting City in the exercise of any right or remedy which City may have by reason of such default or breach: 16.2.1 Terminate Lessee’s right to possession of the Premises by any lawful means, in which case this Lease shall terminate and Lessee shall immediately surrender possession of the Premises and Improvements to City. In such event, City shall be entitled to recover from Lessee all damages incurred by City by reason of Lessee’s default including but not limited to: the cost of recovering possession of the Premises and Improvements; expenses of reletting, including necessary renovation and alteration of the Premises and Improvements; reasonable attorneys’ fees; the worth at the time of the award of the unpaid rent that had been earned at the time of termination of this Lease and the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of such award exceeds the amount of such rental loss for the same period that Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided. 16.2.2 Maintain Lessee’s right to possession, in which case this Lease shall continue in effect whether or not Lessee shall have abandoned the Premises. In such event, City shall - 16 - be entitled to enforce all of City’s rights and remedies under this Lease, including the right to recover rent and other payments as they become due hereunder. 16.2.3 Pursue any other remedy now or hereafter available to City under the laws or judicial decisions of the State of California. City shall have all remedies provided by law and equity. 16.3 No Relief from Forfeiture After Default. Lessee waives all rights of redemption or relief from forfeiture under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1174 and 1179, and any other present or future law, in the event Lessee is evicted or City otherwise lawfully takes possession of the Premises by reason of any default or breach of this Lease by Lessee. 16.4 Disposition of Abandoned Personal Property. If the Lessee fails to remove any personal property belonging to Lessee from the Premises after forty-five (45) days of the expiration or termination of this Lease, such property shall at the option of City be deemed to have been transferred to City. City shall have the right to remove and to dispose of such property without liability to Lessee or to any person claiming under Lessee, and the City shall have no need to account for such property. 17. INTEREST ON PAST-DUE OBLIGATIONS. Except as expressly provided herein, any amount due City when not paid when due shall bear interest at the lesser of ten percent (10%) per year or the maximum rate then allowable by law from the date due. 18. HOLDING OVER. If Lessee remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the term or option term hereof, such occupancy shall be a tenancy from month to month with all the obligations of this Lease applicable to Lessee and at a monthly rental obligation of ten percent (10%) increase over the Base Rent in effect at the time of expiration. Nothing contained in this Lease shall give to Lessee the right to occupy the Property after the expiration of the term, or upon an earlier termination for breach. 19. CITY’S ACCESS. 19.1 Access for Inspection. City and City’s agents shall have the right to enter the Premises at reasonable times, upon not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior notice to Lessee, for the purpose of inspecting same, showing same to prospective purchasers, lenders or lessees, and making such alterations, repairs, improvements, or additions to the Premises as City may deem necessary. City may at any time place on or about the Premises any ordinary “For Sale” signs and City may at any time during the last one hundred twenty (120) days of the term hereof place on or about the Premises any ordinary “For Lease” signs, all without rebate of rent or liability to Lessee. - 17 - 19.2 Security Measures. City shall have the right to require a reasonable security system, device, operation, or plan be installed and implemented to protect the Premises or the Improvements. Should City, in its sole discretion, require Lessee to install such a security system, Lessee agrees to bear the sole cost and expense of any security system, device, operation or plan and the installation and implementation thereof. Lessee shall obtain City’s prior approval before installing, implementing or changing any City approved security system, device, operation or plan. 19.3 New Locks. Lessee may install new locks on all exterior doors. Lessee shall advise City of such action and shall provide City with keys to said locks. Lessee shall also deliver to City the old locks with keys. Upon termination, Lessee shall leave new locks that shall become the property of City. 20. INSURANCE. Lessee's responsibility for the Property begins immediately upon delivery and Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, and at no cost to City, shall purchase and maintain in full force and effect during the entire term of this Lease insurance coverage in amounts and in a form acceptable to City as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Said policies shall be maintained with respect to Lessee’s employees, if any, and all vehicles operated on the Premises. The policies shall include the required endorsements, certificates of insurance and coverage verifications as described in Exhibit “D”. Lessee also agrees to secure renter's liability insurance. Lessee shall deposit with the City Manager, on or before the effective date of this Lease, certificates of insurance necessary to satisfy City that the insurance provisions of this Lease have been complied with, and to keep such insurance in effect and the certificates therefore on deposit with City during the entire term of this Lease. Should Lessee not provide evidence of such required coverage at least three (3) days prior to the expiration of any existing insurance coverage, City may purchase such insurance, on behalf of and at the expense of Lessee to provide six months of coverage. City shall retain the right at any time to review the coverage, form, and amount of the insurance required hereby. If, in the opinion of the City’s Risk Manager (or comparable official), the insurance provisions in this Lease do not provide adequate protection for City and for members of the public using the Premises, the City Manager may require Lessee to obtain insurance sufficient in coverage, form, and amount to provide adequate protection as determined by the Risk Manager. City's requirements shall be reasonable and shall be designed to assure protection from and against the kind and extent of risk that exists at the time a change in insurance is required. The City Manager shall notify Lessee in writing of changes in the insurance requirements. If Lessee does not deposit copies of acceptable insurance policies with City incorporating such - 18 - changes within sixty (60) days of receipt of such notice, or in the event Lessee fails to maintain in effect any required insurance coverage, Lessee shall be in default under this lease without further notice to Lessee. Such failure shall constitute a material breach and shall be grounds for immediate termination of this Lease at the option of City. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to limit Lessee’s liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provision and requirements of this Lease. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, Lessee shall be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or connected with this Lease or with use or occupancy of the Premises. 21. RESERVATION OF AVIGATIONAL EASEMENT. City hereby reserves for the use and benefits of the public, a right of avigation over the Premises for the passage of aircraft landing at, taking off, or operating from the adjacent airport operated by the County of Santa Clara. Lessee releases the City from all liability for noise, vibration, and any other related nuisance. 22. EMINENT DOMAIN. 22.1 If all or any part of the Premises (or the building in which the Premises are located) is condemned by a public entity in the lawful exercise of its power of eminent domain, this Lease shall cease as to the part condemned. The date of such termination shall be the effective date of possession of the whole or part of the Premises by the condemning public entity. 22.2 If only a part is condemned and the condemnation of that part does not substantially impair the capacity of the remainder to be used for the purposes required by this Lease, Lessee shall continue to be bound by the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Lease. However, the then monthly rent shall be reduced in proportion to the diminution in value of the Premises. If the condemnation of a part of the Premises substantially impairs the capacity of the remainder to be used for the purposes required by this Lease, Lessee may: A. Terminate this Lease and thereby be absolved of obligations under this Lease which have not accrued as of the date of possession by the condemning public entity; or B. Continue to occupy the remaining Premises and thereby continue to be bound by the terms, covenants and conditions of this Lease. If Lessee elects to continue in possession of the remainder of the Premises, the monthly rent shall be reduced in proportion to the diminution in value of the Premises. C. Lessee shall provide City with written notice advising City of Lessee’s choice within thirty (30) days of possession of the part condemned by the condemning public entity. - 19 - 22.3 City shall be entitled to and shall receive all compensation related to the condemnation, except that Lessee shall be entitled to: (a) that portion of the compensation which represents the value for the remainder of the Lease term of any Lessee-constructed improvements taken by the condemning public entity, which amount shall not exceed the actual cost of such improvements reduced in proportion to the relationship of the remaining Lease term to the original Lease term, using a straight line approach; and (b) any amount specifically designated as a moving allowance or as compensation for Lessee’s personal property. Lessee shall have no claim against Landlord for the value of any unexpired term of this Lease. 23. POST-ACQUISITION TENANCY. Lessee understands and agrees to waive all claims for relocation assistance and benefits under federal, state or local law. 24. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 24.1 Unless otherwise mutually agreed to, any controversies between Lessee and City regarding the construction or application of this Lease, and claims arising out of this Lease or its breach shall be submitted to mediation within thirty (30) days of the written request of one Party after the service of that request on the other Party. 24.2 The Parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, the Party demanding mediation shall request the Superior Court of Santa Clara County to appoint a mediator. The mediation meeting shall not exceed one day (eight (8) hours). The Parties may agree to extend the time allowed for mediation under this Lease. 24.3 The costs of mediation shall be borne by the Parties equally. 24.4 Mediation under this section is a condition precedent to filing an action in any court. In the event of litigation arising out of any dispute related to this Lease, the Parties shall each pay their respective attorney's fees, expert witness costs and cost of suit, regardless of the outcome of the litigation. 25. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY. No official or employee of City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this agreement. 26. NON-DISCRIMINATION 26.1 Non-discrimination in Lease Activities. Lessee agrees that in the performance of this Lease and in connection with all of the activities Lessee conducts on the Premises, it shall not discriminate against any employee or person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, - 20 - familial status, weight or height of such person. Lessee acknowledges that is familiar with the provisions set forth in Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to nondiscrimination in employment and Section 9.73 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to City policy against arbitrary discrimination. 26.2 Human Rights Policy. In connection with all activities that are conducted upon the Premises, Lessee agrees to accept and enforce the statements of policy set forth in Section 9.73.010 which provides: “It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to affirm, support and protect the human rights of every person within its jurisdiction. These rights include, but are not limited to, equal economic, political, and educational opportunity; equal accommodations in all business establishments in the city; and equal service and protection by all public agencies of the city.” 27. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is agreed that Lessee shall act and be an independent contractor and not an agent nor employee of City. 28. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Lessee shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this agreement. Lessee warrants and covenants that no official or employee of City nor any business entity in which any official or employee of City is interested: (1) has been employed or retained to solicit or aid in the procuring of this agreement; or (2) will be employed in the performance of this agreement without the divulgence of such fact to City. In the event that City determines that the employment of any such official, employee or business entity is not compatible with such official's or employee's duties as an official or employee of City, Lessee upon request of City shall immediately terminate such employment. Violation of this provision constitutes a serious breach of this Lease and City may terminate this Lease as a result of such violation. 29. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE. Following execution of this Lease, either party, at its sole expense, shall be entitled to record a Memorandum of Lease in the official records of Santa Clara County. Upon termination or expiration of this Lease, Lessee shall execute and record a quitclaim deed as to its leasehold interest. 30. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. Lessee shall, from time to time, upon at least thirty (30) days prior written notice from City, execute, acknowledge and deliver to City a statement in writing: (i) certifying this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect, or, if modified, stating the nature of the modification and certifying that the Lease, as modified, is in full force and effect, and the date to which the rental and other charges, if any, have been paid; and, (ii) acknowledging that there are not to Lessee’s - 21 - knowledge, any defaults, or stating if any defaults are claimed, any statement may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser or encumbrancer of the City Property. 31. LIENS. Lessee agrees at its sole cost and expense to keep the Property free and clear of any and all claims, levies, liens, encumbrances or attachments. 32. VACATING. Upon termination of the tenancy, Lessee shall completely vacate the Property, including the removal of any and all of its property. Before departure, Lessee shall return keys and personal property listed on the inventory to City in good, clean and sanitary condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall allow City to inspect the Property and complete a walk-through to verify the condition of the Property and its contents. 33. ABANDONMENT. Lessee's absence from the Property for three (3) consecutive days, without prior notice, during which time rent or other charges are delinquent, shall be deemed abandonment of the Property. Such abandonment will be deemed cause for immediate termination without notice. City shall thereupon be authorized to enter and take possession and to remove and dispose of the property of Lessee or its guests without any liability whatsoever to City. 34. NOTICES. All notices to the Parties shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent to City addressed as follows: City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Players Real Estate Division 2596 Bay Road Suite D Attention: Real Estate Manager Redwood City, CA 94063 250 Hamilton Avenue Phone: 650.329.0891 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax: 650.363.8582 Phone: 650-329-2264 Notices may be served upon Lessee in person, by first class mail, or by certified mail whether or not said mailing is accepted by Lessee. If notice is sent via facsimile, a signed, hard copy of the material shall also be mailed. The workday the facsimile was sent shall control the date notice was deemed given if there is a facsimile machine generated document on the date of transmission. A facsimile transmitted after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday shall be deemed to have been transmitted on the following Monday. These addresses shall be used for service of process. - 22 - 35. TIME. Time shall be of the essence in this Lease. 36. AMENDMENTS. It is mutually agreed that no oral Leases have been entered into and that no alteration or variation of the terms of this Lease shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the Parties to this Lease. 37. SIGNING AUTHORITY. If this Lease is not signed by all Lessees named herein, the person actually signing warrants that he/she has the authority to sign for the others. 38. CAPTIONS. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs of this Lease are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation. 39. SURRENDER OF LEASE NOT MERGER. The voluntary or other surrender of this lease by Lessee, or a mutual cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of City, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, at the option of City, operate as an assignment of any and all such subleases or subtenancies. 40. INTEGRATED DOCUMENT. This Lease, including any exhibits attached hereto, embodies the entire agreement between City and Lessee. No other understanding, agreements, conversations or otherwise, with any officer, agent or employee of City prior to execution of this Lease shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Lease. Any such verbal agreement shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon City. All agreements with City are subject to approval of the City Council before City shall be bound thereby. 41. WAIVER. Waiver by City of one or more conditions of performance or any breach of a condition under this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver of any other condition of performance or subsequent - 23 - breaches. The subsequent acceptance by a Party of the performance of any obligation or duty by another Party shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Lease. The exercise of any remedy, right, option or privilege hereunder by City shall not preclude City from exercising the same or any and all other remedies, rights, options and privileges hereunder and City's failure to exercise any remedy, right, option or privilege at law or equity, or otherwise which City may have, shall not be construed as a waiver. 42. INTERPRETATIONS. In construing or interpreting this Lease, the word "or" shall not be construed as exclusive and the word "including" shall not be limiting. The Parties agree that this Lease shall be fairly interpreted in accordance with its terms without any strict construction in favor of or against any other Party. 43. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. If any provision of this Lease is held to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable in full or in part, for any reason, then such provision shall be modified to the minimum extent necessary to make the provision legal, valid and enforceable, and the other provisions of this Lease shall not be affected thereby. 44. GOVERNING LAW. This Lease shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. 45. VENUE. In the event that suit shall be brought by any Party to this Lease, the Parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of the County of Santa Clara. 46. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Parties hereto shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local governments in the performance of their rights, duties and obligations under this Lease. 47. BROKERS. Each party represents that is has not had dealings with any real estate broker, finder, or other person, with respect to this lease in any manner. Each Party shall hold harmless the other party from all damages resulting from any claims that may be asserted against the other party by any broker, finder, or other person with whom the Indemnifying Party has or purportedly has dealt. - 24 - 48. ATTACHMENTS TO LEASE. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: “A” – Parcel Map of Subject Property “B” – Subject Property “C” - Premise “D” – Standard Insurance Requirements IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. CITY: TENANT: CITY OF PALO ALTO (LESSOR) PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE By: _______________________ By: __________________________ City Manager or Designee ATTEST: ____________________________ Type of Corporation _________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE EXHIBIT B LEASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA AND PALO ALTO PLAYERS-PENINSULA CENTER STAGE EXHIBIT D STANDARD INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Insurance Requirements for Lessee: Lessee shall purchase and maintain the insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this Lease at its sole cost and expense. Such policies shall be maintained for the full term of this Lease and the related warranty period (if applicable). For purposes of the insurance policies required under this Lease, the term "City" shall include the duly elected or appointed council members, commissioners, officers, agents, employees and volunteers of the City of Palo Alto, California, individually or collectively. Coverages (RL 28.1A) S Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). 2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). 3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance (for lessees with employees). 4) Property insurance against all risks of loss to any tenant improvements or betterments The policy or policies of insurance maintained by Lessee shall provide the following limits and coverages: POLICY MINIMUM LIMITS OF LIABILITY (1) Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per each occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage (2) Automobile Liability $ 1,000,000 Combined Single Limit Including Owned, Hired and Non-Owned Automobiles Lease Agreement: Palo Alto Players Page 28 Rev.: 1/30/12; Typed: October 1, 2012 (3) Workers’ Compensation Statutory Employers Liability $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease (4) Lessee’s Property Insurance Lessee shall procure and maintain property insurance coverage for: (a) all office furniture, trade fixture, office equipment, merchandise, and all other items of Lessee’s property in, on, at, or about the premises and the building, include property installed by, for, or at the expense of Lessee; (b) all other improvements, betterments, alterations, and additions to the premises. Lessee’s property insurance must fulfill the following requirements: (a) it must be written on the broadest available “all risk” policy form or an equivalent form acceptable City of Palo Alto, including earthquake sprinkler leakage. (b) for no less than ninety percent (90%) of the full replacement cost (new without deduction for depreciation) of the covered items and property; and (c) the amounts of coverage must meet any coinsurance requirements of the policy or policies. (RL 28.2) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Lessee shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. Insurance shall be in full force and effect commencing on the first day of the term of this Lease. Each insurance policy required by this Lease shall: 1. Be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 2. Include a waiver of all rights of subrogation against the City and the members of the City Council and elective or appointive officers or employees, and each party Lease Agreement: Palo Alto Players Page 29 Rev.: 1/30/12; Typed: October 1, 2012 shall indemnify the other against any loss or expense including reasonable attorney fees, resulting from the failure to obtain such waiver. 3. Name the City of Palo Alto as a loss payee on the property policy. 4. Provide that the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Lessee; products and completed operations of the Lessee; premises owned, occupied or used by the Lessee; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Lessee. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 5. Provide that for any claims related to this Lease, the Lessee's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be excess of the Lessee's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 6. Provide that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 7. Provide that Lessee's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 8. Lessee agrees to promptly pay to City as Additional Rent, upon demand, the amount of any increase in the rate of insurance on the Premises or on any other part of Building that results by reason of Lessee’s act(s) or Lessee’s permitting certain activities to take place. Acceptability of Insurers All insurance policies shall be issued by California-admitted carriers having current A.M. Best's ratings of no lower than A-:VII. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5632) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Renew On-Call Contracts FY16 Title: Approval of Six Contract Amendments: (a) Amendment No. 3 to 4Leaf, Inc. Contract C13149364, Increasing Compensation by $2,100,000 to $5,100,000; (b) Amendment No. 3 to Kutzmann & Associates, Inc. Contract C13149368, Increasing Compensation by $250,000 to $976,000; (c) Amendment No. 3 to Interwest Consulting Group Contract C13149365, Increasing Compensation by $25,000 to $175,000; (d) Amendment No. 2 to CSG Consulting Contract C13149366, Increasing Compensation by $20,000 to $120,000; (e) Amendment No. 2 to TRB & Associates Contract C13149369, Increasing Compensation by $20,000 to $120,000; and (f) Amendment No. 2 to West Coast Code Consultants Contract C13149367, Increasing Compensation by $118,000 to $888,000, to Renew Contracts and Amend Scope of Work Each for a One-Year Term Extension for On-Call Inspection, Plan Check Services, and Capital Improvement Costs From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149364 with 4Leaf, Inc. for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $2,100,000 to provide services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from $3,000,000 to $ $5,100,000. 2. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149368 with Kutzmann & Associates for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $250,000 to provide services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from 726,000 to $976,000. 3. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149365 with Interwest Consulting Group for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $25,000 to provide services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from $150,000 to $175,000. City of Palo Alto Page 2 4. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149366 with CSG Consulting for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $20,000 to provide services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from $100,000 to $120,000. 5. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149369 with TRB & Associates for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $20,000 to provide services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from $100,000 to $120,000. 6. Authorize the City Manager to extend on-call development services contract C13149367 with West Coast Code Consultants for an additional one-year term, with a capacity increase of $118,000 for services through fiscal year 2016. This amends the existing contract for prior years from 770,000 to $888,000. 7. Authorize the City Manager to execute additional contract amendments in fiscal year 2016 adjusting the not-to-exceed compensation for individual on-call contracts, so long as the aggregate authorized amount of $7,379,000 for all 6 contracts is not exceeded. This total represents an existing cumulative authorization for the first two years totaling $4,846,000 and additional cumulative authorization requested for the one-year extensions of $2,533,000. Summary Development Services holds six contracts for staffing services for inspectors and plan checkers. Over the course of several years we have been using one (4Leaf, Inc.) more than the other five because they have been more responsive in the provision of quality, trained and available contractors. As a result, the recommended contract amendments centralize most of the increase in contract capacity for the upcoming fiscal year, previously shared among six firms, in the 4Leaf contract. Other than a part time plan checker provided to capture overflow work from Public Works we do not anticipate a change in the total spend on contracts as compared to last year. The net contract staffing levels will essentially remain constant year over year. Background Development Services has historically maintained contracts with several firms to provide contract support for processing permit applications, performing plan reviews, and conducting inspections. Contractors provide flexibility necessary to respond to cyclical demands, assist when full-time staff shortages occur, or provide specialized knowledge or training in a particular field when required. This affords the department the ability to quickly change the scale and scope of staffing support levels to correspond to workload needs at any time while providing high levels of customer service. Overall, the approximately $2.4 million expended annually on these services equates to 8-12 full-time positions that would otherwise be subject to wide fluctuations in workload and needed skills. Staff did an extensive analysis of staff only, contract only, and a hybrid model and determined that the hybrid approach was the appropriate balance between providing flexibility and cost control In that analysis we determined that the appropriate staffing and contract levels would be evaluated every year and adjusted to meet market demand. At the moment we have 4 full-time inspectors and plan check positions and City of Palo Alto Page 3 on average 15 contractors at any one time. This fluctuates depending on supply of contractors and demand of work. Based on the total work load assigned to both plan checkers and inspectors the proposed contracts would allow us to stay within the workload limits established by the ISO as compared to 18,000 other building departments nationwide. The contracts were originally authorized for a period of one year with options to extend for two additional one-year terms. In June 2014, the City exercised the first of these options and staff now seeks authorization to exercise the second and last one-year renewal option. The department anticipates that the total aggregate capacity needed for services throughout the one year extension (fiscal year 2016) will increase slightly compared to capacity requested in prior years. This slight increase is to accommodate Public Works need for a half-time urban forest plan checker, otherwise the total allocated for building contracts has not changed year over year.. Though the aggregate total capacity among all contracts will remain relatively constant year over year, an increased reliance on some vendors has resulted in the need to increase not-to-exceed limits of some contracts more than others. Over the past two years, the department has found certain contractors more responsive and reliable in providing the necessary staff levels, or specialties required, in a timely manner. This has resulted in the need to utilize some contracts more heavily than others, where some contracts carry unused capacity and others in need of more. Because the City’s reliance on particular vendors fluctuates based on the needs, volume, and nature of construction activity, staff anticipates changes in capacity will be required for individual on-call contracts over the course of the year. In order to allow the department to nimbly respond to such changes in demand, and to shift unused capacity to contracts in need, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to adjust contract capacity among individual contracts, so long as the total authorized amount for all 6 on-call contracts is not exceeded. Discussion The on-call contracts provide expert service that is efficient, responsive, and cost-effective. They have also been used to dedicate professional resources to very large projects when specifically requested and paid for by applicants. Development Services has been relying on these contracts to provide needed expertise to process permit applications, perform plan reviews, and conduct inspections since these contracts were established in July 2013. The department has reexamined the relationship with these contractors, and has renegotiated contract terms to clarify expectations of provided training, staff management, technologies and transportation, as well as assistance in the event of an emergency. In April 2013 (Staff Report 3394), the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into building and inspection services contracts with six firms to provide on-call services for Development Services, where the contracts have an option to extend agreements for two, one year, additional terms. The combined total capacity of all the contracts was $1.5 million, although each has a different limit based on the expected need at the time the contracts were City of Palo Alto Page 4 first awarded. Two of these contracts were amended in February 2014 to adjust to increased workload demands (Staff Report 4393). This amendment brought the total capacity amount needed for fiscal year 2014 services to $2,398,000. In June 2014, the Council authorized the City Manager to exercise the first optional one year extension for all six on-call contracts, as well as amend a third contract to adjust for Capital Improvement initiatives (Staff Report 4824), through June 30, 2015. This extension and amendment resulted in an additional capacity amount of $2,448,000 for contract services utilized throughout fiscal year 2015, bringing the total combined capacity for both years to $4,846,000. The department seeks to exercise the second option to extend the contracts for an additional one year term, through June 30, 2016. Increases in contract limits totaling $85,000 are needed for renewal of the third year. This brings the total capacity needed throughout fiscal year 2016 to $2,533,000, and total combined capacity of all three years to $7,379,000. The additional $85,000 pertains to Public Works Urban Forestry contract expenses assumed by Development Services with the formation of the new department. Resource Impact For Fiscal Year 2015 funding for these contracts is budgeted in the Development Services department. For Fiscal Year 2016, funding for these contracts is subject to the City Council approval of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget. Policy Implications Approval of these contract extensions and amendments will allow Development Services to continue meeting service delivery goals established as part of the Development Center Blueprint initiative. Environmental Review Approval of these contract extensions and amendments is not a project under CEQA and no environmental review is required. Attachments: Attachment A C13149364 AMENDMENT 3 4Leaf, Inc. (PDF) Attachment B C13149368 AMENDMENT 3 Kutzmann & Associates, Inc. (PDF) Attachment C C13149365 AMENDMENT 3 Interwest Consulting Group, Inc. (PDF) Attachment D C13149366 AMENDMENT 2 CSG Consultants, Inc. (PDF) Attachment E C13149369 AMENDMENT 2 TRB & Associates, Inc. (PDF) Attachment F C13149367 AMENDMENT 2 West Coast Code Consultants, Inc. (PDF) 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149364 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND 4LEAF, INC. This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C13149364 (“Contract”) is entered into 27th Day of April, 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and 4LEAF, INC. a California Corporation, located at 2110 Rheem Drive, Ste. A, Pleasanton, California, 94588, Telephone (925)462-5959 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Permit Processing, Building Plan Check, and Building Inspection services; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $3,000,000.00 by $2,100,000.00 to $5,100,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “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 Five Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,100,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D9B62C0-F7D1-4DD0-9E85-7B16E5120042 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4LEAF, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D9B62C0-F7D1-4DD0-9E85-7B16E5120042 President 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $5,100,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 2: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7D9B62C0-F7D1-4DD0-9E85-7B16E5120042 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149368 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C13149368 (“Contract”) is entered into the 27th Day of April 2015, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. a California corporation, located at 39355 California Street, Ste. 200, Fremont, California, 94538, Telephone (510)796-3003 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Building Plan Check and Building Inspection Services; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $726,000.00 by $250,000.00 to $976,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “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 Nine Hundred Seventy Six Thousand Dollars ($976,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E0BC080-EDF3-4FC3-AD74-FB610E47566C 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: KUTZMANN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E0BC080-EDF3-4FC3-AD74-FB610E47566C President 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $976,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 2: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E0BC080-EDF3-4FC3-AD74-FB610E47566C 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149365 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. This Amendment No. 3 to Contract No. C13149365 (“Contract”) is entered into April 27, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC., a California corporation, located at 6280 W. Las Positas Boulevard, Suite 220, Pleasanton, California, 94588, Telephone (925)462-1114 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Permit Processing, Building Plan Check Services and development of Accela GIS integration; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $150,000.00 by $25,000.00 to $175,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “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 Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 33178921-6E52-4D7D-A4DA-B9F5869DB6E2 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 33178921-6E52-4D7D-A4DA-B9F5869DB6E2 Regional Manager 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $175,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 2: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 33178921-6E52-4D7D-A4DA-B9F5869DB6E2 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149366 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C13149366 (“Contract”) is entered into April 27, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and CSG CONSULTANTS, INC., a California corporation, located at 1700 South Amphlett Blvd.3rd Floor, San Mateo, California, 94402, Telephone (650)522-2500 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Building Inspection and Building Permitting services; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $100,000.00 by $20,000.00 to $120,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 1909E73D-1F6D-4A88-9642-38C444D921BE 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 1909E73D-1F6D-4A88-9642-38C444D921BE secretary 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $120,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 1: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 1909E73D-1F6D-4A88-9642-38C444D921BE 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149369 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TRB & ASSOCIATES, INC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C13149369 (“Contract”) is entered into April 27, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TRB & ASSOCIATES, INC., a California corporation, located at 3180 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 216, San Ramon, California, 94583, Telephone (925)866-2633 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Building Plan Check Services; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $100,000.00 by $20,000.00 to $120,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT for performance of the Services described in Exhibit “A”, including both payment for professional services and reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: 64824C18-159E-4EFC-A4F8-ACD15BC02C7D 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: TRB & ASSOCIATES, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 64824C18-159E-4EFC-A4F8-ACD15BC02C7D President 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $120,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 1: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 64824C18-159E-4EFC-A4F8-ACD15BC02C7D 1 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C13149367 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C13149367 (“Contract”) is entered into April 27, 2015 by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC., a California corporation, located at 2400 Camino Ramon, Suite 240, San Ramon, California, 94583, Telephone (925)275-1700 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S: A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of On-Call Building Plan Check Services; and B. CITY intends to extend the term and increase the Not to Exceed Compensation from $770,000.00 by $118,000.00 to $888,000.00 for continuation of services as specified in Exhibit “A” Scope of Services; and C. 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 2 is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. SECTION 2. Section 4 is hereby amended to read as follows: “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 Eight Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Dollars ($888,000.00). 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”.” DocuSign Envelope ID: A63B1CE0-EECA-4E1B-8EDA-805B3163CD94 2 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 SECTION 3. The following exhibit(s) to the Contract is/are hereby amended to read as set forth in the attachment(s) to this Amendment, which are incorporated in full by this reference: a. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION” SECTION 4. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM: WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "C": COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: A63B1CE0-EECA-4E1B-8EDA-805B3163CD94 Principal/CEO 3 of 3 Revision July 25, 2012 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement based on the hourly rate schedule attached as Exhibit C-1. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $888,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Services, including reimbursable expenses, within this amount. Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. AMENDMENT NO. 1: 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. CONSULTANT shall ensure that CONSULTANT’s staff has sufficient transportation to perform the services requested by CITY within the San Francisco Bay area. CITY will not provide vehicles or transportation, nor will it reimburse for mileage or meals within the San Francisco Bay area. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $0.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expenses, 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: A63B1CE0-EECA-4E1B-8EDA-805B3163CD94 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5709) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Utilities Strategic Plan Modifications Title: Utilities Advisory Commission Recommendation that Council Approve Changes to the Performance Measures and Strategic Initiatives of the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff and the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend that Council approve changes to the Performance Measures and Strategic Initiatives in the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan (Attachment A). Executive Summary Staff regularly reviews the strategic objectives, performance measures, and strategic initiatives of the Utilities Strategic Plan and recommends any appropriate updates. The changes recommended do not represent a major shift in strategic direction, but are updates to the plan to clarify certain objectives, remove completed strategic initiatives, and add new initiatives. The changes recommended do not represent a major shift in strategic direction, but are updates to the plan to clarify certain objectives, remove completed strategic initiatives, and add new initiatives. In addition, this report is the semi-annual status report of the Utilities Strategic Plan for the period from July through December 2014 (Attachment B). The Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan uses a Balanced Scorecard concept with four main perspectives (“Four Perspectives”) with strategic objectives to be achieved for each. To translate these objectives into plans for action, performance measures were identified for each objective. The changes are described in more detail in this report. A summary of the performance measures and status for each of the Four Perspectives is shown below: Performance Measures Summary (July - December 2014) Internal Business Process Perspective People & Technology Perspective Performance Measure Status Performance Measure Status Interruption Duration Met Employee Satisfaction Not yet met City of Palo Alto Page 2 Emergency Response Time Met Certification & Training Met Gas Incident Rate Met IT Service Needs Not yet met Gas Safety Awareness Met New Technology Evaluation Met Infrastructure Backlog N/A Call Wait Time Met Financial Perspective Billing Adjustments Met Performance Measure Status Emergency Notification Met High Credit Ratings Met Program Participant Satisfaction Met Maintain Reserves Met Competitive Commodity Bids Met Fixed Charges Recovered Not yet met Unaccounted Gas & Water N/A Returns to Community Met Full Value from Redwood Gas Met Strategic Initiatives Not yet met Customer & Community Perspective Electric Portfolio Carbon Intensity Met Performance Measure Status Electric Efficiency Achievement N/A System Interruptions Met Gas Efficiency Achievement N/A Service Restoration Not yet met Satisfaction Met Competitive Bill Met Rate Change Met PaloAltoGreen Participation N/A Background On July 18, 2011, the Council approved the 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 1880). On August 5, 2013, the Council approved changes to the performance measures and strategic initiatives in the Utilities Strategic Plan (Staff Report 3950). In implementing the Utilities Strategic Plan, staff regularly reviews the objective measures and initiatives and recommends any appropriate updates on an annual basis. In addition, on a semi-annual basis, staff reports progress on implementation of the plan to the UAC and Council. The Balanced Scorecard tracking methodology was chosen by staff to assist in performance measurement and to promote better understanding of the City of Palo Alto Utilities’ (CPAU) strategic business processes. These updates help keep staff on track, but not all measures may have progress to be reported semi-annually either because updated data is not yet available or because the data is more meaningful as an annual measurement. Utilities managers meet on a regular basis to review the overall Utilities Strategic Plan and evaluate the strategic objectives, performance measures, and targets, and strategic initiatives. From time to time, management will recommend changes to keep the Utilities Strategic Plan aligned with changing environments and priorities. With this report, staff is proposing changing certain performance measures, removing several completed strategic initiatives, and adding several new strategic initiatives. The Four Perspectives used in the Strategic Plan are: • Customer and Community • People and Technology • Finance City of Palo Alto Page 3 • Internal Business Processes Each of the Four Perspectives represents a specific viewpoint and ensures CPAU’s business activities are aligned with the Strategic Plan. The Customer and Community Perspective represent customer satisfaction and delivery of services to stakeholders. The Internal Business Processes Perspective covers operational goals and outlines the key processes necessary to deliver services to customers. People and Technology includes employee training and development as well as keeping pace with technological advancements in the utilities industry. The Finance Perspective focuses on CPAU having a strong financial base and delivering cost- effective services. Each of the Four Perspectives of the Utilities Strategic Plan includes strategic initiatives which are key programs or projects required to achieve one or more objectives and the overall strategic plan. Many of the original strategic initiatives were completed and two new ones were added when Council approved updates to the Strategic Plan in August 2013, resulting in 9 active initiatives. Strategic initiatives aim to significantly change the way CPAU does business, require significant resources to complete, and have a defined timeline. Discussion A summary of performance under each of the Four Perspectives as well as explanations for the proposed changes to the Utilities Strategic Plan follows. CUSTOMER AND COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE Four categories are measured from this perspective, namely service reliability, customer satisfaction with CPAU’s responsiveness, competitive bills compared to neighboring communities and care for the environment. CPAU has achieved four performance measures, one measure was not met, and one measure is being proposed to be replaced. Customer and Community Perspective Recommended Changes to Strategic Plan: • C1.2: For target, reduce the number of electrical service interruptions for average customer from “3.0” to “0.9”. • C3: For strategic initiative, replace “mobile app capabilities” to “online capabilities”. • C4.1: For performance measure, replace “PaloAltoGreen” with “PaloAltoGreen Gas” and change target from “Top rank nationally” to “20% of customers”. • C4.2: Add a second performance measure “Percentage of greenhouse gas reductions” with target of “10% GHG reductions”. • C4: For strategic initiative, replace “Redesign the PaloAltoGreen program by January 2014” with “Reevaluate the cost-effectiveness of electrification especially for new construction and evaluate whether new programs or incentives can and should be offered, consistent with all applicable legal requirements.” City of Palo Alto Page 4 Performance Measures Service reliability performance measure targets: • C1.1: an average restoration time after an outage of 90 minutes or less per interrupted customer • C1.2: an average number of 3 or fewer interruptions per customer per year Proposed Change: • C1.2: an average number of 0.9 or fewer interruptions per customer per year Staff proposes reducing the C1.2 performance measure target for the number of electrical service interruptions for the average customer from 3 or fewer to 0.9 or fewer. The previous measure of 3 or fewer is based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard 1366-1998, the median duration in hours for total customer interruptions. The proposed value of 0.90 or fewer represents the top quartile and is based on an updated IEEE standard 1366-2003. This updated standard is named System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) and measures the average number of times that a customer will experience an interruption during a specific time frame. This measure is a more consistent and impactful reliability index because it factors in the total number of customers impacted by major events. CPAU will update the historical performance measure results based on the new standard. Between July and December 2014, CPAU experienced 5 isolated outages which impacted 58 customers in total. CPAU’s performance measurement for number of interruptions per average customer of 0.002 was significantly lower than the proposed target of 0.9. CPAU did not meet the performance target of less than 90 minutes to restore service for interrupted customer. A couple of the outages were due to faulty transformers. Service restoration for unplanned transformer replacement requires significantly more time because it involves a full crew and delivery of a new transformer. The average time to restore service per interrupted customer was 114 minutes. Customer satisfaction performance measure target: • C2: to be rated 85% or higher in overall customer satisfaction The most recent customer satisfaction survey was conducted by ESource, a market research agency specializing in utilities. The survey was geared towards large customers and key accounts. CPAU was ranked fourth out of 25 utilities and received an overall satisfaction and value rating of 87%. CPAU received high marks in trustworthiness and reliability. The recommended actions to improve customer satisfaction included providing customers with more energy advice, increasing the number of on-site visits and providing more resources on managing energy costs. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Customer paying a reasonable bill performance measure targets: • C3.1: bill is less than the average bills in neighboring communities • C3.2: rate increases are less than 10% (electric, gas, wastewater) and 20% (water) CPAU met the “reasonable bill” performance target, with the total average residential bill for electric, gas, water and wastewater services in Palo Alto being $176.81, which is 6% below the average bill of $187.05 in neighboring jurisdictions (i.e. Menlo Park, Mountain View, Santa Clara and Redwood City). CPAU’s bill for electric and wastewater is below the average of neighboring cities; however, CPAU’s water bill is higher and CPAU’s gas distribution costs are currently higher than PG&E’s while both PG&E and CPAU’s gas commodity rates vary month to month depending on depending on the market price of gas. CPAU also met the performance measure of a “less than 10%” rate increase for electric, gas, and wastewater and a “less than 20%” rate increase for water. For FY 2015, there were no rate adjustments for electric, gas, water and wastewater services. PaloAltoGreen performance measure target: • C4: top rank nationally Proposed Changes: • Change from PaloAltoGreen to PaloAltoGreen Gas and add new performance measure targets: o 20% of customer participation o 10% greenhouse gas reductions Staff proposes replacing “PaloAltoGreen” with “PaloAltoGreen Gas” in the performance measure and replacing the performance target for customer participation from “top rank nationally” to “20% of customers”. Staff also proposes adding a new performance measure target: “Percentage of greenhouse gas reductions” with performance target of “10% greenhouse gas reductions”. These changes are recommended since PaloAltoGreen (PAG) Electric program has been terminated for residential customers as a result of the City’s adopted electric carbon neutral portfolio. The voluntary PAG Gas program (approved by Council on April 21, 2014 (Staff Report 4596) allows customers to eliminate or reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with their natural gas use. The proposed PAG Gas target of 20% customer participation is the same as what the PAG Electric program achieved. Since the program was launched in January 2015, over 750 customers have enrolled in PAG Gas. Strategic Initiatives Under the Customer and Community perspective, the Utilities Strategic Plan identified four strategic initiatives. The following gives the status of these initiatives. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Two initiatives are underway and ongoing: • C2: To establish more mechanisms for eliciting feedback from customers. Utilities will continue to develop in-house surveys and other market research mechanisms to better evaluate the effectiveness of community outreach and City services. CPAU is encouraging customers to contact us with suggestions or feedback through various communication channels: City’s webpage, My Utilities Account customer portal, Palo Alto 311, Our Palo Alto neighborhood discussions, community events, workshops, direct mail and social media. The City is also exploring analytical tools to evaluate the effectiveness of different channels of customer communications. • C3: Improving the electronic bill presentment, payment functionality, and enhancing the utility’s mobile app capabilities. Proposed Change: • C3: Improving the electronic bill presentment, payment functionality, and enhancing the utility’s online capabilities Staff recommends replacing “mobile app capabilities” with “online capabilities”. CPAU conducted an in-house My Utilities Account (MUA) survey and participated in the ESource residential website assessment. MUA customers ranked user friendly display and presentation of the website significantly higher than being mobile friendly. CPAU’s website was ranked in the bottom quartile in the ESource review for functionality and usability. Some of the recommended changes include simplifying the home page, adding more outage-reporting functionality, and expanding energy-use information. In the spring of 2015, a comprehensive third-party review of the City’s ERP and Utilities Billing System is planned with the objective to assess the system’s business requirements, identify key improvements and determine the best approach to enhance. This includes reviewing MUA online customer portal and payment functionalities for the Utilities Billing System. One initiative is proposed to be replaced since it was completed: • C4: To redesign the PaloAltoGreen program. The PAG Electric program was suspended in September 2013 when the City adopted the carbon neutral plan (Staff Report 4041). The residential program was eliminated and the commercial program was reinstated by Council on June 9, 2014 (Staff Report 4718). The new PAG Gas program was approved by Council on April 21, 2014 (Staff Report 4596) and launched in January 2015. Proposed Change: • C4: Reevaluate the cost-effectiveness of electrification especially for new construction and evaluate whether new programs or incentives can or should be offered, consistent with all applicable legal requirements. Because the PaloAltoGreen program has been re-designed and the new PAG Gas program was launched in January 2015, staff recommends the following new initiative to evaluate the cost- City of Palo Alto Page 7 effectiveness of fuel-switching, or “electrification” especially for new construction. Since the City’s electric supply is 100% carbon neutral, reduction in the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must come from reductions in the community’s use of natural gas and transportation fuels. Another way to reduce GHG emissions is to replace gas appliances (hot water heaters, space heaters, clothes dryers, and stoves/ovens) with electric appliances or to replace gasoline- powered vehicles with electric vehicles. Installing 100% electric appliances in a new home or major remodel has the potential to be more cost-effective than the retrofit of existing gas appliances. With the California state goal of net zero energy for newly constructed residential buildings by 2020, the City may consider developing fuel-switching, or “electrification”, incentives for residential new construction projects. Staff is tentatively scheduled to provide the UAC and Council an update of the cost effectiveness of electrification in the spring of 2015. In addition to evaluating cost-effectiveness, any proposed electrification incentives or programs must be specifically analyzed and considered in the context of all applicable legal, statutory and regulatory requirements and guidance, including, for instance, constitutional limitations on utility rates imposed by Californians when they adopted Proposition 26, obligations set forth in the Cap-and-Trade regulations adopted by the California Air Resources Board, and other miscellaneous requirements embedded in the California Public Utilities Code. UTILITIES INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS PERSPECTIVE Under this perspective, CPAU covers operational safety and reliability goals, communication and delivery of services to customers, and environmental sustainability. The largest number of performance measure targets fall under this perspective. Eleven were met, one was not met and four were unavailable because they are annual targets. Internal Business Process Perspective Recommended Changes to Strategic Plan: • BP1.2 – Add strategic initiative “Complete the Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) including a comprehensive evaluation of the use of groundwater by end of CY2015” • BP3 – For objective, replace “electric service” with “utility services”; replace “reducing the backlog and replaces infrastructure systems” with “reducing any backlog of infrastructure work and replace infrastructure systems”; and add “when possible” in spreading expenses across multiple years. • BP3 – For performance measure, replace “Backlog of infrastructure elements whose age is beyond its useful life” with “Backlog of infrastructure elements whose ages are beyond their useful lives.” • BP3 – Add strategic initiative “Complete long range Gas and Water master infrastructure plans by end of CY2015.” • BP5 – For objective, remove “For example, Palo Alto’s gas rate stability is something customers should be educated about as it differentiates CPAU from PG&E.” • BP5 – For performance measure, replace “at least 500 customers or any sensitive major customers” with “all sensitive major customers” • BP7 – Replace strategic initiative “Pursue gas prepay transactions to leverage the City’s low cost of capital and tax exempt status to acquire lower cost gas supply resources” with “Participate actively in Northern California Power Agency’s (NCPA) on-going City of Palo Alto Page 8 allocation of cost, including new cost allocation studies if undertaken, to ensure that the City’s costs are fair. Evaluate alternative providers for services provided by NCPA as appropriate. ” • BP8 – Add strategic initiative “Complete water benchmarking study by end of FY2015.” • BP11 – Replace performance measure “Carbon intensity of the electric portfolio” with “Meet the state’s 20% per capita water use reduction by 2020 target”; Replace target of “80% of baseline (2005) level” with “20% by 2020” • BP11 – Add strategic initiative “Complete EIR and financial plan for expanding recycled water system.” • BP12.1 – For target, replace “goals set in May 2010” with “goals Council set in December 2012”. • BP12.2 – For target, replace “goals set in January 2011” with “goals Council set in December 2012”. • BP12 – Add strategic initiative “Include all cost-effective water efficiency measures in 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)” Performance Measures Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources • BP1.1: Restoring electrical power in less than 60 minutes • BP1.2: Responding to emergency calls in less than 30 minutes Both of these performance measures were met. The duration of electric system electric interruption per average customer was 23 minutes. The average response time to emergency calls was 20 minutes. Operate the utility systems safely • BP2.1: Zero reportable gas incidents • BP2.2: Customer awareness of gas safety issues is 90% or greater Both these performance measures were met. There were zero reportable gas incidents. In the annual gas safety awareness survey, 95% of the respondents believe they have adequate information about natural gas safety. Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life • BP3: Backlog of infrastructure elements whose age is beyond its useful life Objective Statement: We will continue to implement a long-term strategy for replacing infrastructure before the end of its useful life. Reliable delivery of electric service to our customers is critical for the success of business and the quality of life for our residents. To accomplish this, we will focus on reducing the backlog and replacing infrastructure systems in a manner that spreads the expense across multiple years resulting in program with even expenditures patterns in future years. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Proposed Change: • BP3: We will continue to implement a long-term strategy for replacing infrastructure before the end of its useful life. Reliable delivery of utility services to our customers is critical for the success of business and the quality of life for our residents. To accomplish this, we will focus on reducing any backlog of infrastructure work and replacing infrastructure systems in a manner that spreads the expense across multiple years resulting in program with even expenditures patterns in future years when possible. Staff recommends revising the description of the strategic objective to include all utility services including electric, gas, water, wastewater collection and fiber. CPAU will continue to serve the community by protecting consumers and ensuring the provision of safe, reliable utility services and infrastructure at reasonable rates. For performance measure BP3, staff recommends replacing “Backlog of infrastructure elements whose age is beyond its useful life” to “Backlog of infrastructure elements whose ages are beyond their useful lives.” Deliver customer service promptly and completely • BP4.1: Average phone wait time in less than 90 seconds • BP4.2: Number of annual billing adjustments is less than 2,958 Both these performance measures were met. In the first half of FY 2015, the average phone time wait is 61 seconds and CPAU has processed 849 billing adjustments. Communicate proactively to all stakeholders • BP5: Report significant disruptions within 60 minutes All recent major disruptions have been reported to the public and media via phone, website, and social media within 30 minutes or less. Offer programs to meet customer and community needs • BP6: At least 90% of surveyed customers satisfied with program experiences CPAU hosted a couple of workshops to raise awareness about water efficiency as well as ongoing drought conditions. There were 40 customers in attendance for the “From Gray Water to Green Garden” workshop which taught residents the logistics of implementing a gray-water system in their homes. There was high engagement amongst the 50 attendees in the “Alternatives to Lawn” workshop which introduced residents to water-conserving lawn alternatives. Both workshops received a high level of customer satisfaction averaging 95%. Negotiate supply contracts • BP7: Receive at least three competitive bids for electric fixed-price purchases City of Palo Alto Page 10 Maximize value of existing generation assets • BP9: Receive full value from Redwood gas pipeline Both performance measures BP7 and BP9 have been met. Manage implementation of strategic plan • BP10: 100% of strategic initiatives completed This performance measure has not yet been met. Strategic initiatives are specific programs or projects required to achieve key objectives in the overall strategic plan. Strategic initiatives are updated and re-prioritized as business needs change over time. When the strategic plan was developed in 2011, CPAU identified 17 initiatives. Since then, 12 of the initial 17 initiatives have been completed including redesign of PaloAltoGreen, reassessment of gas laddering strategy, development of communications plan, implementation of new technologies program and re- evaluation of Calaveras Reserves. One new initiative, development of a comprehensive financial policy, was added in the 2013 strategic plan update and has been completed. Staff proposes to replace or add eight new initiatives in this update as described in this report. Increase environmental sustainability • BP11: Carbon intensity of the electric portfolio Proposed change: • Meet the state’s 20% per capita water use reduction by 2020 target Since the City adopted a 100% carbon neutral electric supply portfolio, the carbon intensity of the electric portfolio is zero. Staff proposes to replace this measure with “Meet the state’s 20% per capita water use reduction by 2020 target.” The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes a plan to meet the requirement to reduce per capita water usage by 20% by 2020 under the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBx7-7). Some of the demand side management programs include water audits, plumbing retrofits, landscape conversion, rebates, and educational workshops. The following performance measures were not updated because these measures are only meaningful as an annual measurement: • BP3: Backlog of infrastructure beyond its useful life • BP8: Lost and unaccountable volumes of gas and water • BP12.1: Electric energy efficiency achievement • BP12.2: Gas energy efficiency achievement Strategic Initiatives There are two strategic initiatives for the internal business process perspective. City of Palo Alto Page 11 One initiative is underway: • BP1.1: Develop a plan to complete a new electric transmission interconnection. The City continues to have ongoing discussions with Stanford, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, the Department of Energy, Pacific Gas and Electric, and the California Independent System Operator to evaluate alternative transmission connections. The parties are awaiting the results of further studies, anticipated to be completed by the spring of 2015, to evaluate other reliability options and approaches. One initiative is completed and is proposed to be removed: • BP7: Pursue gas prepay transactions to leverage the City’s low cost of capital and tax- exempt status to acquire low cost gas supply resources. Gas prepay transactions offer an opportunity for CPAU to reduce gas commodity costs. Council approved a long-term prepay transaction with MuniGas on September 15, 2014 (Staff Report 5006). The MuniGas program has very low risk and takes advantage of the City’s tax-exempt status to achieve a discount on the commodity cost for all CPAU gas rate payers. This program also meets the Council-approved Gas Utility Long-term Plan (GULP) objectives. Staff proposes adding the following six new strategic initiatives: • BP1.2: Update the Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) including a comprehensive evaluation of the use of groundwater by end of CY 2015. The WIRP provides a detailed evaluation of current and potential resources and policies and provides a blueprint to guide resource procurement and optimization for the future. Groundwater is an important water supply resource in California, particularly in periods of drought, and this resource will be included in the updated WIRP. • BP3: Complete the long range Gas and Water master infrastructure plans by end of calendar year (CY) 2015. Engineering is updating the 20-year master infrastructure plan. The gas study will assess the condition of the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene (PE) materials in the City’s natural gas distribution system, evaluate risks associated with the materials, and determine the appropriate annual infrastructure replacement rate. As a result of the 1991 gas distribution assessment, CPAU launched an aggressive gas main replacement plan to replace acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) mains and services. All known ABS material is scheduled to be replaced with polyethylene (PE) by March 2015. The water system master plan will identify areas requiring capital improvement and determine the annual main replacement rate necessary to ensure safe and reliable levels of service to the existing distribution and transmission conveyance system. The assessment will serve as the long‐term capital improvement plan and replace the 1986 water main replacement plan. Furthermore, the new study may result in a re- prioritization of the rehabilitation and/or replacement of the remaining cast iron and asbestos cement pipe in the system based on current conditions. City of Palo Alto Page 12 • BP7: Participate actively in Northern California Power Agency’s (NCPA) on-going allocation of cost, including new cost allocation studies if undertaken, to ensure that the City’s costs are fair. Evaluate alternative providers for services provided by NCPA as appropriate. NCPA has fixed costs associated with Power Management services (i.e. real-time dispatching, scheduling, contract management, trading, risk management, settlements, billing). In FY 2015, CPAU is expected to contribute approximately $1.5M, or 15% of the total Power Management allocation costs. The current cost allocation methodology is based on load, number of schedules, number of contracts, resource capacity and other direct services. NCPA is reviewing its cost allocation model to ensure it is reflective of actual effort expended by NCPA. CPAU also plans to evaluate alternative scheduling service providers for its renewable energy contracts. • BP8: Complete Water benchmarking study by end of FY 2015. CPAU customers have higher water bills than residents in neighboring cities due to rising commodity purchase, capital improvement, and operating costs. The benchmark study will compare water usage, cost drivers, and bill differentials between Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Hayward, as well as differences in cost allocation between these agencies. • BP11: Complete environmental impact report (EIR) and financial plan for expanding recycled water system. The City continues to explore the possible expansion of the existing recycled water delivery system to serve customers primarily located near Stanford Research Park. The City is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the recycled water project. In addition, the Bureau of Reclamation is the lead agency for the project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City is currently collaborating with the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare a joint CEQA/NEPA document for the project. Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report is currently underway. Identifying funding sources either in the form of a grant or other type of financing arrangement is a critical component of the expansion. • BP12: Include all cost-effective water efficiency measures in 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). CPAU is required to update and submit the UWMP to the California Department of Water Resources every five years. The next update is due June 2016. The UWMP will assess the reliability of the City’s water sources, support long- term resource planning, and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water demands. CPAU will update the 25 cost-effective water efficiency programs described in the 2010 UWMP that the City plans to implement over the next 20 years. These demand management measures are critical to the City’s success to meet the state’s 20% per capita water use reduction by 2020 target. City of Palo Alto Page 13 PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVE CPAU measures attraction and retention of employees, training and development, and implementation and evaluation of technologies. So far, CPAU has met two performance measures and two measures have not been met in these categories. People and Technology Perspective Recommended Changes to Strategic Plan: • PT1 – For performance measure, replace “2011 baseline” with “prior year’s” level. • PT2 – For strategic initiative, replace “Develop a” with “Update the” 5-year succession plan. • PT3 – For performance measure, replace “Technology needs being met based on Utilities specific IT strategic plan” with “Employees have adequate tools and training to perform their jobs”; replace target of “100% for all Utilities work groups” to “100% of employees”. • PT3 – For strategic initiative, change “IT strategic plan” to “smart grid and IT strategic plan”. Performance Measures Employee attraction and retention performance measure target: • PT1: Improvement from 2011 baseline employee satisfaction survey CPAU conducted its fourth annual employee satisfaction survey in January 2015. The annual employee satisfaction survey consists of ten brief questions addressing career development, training, technology needs, recognition, communication, and stress at work. There were 110 participants in the survey which is approximately a 50% response rate. For employee satisfaction, 62% of the employees reported being either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” and 15% reported being “neutral”. This is the first time in three year the satisfaction score was below the baseline of 63% set in 2011. Areas of improvement identified in the survey were improved communication across divisions in Utilities and across departments in the City, competitive compensation, the need for new mobile devices for the field, replacement vehicles, and career development opportunities. CPAU will work with the appropriate divisions and departments to address these areas of improvement. As a result of prior surveys, CPAU has increased training, provided rotational and cross-training assignments, developed new job classifications, and enhanced the Fred Eyerly employee recognition program. Proposed change: • PT1: Improvement from prior year’s employee satisfaction survey. As recommended by the UAC, staff proposes changing this performance measure to compare Utilities employees’ overall satisfaction rating of “Very Satisfied” and “Satisfied” to prior year’s level instead of the 2011 baseline level. The year-to-year comparison is a more meaningful metric and would provide management a more effective tool to measure itself because it reflects the current workplace conditions and environment. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Training and development performance measure targets: • PT2: 100% of Operations personnel have the appropriate certification and training for their assigned work area CPAU is committed to provide ongoing training and development for all employees to ensure safety and best practices are implemented in each employee’s current job. Talent development for succession planning continues to be one of the key focuses for senior management. CPAU is also working with the City to create an environment for continuous learning including self- directed webinars, mentoring program, instructor-led classes with eLearning, academies, and department-specific training. CPAU met its performance target of having 100% of Operations personnel with the appropriate certification and training required for working in their assigned areas. Ensuring workgroups have necessary tools and technologies performance measure target: • PT3: All employee technology needs are being met Proposed change: • PT3: Employees have adequate tools and training to perform their jobs. Staff proposes changing this performance measure to “Employees have adequate tools and training to perform their jobs.” CPAU will provide tools and training to employees immediately based on job requirements instead of providing technologies identified in the IT strategic plan. The Utilities-specific IT strategic plan is a long-term plan and is being addressed separately as a strategic initiative. A comprehensive assessment of the City’s SAP Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system including Utilities billing and customer information systems was recently completed. The evaluation identified the effectiveness and deficiencies of the current system at meeting business needs. The ERP assessment will be presented to City Council in March 2015. Evaluation of new technologies performance measure target: • PT4: Evaluate at least three new technologies per year The CPAU Program for Emerging Technologies (PET) provides the opportunity for local businesses and organizations to submit proposals for innovative and impactful products to CPAU for review and potential pilot testing. CPAU met the performance measure by evaluating 7 new applications between July and December 2014. As of December 2014, CPAU has received 35 applications. Thus far, five projects have been completed including light optimization in parking structures; a customer application that helps reduce energy demand in large facilities, a fast and dynamic reactive power regulator to enhance reliability and efficiency of the power grid, solar photovoltaic (PV) modules installed on street lights, a carbon calculator for cities and small businesses and energy efficiency software for data centers. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Strategic Initiatives Under this perspective, the Strategic Plan identified four strategic initiatives. Staff proposes changes to two initiatives that are underway and ongoing. • PT2: Develop a 5-year succession plan for each division. Proposed change: • PT2: Update the 5-year succession plan for each division. This change reflects the fact that CPAU developed a succession plan, but intends to continue updating since it is a critical component of being prepared and responsive to the changing industry environment and employee retirements. An organizational chart and matrix was developed to identify skill set gaps as well as employees who are currently or soon to be eligible for retirement. CPAU will update the five year succession plan for each division. Utilities across the nation are facing an aging workforce phenomenon and anticipate losing 30 to 50 percent of their workforce within the next decade. As of December 2014, 37% or 81 CPAU employees are eligible for retirement. An additional 19% or 41 more employees will be eligible for retirement within ten years. Workforce development and succession planning continues to be a top priority for the City and for CPAU. The department has initiated cross-training and rotational assignments to develop employee skill sets and provide growth opportunities and plan to continue this practice as these opportunities arise. • PT3: Develop a Utilities-specific IT strategic plan. Proposed change: • Develop a Utilities-specific smart grid and IT strategic plan. Staff proposes to add smart grid related projects to the IT strategic plan. A high-level Utilities IT Systems Review recommended approximately 40 Utilities technology related projects to increase operational efficiency, enhance customer services and advance smart grid capabilities in the next 5 to 10 years. Currently, staff anticipates that within the next 5 to 10 years, Palo Alto’s metering systems will migrate from the current system in place to smart metering systems. CPAU will coordinate with the City’s IT Department to develop a smart grid/Utilities Technology strategic plan by the end of CY 2015. The plan will identify CPAU’s vision and properly prioritize the outstanding list of technology projects. In the meantime, staff will internally prioritize the projects that need to be completed within the next 6 to 12 months. FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE Under this perspective, the performance measures involved maintaining financial strength, designing rate structures that balance costs of service with the promotion of conservation and providing an investment return to the community. CPAU has thus far met three of the four performance measures under this perspective. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Financial Perspective Recommended Changes to Strategic Plan: • F2 – For performance measure, replace “Rate Stabilization” with “Operations” Reserve levels; replace 2015 target from “Adequate to cover cost uncertainties over a two-year period while meeting rate stability objective” with “Within guidelines in Council- adopted long-term Financial Plans”. • F2 – Remove strategic initiative “Develop a comprehensive Utilities financial policy by January 2014 to provide direction for future cost of service studies and rate setting priorities” since the initiative is complete. • F3 – For strategic initiative, replace “By the end of 2011, evaluate the appropriate fraction of fixed costs that should be collected by fixed charges versus volumetric charges” with “Complete Electric cost of service analysis (COSA) by end of CY2015.” • F4 – Remove the entire strategic objective “Provide a fair return to the City” along with the associated objective statement, performance measure, and target. Performance Measures High credit rating performance measure targets: • F1.1: At least AA by Standard and Poor’s (S&P) • F1.2: At least Aa3 by Moody’s CPAU continues to maintain high credit ratings. CPAU has not issued any new bonds since 2009 when it issued bonds for the Emergency Water Supply project. In 2012, S&P affirmed its “AAA” long-term rating on the Palo Alto, California series 1995A bonds, issued for the City’s electric, gas, water, sewer treatment, sewer collection, and storm drainage utilities. In 2015, S&P will be conducting a rating review of the gas and water systems. The review will cover future bond issuances, capital projects, and financial projections. Maintain adequate rate stabilization reserves for utilities performance measure targets: • F2 Measure: Rate Stabilization Reserve levels • F2 Target: Adequate to cover cost uncertainties over a two year period while meeting rate stability objective. Proposed changes: • F2 Measure: Operations Reserve levels • F2 Target: Within guidelines in Council-adopted long-term Financial Plans. Consistent with the new financial plans and reserve structure, CPAU proposes replacing the reserves referred to in the performance measure from the Rate Stabilization Reserves to the Operations Reserves. In addition, the proposed new performance target refers to the guidelines in the Council-adopted long-term financial plans. In June 2014, Council approved the new Utilities Financial Plans for the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection and Water Funds (Staff Report 4799) including changes to the reserves management practices. This change will ensure that the Utilities Strategic Plan is consistent with the reserves structure and guidelines in the Financial Plans. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Strategic Objective Staff proposes removing one strategic objective and performance measure under this perspective. • F4 Objective: Provide a fair return to the City. • F4 Measure: Equity transfer to the City’s General Fund. Proposed change: • Staff proposes to remove Item F4 “Provide a fair return to the City” from the Utilities Strategic Plan. The City’s current equity transfer methodology was adopted in 2009. The methodology remains unchanged since adoption, and is derived through a formula that requires no strategic actions by staff, making continued monitoring unnecessary. Strategic Initiatives There are two strategic initiatives under the financial perspective and staff recommends removing one since it has been completed and amending the other. • F2: Develop a comprehensive Utilities financial policy by January 2014 to provide direction for future cost of service studies and rate-setting priorities. Staff proposes removing this strategic initiative since it has been completed. In June 2014, Council approved the new Utilities Financial Plans for the Electric, Gas, Wastewater Collection and Water Funds (Staff Report 4799) including long-term financial forecasts and changes to the reserves management practices. Consistent with the City Auditor’s Reserve Audit recommendation, CPAU has established formal and comprehensive policies and procedures for reserves management. • F3: By the end of 2011, evaluate the appropriate fraction of fixed costs that should be collected by fixed charges versus volumetric charges. Proposed change: • F3: Complete Electric cost of service analysis (COSA) by end of CY 2015. Staff proposes changing this objective to be more consistent with current requirements that rates be supported by cost of service studies. Staff proposes replacing the initiative with “Complete Electric cost of service analysis (COSA) by end of CY 2015.” COSAs have recently been completed for the gas, water, and wastewater utilities. However, an electric COSA has not been completed recently and electric rates have not been changed since July 1, 2009. Commission Review and Recommendation On March 4, 2015, the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed and supported the staff recommendations on changes to the Utilities Strategic Plan. The UAC proposed one change to the performance target for the employee satisfaction survey. The employee satisfaction City of Palo Alto Page 18 improvement will be measured against prior year’s rating instead of the 2011 baseline because the year-to-year comparison will be a more effective measure reflecting the current workplace environment. The changes recommended do not represent a major shift in strategic direction, but are updates to the plan to clarify certain objectives, remove completed strategic initiatives, and add new initiatives. Resource Impact There is no resource impact associated with the proposed changes to the Utilities Strategic Plan. The changes were anticipated and were incorporated into CPAU’s work plans. Policy Implications The recommendations described in this report represent changes to the Council-approved Utilities Strategic Plan. Environmental Review Neither the proposed changes to the Utilities Strategic Plan, nor the receipt of the six month Utilities Strategic Plan performance update is subject to California Environmental Quality Act review because they do not meet the definition of a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065. Attachments: Attachment A: 2011 Utilities Strategic Plan as Updated of Dec 2014 (PDF) Attachment B: Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Results_Jul-Dec2014 (PDF) Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 1 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative Customer and Community Perspective C1. “I receive safe and reliable service.” Customers expect that Utilities services are provided on a continuous basis, without interruption. In addition, customers expect that the Utilities delivery systems are safe and will not harm them or put them in any danger. We will listen to our customers and seek to understand their reliability and safety concerns and implement programs and projects to address them. Average time to restore service per interrupted customer Less than 90 minutes Number of electric system interruptions per year for average customer Ranks in the top quartile nationwide (less than 0.9) C2. “Be responsive to all my utilities‐ related service needs.” We understand that the customer wants clear, accurate bills with easy methods of payment; access to usage history and enough understanding to efficiently manage usage; to feel quickly and completely “taken care of” when they have concerns, questions or requests and to be communicated with effectively both as individuals and as CPAU’s owners. One of the ways to achieve this is to elicit feedback from customers to help improve service. Customer satisfaction scores on annual surveys for overall value. Residential and commercial surveys alternate every other year. Ranking in the top two utilities statewide Establish mechanisms to elicit customer feedback on their satisfaction with all interactions with CPAU. C3. “I expect to pay a reasonable bill” We understand that customers expect their bills to be comparable to those in surrounding communities and do not expect to pay more than PG&E customers. Customers believe it is reasonable to pay slightly more in exchange for increased reliability, safety and protection of the environment. However, customers’ overall bills for Utilities services must remain reasonable and be reasonably stable and should not increase significantly in any one year. Customers also want their bills to provide useful information about their consumption of resources in addition to the rate so that they can The average combined residential customer bill for electricity, water, gas, and wastewater services Less than the average of bills for comparable services in nearby communities (MP, MV, SC, Hayward, RC, Roseville, and Alameda). Improve the electronic bill presentment, payment functionality and enhance the utility’s online capabilities. Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 2 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative understand how they can influence their total cost for Utilities services. For natural gas service, Palo Alto’s supply cost has been relatively stable due to a laddered gas portfolio purchasing strategy; however, this strategy needs to be re‐evaluated as gas prices are currently low and are projected to stay low for the foreseeable future. Although, the average bill for all services should be comparable to those in surrounding communities, staff will continue to monitor and report the bills for each service separately on a quarterly basis. Annual rate change Maximum of 10% per year for electric and wastewater services. Maximum of 20% per year for water service. C4. “Care for our environment” Our community wants its customer‐owned utility to offer choices for them to manage their resource use in ways that reflect their environmental values. Utilities will improve existing programs and develop new programs to meet customer needs and allow customers to manage their own environmental footprint. Percentage of customers participating in the PaloAltoGreen Gas program 20% of customers Re‐evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of electrification especially for new construction and evaluate whether new programs or incentives can or should be offered, consistent with all applicable legal requirements. Percentage of Greenhouse gas reductions 10% GHG reductions Internal Business Process Perspective Safety and Reliability BP1. Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources We will implement strategies that ensure the reliable supply of utility resources to meet present and future needs. To provide opportunities for economic development within Palo Alto, we must provide sufficient resources that meet the short and long‐term needs of our customers. To achieve this we will maintain the utility system components, and provide for Duration of electric system interruption per year for average customer Ranks in the top quartile nationwide (less than 60 minutes per customer) Develop a plan to complete a new electric transmission interconnection. Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 3 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative adequate utility resource supplies to our current and future customers. We will also develop new management practices and organizational structure to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Response time to all emergency calls Under 30 minutes Complete the Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP) including a comprehensive evaluation of the use of groundwater by end of CY 2015. BP2. Operate the utility systems safely We will continue to ensure the safety of our customers, employees and the community by the ongoing implementation of a safety programs. Protecting customers and employees from injury and customer’s property from damage is essential for delivering quality utility services to our customers. The safety programs will be implemented by updating safety procedures, educating customers via outreach materials and workshops, correcting system deficiencies, operating in accordance with existing safety rules, and ensuring that products delivered to customers are safe. AGA (American Gas Association) Incidence Rate Zero reportable incidents Customer awareness of gas safety issues 90% of customers responding to annual gas customer safety awareness survey BP3. Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life We will continue to implement a long‐term strategy for replacing infrastructure before the end of its useful life. Reliable delivery of utility services to our customers is critical for the success of business and the quality of life for our residents. To accomplish this, we will focus on reducing any backlog of infrastructure work and replace infrastructure systems in a manner that spreads the expense across multiple years resulting in program with even expenditures patterns in future years when possible. Backlog of infrastructure elements whose ages are beyond their useful lives. Zero Complete long range Gas and Water master infrastructure plans by end of CY2015. Customer Service Excellence BP4. Serve customers promptly and We will provide customers with the highly responsive service they desire. We will do this by reviewing and improving our processes for managing accounts, handling payments, resolving billing issues, responding to Average phone wait time Less than 90 seconds Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 4 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative completely information and field service requests and notifying customers during service disruptions. We will identify ways to streamline these processes and implement changes. Specifically, we will review, document and improve business processes that have been identified as having long customer response times. Number of billing adjustments 10% reduction from number in 2009. BP5. Communic ate clearly and pro‐actively with all our stakeholders We will proactively communicate with all our stakeholders, including all customer groups, civic leaders, community groups and the press. To achieve this objective we will provide the information needed for our stakeholders to effectively access, understand and utilize all utilities services and programs. In addition, we will design communication vehicles and dissemination processes that will enable our residents to be educated owners of their municipal utilities system. Time until informing the public and local media of a disruption affecting all sensitive major customers Less than 60 minutes after becoming aware of a disruption BP6. Offer programs to meet the needs of customers and the community We will assist customers to lower their cost of utilities services and support the environment. We will assist customers facing economic hardship by offering bill payment assistance programs. We will educate customers on the reasons for and their means of compliance with our safety and regulatory requirements. We will also identify all customer groups, identify any gaps in service provision to those customers, and propose new programs or changes to existing programs to close those gaps. Participant* satisfaction with Utilities programs (*rebate recipients, workshop attendees, callers, etc.) At least 90% of program participants satisfied with their experience Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 5 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative Reduce Costs BP7. Negotiate supply contracts to minimize financial risk We will continue to negotiate supply contracts to acquire supply resources while managing supply portfolio cost uncertainty to meet rate and reserve objectives and following sound risk management practices. To ensure that we are buying commodities at as competitive prices as possible, we will negotiate contracts with new counterparties to continue to have a sufficient set of credit‐worthy trading partners. We will continue to develop long‐ term acquisition policies and plans (LEAP) and update those plans at least every three years. We will also determine all that is necessary to execute a gas prepay transaction as that is one clear way to lower the cost of gas supply resources. Number of competitive bids received for each fixed‐price transaction. Minimum of three bids for electric power Participate actively in Northern California Power Agency’s (NCPA) on‐going allocation of cost, including new cost allocation studies if undertaken, to ensure that the City’s costs are fair. Evaluate alternative providers for services provided by NCPA as appropriate. BP8. Reduce cost of delivering service through best management practices We will reduce the cost of delivering service to customers. We will identify opportunities to better coordinate between Utilities and other City departments to improve efficient delivery of services. We will perform benchmarking studies to identify potential modifications to procedures, practices, materials, and plans and to ensure that we are following best practices. One best practice is to increase calibration and replacement schedules for gas and water meters since the meters slow over time causing actual usage to be under‐recorded, resulting in lost revenue. “lost and unaccounted for” volumes of gas and water 80% of 2009 levels. Complete Water benchmarking study by end of FY 2015. Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 6 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative BP9. Maximize value of existing generation assets Palo Alto owns significant supply resource assets including a portion of the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, a contract with the Western Area Power Administration, a permanent allocation of water from the regional water system managed by San Francisco, and allocated capacity on a gas transportation pipeline. We will seek out both daily and operational and long‐term opportunities to optimize the value of these assets to enhance revenue and/or to reduce costs. We will work with joint‐owners of our resource assets to leverage those resources and advocate to maintain or improve the value of existing resources into the future (LEAP and GULP strategies). Value harvested from Redwood gas pipeline capacity 100% BP10. Manage implementation of strategic plan Completing the strategic plan is only the beginning of getting value from the strategic planning process. Ongoing management of the strategies and initiatives and reporting on progress of those initiatives is essential to achieving positive results from the strategy. We will report to the UAC and Council on this plan’s progress twice annually and we will review and revise the objectives and develop new initiatives on an annual basis. Number of strategic initiatives completed 100% Environmental Sustainability BP11. Increase the environmental sustainability of all Utilities activities Adding sustainable resources to the supply portfolios will help the City meet its Climate Protection Plan goals by reducing the carbon footprint of the utility services provided to our customers. We will achieve this by acquiring renewable resources and promoting the development of local renewable resources within the rate objectives in the Long‐term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). Sustainable practices will be pursued not just for the supply portfolios, but across all the Utilities day‐to‐day operations. Meet the state’s 20% per capita water use reduction by 2020 target 20% by 2020 Complete EIR and financial plan for expanding recycled water system BP12. Promote efficient use of resources Resource efficiency programs meet our customers’ desire for environmental solutions that save money as well as contributing towards the Climate Protection Plan goals. We will promote resource efficiency by dedicating the tactical staffing and budgetary resources necessary to reach maximum Actual electric energy efficiency achievement At least as high as goals Council set in December 2012 Include all cost effective water efficiency measures in 2015 Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 7 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative deployment of economically feasible resource efficiency. We will revise and document our long‐term efficiency strategies by updating our 10‐year Energy Efficiency goals every three years and updating our water efficiency goals every five years in the Urban Water Management Plan. To maximize the savings potential for new development, coordinate with the City’s Economic Development Manager to ensure that new developments incorporate energy saving features in the design phase. Actual gas energy efficiency achievement At least as high as goals Council set in December 2012 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). People and Technology Perspective PT1. Be an attractive place to work We will create a positive values‐based work environment which attracts and retains qualified staff. To achieve this objective we will try to better understand employees desires and incentives, and will articulate our values both internally and as we recruit. Employee satisfaction rating Improvement from prior year’s level PT2. Obtain, develop and train employees to ensure an adequate and qualified workforce A properly sized, trained and certified workforce is essential to our effectiveness. We will identify skill and staffing gaps at the individual and organizational levels and seek to fill those gaps through the effective use of opportunities including hiring, mentorship programs, role rotations, knowledge transfer opportunities, long‐term developmental assignments and both internal and external training opportunities. We will plan for workforce succession and provide cross‐training opportunities for employees to improve employee satisfaction and build a more robust work force. Percentage of operations personnel that has appropriate certification and training required for working in all areas they may be assigned 100% Update the 5‐year succession plan for each division. PT3. Ensure employees have adequate tools to perform job duties As major users of technology assets, we must have access to quality and timely delivered IT services. We must build and maintain an effective relationship with the City’s IT division that includes clear, frequent communication as well as productive coordination. We will collaborate with IT to identify barriers to providing support for technology projects and remove them. In those instances in which our immediate technology needs cannot be addressed by the City’s IT division in a timely or sufficiently‐ comprehensive fashion, we will utilize external expertise. Employees have adequate tools and training to perform their jobs 100% of employees Develop a Utilities‐specific smart grid and IT strategic plan. Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 8 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative PT4. Investigate and adopt innovative technologies Our customers value Utilities embracing new technologies that will help reduce costs and/or meet Climate Protection Plan goals. We will innovate by researching technologies and cultivating relationships with entrepreneurs and academics to identify new cost‐effective and environmentally sustainable technologies to consider adopting. New technologies, programs, and projects identified in the smart grid strategic plan will be implemented. Number of new technologies evaluated per year by an in‐depth study or pilot project Three Financial Perspective F1. Maintain financial strength Maintaining a high credit rating reduces the cost of borrowing if needed for capital projects. We will continue best practices for financial management, adhere to energy risk management policies and guidelines to minimize financial risk, and maintain sufficient reserves to cover debt obligations as required to retain CPAU’s current favorable bond rating so that the cost of capital is low for any bond funded capital projects. Credit rating At least AA as determined by Fitch Ratings or Standard and Poor’s or at least Aa3 as determined by Moody’s F2. Maintain adequate reserves Maintaining adequate cash reserves contributes to maintaining our overall financial health and retaining our current favorable bond rating. We will maintain Rate Stabilization Reserves levels within Council‐approved guidelines and sufficient to provide rate stability as desired by ratepayers. During the annual budget and rate setting process, the risks that each Utilities fund is exposed to will be identified along with the trajectory of costs and revenues to allow Council to determine appropriate reserve levels and rate adjustments. Operations Reserve levels Within guidelines in Council‐adopted long‐term Financial Plans Utilities Strategic Plan – Strategic Objectives Approved by Council July 18, 2011 (Staff Report 1880) Updated by Council August 5, 2013 (Staff Report 3950) Updated by Council May 11, 2015 (Staff Report 5709) 9 Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Strategic Initiative F3. Implement rate structures that balance cost of service and resource conservation Retail rates should be designed so that the revenues from a customer group match the cost to serve those customers. Rates consist of fixed charges and volumetric charges, which are based on usage. Fixed costs consist of customer‐related costs (meter reading, billing, etc.) and costs related to capital projects and operations while variable costs include the cost of buying supplies (water, gas, or electricity). When fixed costs are recovered through charges based on usage, costs will not be recovered if customers reduce usage more than projected. To address this problem we will examine alternate rate structures that strike a balance between the two competing objectives (cost of service and resource efficiency) to ensure that certain fixed costs are recovered with a fixed charge, but other costs are recovered with charges that vary depending on usage (volumetric charges). Complete Electric cost of service analysis (COSA) by end of CY 2015. 10 Maintain adequate reservesMaintain financial strength Implement rate structures that balance cost of service and resource conservation Fi n a n c i a l Re s o u r c e s Pe o p l e a n d Te c h n o l o g y Be an attractive place to work Obtain, develop and train employees to ensure an adequate and qualified workforce Ensure employees have adequate tools to perform job duties Values: Honesty and Integrity Teamwork Accountability Quality of Service “Be responsive to all my Utilities services- related needs” “I receive safe and reliable service” “I expect to pay a reasonable bill” “Care for our environment” Vision: We Deliver Extraordinary Value to Our Customers Strategic Destination: We will earn the high satisfaction of our customers with our cost- competitive provision of safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable utility services Cu s t o m e r Operate the Utilities systems safely Reliability and Safety Customer Service Excellence Manage Cost Environmental Sustainability Serve customers promptly and completely Offer programs to meet the needs of customers and the community Communicate clearly and proactively with all our stakeholders Negotiate supply contracts to minimize financial risk Reduce cost of delivering service through best management practices In t e r n a l B u s i n e s s P r o c e s s e s Increase the environmental sustainability of all Utilities operations Promote efficient use of resources Investigate and adopt innovative technologies Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life Maximize value of existing generation assets Manage implementation of strategic plan Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) C1.1 C1. “I receive safe and reliable service.” Customers expect that Utilities services are provided on a continuous basis, without interruption. In addition, customers expect that the Utilities delivery systems are safe and will not harm them or put them in any danger. We will listen to our customers and seek to understand their reliability and safety concerns and implement programs and projects to address them. Average time to restore service per interrupted customer Less than 90 minutes <90 132 min 161 min 113 min 139 min 38.69 114.38 - C1.2 Number of electric system interruptions per year for average customer Ranks in the top quartile nationwide (less than 3)<0.9 0.39 0.41 0.13 0.25 0.41 0.002 + C2 C2. “Be responsive to all my utilities-related service needs.” We understand that the customer wants clear, accurate bills with easy methods of payment; access to usage history and enough understanding to efficiently manage usage; to feel quickly and completely “taken care of” when they have concerns, questions or requests and to be communicated with effectively both as individuals and as CPAU’s owners. One of the ways to achieve this is to elicit feedback from customers to help improve service. Customer satisfaction scores on annual surveys for overall value.Ranking in 85-90%>85% 78% Commercial 65% Residential 81% Commercial 86% Residential 80% of all Water Customers 87% Commercial + C3.1 C3. “I expect to pay a reasonable bill” We understand that customers expect their bills to be comparable to those in surrounding communities and do not expect to pay more than PG&E customers. Customers believe it is reasonable to pay slightly more in exchange for increased reliability, safety and protection of the environment. However, customers’ overall bills for Utilities services must remain reasonable and should not increase significantly in any one year. Customers also want their bills to provide useful information about their consumption of resources in addition to the rate so that they can understand how they can influence their total cost for Utilities services. The average combined residential customer bill for electricity, water, gas, and wastewater services. Less than the average of bills for comparable services in nearby communities (MP, MV, SC, Hayward, RC, Roseville, and Alameda). Total bill calculation for each month for CPAU and for comparator agencies - this changes every year so Measure Goal Value is not a constant CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $51.03 W - $43.89 WW - $24.65 Tot - $162.33 Nearby community average: $142.34 CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $51.03 W - $43.89 WW - $24.65 Tot - $162.33 Nearby community average: $152.00 CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $51.03 W - $51.19 WW - $27.91 Tot - $172.89 Nearby community average: $158.93 CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $37.49 W - $62.16 WW - $29.31 Tot - $171.72 Nearby community average: $166.35 CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $38.89 W - $67.35 WW - $29.31 Tot - $178.31 Nearby community average: $177.06 CPAU: E - $42.76 G - $37.39 W - $67.35 WW - $29.31 Tot - $176.81 Nearby community average: $187.05 + C3.2 Annual rate change Maximum of 10% per year for electric, gas, and wastewater Utilities service. Maximum of 20% per year for water Utility service. <10% for E, G, WWC <20% for W Effective 7/1/09: E +10% G -10% W +5% WW +5% Effective 7/1/10: E 0% G 0% W 0% WW 0% Effective 7/1/11: E 0% G 0% W 12.5% WW 0% Effective 7/1/12: E 0% G -10%* W 15% WW 5% *Gas supply rates change monthly Effective 7/1/13: E 0% G 0%* W 7% WW 0% *Gas supply rates change monthly Effective 7/1/14: E 0% G 0%* W 0% WW 0% *Gas supply rates change monthly + C4 C4. “Care for our environment” Our community wants its customer-owned utility to offer choices for them to manage their resource use in ways that reflect their environmental values. Utilities will improve existing programs and develop new programs to meet customer needs and allow customers to manage their own environmental footprint. Percentage of customers participating in the PaloAltoGreen program Top rank nationally Top rank nationally 22%21%24% 18% - top rank nationally 18% - top rank nationally N/A N/A Customer and Community Perspective 1 Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) BP1.1 BP1. Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources We will implement strategies that ensure the reliable supply of utility resources to meet present and future needs. To provide opportunities for economic development within Palo Alto, we must provide sufficient resources that meet the short and long-term needs of our customers. To achieve this we will maintain the utility system components, and provide for adequate utility resource supplies to our current and future customers. We will also develop new management practices and organizational structure to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Duration of electric system interruption per year for average customer Ranks in the top quartile nationwide (less than 60 minutes per customer) <60 52 min 66 min 15 min 34 min 15.78 min 23 min + BP1.2 Response time to all emergency calls Under 30 minutes <30m 31 min 27 min 22 min 23 min 22 min 20 min + BP2.1 BP2. Operate the utility systems safely We will continue to ensure the safety of our customers, employees and the community by the ongoing implementation of a safety programs. Protecting customers and employees from injury and customer’s property from damage is essential for delivering quality utility services to our customers. The safety programs will be implemented by updating safety procedures, educating customers via outreach materials and workshops, correcting system deficiencies, operating in accordance with existing safety rules, and ensuring that products delivered to customers are safe. AGA (American Gas Association) Incidence Rate Zero reportable incidents 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 + BP2.2 Customer awareness of gas safety issues 90% of customers responding to annual gas customer safety awareness survey >90%97.70%97.50%96.70%96%96%94.6%+ BP3 BP3. Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life We will continue to implement a long-term strategy for replacing infrastructure before the end of its useful life. Reliable delivery of electric service to our customers is critical for the success of business and the quality of life for our residents. To accomplish this, we will focus on reducing the backlog and replaces infrastructure systems in a manner that spreads the expense across multiple years resulting in program with even expenditures patterns in future years. Backlog of infrastructure elements whose age is beyond its useful life Zero E - $0 G - $0 W - $0 WWC - $0 NA E - $6M G - $12M W - $3.1M WW - $8.5M E - $7M G - $1M W - $3M WW - $5M E $7M G $0M W $7M WC $5M E $6.4M G $0M W $4M WW $3M Annual Measure N/A Internal Business Process Perspective Safety and Reliability 2 Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) BP4.1 BP4. Serve customers promptly and completely We will provide customers with the highly responsive service they desire. We will do this by reviewing and improving our processes for managing accounts, handling payments, resolving billing issues, responding to information and field service requests and notifying customers during service disruptions. We will identify ways to streamline these processes and implement changes. Specifically, we will review, document and improve business processes that have been identified as having long customer response times.Average phone wait time 90 seconds or less <90 sec 70 sec 90 sec 134 sec 107 sec 63 sec 61 sec + BP4.2 Number of billing adjustments 10% reduction from number in 2009 FY09 - 3286 90% - 2,958 2,313 909 1,365 1,340 2,743 849 + BP5 BP5. Communicate clearly and pro- actively with all our stakeholders We will proactively communicate with all our stakeholders, including all customer groups, civic leaders, community groups and the press. To achieve this objective we will provide the information needed for our stakeholders to effectively access, understand and utilize all utilities services and programs. In addition, we will design communication vehicles and dissemination processes that will enable our residents to be educated owners of their municipal utilities system. Time until informing the public and local media of a disruption affecting at least 500 customers or any sensitive major customers Less than 60 minutes after becoming aware of a disruption <60m < 90 min < 90 min < 90 min <30 Min <30 Min <30 Min + BP6 BP6. Offer programs to meet the needs of customers and the community We will assist customers to lower their cost of utilities services and support the environment. We will assist customers facing economic hardship by offering bill payment assistance programs. We will educate customers on the reasons for and their means of compliance with our safety and regulatory requirements. We will also identify all customer groups, identify any gaps in service provision to those customers, and propose new programs or changes to existing programs to close those gaps. Participant* satisfaction with Utilities programs (*rebate recipients, workshop attendees, callers, etc.) At least 90% of program participants satisfied with their experience >90%N/A 95% Average of all workshops: 94% Average of all workshop: 95% Average of all workshop: 95% Average of all workshop: 95%+ BP7 BP7. Negotiate supply contracts to minimize financial risk We will continue to negotiate supply contracts to acquire supply resources while managing supply portfolio cost uncertainty to meet rate and reserve objectives and following sound risk management practices. To ensure that we are buying commodities at as competitive prices as possible, we will negotiate contracts with new counterparties to continue to have a sufficient set of credit-worthy trading partners. We will continue to develop long-term acquisition policies and plans (LEAP) and update those plans at least every three years. We will also determine all that is necessary to execute a gas prepay transaction as that is one clear way to lower the cost of gas supply resources. Number of competitive bids received for each fixed-price transaction. Minimum of three electric bids > 3 E - 3.0 bids G - 2.7 bids E - 2.5 bids G - 1.9 bids E - 2.75 bids E - 2.4 E - 3.5 bids E - 5.0 bids + BP8 BP8. Reduce cost of delivering service through best management practices We will work towards reducing the cost of delivering service to customers. We will identify opportunities to better coordinate between Utilities and other City departments to improve efficient delivery of services. We will perform benchmarking studies to identify potential modifications to procedures, practices, materials, and plans and to ensure that we are following best practices. One best practice is to increase calibration and replacement schedules for gas and water meters since the meters slow over time so that the actual usage is under-recorded, resulting in lost revenue. “lost and unaccounted for” volumes of gas and water 80% of 2009 levels. 2009 G - 2.6% W - 5.0% G - 3.2% W - 7.6% G - 2.9% W - 8.2% G - 2.8% W - 8.2% G-2.1% W-7.8% G-2.5% W-8.6% Annual Measure N/A Reduce Costs Customer Service Excellence 3 Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) BP9 BP9. Maximize value of existing generation assets Palo Alto owns significant supply resource assets including a portion of the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project, a contract with the Western Area Power Administration, a permanent allocation of water from the regional water system managed by San Francisco, and allocated capacity on a gas transportation pipeline. We will seek out both daily and operational and long-term opportunities to optimize the value of these assets to enhance revenue and/or to reduce costs. We will work with joint-owners of our resource assets to leverage those resources and advocate to maintain or improve the value of existing resources into the future (LEAP and GULP strategies). Value harvested from Redwood gas pipeline capacity 100%100%97%99%99%100%100%100%+ BP10 BP10. Manage implementation of strategic plan Completing the strategic plan is only the beginning of getting value from the strategic planning process. Ongoing management of the strategies and initiatives and reporting on progress of those initiatives is essential to achieving positive results from the strategy. We will report to the UAC and Council on plan progress twice annually and we will review and revise the objectives and develop new initiatives on an annual basis. Number of strategic initiatives completed 100%100%N/A 3 8 8 10 13 - BP11 BP11. Increase the environmental sustainability of the supply portfolios Adding sustainable resources to the supply portfolios will help the City meet its Climate Protection Plan goals by reducing the carbon footprint of the utility services provided to our customers. We will achieve this by acquiring renewable resources and promoting the development of local renewable resources within the rate objectives in the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (LEAP). Carbon intensity of the electric portfolio 80% of baseline (2005) level (320.9)256.7 331.9 159.8 182.1 249.9 0 (due to implementation of Carbon Neutral Plan) 0 (due to implementation of Carbon Neutral Plan)+ BP12 BP12. Promote efficient use of resources Resource efficiency programs meet our customers’ desire for environmental solutions that save money as well as contributing towards the Climate Protection Plan goals. We will promote resource efficiency by dedicating the tactical staffing and budgetary resources necessary to reach maximum deployment of economically feasible resource efficiency. We will revise and document our long- term efficiency strategies by updating our 10-year Energy Efficiency goals every three years and updating our water efficiency goals every five years in the Urban Water Management Plan. Actual annual energy efficiency achievement as percentage of electric and gas load E - At least as high as annual electric efficiency goal G - At least as high as annual gas efficiency goal E - 0.60% G - 0.50% E - 0.47% G - 0.28% E - 0.55% G - 0.40% E - 1.52% G - 0.73% E - .85% G - 1.13% E - .87% G - 1.16%Annual Measure N/A Environmental Sustainability 4 Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) PT1 PT1. Be an attractive place to work We will create a positive values-based work environment which attracts and retains qualified staff. To achieve this objective we will try to better understand employees desires, work with City management to establish sufficient compensation, benefits, and incentives, and will articulate our values both internally and as we recruit.Employee satisfaction rating Improvement from 2011 basline level 100%N/A N/A 62.7% - Satisfied 12.7% - Neutral 66.3% - Satisfied 12.5% - Neutral 72.5%- Satisfied 5%- Neutral 62.4%- Satisfied 15.6%- Neutral - PT2 PT2. Develop and train employees to ensure a qualified workforce A properly trained and certified workforce is essential to our effectiveness. We will identify skill gaps at the individual and organizational levels and seek to fill those gaps through the effective use of opportunities including mentorship programs, role rotations, knowledge transfer opportunities and both internal and external training opportunities. We will plan for workforce succession and provide cross-training opportunities for employees to improve employee satisfaction and build a more robust work force Percentage of operations personnel that has appropriate certification and training required for working in all areas they may be assigned 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%+ PT3 PT3. Ensure employees have adequate tools to perform job duties As major users of technology assets, we must have access to quality and timely delivered IT services. We must build and maintain an effective relationship with the City’s IT division that includes clear, frequent communication as well as productive coordination. We will collaborate with IT to identify barriers to providing support for technology projects and remove them. In those instances in which our immediate technology needs cannot be addressed by the City’s IT division in a timely or sufficiently-comprehensive fashion, we will utilize external expertise.Technology needs being met 100% for all Utilities work groups 100%N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - PT4 PT4. Investigate and adopt innovative technologies Our customers value Utilities embracing new technologies that will help reduce costs and/or meet Climate Protection Plan goals. We will innovate by researching technologies and cultivating relationships with entrepreneurs and academics to identify new cost-effective and environmentally sustainable technologies to consider adopting. Review of Utilities Technology needs was completed in 2014 and a technology strategic plan is expected to be completed by the end of CY 2015. New technologies, programs, and projects identified in the plan will be implemented in the subsequent years. Number of new technologies evaluated per year Three >3 N/A N/A N/A 13 15 7 + People and Technology Perspective 5 Balanced Scorecard Performance Measure Reults Attachment - B Measure ID Strategic Objective Objective Statement Performance Measure 2015 Target Measure Goal Value FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 July - Dec FY 2015 Score (Values: +, - , TBD) F1 F1. Maintain financial strength Maintaining a high credit rating reduces the cost of borrowing if needed for capital projects. We will continue best practices for financial management, adhere to energy risk management policies and guidelines and maintain sufficient reserves to cover debt obligations as required to retain CPAU’s current favorable bond rating so that the cost of capital is low for any bond funded capital projects.Credit rating At least AA as determined by Fitch Ratings or Standard and Poor’s or at least Aa3 as determined by Moody’s <=AA or <=Aa3 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa3 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa2 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa2 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa2 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa2 S&P = AAA Moody's = Aa2 + F2 F2. Maintain adequate reserves Maintaining adequate cash reserves contributes to maintaining our overall financial health and retaining our current favorable bond rating. We will maintain Rate Stabilization Reserves levels within Council-approved guidelines and sufficient to provide rate stability as desired by ratepayers. During the annual budget and rate setting process, the risks that each Utilities fund is exposed to will be identified along with the trajectory of costs and revenues to allow Council to determine appropriate reserve levels and rate adjustments. Rate Stabilization Reserve levels Adequate to cover expected costs over a two-year period while meeting rate stability objective Above rate stabilization reserve levels All RSRs are above mininum guideline levels. All RSRs are above mininum guideline levels. All RSRs are above mininum guideline levels. All RSRs are above mininum guideline levels. All RSRs are above mininum guideline levels. All reserves are within Operations reserve guideline levels.+ F3 F3. Implement rate structures that balance cost of service and resource conservation Retail rates should be designed so that the revenues from a customer group match the cost to serve those customers. Rates consist of fixed charges and volumetric charges, which are based on usage. Fixed costs consist of customer- related costs (meter reading, billing, etc.) and costs related to capital projects and operations while variable costs include the cost of buying supplies (water, gas, or electricity). When fixed costs are recovered through charges based on usage, costs will not be recovered if customers reduce usage more than projected. To address this problem we will implement rate structures that strike a balance between the two competing objectives (cost of service and resource efficiency) to ensure that certain fixed costs are recovered with a fixed charge, but other costs are recovered with charges that vary depending on usage (volumetric charges).Fixed charges on Utilities rates By 2013, adequate to cover 100% of the fixed costs of meter reading, billing, and other customer-related costs E - 100% G - 100% W - 100% WWC - 100%N/A E - NA G - NA W - 50% WWC - 100% E - NA G - 100% W - 100% WWC - 100% E - NA G - 100% W - 100% WWC - 100% E - NA G - 100% W - 100% WWC - 100% E - NA G - 100% W - 100% WWC - 100%- F4 F4. Provide a fair return to the City CPAU provides an equity transfer to the City of Palo Alto's General Fund which provides a return on the City's original investment in the Utilities and reflects the City's ultimate responsibility for Utilities operations. Council approved the current equity transfer method in May 2009. The equity transfer is used by the General Fund as determined by the City Council and supports activities such as fire, police and library services to the City residents and businesses. This benefit, along with favorable rates and utility services, is a key value provided to the community from municipal ownership of Utilities. Equity transfer to the City's General Fund 100% of the transfer as calculated by the Council-approved equity transfer methodology and permitted by law.100%100%100%100%100%100%100%+ Financial Perspective 6 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5724) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Resolution Implementing Water Use Restrictions Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board's March 17, 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regu lations From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) amending the City of Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Attachment B) in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board’s March 17, 2015 emergency water conservation regulations (Attachment C). Executive Summary In response to the ongoing California drought and the impending expiration of its current emergency drought regulation, on March 17, 2015 the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted an expanded emergency water use regulation. The decision by the SWRCB extends the restrictions it adopted on July 15, 2014 and adds several new specific actions regarding water use, all of which will be in effect at least until December 23, 2015. In general, the regulation requires that, by May 11, 2015, urban water suppliers such as the City of Palo Alto impose mandatory restrictions on the number of days per week that customers may irrigate ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water, promptly notify customers about water leaks under their control, and submit monthly water monitoring reports to the SWRCB. The attached resolution complies with the SWRCB’s March 17 emergency regulation and continues the City’s education-focused enforcement process that Council authorized last September for violations of these restrictions. The resolution also directs the City Manager to establish detailed procedures for implementation of the mandatory irrigation restrictions by May 11 in support of the new restrictions. Additional restrictions imposed by the SWRCB this summer are likely, given the April 1, 2015 Executive Order issued by the Governor directing the SRWCB to develop more regulations regarding water use, including a mandatory 25% reduction of urban potable water use for the State as a whole. Draft regulations provided by the SWRCB indicate that the City will be City of Palo Alto Page 2 required to reduce potable water use by 24%. Given the magnitude of the mandatory potable water use reduction, it is unlikely staff will recommend lifting the limit on the number of days per week that outdoor irrigation is allowed even if the SWRCB’s final regulations do not directly require urban water suppliers to implement days per week restrictions. Staff may return to Council with recommended actions when the additional regulations are adopted by the SWRCB. Background On January 17, 2014, in response to the ongoing dry conditions, Governor Brown issued a drought emergency proclamation and asked for all Californians to reduce water use by 20%. The City of Palo Alto purchases 100% of its potable water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System (RWS). Like many water systems in the state, the RWS is affected by the ongoing dry conditions, and on January 31, 2014, the SFPUC asked its retail and wholesale1 customers to voluntarily curtail water consumption by 10%. On April 25, 2014 Governor Brown issued an Executive Order directing the SWRCB to adopt emergency drought regulations, as it deemed necessary. On July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted emergency drought regulations that prohibited all Californians from using potable water for activities such as driveway washing, irrigation that results in runoff, or in decorative fountains (with certain limited exceptions), and required urban water suppliers to activate the sections of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans, an element of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), that restrict outdoor irrigation. Violations could result in penalties of up to $500 per day for individuals and could include larger fines for water agencies that failed to implement outdoor irrigation restrictions. On August 4, 2014, City Council adopted Resolution 9449 implementing outdoor water use restrictions in compliance with the SWRCB’s emergency drought regulations, and on September 15, 2014, Council adopted Resolution 9460 establishing the associated enforcement process. The water restrictions adopted in Resolution 9449 remained in effect for 270 days, or as extended by the SWRCB. At its March 17, 2015 meeting, in response to the ongoing California drought and the imminent expiration of the 2014 emergency drought regulations, the SWRCB adopted a resolution that extends the emergency regulations adopted in 2014 for 270 days. In addition, the SWRCB expanded the water use regulations to ban outdoor irrigation with potable water within 48 hours of a measureable rain, prohibit eating or drinking establishments from offering water to customers unless requested, and require hotels and motels to provide guests with the choice to opt out of linen laundry services. Urban water suppliers like the City are required to take the following additional actions: 1) Impose mandatory restrictions on the number of days per week that customers may irrigate ornamental landscapes2 or turf with potable water; 1 The Wholesale Customers are the 24 cities and water districts, and two private utilities that purchase water wholesale from the San Francisco regional water system. These entities provide water to 1.7 million people, businesses and community organizations in Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. 2 Ornamental landscapes refer to decorative landscaping, to be distinguished from edible gardens or landscaping that provides a function beyond aesthetics. City of Palo Alto Page 3 2) Provide prompt notice to customers whenever the supplier obtains information that a leak may exist within the end-user’s exclusive control. 3) Prepare and submit water use monitoring reports to the SWRCB monthly. Since the City already notifies customers of water leaks and has a SWRCB reporting process in place, staff’s focus on the proposed resolution was implementation of the new outdoor irrigation restrictions. On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued another Executive Order directing the SWRCB to develop more regulations regarding water use, including a mandatory 25% reduction of urban potable water use for the State (Attachment D). On April 18, 2015, the SWRCB released its draft regulation (Attachment E) and proposal for urban water supplier usage tiers (Attachment F). Under the proposal, the water use reduction target for the City of Palo Alto is 24% less than 2013 usage. The SWRCB’s expedited schedule for the development and adoption of additional regulations to implement the new restrictions and prohibitions contained in the April 1 Executive Order is as follows: April 28 SWRCB issues formal notice of emergency rulemaking May 5 or 6 SWRCB hearing and adoption of regulations Late May/early June Regulations become effective This report addresses only the March 17, 2015 actions by the SRWCB. If necessary, staff will return to Council with recommended actions after the SWRCB adopts additional regulations in response to the Governor’s April 1, 2015 Executive Order. Discussion The March 17 SWRCB action adds new requirements for all agencies in the state, regardless of their individual water supply situation. The SFPUC, the City’s wholesale water supplier, has requested that its customers continue to voluntarily reduce consumption by 10%. As of the end of April 2015, the SFPUC had not declared a water shortage emergency nor triggered mandatory cutbacks to its wholesale customers. However, the March 17 action by the SWRCB imposes requirements on the City to continue to implement measures, specifically, elements of its 2010 UWMP (approved by City Council on June 13, 2011, Staff Report 1688), which normally would only be triggered after certain milestones have been met. These milestones could include a declaration of a system-wide shortage by the SFPUC pursuant to California Water Code Section 3503, followed by a Council declaration of a local water shortage emergency. 3 Water Code section 350 specifies an entity “…may declare a water shortage emergency condition to prevail within the area served by such distributor whenever it finds and determines that the ordinary demands and requirements of water consumers cannot be satisfied without depleting the water supply of the distributor to the extent that there would be insufficient water for human consumption, sanitation, and fire protection. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Water Use Restrictions in the City’s UWMP The City’s 2010 UWMP contains four water shortage stages that are summarized below. Stage I (5% to 10% supply reductions) calls for a low level of informational outreach and enforcement of the permanent water use ordinances. Stage II (10% to 20%) there will be a stepped up outreach effort and the adoption of some additional water use restrictions. Drought rate schedules may be implemented. Stage III (20% to 35%) calls for increased outreach activities and additional emergency water use restrictions. Drought rates in each block would increase from those in Stage II. Fines and penalties would be applied to users in violation of water usage restrictions. In some cases, water flow restriction devices would be installed on customers’ meters. Stage IV (35% to 50%) requires very close management of the available water supplies. Allocations of water for each customer will be introduced. Informational outreach activities would be operating at a very high level. Severe water use restrictions and a restrictive penalty schedule would be implemented. The SWRCB’s regulation requires the City to implement the stage of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan that includes mandatory restrictions on outdoor irrigation, or to amend its WCSP to include such restrictions. Since none of the City’s WSCP stages currently include mandatory restrictions on the number of days per week that outdoor irrigation is allowed, staff proposes amending Stage II to comply with the SWRCB’s new requirement. The attached resolution also includes Council’s authorization to implement each element within Stage II. Since the City’s ability and flexibility to respond to local water shortage emergencies is captured in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC” or “Municipal Code”) and the City’s 2010 UWMP, responding to the regulatory action by the SWRCB presents unique challenges. Nevertheless, staff’s recommendation complies with the SWRCB’s 2014 emergency regulations, and maintains the Council’s discretion to craft water conservation measures that are responsive to local conditions. Per the proposed resolution, all elements of Stage II of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be implemented. Attachment G is a comparison between the 2010 UWMP water use restrictions by stage and the proposed restrictions by stage. The proposed Stage II Water Use Restrictions are: 1. Landscape or turf irrigation with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering. 2. The application of potable water to landscapes or turf during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall is prohibited. 3. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes4 or turf with potable water more than two days per week is prohibited. Customers may apply for City approval of an alternative irrigation 4 “Ornamental landscapes” refers to landscaping for purely decorative purposes, to be distinguished from edible gardens or landscapes that provide a function beyond aesthetics. City of Palo Alto Page 5 schedule that achieves an equivalent or greater potable water use reduction, but under no circumstances shall outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water be permitted to occur seven days per week. 4. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 5. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. 6. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. 7. Operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. Utilities staff is developing an implementation process for the two day per week irrigation restriction in coordination with other City departments and other water suppliers in the Bay Area. Agencies across the Bay Area have been working together to establish a common schedule for two day per week irrigation in order to minimize customer confusion and achieve public outreach economies of scale. The model most agencies, including Palo Alto, are planning to adopt is to allow customers with odd or no addresses to irrigate Mondays and Thursdays and customers with even addresses to irrigate Tuesdays and Fridays. In recognition of the public benefit provided by some outdoor landscapes such as playing fields and golf courses, staff will develop a process for customers to apply to use alternative irrigation schedules that achieve the same or greater reduction in water use. Ensuring that heavily used playing fields are maintained for safe use is critical to the health and well-being of the City’s youth. In addition, golf courses provide an economic benefit to the City. Under no circumstances will outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water be permitted to occur 7 days per week, in compliance with state law. Staff will consider enforceability and consistency of messaging for our customers in the design. The final implementation procedures will be determined by the City Manager by May 11 in compliance with the adopted restrictions. Outreach will include, but not be limited to, information posted on the City’s web site and communication through social media, utility bill inserts, and press releases. A comparison of the SWRCB emergency regulations prohibiting certain water uses and the City’s existing Municipal Code restrictions, restrictions adopted by Resolution 9449, and new restrictions included in the proposed amended UWMP is provided in Table 1. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Table 1: SWRCB Emergency Regulations Compared to the City’s Existing and Proposed Water Use Regulations Prohibitions in March 17, 2015 SWRCB Emergency Regulations City of Palo Alto’s Existing and Proposed Water Use Regulations Section 864 (a)(1): The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non- irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures PAMC Section 12.32.010(a): Potable water shall not be allowed to flood or run off into gutters: driveways, sidewalks, streets or other un-landscaped areas. Section 864 (a)(2): The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use PAMC Section 12.32.010(b): No use of water by means of a hose to wash cars, boats, trailers, buses or other vehicles or to wash sidewalks, building structures, other hard-surfaced areas or parts thereof without an operating automatic shut-off valve. Use of a hose for such purposes should be avoided whenever possible. Section 864 (a)(3): The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. Section 1(b) of Resolution 9449;included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP Section 864 (a)(4): The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. Section 1(c) of Resolution 9449 and included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP Section 864 (a)(5): The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall. Included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP Section 864 (a)(6): The serving of drinking water other than upon request in eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, bars, or other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased. Included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP Section 864 (b): To promote water conservation, operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall promptly display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. Included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP City of Palo Alto Page 7 Prohibitions in March 17, 2015 SWRCB Emergency Regulations City of Palo Alto’s Existing and Proposed Water Use Regulations Section 865 (c) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier that does not have a water shortage contingency plan that restricts the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes and turf with potable water is allowed,…shall, within forty-five days, limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the person it serves to no more than two days per week. Included in Stage II of the proposed amended UWMP 865 (d)(1): Provide prompt notice to a customer whenever the supplier obtains information that indicates that a leak may exist within the end-users exclusive control. Currently part of regular City operations Reporting By the 15th of each month, water suppliers are currently required to report the total volume of potable water produced in the preceeding month and an estimate of the gallons of water per person per day used by residential customers. The SWRCB’s March 17, 2015 regulations require the following additional information to be reported: 1. The population served by the urban water supplier; 2. The percentage of water produced that is used for the residential sector; 3. Descriptive statistics on water conservation compliance and enforcement efforts; and 4. The number of days that outdoor irrigation is allowed. Enforcement Utilities staff will continue to manage enforcement of the SWRCB’s new water use restrictions using the process previously adopted by Council in Resolution 9460. Although efforts are currently focused on educating customers, a variety of enforcement options remain available for violations of all of the City’s water use restrictions in the City’s Municipal Code and Utilities Rules and Regulations including the installation of flow restrictors and termination of service. While staff does not anticipate there will be many instances where a customer purposefully disregards warnings, monitoring and enforcement will be increased this summer.The following process when addressing violations of the City’s existing water use restrictions and SWRCB regulations will continue prior to the more drastic options listed above: 1st Violation: Doorhanger/Email/Phone call to customer 2nd Violation: Doorhanger/Email/Phone call to customer 3rd Violation: Certified letter from the Utility Director notifying customer of violation and potential future fines 4th Violation: Fines City of Palo Alto Page 8 The steps outlined above recognize that most violations are due to the fact customers are unaware of the prohibitions and the notification process accounts for normal occurances (i.e vacation) and provides reasonable notice and an opportunity for customers to address the problem. The ultimate goal will remain reduced water waste. As of April 10, 2015, 176 door hangers have been left with customers in violation of one or more of the restrictions, 5 second door hangers have been left, no third notices have been needed. 59 water waste violations have been reported through the City’s 311 application. No fines have been issued. City Facilities The City is, itself, a large water user with facilites including public buildings, parks and playing fields, street medians, and the golf course. Staff is conducting on a detailed inventory of municipal facilites, municipal water use, and potential potable water saving actvities. Staff will provide an informational report to Council in May or June 2015 outlining the findings of that investigation. Timeline The March 17, 2015 SWRCB emergency drought regulations were effective March 27, 2015, but urban water suppliers were given 45 days to implement a restriction on the number of days per week for irrigation, which sets May 11, 2015 as the implementation deadline. Following Council approval, staff will coordinate to ensure that all involved staff (e.g. Utilities, Public Works, Development Services, and Fire) are informed of the additional water use restrictions. The regulations will remain in effect for 270 days (until December 23, 2015) unless the SWRCB extends the regulations due to continued drought conditions. The term of the City’s Resolution will remain in effect for the 270 day period, or as extended by the SWRCB. Additional requirements may be imposed on water agencies as a result of the Governor’s April 1, 2015 Executive Order. However, those requirements remain unknown as of this report’s press date. Staff anticipates that the SWRCB may adopt new requirements or water use restrictions in early May and that these restrictions could be put in place in early June. Staff may return to Council when the new requirements are known, as needed. Resource Impact Implementation of the 2014 emergency regulations resulted in the City hiring a part-time Water Waste Coordinator. Given the increased water use restrictions and the SWRCB mandate to reduce potable water use, staff intends to hire two additional part-time Water Waste Coordinators at an estimated cost of $58,000. Funding for these positions and any additional outreach materials or activites will continue to be covered by the Water Fund. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is also hiring more staff to monitor water wasting activities throughout the county. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Additional conservation efforts will also reduce water sales, which may impact water rates at some point. Staff is currently developing drought water rates, which will be presented to Council later this summer. Depending on the implementing regulations issued by the SWRCB as a result of the Governor’s April 1 Executive Order, staff may request additional enforcement resources and funds for City facilities to implement additional water conservation measures. Implementation of the Executive Order may also result in fines to the City if mandated water reductions are not achieved. Policy Implications The City has permanenent water use restrictions and enforcement procedures in place and has increased messaging and water conservation efforts in response to the drought conditions. The recommended action amends the City’s 2010 UWMP and is consistent with the Utilities Strategic Plan’s objective to promote efficient use of resources. Environmental Review Council’s adoption of the proposed resolution is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources). Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Amending Urban Water Management Plan (PDF) Attachment B: Appendix H of 2010 UWMP Water Use Restrictions by Stage (PDF) Attachment C: SWRCB March 17 2015 Resolution NO. 2015-0013 Adopting Emergency Drought Regulations (PDF) Attachment D: Governor's April 1 2015 Executive Order (PDF) Attachment E: SWRCB April 18, 2015 Draft Regulation to Implement April 1 Executive Order (PDF) Attachment F: SWRCB April 18. 2015 Draft Urban Water Supplier Tiers (PDF) Attachment G: Redlined of Appendix H of 2010 UWMP Water Use Restrictions by Stage (PDF) ***NOT YET APPROVED*** Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan in Compliance with the State Water Resources Control Board’s March 17, 2015 Emergency Water Conservation Regulations R E C I T A L S A. On January 17, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued Proclamation No. 1- 17-2014 declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions and calling on Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. B. On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued an Executive Order to strengthen the state’s ability to manage water and directed the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under its authority in California Water Code Section 1058.5 to adopt emergency regulations as it deems necessary to address water shortage conditions. C. On July 15, 2014, the SWRCB adopted California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Sections 863, 864, and 865, emergency regulations finding a drought emergency in California and imposing water conservation measures on individuals and water suppliers. On August 4, 2014 the Palo Alto City Council (Council) adopted Resolution 9449, implementing outdoor water use restrictions in compliance with the SWRCB emergency directive. D. On March 17, 2015, the SWRCB readopted and expanded the emergency regulations in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Sections 863, 864, and 865. Section 864 applies to all Californians and prohibits certain activities in promotion of water conservation, many of which are already required by Palo Alto Municipal Code 12.32.010 or were adopted on August 4, 2014 by Resolution 9449Section 865 requires mandatory outdoor irrigation restrictions and reporting by water suppliers, including urban water suppliers like the City of Palo Alto (City). E. The City receives 100% of its potable supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The SFPUC has requested a 10% voluntary water consumption reduction in response to the drought and their determination of available supplies in the regional water system. The SFPUC has not declared a water shortage emergency nor imposed mandatory cutbacks upon Palo Alto or any of SFPUC’s wholesale customers. The City has responded to SFPUC’s voluntary water consumption reduction request and achieved an approximate 16% reduction in water use in 2014 relative to 2013. F. The City’s Municipal Code, Utility Rule and Regulation 21, and 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (approved by Council on June 13, 2011 and approved by the Department of Water Resources on July 8, 2014) include a Water Shortage Contingency Plan and other tools to encourage responsible management of the City’s water resources. 150422 sdl ATTACHMENT A G. The City supports the SWRCB’s efforts to encourage conservation, with an emphasis on outdoor water use, to the extent it may do so within the context of its Council-approved Urban Water Management Plan, Utility Rules and Regulations, and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. H. The City has implemented an education-based compliance plan and is working with customers, including City facilities, to comply with the SWRB water use restrictions. I. While a variety of civil and criminal enforcement procedures are available to the City to prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water, the City wishes to continue the education–based enforcement procedure established by Resolution 9460 for violations of the water use restrictions referred to in Section 2 below, by directing staff to first attempt to achieve compliance via educational outreach, followed by the issuance of fines of $100 per violation per day for willful or repeated violations. The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Findings A. Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares that waters of the State are to be put to beneficial use, that waste, unreasonable use, or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that water be conserved for the public welfare. B. Governor Brown issued emergency water shortage declarations on January 17 and April 25, 2014, and conservation of current water supplies and minimization of the effects of water supply shortages that are the result of drought are essential to the public health, safety and welfare. C. City regulation of the time and manner of certain water use, design of rates, method of application of water for certain uses, and establishment of enforcement procedures for violations of water use restrictions are an effective and immediately available means of conserving water, and is authorized by Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.20.010. D. The Council finds that the amended 2010 Urban Water Management Plan meets the requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 865(b)(1) and is intended to complement the City’s existing and permanent water use restrictions, codified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010. SECTION 2: Appendix H, “Water Use Restrictions” of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan is hereby amended and adopted in compliance with the SWRCB’s March 17, 2015 emergency drought regulations, as attached and incorporated. All other elements of the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan remain in full force in effect. 150422 sdl SECTION 3. Council hereby adopts each of the Stage II water use restrictions included in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, as described in the amended 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. SECTION 4. Council directs the City Manager to establish an implementation process for the mandatory irrigation restrictions by May 11, 2015, SECTION 5. The water use restrictions in Stage II of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan will remain in effect for the 270 day period specified in SWRCB Resolution No. 2015-0013, or as extended by the SWRCB. SECTION 6. Council directs staff to further promote water conservation by continuing to notify customers if any leak is detected and preparing and submitting to the SWRCB the monitoring reports described in California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Section 865(d)(2). SECTION 7. Enforcement of the restrictions and requirements outlined in Stage II of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan shall follow the education-based process outlined in Resolution 9460. SECTION 8. Council’s adoption of the proposed amended Urban Water Management Plan is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines 15307 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources). INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ___________________________ ___________________________ Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager ___________________________ ____________________________ Director of Utilities Director of Administrative Services 150422 sdl ATTACHMENT B Appendix H of the City of Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Amended May 11, 2015, by City Council Resolution XXXX WATER USE RESTRICTIONS Water use restrictions will depend on local conditions and on the length of the water shortage or drought. The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan identifies measures appropriate for various stages of action, based on reduction targets for each stage. Section A of this Appendix describes the City’s existing water use regulations, as well as additional restrictions that could be applied in various stages of a drought or other water supply shortage. The restrictions in Section B are intended to serve as tools within the broader framework of the Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan to help the City reduce potable water consumption. Implementation of individual restrictions within each stage shall be carried out at the direction of the City Council, in response to its assessment of local water supply conditions, feasibility, and consumption trends. The Council may, in its discretion, opt to revise, delete or include different elements than those described below, so long as the restrictions implemented serve the overall purpose of reducing local consumption. A. Existing Water Use Regulations (See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010) 1. Flooding or runoff of potable water is prohibited. 2. A shut-off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, sidewalks, buildings, etc. 3. Potable water for construction uses is prohibited if non-potable water is available. 4. Broken or defective plumbing and irrigation systems must be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period. B. Additional Restrictions to be Applied in Droughts or Other Water Supply Shortages Stage I: No additional restrictions Stage II: 1. Landscape or turf irrigation with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering. 2. The application of potable water to landscapes or turf during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall is prohibited. 3. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes1 or turf with potable water more than two days per week is prohibited. Customers may apply for City approval of an alternative irrigation schedule that achieves an equivalent or greater potable water use reduction, but under no circumstances shall outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water be permitted to occur seven days per week. 4. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 1 “Ornamental landscapes” refers to landscaping for purely decorative purposes, to be distinguished from edible gardens or landscapes that provide a function beyond aesthetics. Appendix H of the City of Palo Alto’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Amended May 11, 2015, by City Council Resolution XXXX 5. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. 6. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. 7. Operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. Stage III: All water use restrictions for Stage II, and the following: 1. Newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs may not be filled. 2. Outdoor water use audits are required for those customers continuing to use more than target allotments for three months. 3. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if economically feasible. 4. Verified water waste will serve as prima facie evidence that the allocation assigned to the water account is excessive and subject to reduction. 5. The use of potable water on golf courses is limited to putting greens and tees. 6. The use of potable water for street sweepers/washers is prohibited. Stage IV: All water use restrictions for Stages II and III, and the following: 1. No new water service hookups unless customer pays for sufficient conservation elsewhere to offset anticipated water use. 3. No new landscaping installed at new construction sites. Bonds to be posted for landscaping after water shortage emergency is lifted. 4. Turf irrigation prohibited. 6. Once-through cooling systems must be converted to recycling systems. 7. The washing of all vehicles is prohibited outside of a commercial washing facility that recycles its water. 8. Irrigation by sprinklers is prohibited. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2015-0013 TO ADOPT AN EMERGENCY REGULATIONS FOR STATEWIDE URBAN WATER CONSERVATION WHEREAS: 1.On April 25, 2014, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order (April 2014 Proclamation) to strengthen the State’s ability to manage water and habitat effectively in drought conditions, and called on all Californians to redouble their efforts to conserve water. The April 2014 Proclamation finds that the continuous severe drought conditions present urgent challenges across the State, including water shortages in communities and for agricultural production, increased wildfires, degraded habitat for fish and wildlife, threat of saltwater contamination, and additional water scarcity, if drought conditions continue into 2015. The April 2014 Proclamation also suspends the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act to allow the emergency regulation and other actions to take place as quickly as possible; 2.The April 2014 Proclamation refers to the Governor’s Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, issued on January 17, 2014, declaring a drought State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions (January 2014 Proclamation). The January 2014 Proclamation finds that dry conditions and lack of precipitation present urgent problems to drinking water supplies and cultivation of crops, which put farmers’ long- term investments at risk. The conditions also threaten the survival of animals and plants that rely on California’s rivers, including many species in danger of extinction. The January 2014 Proclamation also calls on all Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent; 3.On December 22, 2014, in light of the continued lack of rain, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-28-14, which extends the California Environmental Quality Act suspension through May 31, 2016 for Water Code section 13247 and certain activities identified in the January 2014 and April 2014 proclamations; 4.Drought conditions are continuing. As of March 3, 2015, snow water equivalents for the Northern, Central, and Southern Sierra regions were at 16 percent, 20 percent, and 21 percent of normal for that date, respectively. Additionally, most reservoirs are less than 60 percent full and January 2015 was one of the driest months ever recorded in California history. Moreover, many communities face the prospect of needing emergency drinking water supplies; 5.The likelihood that any additional precipitation will significantly reduce the severity of drought conditions this year is extremely low; 6.Water Code section 1058.5 grants the State Water Board the authority to adopt emergency regulations in certain drought years in order to: “prevent the waste, unreasonable use, unreasonable method of use, or unreasonable method of diversion, of water, to promote water recycling or water conservation, to require curtailment of diversions when water is not available under the diverter’s priority of right, or in furtherance of any of the foregoing, to require reporting of diversion or use or the preparation of monitoring reports”; ATTACHMENT C 2 7. On July 15, 2014, the State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation to support water conservation (Resolution No. 2014-0038), and that regulation became effective July 28, 2014 upon approval by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL); 8. The current emergency regulation will expire on April 25, 2015; 9. The current emergency regulation has supported Californians’ water conservation efforts, with over 119 billion gallons saved from August 2014 through January 2015; 10. Many Californians have taken bold steps over the years and in this year to reduce water use; nevertheless, the dire nature of the current drought requires additional conservation actions from residents and businesses. Some severely-affected communities have implemented water rationing, limiting water use in some cases to only 50 gallons per person per day, foregoing showers, laundry, toilet flushing, and all outdoor watering; 11. Water conservation is the easiest, most efficient and most cost-effective way to quickly reduce water demand and extend supplies into the next year, providing flexibility for all California communities. Water saved this summer is water available later in the season or next year, giving water suppliers the flexibility to manage their systems efficiently; 12. In many areas, 50 percent or more of daily water use is for lawns and outdoor landscaping. Outdoor water use is generally discretionary, and many irrigated landscapes would not suffer greatly from receiving a decreased amount of water; 13. Most urban water suppliers have placed restrictions on outdoor watering, but the State Water Board has nevertheless received many reports of excessive water use; 14. Education and enforcement against water waste is a key tool in conservation programs. When conservation becomes a social norm in a community, the need for enforcement is reduced or eliminated; 15. Public information and awareness is critical to achieving conservation goals, and the Save Our Water campaign, run jointly by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the Association of California Water Agencies, is an excellent resource for conservation information and messaging that is integral to effective drought response (http://saveourwater.com); 16. Other parts of the world have faced social and economic hardship due to severe drought. Californians must continue to make lifestyle changes, including landscape choices that conserve even more water; 17. On March 6, 2015, the State Water Board issued public notice that it would consider the adoption of the emergency regulation at the Board’s regularly-scheduled March 17, 2015 public meeting, in accordance with applicable State laws and regulations. The State Water Board also distributed for public review and comment a Finding of Emergency that complies with State laws and regulations; 18. As discussed above, the State Water Board is adopting the emergency regulation because of the continuing emergency drought conditions, the need for prompt action, and the need to act before the current emergency regulation expires on April 25, 2015; and 3 19. Nothing in the regulation or in the enforcement provisions of the regulation precludes a local agency from exercising its authority to adopt more stringent conservation measures. Moreover, the Water Code does not impose a mandatory penalty for violations of the regulation adopted by this resolution, and local agencies retain the enforcement discretion in enforcing the regulation to the extent authorized. Local agencies are encouraged to develop their own progressive enforcement practices to promote conservation. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The State Water Board re-adopts California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 863, 864,and 865, as appended to this resolution as an emergency regulation; 2. State Water Board staff will submit the regulation to the OAL for final approval; 3. If, during the approval process, State Water Board staff, the State Water Board, or OAL determines that minor corrections to the language of the regulation or supporting documentation are needed for clarity or consistency, the State Water Board Executive Director or designee may make such changes; 4. This regulation shall remain in effect for 270 days after filing with the Secretary of State unless the State Water Board determines that it is no longer necessary due to changed conditions, or unless the State Water Board renews the regulation due to continued drought conditions as described in Water Code section 1058.5; 5. The State Water Board directs staff to provide the Board with monthly updates on the implementation of the emergency regulation and its effect; 6. The State Water Board directs staff to condition funding upon compliance with the emergency regulation, to the extent feasible; 7. The State Water Board directs staff to work with the DWR and the Save Our Water campaign to disseminate information regarding the emergency regulations; and 8. The State Water Board directs staff to update the electronic reporting portal to include data fields for local agencies to report on compliance and enforcement activities. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 9. The State Water Board commends Californians who heeded the call for conservation and have helped to save over 119 billion gallons from August 2014 through January 2015. The State Water Board calls upon Californians to redouble their conservation efforts in the face of a fourth year of severe drought. For homeowners and businesses that have delayed removing turf, planting drought-tolerant landscapes, or installing efficient irrigation systems, the time to act is now; 4 10. The State Water Board calls upon water suppliers to ensure that they have adequate personnel and financial resources to implement conservation requirements not only for 2015, but also for another year of drought should it occur. Water suppliers that face budget shortfalls due to reduced sales should take immediate steps to raise necessary revenues in a way that actively promotes continued conservation. In Resolution No. 2014-0038, the State Water Board called on all urban water suppliers to evaluate their rate structures and begin to implement needed changes as part of planning for another dry year. These efforts should be continued and redoubled; 11. Disadvantaged communities may require assistance in increasing water conservation and State agencies should look for opportunities to provide assistance in promoting water conservation; 12. The State Water Board calls upon all water suppliers to take further actions to increase water conservation, such as by: a. providing customers with timely and easy-to-understand information on the average b. number of gallons they use each month and each day within their billing period; accelerating the completion of projects that will conserve potable water by making use of non-potable supplies, such as recycled water and stormwater collection projects; and c. accelerating projects to fix leaks, and to conduct a system-wide water loss audit as soon as possible; 13. The State Water Board calls upon the restaurant and hospitality industry to take further actions to increase water conservation, such as by utilizing water efficient pre-rinse spray valves for dish washing and training staff on the new regulation so that the minimum amount of water is used to wash towels and linens; and 14. The State Water Board directs staff to develop a statewide portal for reporting water waste. CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on March 17, 2015. AYE: Chair Felicia Marcus Vice Chair Frances Spivy-Weber Board Member Tam M. Doduc Board Member Steven Moore Board Member Dorene D’Adamo NAY: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Jeanine Townsend Clerk to the Board 1 ADOPTED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATION Article 22.5. Drought Emergency Water Conservation Sec. 863 Findings of Drought Emergency (a) The State Water Resources Control Board finds as follows: (1) On January 17, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on drought conditions; (2) On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a continued state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on continued drought conditions; (3) The drought conditions that formed the basis of the Governor’s emergency proclamations continue to exist; (4) The present year is critically dry and has been immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years; and (5) The drought conditions will likely continue for the foreseeable future and additional action by both the State Water Resources Control Board and local water suppliers will likely be necessary to further promote conservation. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105. Sec. 864 Prohibited ActivitiesEnd-User Requirements in Promotion of Water Conservation (a) To promote water conservation, each of the following actions is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency: (1) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures; (2) The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use; (3) The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and (4) The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system.; (5) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall; and (6) The serving of drinking water other than upon request in eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, cafeterias, bars, or other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased. (b) To promote water conservation, operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. 2 (b)(c) The taking of any action prohibited in subdivision (a) or the failure to take any action required in subdivision (b) of this section, in addition to any other applicable civil or criminal penalties, is an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105. Sec. 865 Mandatory Actions by Water Suppliers (a) The term “urban water supplier,” when used in this section, refers to a supplier that meets the definition set forth in Water Code section 10617, except it does not refer to suppliers when they are functioning solely in a wholesale capacity, but does apply to suppliers when they are functioning in a retail capacity. (b)(1) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier shall implement all requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes includes mandatory restrictions on the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed, or shall amend its water shortage contingency plan to include mandatory restrictions on the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed and implement these restrictions within forty-five (45) days. Urban water suppliers with approved alternate plans as described in subdivision (b)(2) are exempted from this requirement. (2) As an alternative to subdivision (b)(1) aAn urban water supplier may submit a request to the Executive Director for approval of an alternate plan that includes allocation-based rate structures that satisfies the requirements of chapter 3.4 (commencing with section 370) of division 1 of the Water Code, and the Executive Director may approve such an alternate plan upon determining that the rate structure, in conjunction with other measures, achieves a level of conservation that would be superior to that achieved by implementing limitations on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week. (c) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier that does not have a water shortage contingency plan that restricts the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes and turf with potable water is allowed, or has been notified by the Department of Water Resources that its water shortage contingency plan does not meet the requirements of Water Code section 10632 shall, within thirty forty-five (3045) days, limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week or shall implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to achieve a comparable reduction in water consumption by the persons it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013. (d) In furtherance of the promotion of water conservation each urban water supplier shall: (1) Provide prompt notice to a customer whenever the supplier obtains information that indicates that a leak may exist within the end-users exclusive control. (2) Prepare and submit to the State Water Resources Control Board by the 15th of each month a monitoring report on forms provided by the Board. The monitoring report 3 shall include the amount of potable water the urban water supplier produced, including water provided by a wholesaler, in the preceding calendar month and shall compare that amount to the amount produced in the same calendar month in 2013. Beginning October 15, 2014, tThe monitoring report shall specify the population served by the urban water supplier, the percentage of water produced that is used for the residential sector, descriptive statistics on water conservation compliance and enforcement efforts, and the number of days that outdoor irrigation is allowed. The monitoring report shall also estimate the gallons of water per person per day used by the residential customers it serves. In its initial monitoring report, each urban water supplier shall state the number of persons it serves. (e) To promote water conservation, each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section 350, that is not an urban water supplier shall, within thirty forty-five (3045) days, take one or more of the following actions: (1) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week; or (2) Implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to achieve a comparable20 percent reduction in water consumption by the persons it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013. Authority: Wat. Code, § 1058.5. References: Wat. Code, §§ 102, 104, 105; 350; 10617; 10632. EXECUTIVE ORDER B-29-15 WHEREAS on January 17, 2014, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist throughout the State of California due to severe drought conditions; and WHEREAS on April 25, 2014, I proclaimed a Continued State of Emergency to exist throughout the State of California due to the ongoing drought; and WHEREAS California's water supplies continue to be severely depleted despite a limited amount of rain and snowfall this winter, with record low snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains, decreased water levels in most of California's reservoirs, reduced flows in the state's rivers and shrinking supplies in underground water basins; and WHEREAS the severe drought conditions continue to present urgent challenges including: drinking water shortages in communities across the state, diminished water for agricultural production, degraded habitat for many fish and wildlife species, increased wildfire risk, and the threat of saltwater contamination to fresh water supplies in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta; and WHEREAS a distinct possibility exists that the current drought will stretch into a fifth straight year in 2016 and beyond; and WHEREAS new expedited actions are needed to reduce the harmful impacts from water shortages and other impacts of the drought; and WHEREAS the magnitude of the severe drought conditions continues to present threats beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of any single local government and require the combined forces of a mutual aid region or regions to combat; and WHEREAS under the provisions of section 8558(b) of the Government Code, I find that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property continue to exist in California due to water shortage and drought conditions with which local authority is unable to cope; and WHEREAS under the provisions of section 8571 of the California Government Code, I find that strict compliance with various statutes and regulations specified in this order would prevent, hinder, or delay the mitigation of the effects of the drought. NOW, THEREFORE, I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, in particular Government Code sections 8567 and 8571 of the California Government Code, do hereby issue this Executive Order, effective immediately. ATTACHMENT D IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The orders and provisions contained in my January 17, 2014 Proclamation, my April 25, 2014 Proclamation, and Executive Orders B-26-14 and B-28-14 remain in full force and effect except as modified herein. SAVE WATER 2. The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) shall impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016. These restrictions will require water suppliers to California's cities and towns to reduce usage as compared to the amount used in 2013. These restrictions should consider the relative per capita water usage of each water suppliers' service area, and require that those areas with high per capita use achieve proportionally greater reductions than those with low use. The California Public Utilities Commission is requested to take similar action with respect to investor-owned utilities providing water services. 3. The Department of Water Resources (the Department) shall lead a statewide initiative, in partnership with local agencies, to collectively replace 50 million square feet of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes. The Department shall provide funding to allow for lawn replacement programs in underserved communities, which will complement local programs already underway across the state. 4. The California Energy Commission, jointly with the Department and the Water Board, shall implement a time-limited statewide appliance rebate program to provide monetary incentives for the replacement of inefficient household devices. 5. The Water Board shall impose restrictions to require that commercial, industrial, and institutional properties, such as campuses, golf courses, and cemeteries, immediately implement water efficiency measures to reduce potable water usage in an amount consistent with the reduction targets mandated by Directive 2 of this Executive Order. 6. The Water Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians. 7. The Water Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes and buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems. 8. The Water Board shall direct urban water suppliers to develop rate structures and other pricing mechanisms, including but not limited to surcharges, fees, and penalties, to maximize water conservation consistent with statewide water restrictions. The Water Board is directed to adopt emergency regulations, as it deems necessary, pursuant to Water Code section 1058.5 to implement this directive. The Water Board is further directed to work with state agencies and water suppliers to identify mechanisms that would encourage and facilitate the adoption of rate structures and other pricing mechanisms that promote water conservation. The California Public Utilities Commission is requested to take similar action with respect to investor-owned utilities providing water services. INCREASE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST WATER WASTE 9. The Water Board shall require urban water suppliers to provide monthly information on water usage, conservation, and enforcement on a permanent basis. 10. The Water Board shall require frequent reporting of water diversion and use by water right holders, conduct inspections to determine whether illegal diversions or wasteful and unreasonable use of water are occurring, and bring enforcement actions against illegal diverters and those engaging in the wasteful and unreasonable use of water. Pursuant to Government Code sections 8570 and 8627, the Water Board is granted authority to inspect property or diversion facilities to ascertain compliance-with water rights laws and regulations where there is cause to believe such laws and regulations have been violated. When access is not granted by a property owner, the Water Board may obtain an inspection warrant pursuant to the procedures set forth in Title 13 (commencing with section 1822.50) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purposes of conducting an inspection pursuant to this directive. 11. The Department shall update the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance through expedited regulation. This updated Ordinance shall increase water efficiency standards for new and existing landscapes through more efficient irrigation systems, greywater usage, onsite storm water capture, and by limiting the portion of landscapes that can be covered in turf. It will also require reporting on the implementation and enforcement of local ordinances, with required reports due by December 31, 2015. The Department shall provide information on local compliance to the Water Board, which shall consider adopting regulations or taking appropriate enforcement actions to promote compliance. The Department shall provide technical assistance and give priority in grant funding to public agencies for actions necessary to comply with local ordinances. 12. Agricultural water suppliers that supply water to more than 25,000 acres shall include in their required 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plans a detailed drought management plan that describes. the actions and measures the supplier will take to manage water demand during drought. The Department shall require those plans to include quantification of water supplies and demands for 2013, 2014, and 2015 to the extent data is available. The Department will provide technical assistance to water suppliers in preparing the plans. 13. Agricultural water suppliers that supply water to 10,000 to 25,000 acres of irrigated lands shall develop Agricultural Water Management Plans and submit the plans to the Department by July 1, 2016. These plans shall include a detailed drought management plan and quantification of water supplies and demands in 2013, 2014, and 2015, to the extent that data is available. The Department shall give priority in grant funding to agricultural water suppliers that supply water to 10,000 to 25,000 acres of land for development and implementation of Agricultural Water Management Plans. 14. The Department shall report to Water Board on the status of the Agricultural Water Management Plan submittals within one month of receipt of those reports. 15. Local water agencies in high and medium priority groundwater basins shall immediately implement all requirements of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program pursuant to Water Code section 10933. The Department shall refer noncompliant local water agencies within high and medium priority groundwater basins to the Water Board by December 31, 2015, which shall consider adopting regulations or taking appropriate enforcement to promote compliance. 16. The California Energy Commission shall adopt emergency regulations establishing standards that improve the efficiency of water appliances, including toilets, urinals, and faucets available for sale and installation in new and existing buildings. INVEST IN NEW TECHNOLOGIES 17. The California Energy Commission, jointly with the Department and the Water Board, shall implement a Water Energy Technology (WET) program to deploy innovative water management technologies for businesses, residents, industries, and agriculture. This program will achieve water and energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions by accelerating use of cutting-edge technologies such as renewable energy-powered desalination, integrated onsite reuse systems, water-use monitoring software, irrigation system timing and precision technology, and on-farm precision technology. STREAMLINE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 18. The Office of Emergency Services and the Department of Housing and Community Development shall work jointly with counties to provide temporary assistance for persons moving from housing units due to a lack of potable water who are served by a private well or water utility with less than 15 connections, and where all reasonable attempts to find a potable water source have been exhausted. 19. State permitting agencies shall prioritize review and approval of water infrastructure projects and programs that increase local water supplies, including water recycling facilities, reservoir improvement projects, surface water treatment plants, desalination plants, stormwater capture, and greywater systems. Agencies shall report to the Governor's Office on applications that have been pending for longer than 90 days. 20. The Department shall take actions required to plan and, if necessary, implement Emergency Drought Salinity Barriers in coordination and consultation with the Water Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife at locations within the Sacramento - San Joaquin delta estuary. These barriers will be designed to conserve water for use later in the year to meet state and federal Endangered Species Act requirements, preserve to the extent possible water quality in the Delta, and retain water supply for essential human health and safety uses in 2015 and in the future. 21. The Water Board and the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall immediately consider any necessary regulatory approvals for the purpose of installation of the Emergency Drought Salinity Barriers. 22. The Department shall immediately consider voluntary crop idling water transfer and water exchange proposals of one year or less in duration that are initiated by local public agencies and approved in 2015 by the Department subject to the criteria set forth in Water Code section 1810. 23. The Water Board will prioritize new and amended safe drinking water permits that enhance water supply and reliability for community water systems facing water shortages or that expand service connections to include existing residences facing water shortages. As the Department of Public Health's drinking water program was transferred to the Water Board, any reference to the Department of Public Health in any prior Proclamation or Executive Order listed in Paragraph 1 is deemed to refer to the Water Board. 24. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection shall launch a public information campaign to educate the public on actions they can take to help to prevent wildfires including the proper treatment of dead and dying trees. Pursuant to Government Code section 8645, $1 .2 million from the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund (Fund 3063) shall be allocated to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to carry out this directive. 25. The Energy Commission shall expedite the processing of all applications or petitions for amendments to power plant certifications issued by the Energy Commission for the purpose of securing alternate water supply necessary for continued power plant operation. Title 20, section 1769 of the California Code of Regulations is hereby waived for any such petition, and the Energy Commission is authorized to create and implement an alternative process to consider such petitions. This process may delegate amendment approval authority, as appropriate, to the Energy Commission Executive Director. The Energy Commission shall give timely notice to all relevant local, regional, and state agencies of any petition subject to this directive, and shall post on its website any such petition. 26. For purposes of carrying out directives 2-9, 11, 16-17, 20-23, and 25, Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code and regulations adopted pursuant to that Division are hereby suspended. This suspension applies to any actions taken by state agencies, and for actions taken by local agencies where the state agency with primary responsibility for implementing the directive concurs that local action is required, as well as for any necessary permits or approvals required to complete these actions. This suspension, and those specified in paragraph 9 of the January 17, 2014 Proclamation, paragraph 19 of the April 25, 2014 proclamation, and paragraph 4 of Executive Order B-26-14, shall remain in effect until May 31, 2016. Drought relief actions taken pursuant to these paragraphs that are started prior to May 31, 2016, but not completed, shall not be subject to Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code for the time required to complete them. 27. For purposes of carrying out directives 20 and 21, section 13247 and Chapter 3 of Part 3 (commencing with section 85225) of the Water Code are suspended. 28. For actions called for in this proclamation in directive 20, the Department shall exercise any authority vested in the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, as codified in Water Code section 8521, et seq., that is necessary to enable these urgent actions to be taken more quickly than otherwise possible. The Director of the Department of Water Resources is specifically authorized, on behalf of the State of California, to request that the Secretary of the Army, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, grant any permission required pursuant to section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and codified in section 48 of title 33 of the United States Code. 29. The Department is directed to enter into agreements with landowners for the purposes of planning and installation of the Emergency Drought Barriers in 2015 to the extent necessary to accommodate access to barrier locations, land-side and water-side construction, and materials staging in proximity to barrier locations. Where the Department is unable to reach an agreement with landowners, the Department may exercise the full authority of Government Code section 8572. 30. For purposes of this Executive Order, chapter 3.5 (commencing with section 11340) of part 1 of division 3 of the Government Code and chapter 5 (commencing with section 25400) of division 15 of the Public Resources Code are suspended for the development and adoption of regulations or guidelines needed to carry out the provisions in this Order. Any entity issuing regulations or guidelines pursuant to this directive shall conduct a public meeting on the regulations and guidelines prior to adopting them. 31. In order to ensure that equipment and services necessary for drought response can be procured quickly, the provisions of the Government Code and the Public Contract Code applicable to state contracts, including, but not limited to, advertising and competitive bidding requirements, are hereby suspended for directives 17, 20, and 24. Approval by the Department of Finance is required prior to the execution of any contract entered into pursuant to these directives. This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person. I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 151 day of April 2015. ____________________________________ EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor of California ATTEST: ____________________________________ ALEX PADILLA Secretary of State PROPOSED TEXT OF EMERGENCY REGULATION Article 22.5. Drought Emergency Water Conservation. Sec. 863. Findings of Drought Emergency. (a) The State Water Resources Control Board finds as follows: (1) On January 17, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on drought conditions; (2) On April 25, 2014, the Governor issued a proclamation of a continued state of emergency under the California Emergency Services Act based on continued drought conditions; (3) On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order that, in part, directs the State Board to impose restrictions on water suppliers to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban usage through February 28, 2016; require commercial, industrial, and institutional users to implement water efficiency measures; prohibit irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf in public street medians; and prohibit irrigation with potable water outside newly constructed homes and buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems; (34) The drought conditions that formed the basis of the Governor’s emergency proclamations continue to exist; (45) The present year is critically dry and has been immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years; and (56) The drought conditions will likely continue for the foreseeable future and additional action by both the State Water Resources Control Board and local water suppliers will likely be necessary to prevent waste and unreasonable use of water and to further promote conservation. Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code. References: Sections 102, 104 and 105, Water Code. Sec. 864. End-User Requirements in Promotion of Water Conservation. (a) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, each of the following actions is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency: (1) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes in a manner that causes runoff such that water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots, or structures; (2) The use of a hose that dispenses potable water to wash a motor vehicle, except where the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle or device attached to it that causes it to cease dispensing water immediately when not in use; (3) The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks; and (4) The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature, except where the water is part of a recirculating system; ATTACHMENT E (5) The application of potable water to outdoor landscapes during and within 48 hours after measurable rainfall; and (6) The serving of drinking water other than upon request in eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, cafeterias, bars, or other public places where food or drink are served and/or purchased.; (7) The irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians; and (8) The irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes and buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems. (b) To promote water conservation, operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. (c) Immediately upon this subdivision taking effect, all commercial, industrial and institutional properties not served by a water supplier meeting the requirements of Water Code section 10617 or section 350 shall either: (1) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water to no more than two days per week; or (2) Reduce potable water usage by 25 percent for the months of June 2015 through February 2016 as compared to the amount used for the same months in 2013. (cd) The taking of any action prohibited in subdivision (a) or the failure to take any action required in subdivisions (b) or (c), in addition to any other applicable civil or criminal penalties, is an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500) for each day in which the violation occurs. Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code. References: Sections 102, 104, and 105, 350, and 10617, Water Code. Sec. 865. Mandatory Actions by Water Suppliers. (a) The term “urban water supplier,” when used in this section, refers to a supplier that meets the definition set forth in Water Code section 10617, except it does not refer to suppliers when they are functioning solely in a wholesale capacity, but does apply to suppliers when they are functioning in a retail capacity. (b)(1) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier shall implement all requirements and actions of the stage of its water shortage contingency plan that imposes includes mandatory restrictions on the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed, or shall amend its water shortage contingency plan to include mandatory restrictions on the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water is allowed and implement these restrictions within forty-five (45) days. Urban water suppliers with approved alternate plans as described in subdivision (b)(2) are exempted from this requirement. (2) An urban water supplier may submit a request to the Executive Director for approval of an alternate plan that includes allocation-based rate structures that satisfies the requirements of chapter 3.4 (commencing with section 370) of division 1 of the Water Code, and the Executive Director may approve such an alternate plan upon determining that the rate structure, in conjunction with other measures, achieves a level of conservation that would be superior to that achieved by implementing limitations on outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week. (c) To promote water conservation, each urban water supplier that does not have a water shortage contingency plan that restricts the number of days that outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes and turf with potable water is allowed, or has been notified by the Department of Water Resources that its water shortage contingency plan does not meet the requirements of Water Code section 10632 shall, within forty-five (45) days, limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week. (db) In furtherance of the promotion of water conservation each urban water supplier shall: (1) Provide prompt notice to a customer whenever the supplier obtains information that indicates that a leak may exist within the end-users exclusive control. (2) Prepare and submit to the State Water Resources Control Board by the 15th of each month a monitoring report on forms provided by the Board. The monitoring report shall include the amount of potable water the urban water supplier produced, including water provided by a wholesaler, in the preceding calendar month and shall compare that amount to the amount produced in the same calendar month in 2013. The monitoring report shall specify the population served by the urban water supplier, the percentage of water produced that is used for the residential sector, descriptive statistics on water conservation compliance and enforcement efforts, and the number of days that outdoor irrigation is allowed, monthly commercial sector use, monthly industrial sector use, and monthly institutional sector use. The monitoring report shall also estimate the gallons of water per person per day used by the residential customers it serves. (c)(1) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to meet the requirements of the Governor’s April 1, 2015 Executive Order, each urban water supplier shall reduce its total potable water production by the percentage identified as its conservation standard in this subdivision. Each urban water supplier’s conservation standard considers its service area’s relative per capita water usage. (2) Each urban water supplier whose source of supply does not include groundwater or water imported from outside the hydrologic region and that received average annual precipitation in 2014 may, notwithstanding its average July-September 2014 R-GPCD, submit for Executive Director approval a request to reduce its total water usage by 4 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. Any such request shall be accompanied by information showing that the supplier’s sources of supply do not include groundwater or water imported from outside the hydrologic region and that the supplier’s service area received average annual precipitation in 2014. (3) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was less than 65 shall reduce its total water usage by 8 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (4) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 65 and 79.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 12 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (5) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 80 and 94.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 16 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (6) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 95 and 109.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 20 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (7) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 110 and 129.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 24 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (8) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 130 and 169.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 28 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (9) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was between 170 and 214.9 shall reduce its total water usage by 32 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (10) Each urban water supplier whose average July-September 2014 R-GPCD was greater than 215 shall reduce its total water usage by 36 percent for each month as compared to the amount used in the same month in 2013. (d)(1) Beginning June 1, 2015, each urban water supplier shall comply with the conservation standard specified subdivision (c). (2) Compliance with the requirements of this subdivision shall be measured monthly and assessed on a cumulative basis. (e) Each urban water supplier that serves 20 percent or more of its total production for commercial agricultural use meeting the definition of Government Code section 51201, subdivision (a) may subtract the amount of water supplied for commercial agricultural use from its water production total, provided that the supplier complies with the Agricultural Water Management Plan requirement of paragraph 12 of the April 1, 2015 Executive Order. Each urban water supplier that serves 20 percent or more of its total production for commercial agricultural use meeting the definition of Government Code section 51201, subdivision (a) shall certify that the agricultural uses it serves meet the definition of Government Code section 51201, subdivision (a), and shall report its total water production pursuant to subdivision (b)(2), identifying the total amount of water supplied for commercial agricultural use. (ef)(1) To prevent waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservation, each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section 350, that is not an urban water supplier shall, within forty-five (45) days, take one or more of the following actions: (1A) Limit outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week; or (2B) Implement another mandatory conservation measure or measures intended to achieve a 2025 percent reduction in water consumption by the persons it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013. (2) Each distributor of a public water supply, as defined in Water Code section 350, that is not an urban water supplier shall submit a report by December 15, 2015, on a form provided by the Board, that includes: (A) Total potable water production, by month, from June through November, 2015, and total potable water production, by month, for June through November 2013; or (B) Confirmation that the distributor limited outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water by the persons it serves to no more than two days per week. Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code. References: Sections 102, 104, 105, 350, 1846, 10617 and 10632, Water Code. Sec. 866. Additional Conservation Tools. (a)(1) To prevent the waste and unreasonable use of water and to promote conservation, when a water supplier does not meet its conservation standard required by section 865 the Executive Director, or his designee, may issue conservation orders requiring additional actions by the supplier to come into compliance with its conservation standard. (2) All conservation orders issued under this article shall be subject to reconsideration under article 2 (commencing with section 1122) of chapter 4 of part 1 of division 2 of the California Water Code. (b) The Executive Director, or his designee, may issue an informational order requiring water suppliers, or commercial, industrial or institutional properties not served by a water supplier meeting the requirements of Water Code section 10617 or section 350, to submit additional information beyond that required to be reported pursuant to the other provisions of this article. The failure to provide the information requested within 30 days or any additional time extension granted is a violation subject to civil liability of up to $500 per day for each day the violation continues pursuant to Water Code section 1846. Authority: Section 1058.5, Water Code. References: Sections 100, 102, 104, 105, 174, 186, 187, 275, 350, 1051, 1122, 1123, 1825, 1846, 10617 and 10632, Water Code. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Arcata City of 499,104,000 495,047,000 4,057,000 1%43.5 28% San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 20,365,410,000 18,717,900,000 1,647,510,000 8%45.4 28% Santa Cruz City of 2,527,700,000 1,933,400,000 594,300,000 24%47.3 28% California Water Service Company South San Francisco 2,075,673,590 1,907,534,254 168,139,336 8%48.8 28% California‐American Water Company Monterey District 2,903,844,543 2,590,336,368 313,508,175 11%51.3 28% California Water Service Company East Los Angeles 3,998,522,861 3,819,956,279 178,566,582 4%51.4 28% Vernon City of 1,907,061,769 1,788,380,162 118,681,607 6%51.6 28% California‐American Water Company San Diego District 2,795,094,888 2,578,195,144 216,899,744 8%51.9 28% Cambria Community Services District 166,216,813 95,513,570 70,703,243 43%54.4 28% East Palo Alto, City of 409,886,088 454,911,335 ‐45,025,247 ‐11%55.6 28% Park Water Company 2,833,164,110 2,598,821,539 234,342,571 8%55.6 28% San Bruno City of 929,865,974 849,620,197 80,245,777 9%55.7 28% Golden State Water Company Bell‐Bell Gardens 1,279,423,043 1,208,354,847 71,068,196 6%58.4 28% Daly City City of 1,888,066,301 1,622,632,784 265,433,517 14%58.8 28% North Coast County Water District 809,332,364 713,333,361 95,999,003 12%59.5 28% Westborough Water District 257,568,499 213,776,790 43,791,709 17%59.5 28% Coastside County Water District 565,550,000 524,430,000 41,120,000 7%61.9 28% Grover Beach City of 352,828,667 208,202,769 144,625,897 41%62.1 28% Hayward City of 4,474,967,937 3,957,222,483 517,745,455 12%62.1 28% Redwood City City of 2,525,846,774 2,179,170,327 346,676,447 14%63.4 28% Compton City of 1,858,895,919 1,837,323,747 21,572,172 1%63.6 28% Soquel Creek Water District 1,046,626,000 826,889,000 219,737,000 21%64.3 28% Seal Beach City of 905,215,264 856,337,550 48,877,714 5%64.7 28% Inglewood City of 2,457,964,645 2,284,776,001 173,188,643 7%65.1 3 12% Goleta Water District 3,523,431,480 3,053,227,871 470,203,609 13%65.5 3 12% Golden State Water Company Florence Graham 1,246,577,219 1,227,482,326 19,094,894 2%66.5 3 12% Oxnard City of 5,742,131,037 5,086,123,686 656,007,351 11%66.6 3 12% Paramount City of 1,628,999,712 1,623,382,034 5,617,679 0%67.0 3 12% Port Hueneme City of 500,546,894 456,100,759 44,446,135 9%67.2 3 12% California Water Service Company King City 428,820,478 403,729,918 25,090,560 6%67.7 3 12% Morro Bay City of 316,836,255 281,236,756 35,599,499 11%70.0 3 12% South Gate City of 2,066,696,383 2,017,629,675 49,066,708 2%70.1 3 12% Huntington Park City of 1,171,761,731 1,128,423,492 43,338,240 4%71.3 3 12% Estero Municipal Improvement District 1,137,677,797 1,077,438,670 60,239,127 5%72.8 3 12% Golden State Water Company Norwalk 1,214,317,928 1,131,519,080 82,798,848 7%73.5 3 12% Golden State Water Company Bay Point 512,238,443 452,672,802 59,565,641 12%75.5 3 12% Sweetwater Authority 5,185,495,337 4,886,767,783 298,727,554 6%75.6 3 12% City of Big Bear Lake, Dept of Water & Power 610,520,000 590,469,860 20,050,140 3%75.8 3 12% Marina Coast Water District 1,063,425,908 946,396,368 117,029,540 11%75.9 3 12% Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Page 1 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. ATTACHMENT F Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Lompoc City of 1,253,200,000 1,106,800,000 146,400,000 12% 76.6 3 12% San Lorenzo Valley Water District 416,952,583 335,050,267 81,902,316 20% 77.9 3 12% Golden State Water Company S San Gabriel 664,867,252 637,528,317 27,338,935 4% 77.9 3 12% Santa Ana City of 9,729,076,397 9,323,684,636 405,391,760 4% 78.3 3 12% McKinleyville Community Service District 344,448,000 300,869,000 43,579,000 13% 79.8 3 12% Santa Fe Springs City of 1,526,056,730 1,408,567,739 117,488,991 8% 80.1 4 16% Crestline Village Water District 185,010,871 167,499,027 17,511,844 9% 80.3 4 16% Monterey Park City of 649,960,000 594,880,000 55,080,000 8% 80.4 4 16% Montebello Land and Water Company 859,407,071 791,398,619 68,008,451 8% 80.5 4 16% Santa Barbara City of 3,348,530,727 2,632,951,217 715,579,509 21% 80.9 4 16% Rohnert Park City of 1,267,000,000 1,124,000,000 143,000,000 11% 81.0 4 16% Valley County Water District 2,033,127,821 1,853,913,772 179,214,049 9% 81.6 4 16% Golden State Water Company Southwest 7,303,405,789 6,894,299,322 409,106,467 6% 81.7 4 16% San Diego City of 47,355,303,598 46,452,597,390 902,706,208 2% 82.0 4 16% Mountain View City of 2,967,854,797 2,531,213,885 436,640,912 15% 82.5 4 16% California Water Service Company Dominguez 8,444,765,582 8,077,205,172 367,560,410 4% 83.7 4 16% Long Beach City of 14,658,100,592 13,842,168,619 815,931,973 6% 83.8 4 16% Greenfield, City of 573,049,890 501,684,126 71,365,764 12% 83.8 4 16% Dublin San Ramon Services District 2,779,417,000 1,959,505,000 819,912,000 29% 84.7 4 16% San Luis Obispo City of 1,387,716,506 1,278,706,170 109,010,336 8% 85.0 4 16% Sunnyvale City of 4,612,426,949 3,920,970,221 691,456,728 15% 85.2 4 16% California Water Service Company Salinas District 4,612,101,098 4,065,974,106 546,126,992 12% 86.0 4 16% Lynwood City of 1,264,349,156 1,237,371,916 26,977,240 2% 86.3 4 16% Santa Rosa City of 5,454,466,874 4,447,473,373 1,006,993,501 18% 86.7 4 16% Hawthorne City of 1,070,747,789 1,135,592,223 ‐64,844,434 ‐6% 86.7 4 16% California Water Service Company Mid Peninsula 3,986,792,209 3,551,780,554 435,011,655 11% 87.4 4 16% San Gabriel Valley Water Company 9,747,519,587 9,124,165,807 623,353,780 6% 88.3 4 16% Alameda County Water District 10,539,100,000 8,458,900,000 2,080,200,000 20% 88.3 4 16% Santa Clara City of 5,338,900,000 4,749,500,000 589,400,000 11% 88.3 4 16% Menlo Park City of 1,058,240,665 769,095,397 289,145,268 27% 88.6 4 16% Sweetwater Springs Water District 208,544,913 177,491,272 31,053,641 15% 88.7 4 16% Millbrae City of 668,885,610 603,267,242 65,618,369 10% 89.2 4 16% Golden State Water Company Artesia 1,402,138,690 1,348,796,812 53,341,879 4% 90.0 4 16% Hi‐Desert Water District 744,117,577 733,074,472 11,043,105 1% 90.3 4 16% Burlingame City of 1,288,363,748 1,075,113,151 213,250,598 17% 90.4 4 16% Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 139,452,680,105 130,343,503,463 9,109,176,642 7% 90.9 4 16% Vallejo City of 4,410,308,000 4,020,375,000 389,933,000 9% 91.3 4 16% San Buenaventura City of 4,446,346,994 3,813,888,925 632,458,069 14% 91.3 4 16% Scotts Valley Water District 311,979,632 253,857,835 58,121,797 19% 91.6 4 16% Page 2 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Irvine Ranch Water District 15,406,744,246 15,015,266,341 391,477,904 3% 91.7 4 16% Otay Water District 8,209,272,756 7,888,634,952 320,637,804 4% 93.0 4 16% Windsor, Town of 963,136,985 817,896,531 145,240,453 15% 93.0 4 16% California Water Service Company Redwood Valley 108,182,674 82,440,411 25,742,263 24% 93.3 4 16% American Canyon, City of 915,968,361 777,155,653 138,812,708 15% 93.5 4 16% Lakewood City of 2,086,631,973 1,856,580,866 230,051,107 11% 93.9 4 16% East Bay Municipal Utilities District 52,390,500,000 46,127,500,000 6,263,000,000 12% 94.2 4 16% Crescent City City of 583,110,000 710,650,000 ‐127,540,000 ‐22% 94.5 4 16% San Jose City of 5,294,000,000 4,707,000,000 587,000,000 11% 96.0 5 20% Pomona City of 5,817,361,333 5,468,536,077 348,825,256 6% 96.1 5 20% Bellflower‐Somerset Mutual Water Company 1,350,031,789 1,268,477,694 81,554,095 6% 96.1 5 20% California Water Service Company Hermosa/Redondo 2,984,799,071 2,983,495,666 1,303,406 0% 96.4 5 20% Azusa City of 5,165,530,597 4,670,763,054 494,767,543 10% 97.3 5 20% California Water Service Company Stockton 6,808,665,567 6,318,910,872 489,754,695 7% 97.6 5 20% El Segundo City of 1,692,179,532 1,788,496,457 ‐96,316,925 ‐6% 97.9 5 20% Carpinteria Valley Water District 1,160,826,158 1,028,941,051 131,885,107 11% 98.2 5 20% Lomita City of 591,013,026 547,632,425 43,380,600 7% 98.3 5 20% Norwalk City of 559,456,000 511,830,000 47,626,000 9% 98.7 5 20% Moulton Niguel Water District 7,135,207,799 6,864,125,480 271,082,319 4% 99.1 5 20% Rowland Water District 2,857,000,142 2,756,214,295 100,785,846 4% 99.3 5 20% Livermore City of Division of Water Resources 1,642,615,000 1,199,514,000 443,101,000 27% 100.0 5 20% Fountain Valley City of 2,438,968,604 2,305,516,153 133,452,452 5% 100.2 5 20% Pittsburg City of 2,481,549,000 2,226,323,000 255,226,000 10% 100.3 5 20% Watsonville City of 2,045,660,752 1,803,744,576 241,916,176 12% 100.3 5 20% Lathrop, City of 1,149,290,000 990,960,000 158,330,000 14% 100.5 5 20% El Monte City of 328,279,000 312,936,000 15,343,000 5% 100.6 5 20% Mid‐Peninsula Water District 823,925,361 712,822,442 111,102,919 13% 101.4 5 20% San Gabriel County Water District 1,612,133,643 1,485,957,453 126,176,190 8% 102.9 5 20% Helix Water District 8,454,736,636 8,067,103,778 387,632,858 5% 103.6 5 20% Whittier City of 2,041,957,743 2,084,064,264 ‐42,106,521 ‐2% 104.2 5 20% Great Oaks Water Company Incorporated 2,641,791,567 2,210,783,322 431,008,244 16% 104.2 5 20% Hollister City of 832,612,930 742,476,980 90,135,950 11% 104.4 5 20% Calexico City of 1,524,360,000 1,440,570,000 83,790,000 5% 104.6 5 20% Oceanside City of 6,988,111,948 6,765,555,423 222,556,525 3% 105.3 5 20% San Jose Water Company 36,046,000,000 31,608,300,000 4,437,700,000 12% 105.7 5 20% Westminster City of 3,064,371,990 2,956,971,359 107,400,630 4% 105.9 5 20% Escondido City of 4,625,134,351 4,059,907,513 565,226,838 12% 106.7 5 20% Fairfield City of 5,435,000,000 4,853,000,000 582,000,000 11% 106.7 5 20% Downey City of 4,090,256,554 3,834,059,128 256,197,426 6% 106.9 5 20% Page 3 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Glendale City of 6,839,188,070 6,346,086,881 493,101,189 7% 107.1 5 20% Marin Municipal Water District 7,006,662,670 5,966,662,221 1,040,000,448 15% 107.4 5 20% Camarillo City of 2,747,943,839 2,399,416,293 348,527,546 13% 107.5 5 20% California‐American Water Company Sacramento District 8,801,191,649 7,285,565,423 1,515,626,225 17% 107.8 5 20% Adelanto city of 1,091,834,544 993,603,394 98,231,150 9% 108.5 5 20% Anaheim City of 16,337,538,847 15,992,788,037 344,750,810 2% 108.6 5 20% Ukiah City of 678,601,000 551,722,000 126,879,000 19% 108.6 5 20% Pico Rivera City of 1,267,056,981 1,099,162,034 167,894,948 13% 108.8 5 20% Huntington Beach City of 7,506,541,568 7,116,888,432 389,653,136 5% 109.0 5 20% Crescenta Valley Water District 1,200,433,997 1,043,760,838 156,673,159 13% 109.4 5 20% Milpitas City of 2,719,687,979 2,424,775,231 294,912,748 11% 110.2 6 24% Torrance City of 3,906,665,343 3,703,464,394 203,200,950 5% 111.0 6 24% Vista Irrigation District 4,896,569,394 4,632,303,886 264,265,507 5% 111.1 6 24% Martinez City of 1,027,679,751 871,695,210 155,984,540 15% 111.7 6 24% Santa Monica City of 3,462,200,000 3,321,100,000 141,100,000 4% 111.7 6 24% Perris, City of 437,809,090 430,597,020 7,212,070 2% 111.9 6 24% Golden State Water Company Culver City 1,415,824,450 1,344,756,254 71,068,196 5% 113.1 6 24% Lakeside Water District 1,064,566,388 977,942,044 86,624,343 8% 114.6 6 24% Golden State Water Company S Arcadia 908,701,874 851,189,098 57,512,777 6% 116.0 6 24% Vallecitos Water District 4,390,033,350 4,037,168,840 352,864,510 8% 116.1 6 24% Soledad, City of 581,571,300 531,785,500 49,785,800 9% 116.7 6 24% Manhattan Beach City of 1,219,661,891 1,153,188,200 66,473,691 5% 116.7 6 24% Mesa Water District 4,434,609,825 4,283,056,327 151,553,499 3% 116.8 6 24% Palo Alto City of 3,180,440,852 2,685,999,460 494,441,392 16% 116.8 6 24% Gilroy City of 2,328,666,000 1,995,678,000 332,988,000 14% 117.6 6 24% Humboldt Community Service District 610,120,000 573,669,000 36,451,000 6% 117.9 6 24% Alhambra City of 2,575,148,433 2,329,573,763 245,574,669 10% 118.3 6 24% Orchard Dale Water District 589,289,272 550,757,340 38,531,931 7% 118.7 6 24% Buena Park City of 3,777,921,445 3,441,805,698 336,115,747 9% 118.9 6 24% Pico Water District 1,029,001,320 960,057,631 68,943,690 7% 119.0 6 24% Delano City of 2,386,120,000 2,229,650,000 156,470,000 7% 119.4 6 24% El Centro City of 1,978,323,000 1,910,544,000 67,779,000 3% 119.5 6 24% Woodland City of 2,938,159,020 2,454,292,204 483,866,816 16% 119.8 6 24% Pleasanton City of 4,439,552,000 3,099,891,000 1,339,661,000 30% 119.8 6 24% El Toro Water District 2,331,141,109 2,239,576,858 91,564,251 4% 119.9 6 24% San Fernando City of 839,719,127 786,931,196 52,787,931 6% 120.3 6 24% Suburban Water Systems San Jose Hills 7,160,122,399 6,833,016,444 327,105,955 5% 120.3 6 24% Sunny Slope Water Company 1,052,785,122 950,022,234 102,762,888 10% 120.5 6 24% California Water Service Company Livermore 2,781,467,781 1,909,163,511 872,304,270 31% 120.5 6 24% Page 4 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Laguna Beach County Water District 872,082,691 867,064,579 5,018,112 1% 121.0 6 24% Fortuna City of 303,008,000 276,986,000 26,022,000 9% 121.2 6 24% Golden State Water Company West Orange 4,000,477,969 3,830,090,258 170,387,711 4% 121.4 6 24% Amador Water Agency 899,761,000 773,623,400 126,137,600 14% 121.6 6 24% South Coast Water District 1,639,847,306 1,549,814,557 90,032,749 5% 121.7 6 24% Napa City of 3,605,871,891 3,247,435,321 358,436,570 10% 124.1 6 24% Alco Water Service 1,156,954,000 1,028,617,000 128,337,000 11% 124.2 6 24% Coachella City of 1,395,900,000 1,294,010,000 101,890,000 7% 125.5 6 24% California Water Service Company Marysville 575,127,769 496,597,575 78,530,194 14% 125.5 6 24% Valley of the Moon Water District 800,300,880 646,691,259 153,609,621 19% 125.8 6 24% Brea City of 2,826,761,129 2,727,376,444 99,384,685 4% 125.9 6 24% Chino City of 3,332,449,959 3,123,999,542 208,450,416 6% 126.7 6 24% Santa Margarita Water District 7,105,190,366 6,932,489,109 172,701,256 2% 126.8 6 24% Reedley City of 1,302,000,000 1,109,000,000 193,000,000 15% 126.9 6 24% Ontario City of 8,782,999,363 8,499,508,622 283,490,741 3% 126.9 6 24% Valencia Water Company 7,817,224,611 6,780,899,767 1,036,324,844 13% 127.0 6 24% Groveland Community Services District 127,297,632 96,625,396 30,672,236 24% 127.5 6 24% Eureka City of 860,874,000 799,778,000 61,096,000 7% 128.0 6 24% Petaluma City of 2,407,770,000 2,071,485,000 336,285,000 14% 129.0 6 24% North Marin Water District 2,457,000,000 1,986,810,000 470,190,000 19% 129.1 6 24% City of Newman Water Department 559,946,000 448,854,000 111,092,000 20% 129.2 6 24% Tuolumne Utilities District 1,441,240,862 992,152,425 449,088,437 31% 129.3 6 24% Monte Vista Water District 2,603,464,922 2,359,464,115 244,000,807 9% 130.3 7 28% Twentynine Palms Water District 666,765,336 641,552,256 25,213,080 4% 130.6 7 28% Eastern Municipal Water District 22,059,815,756 21,154,600,492 905,215,264 4% 130.7 7 28% California Water Service Company Oroville 830,595,287 682,007,037 148,588,251 18% 131.6 7 28% Healdsburg City of 540,150,000 446,810,000 93,340,000 17% 131.7 7 28% Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District 146,056,000 148,820,000 ‐2,764,000 ‐2% 132.1 7 28% Burbank City of 4,712,137,486 4,362,205,638 349,931,847 7% 132.2 7 28% Arroyo Grande City of 776,210,684 654,635,517 121,575,167 16% 132.2 7 28% Padre Dam Municipal Water District 2,952,148,758 2,752,858,026 199,290,733 7% 132.6 7 28% San Juan Capistrano City of 2,040,416,466 1,962,283,810 78,132,655 4% 133.3 7 28% Garden Grove City of 6,584,316,860 6,185,605,054 398,711,806 6% 133.6 7 28% Del Oro Water Company 369,631,917 306,051,990 63,579,927 17% 134.3 7 28% Tracy City of 4,529,625,694 3,497,663,768 1,031,961,925 23% 134.6 7 28% Riverside City of 17,427,511,870 15,956,944,380 1,470,567,490 8% 135.3 7 28% La Palma City of 545,401,972 497,342,471 48,059,501 9% 136.3 7 28% Santa Maria City of 3,370,607,161 3,257,210,864 113,396,297 3% 136.6 7 28% Lincoln Avenue Water Company 613,030,807 557,668,649 55,362,157 9% 137.2 7 28% Page 5 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard La Habra City of Public Works 2,397,728,848 2,535,032,864 ‐137,304,016 ‐6% 137.5 7 28% Golden State Water Company Placentia 1,868,334,327 1,778,757,770 89,576,557 5% 137.8 7 28% Pasadena City of 8,349,297,631 7,614,975,148 734,322,483 9% 139.0 7 28% Contra Costa Water District 8,855,338,380 7,547,370,752 1,307,967,628 15% 139.9 7 28% Suburban Water Systems Whittier/La Mirada 5,584,910,982 5,234,793,399 350,117,583 6% 141.1 7 28% Golden State Water Company Simi Valley 1,830,698,487 1,657,215,187 173,483,300 9% 141.5 7 28% Lake Arrowhead Community Services District 440,648,885 386,238,213 54,410,671 12% 141.6 7 28% Antioch City of 4,642,068,000 4,042,923,000 599,145,000 13% 141.9 7 28% Big Bear City Community Services District 266,135,894 256,898,007 9,237,888 3% 142.4 7 28% Sonoma City of 583,798,675 494,362,234 89,436,441 15% 142.5 7 28% San Gabriel Valley Fontana Water Company 10,907,224,816 10,188,722,419 718,502,397 7% 142.9 7 28% Tehachapi, City of 582,624,632 536,291,818 46,332,814 8% 143.8 7 28% Davis City of 3,023,400,000 2,527,400,000 496,000,000 16% 143.9 7 28% Benicia City of 1,543,102,018 1,217,315,761 325,786,257 21% 143.9 7 28% California Water Service Company Dixon, City of 382,549,575 346,705,918 35,843,657 9% 144.3 7 28% Suisun‐Solano Water Authority 1,038,300,000 918,300,000 120,000,000 12% 144.5 7 28% Sunnyslope County Water District 694,319,032 596,249,460 98,069,572 14% 144.6 7 28% Roseville City of 8,448,024,096 6,930,859,852 1,517,164,244 18% 145.1 7 28% Paso Robles City of 1,705,474,000 1,511,094,000 194,380,000 11% 146.0 7 28% Sacramento City of 28,979,000,000 23,440,000,000 5,539,000,000 19% 146.4 7 28% Walnut Valley Water District 5,119,451,770 4,877,344,159 242,107,610 5% 146.4 7 28% Rialto City of 2,544,482,555 2,596,683,954 ‐52,201,399 ‐2% 146.9 7 28% Diablo Water District 1,487,225,000 1,338,770,000 148,455,000 10% 147.7 7 28% Patterson City of 1,040,156,104 948,595,320 91,560,784 9% 148.3 7 28% San Dieguito Water District 1,583,703,106 1,621,176,020 ‐37,472,914 ‐2% 148.3 7 28% Orange City of 7,732,617,288 7,437,395,896 295,221,393 4% 148.7 7 28% California Water Service Company Kern River Valley 222,882,376 201,376,182 21,506,194 10% 148.9 7 28% Fresno City of 36,603,191,424 30,513,707,650 6,089,483,774 17% 150.7 7 28% Cerritos City of 2,219,233,953 1,991,297,621 227,936,332 10% 153.6 7 28% Sanger City of 1,552,776,000 1,422,246,000 130,530,000 8% 153.6 7 28% Monrovia City of 1,885,000,000 1,673,000,000 212,000,000 11% 154.6 7 28% Covina City of 1,500,350,310 1,393,914,200 106,436,110 7% 154.7 7 28% Lake Hemet Municipal Water District 2,880,852,466 2,579,961,258 300,891,208 10% 154.9 7 28% Stockton City of 8,304,530,000 7,263,300,000 1,041,230,000 13% 155.0 7 28% Ventura County Waterworks District No. 8 5,424,122,854 4,896,895,245 527,227,609 10% 156.1 7 28% Tustin City of 2,984,049,613 2,895,189,929 88,859,684 3% 156.5 7 28% California‐American Water Company Los Angeles District 5,579,752,754 5,179,473,602 400,279,151 7% 156.8 7 28% Fullerton City of 7,215,373,767 6,969,105,034 246,268,733 3% 157.4 7 28% San Clemente City of 2,270,663,084 2,331,434,375 ‐60,771,291 ‐3% 157.7 7 28% Page 6 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Chino Hills City of 3,952,965,804 3,587,674,904 365,290,900 9% 157.8 7 28% Rubidoux Community Service District 1,400,190,000 1,335,510,000 64,680,000 5% 158.0 7 28% Rosamond Community Service District 719,200,000 712,000,000 7,200,000 1% 158.3 7 28% Santa Paula City of 1,218,270,506 1,081,725,724 136,544,782 11% 160.2 7 28% North Tahoe Public Utility District 350,120,000 332,141,000 17,979,000 5% 161.3 7 28% Atascadero Mutual Water Company 1,291,000,000 1,056,900,000 234,100,000 18% 163.0 7 28% Thousand Oaks City of 3,106,634,920 2,792,709,655 313,925,265 10% 163.7 7 28% Victorville Water District 4,985,852,685 4,486,322,447 499,530,238 10% 164.4 7 28% Nipomo Community Services District 665,258,273 527,032,098 138,226,175 21% 165.4 7 28% Fillmore City of 482,079,202 446,216,000 35,863,202 7% 165.6 7 28% Ramona Municipal Water District 1,087,105,531 1,049,746,665 37,358,866 3% 165.9 7 28% Golden State Water Company Barstow 1,595,531,512 1,445,509,515 150,021,997 9% 166.2 7 28% El Dorado Irrigation District 10,044,044,386 7,600,810,386 2,443,234,000 24% 166.2 7 28% Ceres City of 1,985,969,000 1,848,968,000 137,001,000 7% 166.3 7 28% California Water Service Company Willows 364,301,895 318,682,696 45,619,200 13% 168.6 7 28% East Valley Water District 5,405,695,956 4,782,879,831 622,816,125 12% 169.4 7 28% Joshua Basin Water District 409,078,118 382,604,644 26,473,473 6% 169.6 7 28% Newport Beach City of 4,220,349,478 3,924,557,845 295,791,633 7% 170.3 8 32% South Pasadena City of 1,045,005,526 935,193,595 109,811,931 11% 171.1 8 32% Imperial, City of 687,420,000 671,127,000 16,293,000 2% 171.9 8 32% Ventura County Waterworks District No 1 2,688,665,294 2,241,890,403 446,774,892 17% 172.0 8 32% Dinuba City of 1,126,830,000 977,550,000 149,280,000 13% 172.3 8 32% Madera City of 2,268,235,000 2,115,715,000 152,520,000 7% 173.5 8 32% California Water Service Company Los Altos/Suburban 3,714,706,268 3,136,645,836 578,060,431 16% 173.8 8 32% Hesperia Water District City of 3,676,581,651 3,538,094,794 138,486,856 4% 174.6 8 32% Castaic Lake Water Agency Santa Clarita Water Division 7,358,051,073 6,493,567,237 864,483,836 12% 174.8 8 32% Brentwood City of 3,038,220,000 2,663,210,000 375,010,000 12% 174.8 8 32% Arvin Community Services District 740,072,884 667,768,501 72,304,383 10% 175.3 8 32% Palmdale Water District 5,291,175,472 5,010,063,446 281,112,026 5% 175.9 8 32% San Jacinto City of 756,372,530 651,046,816 105,325,714 14% 176.1 8 32% La Verne City of 2,094,159,141 1,955,656,970 138,502,171 7% 176.5 8 32% Newhall County Water District 2,611,216,927 2,326,139,289 285,077,638 11% 178.3 8 32% Rincon Del Diablo Municipal Water District 1,766,766,437 1,514,883,284 251,883,153 14% 179.2 8 32% Mission Springs Water District 2,072,832,166 1,979,439,888 93,392,277 5% 179.4 8 32% Brawley City of 1,842,390,000 1,088,690,000 753,700,000 41% 179.6 8 32% Calaveras County Water District 1,468,843,000 1,200,100,000 268,743,000 18% 180.4 8 32% Banning City of 2,219,758,574 2,058,002,667 161,755,907 7% 181.2 8 32% Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District 635,139,826 675,206,517 ‐40,066,691 ‐6% 181.6 8 32% Porterville City of 3,123,277,400 2,849,237,200 274,040,200 9% 182.0 8 32% Page 7 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Sacramento County Water Agency 9,991,675,171 8,451,666,395 1,540,008,776 15% 184.3 8 32% California‐American Water Ventura District 4,397,006,571 3,988,454,052 408,552,519 9% 184.6 8 32% Blythe City of 806,370,000 811,680,000 ‐5,310,000 ‐1% 185.8 8 32% Yreka, City of 593,290,000 519,800,000 73,490,000 12% 186.6 8 32% Yuba City City of 4,215,490,000 3,629,080,000 586,410,000 14% 188.2 8 32% Carlsbad Municipal Water District 4,342,002,850 4,259,269,173 82,733,677 2% 188.5 8 32% California Water Service Company Selma 1,492,399,536 1,239,212,977 253,186,559 17% 189.2 8 32% Western Municipal Water District of Riverside 5,887,379,311 5,683,989,367 203,389,944 3% 189.2 8 32% West Kern Water District 4,045,106,581 3,679,048,346 366,058,235 9% 191.3 8 32% Riverbank City of 860,786,846 737,503,990 123,282,856 14% 191.4 8 32% Pismo Beach City of 434,216,578 359,495,587 74,720,991 17% 191.7 8 32% California Water Service Company Visalia 8,033,215,230 7,144,292,537 888,922,693 11% 191.7 8 32% Hemet City of 1,116,063,947 1,045,970,047 70,093,900 6% 192.6 8 32% Hanford City of 3,229,776,700 2,793,029,816 436,746,884 14% 193.7 8 32% Turlock City of 5,571,505,100 4,909,059,441 662,445,659 12% 194.0 8 32% Corona City of 8,699,410,000 8,297,070,000 402,340,000 5% 194.3 8 32% Trabuco Canyon Water District 764,121,596 767,705,962 ‐3,584,366 0% 194.9 8 32% Triunfo Sanitation District / Oak Park Water Service 687,285,830 597,937,369 89,348,461 13% 195.7 8 32% Lamont Public Utility District 993,121,000 914,688,000 78,433,000 8% 197.5 8 32% California Water Service Company Bakersfield 18,863,864,960 16,841,305,153 2,022,559,807 11% 197.6 8 32% Morgan Hill City of 2,262,311,000 1,786,089,000 476,222,000 21% 198.5 8 32% Jurupa Community Service District 6,546,170,411 6,107,698,865 438,471,545 7% 198.6 8 32% Lemoore City of 1,967,044,000 1,783,354,000 183,690,000 9% 198.9 8 32% Cucamonga Valley Water District 12,916,078,335 12,778,430,872 137,647,463 1% 199.2 8 32% Vacaville City of 4,536,829,418 3,868,833,993 667,995,425 15% 199.9 8 32% Citrus Heights Water District 3,723,178,405 3,023,575,391 699,603,014 19% 201.4 8 32% Poway City of 2,984,245,124 2,893,299,991 90,945,133 3% 201.7 8 32% Livingston City of 1,870,481,000 1,810,513,000 59,968,000 3% 204.2 8 32% Shasta Lake City of 309,004,338 258,461,000 50,543,338 16% 205.5 8 32% Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 6,567,437,756 6,285,445,931 281,991,825 4% 205.8 8 32% Galt City of 1,302,667,000 1,052,546,000 250,121,000 19% 207.2 8 32% Lee Lake Water District 760,491,304 738,717,756 21,773,548 3% 208.1 8 32% Casitas Municipal Water District 777,155,653 678,096,820 99,058,834 13% 209.1 8 32% Golden State Water Company Ojai 564,830,864 487,636,661 77,194,203 14% 209.2 8 32% San Bernardino County Service Area 70 457,322,702 431,251,330 26,071,373 6% 209.8 8 32% Golden State Water Company San Dimas 3,063,589,946 2,950,649,842 112,940,105 4% 209.9 8 32% California Water Service Company Chico District 6,759,462,002 5,680,893,778 1,078,568,223 16% 210.4 8 32% San Bernardino City of 11,535,034,614 10,722,937,586 812,097,028 7% 212.1 8 32% West Valley Water District 5,029,549,361 4,747,557,536 281,991,825 6% 212.3 8 32% Page 8 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Colton, City of 2,519,711,330 2,487,549,794 32,161,536 1% 213.1 8 32% Manteca City of 3,844,580,000 3,212,645,000 631,935,000 16% 213.3 8 32% Folsom City of 5,476,678,514 4,592,545,306 884,133,208 16% 213.7 8 32% Sierra Madre City of 616,142,059 546,575,118 69,566,941 11% 214.2 8 32% Tulare, City of 4,805,328,900 4,324,313,800 481,015,100 10% 214.8 8 32% Indio City of 5,340,000,000 5,006,100,000 333,900,000 6% 215.6 9 36% Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company 4,101,713,205 3,942,264,436 159,448,769 4% 215.7 9 36% Oakdale City of 1,417,000,000 1,139,000,000 278,000,000 20% 215.9 9 36% Fallbrook Public Utility District 3,340,661,415 3,012,268,347 328,393,068 10% 217.3 9 36% Kerman, City of 880,465,000 769,624,000 110,841,000 13% 217.9 9 36% Exeter City of 600,332,681 535,287,408 65,045,273 11% 218.8 9 36% Georgetown Divide Public Utilities District 512,901,000 410,416,000 102,485,000 20% 219.4 9 36% Yorba Linda Water District 5,380,523,933 5,128,021,662 252,502,271 5% 220.2 9 36% Rubio Canyon Land and Water Association 561,116,157 508,002,375 53,113,783 9% 220.8 9 36% Elk Grove Water Service 1,982,552,982 1,615,618,816 366,934,166 19% 221.6 9 36% Sacramento Suburban Water District 9,630,759,000 8,318,514,000 1,312,245,000 14% 222.5 9 36% Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 40 12,870,711,018 11,980,791,220 889,919,798 7% 223.1 9 36% Corcoran City of 1,162,447,000 950,206,000 212,241,000 18% 223.7 9 36% Norco City of 2,009,949,357 1,856,691,656 153,257,702 8% 224.3 9 36% Winton Water & Sanitary District 432,243,000 400,904,000 31,339,000 7% 228.9 9 36% Montecito Water District 1,577,349,003 836,688,709 740,660,294 47% 228.9 9 36% Camrosa Water District 2,469,015,365 2,141,221,863 327,793,502 13% 229.4 9 36% Wasco City of 1,096,680,000 952,170,000 144,510,000 13% 231.1 9 36% South Tahoe Public Utilities District 1,641,227,000 1,550,474,000 90,753,000 6% 231.5 9 36% Upland City of 5,523,683,657 5,024,215,355 499,468,301 9% 234.9 9 36% Clovis City of 6,737,008,000 6,080,852,000 656,156,000 10% 235.2 9 36% Beverly Hills City of 2,984,049,613 2,900,957,499 83,092,114 3% 235.8 9 36% Loma Linda City of * 1,379,990,569 1,323,839,525 56,151,044 4% 236.1 9 36% Shafter City of 1,350,000,000 1,154,000,000 196,000,000 15% 236.5 9 36% Fruitridge Vista Water Company 1,000,084,300 823,053,400 177,030,900 18% 238.3 9 36% Glendora City of 3,108,798,089 3,089,127,284 19,670,805 1% 242.0 9 36% Carmichael Water District 2,598,570,000 2,107,250,000 491,320,000 19% 242.5 9 36% Placer County Water Agency 7,686,123,771 6,395,079,193 1,291,044,578 17% 242.5 9 36% Golden State Water Company Orcutt 1,941,781,239 1,705,636,709 236,144,529 12% 242.8 9 36% Rainbow Municipal Water District 3,976,593,060 3,760,749,074 215,843,985 5% 243.0 9 36% Modesto, City of 15,589,770,183 13,698,086,925 1,891,683,258 12% 245.9 9 36% Pinedale County Water District 267,792,348 224,289,932 43,502,416 16% 247.0 9 36% Los Angeles County Public Works Waterworks District 29 2,383,427,229 2,356,081,777 27,345,452 1% 248.9 9 36% Lincoln City of 2,592,190,000 2,158,050,000 434,140,000 17% 251.0 9 36% Page 9 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard California Water Service Company Bear Gulch 3,623,142,017 3,228,861,790 394,280,227 11% 252.5 9 36% Los Banos, City of 2,053,870,000 1,905,101,000 148,769,000 7% 253.0 9 36% Redding City of 7,109,010,000 5,934,100,000 1,174,910,000 17% 253.7 9 36% Riverside Highland Water Company 971,591,200 889,248,544 82,342,656 8% 253.9 9 36% California Water Service Company Palos Verdes 5,184,622,055 4,979,661,507 204,960,548 4% 255.4 9 36% Olivehurst Public Utility District 1,161,641,529 959,245,393 202,396,137 17% 256.0 9 36% San Bernardino County Service Area 64 758,722,238 679,807,540 78,914,699 10% 257.5 9 36% Mammoth Community Water District 499,483,000 447,407,000 52,076,000 10% 259.3 9 36% Anderson, City of 572,342,000 498,676,000 73,666,000 13% 260.8 9 36% Rio Vista, city of 641,312,000 606,333,000 34,979,000 5% 260.9 9 36% Indian Wells Valley Water District 1,861,884,000 1,789,365,000 72,519,000 4% 263.5 9 36% West Sacramento City of 3,567,747,274 2,941,460,832 626,286,443 18% 264.3 9 36% Yucaipa Valley Water District 2,981,840,000 2,837,629,000 144,211,000 5% 265.0 9 36% Paradise Irrigation District 1,721,400,000 1,355,900,000 365,500,000 21% 266.0 9 36% Nevada Irrigation District 2,750,729,000 2,339,997,000 410,732,000 15% 267.7 9 36% Beaumont‐Cherry Valley Water District 3,172,199,486 3,139,252,648 32,946,838 1% 269.7 9 36% Olivenhain Municipal Water District 5,326,497,766 5,149,755,952 176,741,814 3% 271.7 9 36% East Niles Community Service District 2,504,168,216 2,213,508,744 290,659,473 12% 271.8 9 36% Fair Oaks Water District 3,068,959,978 2,450,034,519 618,925,459 20% 274.1 9 36% Discovery Bay Community Services District 986,000,000 808,000,000 178,000,000 18% 276.3 9 36% East Orange County Water District 247,060,552 225,554,358 21,506,194 9% 277.6 9 36% Rio Linda ‐ Elverta Community Water District 770,017,391 629,595,315 140,422,076 18% 278.1 9 36% Bakersfield City of 11,705,594,680 10,744,390,565 961,204,114 8% 279.9 9 36% Truckee‐Donner Public Utilities District 1,264,764,466 1,144,274,188 120,490,278 10% 282.0 9 36% Lodi City of Public Works Department 3,904,230,000 3,932,720,000 ‐28,490,000 ‐1% 287.7 9 36% Valley Center Municipal Water District 6,829,813,325 6,798,466,417 31,346,907 0% 291.2 9 36% Tahoe City Public Utilities District 372,523,331 326,265,848 46,257,483 12% 292.6 9 36% Red Bluff City of 904,393,249 764,891,212 139,502,037 15% 294.5 9 36% California Water Service Company Antelope Valley 186,061,165 216,691,199 ‐30,630,034 ‐16% 296.6 9 36% Golden State Water Company Claremont 2,873,781,490 2,604,204,605 269,576,886 9% 297.6 9 36% Merced City of 6,872,130,000 6,271,910,000 600,220,000 9% 298.8 9 36% Bakman Water Company 1,032,655,497 893,235,946 139,419,551 14% 302.2 9 36% Las Virgenes Municipal Water District 5,714,163,209 5,470,784,778 243,378,431 4% 304.8 9 36% Oildale Mutual Water Company 2,485,920,537 2,317,129,497 168,791,039 7% 306.4 9 36% California City City of 1,192,746,563 1,264,824,899 ‐72,078,336 ‐6% 307.0 9 36% Atwater City of 2,358,960,000 1,821,770,000 537,190,000 23% 308.0 9 36% Golden State Water Company Cordova 4,051,962,495 3,483,514,680 568,447,814 14% 312.4 9 36% Redlands City of 7,033,861,488 6,969,114,810 64,746,679 1% 313.2 9 36% Ripon City of 1,431,002,833 1,223,409,134 207,593,699 15% 316.1 9 36% Page 10 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. Urban Water Suppliers and Proposed Regulatory Framework Tiers to Achieve 25% Use Reduction (Provisonal) Total Water Saved Percent Saved 2013 (Jun ‐ Feb) 2014/15 (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) (Jun‐14 ‐ Feb‐15, compared to 2013) Total Water Production (gallons) Jul‐Sep 2014 R‐ GPCDSupplier Name Tier Conservation Standard Arcadia City of 4,352,404,027 4,033,916,843 318,487,185 7% 318.5 9 36% Hillsborough Town of 877,331,034 658,647,771 218,683,262 25% 324.5 9 36% Madera County 891,468,716 660,496,910 230,971,806 26% 328.1 9 36% Kingsburg, City of 1,009,319,000 825,793,000 183,526,000 18% 332.7 9 36% California Water Service Company Westlake 2,085,449,133 1,928,388,745 157,060,388 8% 336.7 9 36% Rancho California Water District 16,377,618,572 16,074,902,597 302,715,976 2% 349.1 9 36% Linda County Water District 971,706,000 880,037,000 91,669,000 9% 349.1 9 36% Orange Vale Water Company 1,274,470,101 1,008,190,832 266,279,269 21% 354.3 9 36% Quartz Hill Water District 1,430,054,382 1,276,190,597 153,863,785 11% 364.9 9 36% Susanville City of 560,250,000 602,070,000 ‐41,820,000 ‐7% 383.0 9 36% Bella Vista Water District 3,596,422,200 1,864,847,717 1,731,574,483 48% 386.3 9 36% Valley Water Company 999,093,060 898,861,161 100,231,899 10% 400.8 9 36% Desert Water Agency 8,823,730,792 8,310,188,943 513,541,849 6% 416.0 9 36% South Feather Water and Power Agency 1,435,400,000 1,292,100,000 143,300,000 10% 465.9 9 36% Coachella Valley Water District 28,323,853,249 27,188,261,025 1,135,592,223 4% 475.1 9 36% San Juan Water District 3,594,268,324 2,773,624,539 820,643,785 23% 484.3 9 36% Vaughn Water Company 3,206,837,858 2,989,389,519 217,448,339 7% 507.0 9 36% Serrano Water District 829,682,903 749,230,186 80,452,717 10% 539.0 9 36% Golden State Water Company Cowan Heights 703,676,157 691,163,462 12,512,695 2% 572.4 9 36% Santa Fe Irrigation District 2,820,156,121 2,869,480,251 ‐49,324,131 ‐2% 604.6 9 36% Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company 757,700,108 707,153,944 50,546,164 7% 612.5 9 36% Page 11 Note: all information is provisional‐a number of suppliers have filed revised reports that are not reflected in this table, these reports once validated may result in changes. ATTACHMENT G Appendix H o f the City o f Palo Alto ’s 2010 Urban Water Management P lan Amended May 11, 2015, by City Council Resolution XXXX WATER USE RESTRICTIONS T h is ap p en d ix list s t h e curre n t lon g‐ term water u se re strict ion s and ad d it ion al re st rict ion s t h at could be applied during a water supply shortage situation. Water use restrictions will depend on local conditions and on the length of the water shortage or drought. Th e City’s Wat er Sh o rt age Con t in gen cy P lan ident if ies measu re s ap p rop riat e f o r various stages of action, based on reduction targets for each stage Section A of this Appendix describes the City’s existin g water use regulations, as well as additional restrictions that could be applied in various stages of a drought or other water supply shortage. The restrictions in Section B are intended to serve as tools within the broader framework of the Urban Water Shortage Contingency Plan to help the City reduce potable water consumption. Implementation of individual restrictions within each stage shall be carried out at the direction of the City Council, in response to its assessment of local water supply conditions, feasibility, and consumption trends. The Council may, in its discretion, opt to revise, delete or include different elements than those described below, so long as the restrictions implemented serve the overall purpose of reducing local consumption. A. Existing Permanent Water useUse Regulations (See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 12.32.010) 1. Flooding or runoff of potable water is prohibited. 2 A shut‐-off valve is required for hoses used to wash vehicles, sidewalks, buildings, etc. 3. Potable water for construction uses is prohibited if non-potable recycled water is available. 4. Broken or defective plumbing and irrigation systems must be repaired or replaced within a reasonable period. B. Additional Regulations for EmergencyRestrictions to be Applied in Droughts or Other Water Shortage SituationsSupply Shortages Water UseStage I: No additional restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage II: 1. Landscape or turf irrigation with potable water shall not be allowed between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., except for drip irrigation, soaker hoses and hand watering. 2. The application of potable water to landscapes or turf during and within 48 hours after a measurable rainfall is prohibited. 3. The irrigation of ornamental landscapes1 or turf with potable water more than two days per week is prohibited. Customers may apply for City approval of an alternative irrigation schedule that achieves an equivalent or greater potable water use reduction, 1 “Ornamental landscapes” refers to landscaping for purely decorative purposes, to be distinguished from edible gardens or landscapes that provide a function beyond aesthetics. Appendix H o f the City o f Palo Alto ’s 2010 Urban Water Management P lan Amended May 11, 2015, by City Council Resolution XXXX but under no circumstances shall outdoor irrigation of ornamental landscapes or turf with potable water be permitted to occur seven days per week. 4. The application of potable water to driveways and sidewalks is prohibited, except where necessary to address an immediate health and safety need or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency. 5. The use of potable water in a fountain or other decorative water feature is prohibited, except where the water is part of a recirculating system. 6. Restaurants and other food service operations shall serve water to customers only upon request. 7. Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Operators of hotels and motels shall provide guests with the option of choosing not to have towels and linens laundered daily. The hotel or motel shall prominently display notice of this option in each guestroom using clear and easily understood language. Stage III: All water use restrictions for Stage II above, and the following: 1.Potable water other than when used from containers of five gallons or less, shall not be used to clean hard surfaced areas or building structures. 2.Potable water shall not be used to operate, clean, fill or maintain levels in decorative fountains or ponds. 3.1. Newly constructed pools, spas and hot tubs may not be filled. 4.Signs providing notice of water shortage emergency shall be displayed in all public restrooms and restaurants, and in hotel guestrooms. 5.2. Outdoor water use audits are required for those customers continuing to use more than target allotments for three months. 6.3. Commercial car washes must use recycled water systems, if economically feasible. 7.4. Verified water waste will serve as prima facie evidence that the allocation assigned to the water account is excessive and subject to reduction. 8.5. The use of potable water on golf courses is limited to putting greens and tees. 9. 6. The use of potable water for street sweepers/washers is prohibited. Water Use Restrictions added for Water Shortage Stage IV: All water use restrictions for Stages II and III, and the following: 1. No new water service hookups unless customer pays for sufficient conservation elsewhere to offset anticipated water use. 2. No new landscaping installed at new construction sites. Bonds to be posted for landscaping after water shortage emergency is lifted. 3. Turf irrigation prohibited. 5. Owners/operators of private wells must adhere to the same water use restrictions as other re sid ent s an d bu sin esses d ep end ent u p on t he City’s p o t ab le su pp ly. 4. Once‐-through cooling systems must be converted to recycling systems. 5. The washing of all vehicles is prohibited outside of a commercial washing facility that recycles its water. 6. Irrigation by sprinklers is prohibited at all times. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/27/2015 8:19 AM Carnahan, David From:Skip Shapiro <sailorskipca@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, April 25, 2015 9:41 PM To:Kniss, Liz (external) Cc:Council, City; Barbara Shapiro Subject:Re: Request to Halt Groundwater Pumping with Residential Construction Thank you, Liz. Skip On Saturday, April 25, 2015 8:37 PM, Liz Kniss <lizkniss@earthlink.net> wrote: Thx. Have sent on to our city manager Jim Keene. I too have been concerned re the pumping. Liz Kniss Sent from my iPhone On Apr 25, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Skip Shapiro <sailorskipca@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Holman and City Council, This is a request for the Planning Department and the City Council to take immediate action to stop groundwater pumping which occurs during the construction of residential basements. As long time Palo Alto residents, we are appalled to see millions of gallons of groundwater going down storm drains in the midst of this historic California drought. At the same time, residents and businesses have been asked to curtail water use for landscape and other uses. Even worse, the pumping depletes groundwater that is essential to the health of trees, causes subsidence that can damage property, and consumes water Palo Alto relies upon for emergencies. This morning we passed a home under construction on Harker where groundwater is being pumped. We estimated the flow rate to be 75 gallons per minute (based on the fill time of a 5 gallon bucket), which equates to 108,000 gallons – or 14,400 cubic feet – per day. From past experience monitoring similar groundwater pumping for basement construction, the pumping will continue for at least 4 weeks. That amounts to more than 400,000 cubic feet of wasted water. Residential basement construction is a relatively recent phenomenon in Palo Alto, driven by people maximizing living space within lot coverage constraints. It has likely contributed to the steep increase in property values and encouraged buyers who raze existing houses to replace them with new ones that include basements…without considering the impact on neighbors, the community, and the environment. We think it’s time to halt approval of residential construction that includes basements where groundwater pumping is required. Basements should not be allowed on these sites. We request an immediate moratorium on design and construction approval for any home where groundwater pumping is required. We also ask the City Council to direct the Planning Department to review and change regulations that permit residential basement construction. Respectfully, Barbara and Skip Shapiro City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/29/2015 11:38 AM Carnahan, David From:Diane's mail <dianeef@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 29, 2015 10:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Water waste As we contemplate how to save our old, very stressed magnolia we are horrified to learn of so much water going down the drain to allow huge building projects. The explanation by the City staff in the press is contrary to all things we read about saving our aquifers and the bad consequences of sinkage caused by the loss of this resource. We are in a crisis. We all should act accordingly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Diane and Solon Finkelstein Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/29/2015 11:38 AM Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, April 28, 2015 3:42 PM To:Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; midge@thebarretts.com; Paul Dictos; Mayor; CityManager; sal.quintero; clinton.olivier; lee.brand; paul.caprioglio; oliver.baines; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; steve.brandau; Mark Kreutzer; Council, City; President; robert.andersen; steve.hogg; Mark Standriff; johnhutson580; alsmith@fresnochamber.com; terry; hennessy; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; fpoavp; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Chris Field; Dan Richard; kfsndesk; newsdesk; newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; popoff; richard.wenzel; beachrides; kclark; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; jboren; bmcewen; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; david pomaville; Lewis, Cathy; Michele Ray; Tim Sheehan; Mark Grossi; Greg.Gatzka; nick yovino; huidentalsanmateo Subject:Fwd: Desal in Israel. Membrane tech breakthrough Tues. April 28, 2015 To all- I have added herein a BBC documentary about Melbourne, Australia's $3.5 billion mega desalination plant which will supply fresh water to one million people. 43:33 long. No date on it so the plant is probably up and running. They ran an underground power cable inland for 55 miles to power the plant. Maybe we could run one underground to a desal plant on the coast inland from the big N-S power grid running through the Central Valley of Calif. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:07 PM Subject: Fwd: Desal in Israel. Membrane tech breakthrough To: Doug Vagim <dvagim@sbcglobal.net>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, midge@thebarretts.com, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, alsmith@fresnochamber.com, johnhutson580 <johnhutson580@msn.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, "robert.andersen" <robert.andersen@fresno.gov>, thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, "sal.quintero" <sal.quintero@fresno.gov>, "clinton.olivier" <clinton.olivier@fresno.gov>, "lee.brand" <lee.brand@fresno.gov>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, "steve.brandau" <steve.brandau@fresno.gov>, "oliver.baines" <oliver.baines@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, "city.council" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, diffenbaugh@stanford.edu, Chris Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Dan Walters <dwalters@sacbee.com>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, david pomaville <pomaville165@sbcglobal.net>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, fpoavp <fpoavp@pacbell.net>, "Greg.Gatzka" <Greg.Gatzka@co.kings.ca.us>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, "ian.lemay" <ian.lemay@mail.house.gov>, information <information@lao.ca.gov>, "Lewis, Cathy" <Cathy.Lewis@3dsystems.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, kclark <kclark@westlandswater.org>, mike <mike@electriclaboratories.com>, Michele Ray <micheleray83@hotmail.com>, Tranil Thomas City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/29/2015 11:38 AM <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, Tim Sheehan <tsheehan@fresnobee.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Mark Grossi <mgrossi@fresnobee.com>, JBarlow <JBarlow@co.fresno.ca.us>, kevin cervantes <kevincervantes10@hotmail.com>, Tom Lang <tlang@aquariusaquarium.org>, nmelosh@stanford.edu, yicui@stanford.edu, shanhui.fan@stanford.edu, President <President@whitehouse.gov>, popoff <popoff@pbworld.com>, Raj Banka <banka59@yahoo.com>, valentine <valentine@pbworld.com>, "richard.wenzel" <richard.wenzel@aecom.com> Tuesday, April 28, 2015 To all- Desal plants in Israel. Membrane tech breakthrough: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/israel-desalination/ The PBS News Hour seems to have taken down the video, but they left a transcript of the discussion there. I wonder how big the membrane breakthrough there really was. Big breakthroughs on desal are something the world really needs. Hear that, Stanford and Silicon Valley? Big money to be made there. Desal is a very expensive proposition with the current technology. And "Why isn't desal the answer to all of California's water problems": Lots of good thought in the comments that follow this too: http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/why-isnt-desalination-the-answer-to-all-californias-water-problems/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/29/2015 11:38 AM San Diego's Carlsbad desal plant- largest in the western hemisphere- coming on-line in 2016. Start the video you see in this link and you see vid after vid re desal. http://carlsbaddesal.com/?paginate=3812029:5 Here is the $3.5 billion desal plant being built near Melbourne, Australia. It will suck in 9 million gallons per hour of sea water. Sounds like 216 MGD or 2.7 times the capacity of Fresno's planned 80 MGD SWTP. Of course $3.5 billion is a lot more than 2.7 times the $226 million that Fresno's plant will cost. Desal costs a LOT more per gallon than surface water treatment costs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFCjuCytK6g Fresno is spending big to rely on the increasingly iffy Sierra snowpack. The ocean is far more reliable as a source of water. Just take the salts and pollutants out. California pumps 1.3 million acre-feet of fresh water from the Delta over the mountains to southern Calif. each year. I have suggested that S. Calif. should build desal plants and we'd keep that water here in the Central Valley. They are, after all, right by the ocean. (At Mayor Allen Autry's water conference in 2008 in Fresno, the State of California said that they plan is to desalinate 130,000 acre-feet of water per year by 2020, or 10% of the amount of water the State Water Project exports out of the San Joaquin Valley to S. California. The State should desalinate a lot more than that). The problem there is that the water in the Delta is coming from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers, which are snowpack water. As the snowpack diminishes, there will be less of that snow melt water arriving at the Delta, and more fresh water will have to be released into the Delta to hold back the rising salt water from San Francisco Bay. Hence, less fresh water will be coming down the California Aquiduct for us to keep here in the Central Valley if the suggestion above were implemented. SOO, we might do this: build desal plants on the coast west of Fresno, and pipe the resulting fresh water east to the Central Valley. Build a big nuclear plant or two by the desal plants to power them. Areva's EPR nuclear plants produce 1600 MW, a LOT of electricity. Cool the nuclear plants with sea water, as is done at PG and E's Diablo Canyon plants. Surely there would be no opposition on the coast to our doing that. Sell some of the electricity the nuclear plants produce at cheap rates to the folks in that area and maybe provide some of the fresh water to them at bargain prices too. The EPRs used to run ~$12 billion each. The desal plants run $400 million each in Israel. Carlsbad is closer to $1 billion, so now we are talking about real money. But, $620 billion per year of taxpayers' money is poured down a rat- hole to provide a free military defense of all of Europe, Japan and S. Korea. Somehow, these people influence the Congress of the United States to spend OUR money on this. How they do that is one of the "mysteries of the sea", I guess. The money is spent largely in the United States to enrich companies that sell stuff to the Pentagon, so Congress is "influenced" by these companies, called the military-industrial complex, and by the countries we defend free of charge. That is a lot of influence, and it is effective when the American people largely don't vote and get their news from late-night comedians. I say peel off about $200 billion of that money- our money- per year and spend it on desal plants and nuclear plants in productive places like California that desperately need electricity and water. A good universal health care system, which we now sort of have with Obamacare, high speed rail, affordable universities, support for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid could be provided with this, our money, too. Tell the Europeans, the Japanese and the S. Koreans that we think that 70 years after WWII ended that they appear to be back on their feet financially and that we are going to let them provide their own military defense from now on. When they see thousands of busloads of American troops on buses heading for the nearest sprawling American air base in their countries to come home, their eyes will bulge. But at that point they will start finding the money to defend themselves. It will mean diverting money from their wonderful universal health care systems, their high speed rail systems and their free universities. It will mean fewer Rolexes, fewer Mercedes, less fine dining, less Viagra, fewer month-long vacations City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/29/2015 11:38 AM in the south of France with a couple of their 20 year-old mistresses, but they can do it if they try. Outfits like Russia, N. Korea and China will provide the incentives. Then charge the members of Congress who have been running this scam on the American people with treason. As solar tech. improves, and it is improving, maybe build vast solar plants around Fresno on unbuildable and non- cultivatable land and run the desal plants with that electricity. The solar tech is improving, the desal tech is improving, the nuclear tech is improving, we have an ocean, we have 300 days per year of brilliant sunshine, it seems that with all of that we could find a way to make desal a part of our water solution. We need Governor Brown to exert leadership to get the moratorium on new nuclear in California lifted and to get large- scale desal built. Also, to get the SGMA changed to require Ag to meter and report their groundwater extraction starting right away. The scientists at Stanford, like Noah Diffenbaugh and Chris Field, are saying that human-caused climate change, due to the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting output of GHGs, is contributing to the drought in the western United States and other radical climate shifts. Diffenbaugh predicts less precip in the Sierra, less snowpack, earlier melting of the snowpack, and so less fresh water coming out of the Sierra in the years ahead. Same deal for the Alps, Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau. I would think that the same deal would apply in the Cascades, Rockies and the high Andes. So the root cause of California's water problems is really population increase with the resulting increased burning of fossil fuels. It also, of course, increases demand for water. The Republican plan to increase California's, and the world's, population as fast as possible to enrich some business interests is just an obscenity. They deny that climate change is caused by human activity! The scientists at Stanford are all liars, they imply. Sorry they didn't get into Stanford, but the experts there know of what they speak. Stanford soon fires its liars. Google BBC The Earth Under Water. Google KQED Heat and Harvest Google Stanford Diffenbaugh Snowpack Google Stanford Chris Field IPCC reports Google NASA Megadroughts Google Los Alamos National Lab the energy-water nexus Google Stanford Woods Institute groundwater recharge and storage Mr. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. Stanford '64 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5785) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2nd Reading Green Building Ordinances Title: SECOND READING: Adoption of Ordinances Amending Chapters 16.14, 16.17, and 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Local Amendments to the California Green Building Code and the California Energy Code (First Reading April 20, 2015 PASSED: 9-0) From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department On April 20th, 2015, the City Council met for a regular meeting and adopted on first reading two ordinances amending Chapters 16.14, 16.17, and 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to adopt local amendments to the California Green Building Code and the California Energy Code, under Staff Report #5667. The Council’s action incorporated an additional recommended modification to the Energy Code Ordinance with respect to solar-ready requirements. This change can be seen in the attached redlined version of the ordinance ( Attachment A). Attachments: Attachment A Draft ORD Amending Chptr 16 17 Energy Code v9 second reading redline (PDF) Attachment B Draft ORD Amending Chptr 16 17 Energy Code v9 second reading (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings and Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2013 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2008, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 Ordinance No. 5064 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations ‐‐ Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement ‐‐ Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) NOT YET APPROVED 2 building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.17.040 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross‐referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross‐referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read: (a) For all new single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and non‐residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (b) For all single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations, one of the following must be satisfied: (1) Performance Path: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building exceeds the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by at least 5% for single‐family residential, 10% for multi‐family residential, and 5% for nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations. a. Exceptions. The requirements in this section shall not apply to the following projects: (1) Multi‐family residential renovations or alterations of less than 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Single‐family or two‐family residential additions or rebuilds of less than 1,000 square feet. (3) Non‐residential tenant improvements, alterations, or renovations less than 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following systems: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Prescriptive Path: Projects that involve any of the following building components must use the prescriptive measures described below: NOT YET APPROVED 3 Residential Single‐Family Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Applies to complete roof alterations that are not considered repairs. Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 Exterior Walls (Additions Only) High performance walls (u‐factor = 0.048 or lower) Multi‐Family Roofs (Alterations Only) Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 Non‐Residential Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Steep Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.34 Low Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.7 Indoor Lighting (Additions and Alterations) 15% below Title 24 Standard Lighting Energy Usage 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single‐family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (a)(b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water‐heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three stories or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. NOT YET APPROVED 4 EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in Climate zones 8‐14 and the Wildland‐Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The potential solar zone area is the total area of any low‐sloped roofs where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep‐sloped roofs oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from obstructions located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the determination of annual solar access. EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the following conditions: A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. B. All applicable requirements of Section 150.0(k), except as required below: i. All permanently installed indoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B and is installed in kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms, and garages at a minimum. ii. All permanently installed lighting in bathrooms is controlled by a vacancy sensor. EXCEPTION to EXCEPTION 7Bii: One high efficacy luminaire as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B with total lamp wattage rated to consume no greater than 26 watts of power is not required to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. iii. Every room which does not have permanently installed lighting has at least one switched receptacle installed. iv. Permanently installed night lights complying with Section 150.0(k)1E are allowed. NOT YET APPROVED 5 v. Lighting integral to exhaust fans complying with Section 150.0(k)1F is allowed. vi. All permanently installed outdoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B and is controlled as required in Section 150.0(k)9Ai and iii. (b)(c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read: (c) Interconnection pathways. 1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single‐family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel. 2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel. 3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water‐heating system. (c)(d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read: (f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail. 16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make is infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; (2) There is conflict with other City goals, such as those requiring historic preservation or the Architectural Review criteria; NOT YET APPROVED 6 (3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter; (4) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and Architectural Review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall provide a recommendation to the Director or designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. (d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director. 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. NOT YET APPROVED 7 SECTION 3. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty‐ first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 8 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2013 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code C & E 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings C NOT YET APPROVED 9 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Energy Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase resource conservation; (c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and (f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run‐off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a NOT YET APPROVED 10 major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is warranted. NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings and Repealing Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2013 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2008, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 Ordinance No. 5064 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2013 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations ‐‐ Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement ‐‐ Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) NOT YET APPROVED 2 building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. 16.17.040 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross‐referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross‐referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read: (a) For all new single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and non‐residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (b) For all single‐family residential, multi‐family residential, and nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations, one of the following must be satisfied: (1) Performance Path: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building exceeds the TDV Energy of the Standard Design by at least 5% for single‐family residential, 10% for multi‐family residential, and 5% for nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations. a. Exceptions. The requirements in this section shall not apply to the following projects: (1) Multi‐family residential renovations or alterations of less than 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Single‐family or two‐family residential additions or rebuilds of less than 1,000 square feet. (3) Non‐residential tenant improvements, alterations, or renovations less than 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following systems: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Prescriptive Path: Projects that involve any of the following building components must use the prescriptive measures described below: NOT YET APPROVED 3 Residential Single‐Family Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Applies to complete roof alterations that are not considered repairs. Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 Exterior Walls (Additions Only) High performance walls (u‐factor = 0.048 or lower) Multi‐Family Roofs (Alterations Only) Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 Non‐Residential Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Steep Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.34 Low Slopes ≤ Aged Solar Reflectance of 0.7 Indoor Lighting (Additions and Alterations) 15% below Title 24 Standard Lighting Energy Usage 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single‐family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water‐heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three stories or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. NOT YET APPROVED 4 EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in Climate zones 8‐14 and the Wildland‐Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The potential solar zone area is the total area of any low‐sloped roofs where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep‐sloped roofs oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from obstructions located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the determination of annual solar access. EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the following conditions: A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. B. All applicable requirements of Section 150.0(k), except as required below: i. All permanently installed indoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B and is installed in kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms, and garages at a minimum. ii. All permanently installed lighting in bathrooms is controlled by a vacancy sensor. EXCEPTION to EXCEPTION 7Bii: One high efficacy luminaire as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B with total lamp wattage rated to consume no greater than 26 watts of power is not required to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. iii. Every room which does not have permanently installed lighting has at least one switched receptacle installed. iv. Permanently installed night lights complying with Section 150.0(k)1E are allowed. NOT YET APPROVED 5 v. Lighting integral to exhaust fans complying with Section 150.0(k)1F is allowed. vi. All permanently installed outdoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0‐A or 150.0‐B and is controlled as required in Section 150.0(k)9Ai and iii. (c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read: (c) Interconnection pathways. 1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single‐family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel. 2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel. 3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water‐heating system. (d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read: (f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail. 16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make is infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; (2) There is conflict with other City goals, such as those requiring historic preservation or the Architectural Review criteria; NOT YET APPROVED 6 (3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter; (4) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and Architectural Review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall provide a recommendation to the Director or designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. (d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director. 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Chapter 16.18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety. NOT YET APPROVED 7 SECTION 3. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments herein adopted will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty‐ first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 8 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2013 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code C & E 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings C NOT YET APPROVED 9 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Energy Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase resource conservation; (c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and (f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run‐off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a NOT YET APPROVED 10 major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is warranted. CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 11, 2015 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California SECOND READING: Adoption of Amended Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Outdoor Smoking Restrictions in Commerical Areas and Outdoor Dining. (First Reading: April 20, 2015 PASSED: 9-0) This is a second reading of the amended smoking ordinance that was first heard on April 20, 2015. No changes were made by Council at that time. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Smoking Ordinance (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* Ordinance No. ______ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 9.14 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Establish New Outdoor Smoking Restrictions in Commercial Areas and Outdoor Dining The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows: (a) That the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare for the reasons set forth in amended section 9.14.005. The purposes of this Ordinance are to ban smoking in commercial areas, all dining areas, and worksite in order to reduce the risks of second hand smoke, reduce litter, and enhance enjoyment of these areas. SECTION 2. Chapter 9.14 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.14: Smoking and Tobacco Regulations 9.14.005 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to: (a) Protect the public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting smoking in public parks, public places, service locations, city pool cars, child day care facilities, and unenclosed eating establishments. (b) Ensure a cleaner and more hygienic environment within the city, reduce litter, and protect the City's natural resources, including creeks and streams. (c) Enhance the welfare of residents, workers, and visitors by reducing exposure to second hand smoke, which studies confirm can cause negative health effects in non-smokers. (d) Balance the needs of persons who smoke with the needs of nonsmokers, including children and youth, to be free from the discomforts and health threats created by exposure to second-hand smoke. 9.14.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section: (a) "Bar" means an area which is devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. "Bar" shall include 1 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* bar areas within eating establishments which are devoted to serving alcoholic beverages and in which serving food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. (b) ”City pool car" means any truck, van or automobile owned by the city and operated by a city employee. City pool car does not include vehicles operated by the police department. (c) “Commercial Area” means an area, including all publicly owned sidewalks, alleys, parking areas, public places, outdoor dining areas, service areas, etc. within areas zoned in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as regional/community commercial (including Downtown, California Avenue Business District, Town and Country, and Stanford Shopping Center) and Neighborhood Commercial. (d) "Eating establishment" means a coffee shop, cafeteria, short-order café, luncheonette, sandwich shop, soda fountain, restaurant, or other establishment serving food to members of the public. (e) "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit. (f) "Employee eating place" means any place serving as an employee cafeteria, lunchrooms, lounge, or like place. (g) "Employer" means any person who employs the services of an individual person or persons. (h) "Enclosed" means either closed in by a roof and four walls with appropriate openings for ingress and egress or not open to the sky due to a cover or shelter consisting of a tarpaulin, tent structure or other impermeable or semi-permeable materials or fabric. (i) "Motion picture theater" means any theater engaged in the business of exhibiting motion pictures. (j) “Public Event” means events open to the general public, including but not limited to a farmers’ market, parade, craft fair, festival, or any other such event. (k) "Public places" means enclosed areas within publicly and privately owned buildings, structures, facilities, or complexes that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general public. Public places include, but are not limited to, stores, banks, eating establishments, bars, hotels, motels, depots and transit terminals, theaters and auditoriums, enclosed sports arenas, convention centers, museums, galleries, polling places, hospitals and other health care facilities of any kind (including clinics, dental, chiropractic, or physical therapy facilities), automotive service centers, general business offices, nonprofit entity offices and libraries. Public places further include, but are not limited to, hallways, restrooms, stairways, escalators, elevators, lobbies, reception areas, waiting rooms, indoor service lines, checkout stations, counters and other pay stations, classrooms, meeting or conference rooms, lecture 2 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* rooms, buses, or other enclosed places that are open to, used by, or accessible to the general public. (l) "Service locations" means those enclosed or unenclosed areas open to, used by, or accessible to the general public that are listed below: (1) Bus, train and taxi shelters; (2) Service waiting areas including, but not limited to, ticket or service lines, public transportation waiting areas, and public telephones; (3) Areas within twenty-five feet of the entrance or exit to an enclosed public place, where smoking is prohibited; (4) Areas in dedicated parks or other publicly accessible areas that are within twenty-five feet of bleachers, backstops, or play structures. (m) "Smoking" means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, tobacco or any similar article (n) "Tobacco product" means any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, smoking tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. (o) "Tobacco store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products and accessories and in which the sale of other products is incidental. (p) "Tobacco vending machine" means any electronic or mechanical device or appliance the operation of which-depends upon the insertion of money, whether coin or paper bill, or other thing representative of value, which dispenses or releases a tobacco product and/or tobacco accessories. (q) "Workplace" means any enclosed area of a structure or portion thereof used as a place of employment as well as unenclosed workplaces, such as outdoor construction sites. 9.14.020 Smoking prohibited - Enclosed Places. Smoking is prohibited in the Enclosed Areas of the following places within the City of Palo Alto, except in places subject to prohibition on smoking contained in Labor Code section 6404.5, in which case that law applies (1) Workplaces; (2) Public places; Any places exempted by the California smoke free workplace law (Labor Code Section 6404.5(d)) are not exempt under this chapter. Smoking is prohibited by this chapter in all places exempted by that State law, except as provided in 9.14.070. 3 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* 9.14.025 Smoking prohibited - Unenclosed Areas. (a) Smoking in all unenclosed areas defined as Service Locations shall be prohibited, including a buffer zone within 25 feet from any doorway, window, opening, crack, or vent into an Enclosed Area in which Smoking is prohibited, except while the Person Smoking is actively passing on the way to another destination and provided Smoke does not enter any Enclosed Area in which Smoking is prohibited. (b) Smoking is prohibited in unenclosed eating establishments and bars. 9.14.030 Smoking prohibited - City pool cars. Smoking is prohibited in all city pool cars. 9.14.035 Smoking Prohibited - Public Parks and Public Events. Smoking is prohibited in all parks, including at public events. 9.14.040 Smoking prohibited - Child day care facilities. Smoking is prohibited in a private residence which is licensed as a child day care facility within the meaning of Health and Safety Code Section 1596.750 and Section 1596.795 and amendments. 9.14.050 Smoking prohibited – Commercial Areas and Public Events. Smoking is prohibited in commercial areas, except places where smoking is already prohibited by state or federal law, in which case those laws apply. This prohibition includes public events held on public streets. A shopping center or commercial areas may establish a designated smoking area that is at least 25 feet away from any openings and includes receptacles to control litter. 9.14.060 Reserved.* * Editor's Note: Former Section 9.14.060, Regulation of Smoking in the Workplace, previously codified herein and containing portions of Ordinance Nos. 4056 and 4164 was repealed in its entirety by Ordinance No. 4294. 9.14.070 Exemptions. The following places and workplaces are exempt from Section 9.14.020: (a) Smoking at theatrical production sites is not prohibited by this subsection if the theater general manager certifies that smoking is an essential part of the story and the use of a fake, prop, or special effect cannot reasonably convey the idea of smoking in an effective way to a reasonable member of the anticipated audience. This exception will not apply if minors are performers within the production. 4 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* (b) Bingo games, consistent with prohibition on smoking contained in Labor Code section 6404.5 and licensed pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which do not permit access by minors under eighteen years of age (c) A fully enclosed room in a hotel, motel, other transient lodging establishment similar to a hotel, motel, or public convention center which is being used entirely for a private function and which is not open to the general public, except while food or beverage functions are taking place, including setup, service, and cleanup activities, or when the room is being used for exhibit purposes, sixty-five percent of the guest rooms in a hotel, motel, or similar transient lodging establishment; (d) Tobacco stores with private smokers' lounges meeting the requirements of the applicable portions of subdivision (d)(4) of Labor Code Section 6404.5. 9.14.080 Location of tobacco vending machines. (a) No person shall locate, install, keep or maintain a tobacco vending machine except in a place which under state law is not lawfully accessible to minors. (b) This section shall become effective ninety days after its enactment. Any tobacco vending machine not in conformance with this section upon its effective date shall be removed. 9.14.090 Display of tobacco products for sale. No person shall display or offer tobacco products for sale except in an area, or from within an enclosure, which physically precludes the removal of the tobacco products without the assistance of the person authorizing such display or offer, or an employee of such person. (Ord. 4056 § 4 (part), 1991) 9.14.100 Posting of signs required. With the exception of service locations, wherever this ordinance prohibits smoking, conspicuous signs shall be posted so stating, containing all capital lettering not less than one inch in height, on a contrasting background. Signs of similar size containing the international "no smoking" symbol consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it may be used in addition to or in lieu of any signs required hereunder. Such signs shall be placed by the owner, operator, manager, or other persons having control of such room, building, or other place where smoking is prohibited. Signs placed at each entrance of buildings in which smoking is totally prohibited shall be sufficient. // // 5 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* 9.14.110 Enforcement. Pursuant to Section 6 of Article IV of the Palo Alto City Charter, the city manager is hereby granted authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter and Labor Code Section 6404.5. 9.14.120 Public nuisance. Any violation of this chapter is a public nuisance and may be abated in accordance with Chapter 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and/or Code of Civil Procedure Section 731. 9.14.130 Violation to be misdemeanors. Violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided in this code. Violations shall be punishable by: (1) A fine not exceeding $250 for the first violation (2) A fine not exceeding $300 for the second violation (3) A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation within one year SECTION 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // // // // // // // 6 150310 sh 0170010 ATTACHMENT B *NOT YET APPROVED* SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Public Works 7 150310 sh 0170010 City of Palo Alto (ID # 5727) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Interim Ordinance for Retail Preservation Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Urgency Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Prohibit Conversion of Existing Ground Floor Retail and Retail-Like Uses to Office or Other Uses on a Citywide Basis Effective Immediately. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the proposed urgency interim ordinance included as Attachment A to prevent the conversion of ground floor retail and retail-like uses to other uses citywide (requires eight votes). Executive Summary With adoption of the proposed interim ordinance, existing ground floor retail and “retail-like” uses (which are defined in the ordinance) would be prevented from converting to office or other uses. The interim ordinance would apply citywide and consistent with State law, would be effective immediately and remain in effect for 45 days, at which time it could be extended if desired. The City Council has expressedits intent to maintain a citywide prohibition on conversions of ground floor retail and retail-like uses until permanent adjustments to the City’s zoning standards can be developed and adopted. Those adjustments would be intended to add ground floor retail protections where there are currently none and strengthen protections that currently exist. Background 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. On April 6, 2015, the City Council gave staff specific direction on parameters of the interim ordinance as City of Palo Alto Page 2 well as direction to prepare an identical backstop ordinance1 and to proceed with community outreach, data collection, and analysis necessary to develop permanent zoning amendments. A copy of the Council’s motions is provided as Attachment B. 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. The City’s Municipal Code has a similar provision. 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. The attached ordinance includes these findings as well as findings that the urgency ordinance would not have a material effect on the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing. See the Discussion section below for the basis of these findings. Existing 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 the ground floor (GF) overlay or combining district regulations apply (PAMC Section 18.30(c)). Ordinance 4098 enacted controls on ground floor uses in the CD and GF overlay district in 1992. These controls were most recently amended with Ordinance 5065 in 2009. The purpose of these regulations is to allow only the following uses on the ground floor: (1) Eating and drinking; (2) Hotels; (3) Personal services;2 (4) Retail services;3 (5) Theaters; (6) Travel agencies; and (7) Entrance, lobby or reception areas serving non-ground floor uses. 1 The term “backstop ordinance” is used here to suggest an ordinance identical to the interim ordinance which would be adopted through the standard procedures for a zoning ordinance, with a hearing at the Planning and Transportation Commission, two readings, and a thirty day period before taking effect. The intention of the ordinance would be to provide a backup plan or “backstop” in case the interim ordinance fails to secure eight votes or is challenged in court based on its urgency findings. 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. 3 “Retail Services” are defined as uses “engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens.” The City of Palo Alto Page 3 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), and allow property owners to obtain a conditional use permit to use a ground floor for a business or trade school, commercial recreation, day care, financial services, or general business services. These code provisions would be preempted by the proposed interim ordinance. The proposed interim ordinance would also effectively protect existing ground floor retail uses from conversion even if they are located outside the boundaries of the GF combining district. 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. The proposed interim ordinance would effectively protect existing ground floor retail uses from conversion even if they are located outside the area where ground floor office uses are prohibited (and even if they are non-conforming with existing zoning). 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)). Ordinance 3519 enacted the controls on ground floor uses in the R district in 1984. Within the R overlay zone, only eating and drinking, personal services, and retail services are permitted on the ground floor, and financial service uses are allowed via a conditional use permit. The allowance for new ground floor financial service uses with a use permit would be preempted by the proposed interim ordinance, which would also effectively protect existing ground floor retail spaces from converting to other uses even if they are located outside the area where ground floor office uses are prohibited (and even if they are non-conforming with existing zoning). proposed interim ordinance would modify this definition to insert the concept that uses must be “predominantly” retail. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Other Areas Retail use is permitted in other commercial areas (the CC2, CN, CS, and CC zones, including Midtown and Charleston Center’s CN-GF-P zones, and one Middlefield property’s CN-R zone), and as part of a mixed use (retail-residential) project within any site rezoned Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD). Retail use is conditionally permitted in the Research Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM), Research Park (RP), and General Manufacturing (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 by Ordinance 4730 in 2001 following a comprehensive review of ground floor retail issues. 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. These provisions are currently found in Municipal Code Section 18.16.040(c), (d), and (e). The proposed interim ordinance would effectively limit new ground floor uses in these commercial districts to those uses listed in the ordinance. Use permits could no longer be obtained for new ground floor medical, professional, or business offices. Discussion The proposed ordinance is intended to address the Council’s desire to prevent existing retail and service uses from converting to other uses Citywide. The ordinance would prohibit existing retail service uses and other uses categorized as “retail like” use in all areas of the City from converting to office use or any other non-retail use. Under the terms of the ordinance, the protections would apply to “retail services” as well as the following “retail-like” uses: eating and drinking uses, personal services, hotels, theatres, travel agencies, commercial nurseries, commercial recreation, and automobile dealerships This list varies from the list of ground floor uses permitted in the GF combining district because it includes commercial nurseries, commercial recreation, and automobile dealerships. Staff would appreciate the City Council’s attention to this list, and to the question whether it should also include automotive services and service stations, private schools, day care facilities, financial services, or any other uses that could be considered “retail-like” and worthy of protection. (If a use is included on the list, the existing ground floor space it inhabits City of Palo Alto Page 5 could only be reused for another use on the list. Spaces occupied by other retail uses could also be reused for any other use on the list.) The adoption of this list would effectively nullify the potential to introduce other ground floor uses that are currently permitted or permitted with a conditional use permit under various sections of the zoning ordinance until the interim ordinance expires or is replaced by permanent controls. The proposed interim ordinance would allow a property owner to appeal to the City Council in the event of financial hardship. When a property is redeveloped, it would also prevent property owners from reducing the square footage of ground floor space devoted to retail (including accessory storage and administrative office uses) unless that reduction was the minimum needed to provide access to any new upper floors and/or lower level parking. The proposed interim ordinance would not affect the ability to change from one of the protected existing uses to another (e.g. from retail to personal service), and would not alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. The proposed interim ordinance contains required findings that (1) there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and (2) the approval of additional ministerial or discretionary applications which are required to effectuate a the conversion of ground floor retail uses to other uses would result in that threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. The first finding is based on evidence that the City has lost approximately 70,000 square feet of retail-type uses in the period from 2008 to the present (see CMR #5587) and increases in office rents that have effectively created an incentive for conversion of ground floor retail to office use where this is permitted by the City’s zoning ordinance. (See Table 1 below for a summary of rising rents.) Table 1. Recent Changes in Monthly Rental Rates (per square foot) 2013 2014 2015 Retail Total Avg $4.21 $4.41 $4.88 Dwntn Avg $4.64 $4.75 $6.48 Office Total Avg $4.57 $5.14 $5.12 Dwntn Avg $6.37 $6.92 $7.33 *Source: Costar, based on Q1 Reports for each year. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The figure of 70,000 square feet derives from data submitted to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) by the City pursuant to the VTA’s Congestion Management Plan (CMA). The CMP data is broad in the sense that it includes uses like automotive services in the “retail” category even though they are considered separate uses in the City’s zoning ordinance. However any overstatement of the trend towards less retail is likely to be offset by the data’s reliance on a list of discretionary applications processed by the City, since there have also been recent conversions of retail space to office space that did not require discretionary approvals and are not included in the 70,000 square foot number. City residents have seen the loss of retail space occurring in the City’s commercial districts as the City’s Architectural Review Board has considered discretionary projects like those affecting Spagos restaurant at 265 Lytton, Inhabiture at 240 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto Bowl at 4301 El Camino Real, and Club Illusions Restaurant at 260 California Avenue. Residents have also seen the loss of retail space requiring no discretionary approvals, with the recent departure of long- time retail tenants and spaces Downtown such as the Zabibo restaurant. The resulting changes to the City’s commercial districts have been noticeable and run contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which is cited in the Policy Implications section below. The public’s welfare is detrimentally affected when neighborhood-serving retail service and related uses are priced-out by rising rents and replaced by uses that do not provide similar services or activate the street frontage by creating pedestrian activity and visual interest (i.e. shop windows and doors). These changes affect neighborhood quality of life, and mean that local residents have to drive to similar retail destinations in other locations, diminishing the public health benefit when residents can walk to needed services. The second finding recognizes that the City’s actions to approve conversion of ground floor spaces from retail to other uses is exacerbating the changes described above, resulting in the need for the proposed interim ordinance. A third finding – that the proposed interim ordinance would not have a material effect on the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing – would be required if the proposed ordinance is extended beyond the first 45 days. Given this likelihood, staff has included an exception in the ordinance for multifamily housing projects. This would allow mixed-use projects in commercial districts to proceed even if the size of an existing retail or retail-like use or space is reduced, provided the City Council approves a request for an exemption. Other exemptions in the ordinance are provided for “pipeline” applications for discretionary approvals received prior to March 2, 2015 and for ministerial retail conversions that have “vested” prior to the effective date of the ordinance. The “pipeline” exemption would potentially apply to three pending projects: 425-29 University (which would arguably comply with the ordinance anyway, since retail space would be reduced to allow access to upper floor uses and below grade parking), 3877 El Camino Real, which would result in a loss of about 2,500 City of Palo Alto Page 7 square feet of retail use, and 3045 Park Boulevard, which would result in a loss of about 17,750 square feet of an auto service use that is categorized as “retail” in the CPM data set. The reference to “vested” projects means that any application for a Use and Occupancy Permit (a ministerial permit akin to a Certificate of Occupancy) that has been approved since March 2, 2015 will permit conversion of retail space only if building permits have been issued and acted upon to effectuate the conversion. Timeline The interim ordinance would be effective from the date of adoption by the City Council except that it would not apply to three sites for which a discretionary application involving a change of use was been submitted prior to March 2, 2015. Also any projects with “vested right” status would be exempt. The interim regulations would 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. Staff is also preparing an interim backstop ordinance in the event the City’s urgency findings are legally challenged or in the event this ordinance does not receive the required eight votes. It is envisioned that this interim ordinance would apply for a short period of time to prevent continuing loss of retail during the time that a permanent ordinance is being developed. Permanent revisions to the City’s zoning ordinance will take considerably more time, involving City Council input and direction, discussions with residents, property owners, merchants, and other stakeholders. The City Council has priorized the California Avenue Area, and then Downtown for particular attention. The Council has also requested that staff examine whether non-conforming ground floor office uses can be discontinued upon a change in tenancy, rather than a change in use. Resource Impact The proposed interim ordiance would effectively freeze in place existing conditions (i.e. ground floor retail and “retail-like” uses) for 45 days, and possibly up to two years (if extended). While there may still be changes in tenants and ground floor vacancies while spaces are offered for lease, the ordinance would largely perpetuate the status quo and is not expected to noticeably affect tax revenues. Staff time will be needed to prepare an extension of the interim ordinace, if desired, as well as an identical “backstop” ordinance, and will also be needed to develop permanent adjustments to the City’s zoning regulations. These endeavors may reduce staff resources available for other priorities. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 8 The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the desirability 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 City “encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality…” and Policy B-5 calls on the City to “maintain distinct business districts within Palo Alto as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base.” Environmental Review Adoption of the proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from review under Section 15301 (Class One - Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since it will temporarily perpetuate existing environmental conditions. Attachments: A: Urgency Interim Ordinance (PDF) B: City Council Excerpt Action Minutes of April 6, 2015 (PDF) NOT YET APPROVED Ordinance No. _______ Urgency Interim Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting a Temporary Moratorium on the Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and “Retail Like” Uses to Other Uses Citywide FINDINGS A. The City of Palo Alto has long been considered the birth place of Silicon Valley. With its proximity to Stanford University, its international reputation, its deep ties to technology firms, its highly rated public school system and its ample public parks, open space and community centers, Palo Alto continues to serve as a hub for technology based business. B. Palo Alto is considered one of Silicon Valley's most desirable office markets. According to one study Class A office rates have climbed 49 percent since the start of 2010. The same study reported Class B office space increasing by 114.4 % since 2010. C. In particular, average commercial rental rates have gone up significantly from 2013 to 2015. In 2013 the average monthly rental rate citywide for office was $4.57 per square foot. That rate increased to $5.12 in 2015. While retail rents have also increased during this period, retail rents are considerably lower than office rents. The average monthly rental rate for retail in 2013 was $4.21 and in 2015 was $4.88. D. Price increases have been even more significant in the downtown area. In 2013 the average downtown monthly office rent was $6.37. In 2015 the rate increased to $7.33. E. At the end of 2014, Palo Alto’s downtown vacancy rate was a low 2.83 percent, according to a report prepared by Newmark Cornish & Carey. F. These record high monthly rental rates for office and low vacancy rates have created financial incentives to replace current retail use with office use where such conversions are permitted by the City’s zoning ordinance. These economic pressures are more severe in the downtown and California Avenue commercial areas but exist throughout the City. G. The data submitted by the City to support the Valley Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Plan (CMP) each fiscal year suggests that there has been a loss of approximately 70,000 square feet of retail-type uses in the period from 2008 to the present. The CMP data is broad in the sense that it includes uses like automotive services in the “retail” category even though they are considered separate uses in the City’s zoning ordinance. However any overstatement of the trend towards less retail is likely to be offset by the data’s reliance on a list of discretionary applications processed by the City, since there have also been recent conversions of retail space to office space that did not require discretionary approvals and are not included in the 70,000 square foot number. // 1 150429 cs 0131335 Attachment A H. City residents have seen this occurring in the City’s commercial districts as the City’s Architectural Review Board has considered projects like those affecting Spagos restaurant at 265 Lytton, Inhabiture at 240 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto Bowl at 4301 El Camino Real, and Club Illusions Restaurant at 260 California Avenue. In addition, familiar retail businesses like the Zibibbo restaurant have closed and their spaces have been acquired and occupied by non-retailers. Likewise the old location for Fraiche Yogurt, which moved from Emerson Street to Hamilton Avenue, was immediately re-purposed as office space. I. Based on these trends, on March 2, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council asked staff to consider whether zoning-based protections for ground floor retail uses need to be strengthened where they currently exist and expanded to areas of the City where they do not. J. On April 6, 2015, the City Council discussed these issues in detail and directed staff to prepare an urgency ordinance that would preserve existing ground floor retail and retail-like uses until permanent zoning revisions can be prepared. K. This direction is consistent with the City’s existing Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the desirability of neighborhood serving retail (Policy L-16) and envisions inviting, pedestrian-scale “centers” with a mix of uses as focal points for neighborhoods (Goal L- 4). Policy L-20 suggests that the City “encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality…” and Policy B-5 calls on the City to “maintain distinct business districts within Palo Alto as a means of retaining local services and diversifying the City’s economic base.” L. Palo Alto is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, and it is expected that the updated Comprehensive Plan will contain additional policies and programs designed to preserve existing retail uses in the City. M. The public’s health, safety and welfare are currently and immediately detrimentally affected as neighborhood-serving retail service and related uses are priced-out by rising rents and replaced by uses that do not provide similar services or activate the street frontage by creating pedestrian activity and visual interest (i.e. shop windows and doors). These changes affect neighborhood quality of life, and mean that local residents have to drive to similar retail destinations in other locations, diminishing the public health benefit when residents can walk to needed services and increasing traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. N. Unless abated, the City’s actions to approve conversion of ground floor spaces from retail to other uses will exacerbate the reduction of retail and changes described above, resulting in the need for the proposed interim ordinance. O. The City Council desires on an interim basis to temporarily suspend conversions of retail and retail like uses to office throughout the City as such conversions may be in conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time. 2 150429 cs 0131335 P. The possible extension of this interim ordinance beyond 45 days would not have a material effect on the development of projects with a significant component of multifamily housing because a specific exemption has been included to address this requirement of State law. Q. This urgency interim ordinance is adopted in accordance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65858 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.04.270 and is based on the need to protect the public safety, health and welfare as set forth in the above findings. A 4/5 vote is required for adoption. The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The findings listed above are hereby incorporated. SECTION 2. The following Section 18.85.100 (Retail Preservation) is added to a new Chapter 18.85 entitled “Interim Zoning Ordinances” to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows: “18.85.100 Retail Preservation 18.85.101 Definitions. For the purposes of this Ordinance, the term “Retail” shall include a modified definition of “Retail Service” as well as the “Retail Like” uses defined below: (a) Retail Service: A use predominantly engaged in providing retail sale, rental, service, processing, or repair of items primarily intended for consumer or household use, including but not limited to the following: groceries, meat, vegetables, dairy products, baked goods, candy, and other food products; liquor and bottled goods, household cleaning and maintenance products; drugs, cards, and stationery, notions, books, tobacco products, cosmetics, and specialty items; flowers, plants, hobby materials, toys, household pets and supplies, and handcrafted items; apparel, jewelry, fabrics, and like items; cameras, photography services, household electronic equipment, records, sporting equipment, kitchen utensils, home furnishing and appliances, art supplies and framing, arts and antiques, paint and wallpaper, carpeting and floor covering, interior decorating services, office supplies, musical instruments, hardware and homeware, and garden supplies; bicycles; mopeds and automotive parts and accessories (excluding service and installation); cookie shops, ice cream stores and delicatessens. (b) Retail Like Uses including but not limited to: (1) Eating and drinking service as defined in Section 18.04 (47); (2) Hotels as defined in Section 18.04 (73); (3) Personal services as defined in Section 18.04.030 (115); (4) Theaters; (5) Travel agencies; (6) Commercial recreation; 3 150429 cs 0131335 (7) Commercial nurseries; (8) Auto dealerships defined in Section 18.040.030(a)(12.5). 18.85.102 Moratorium on Retail Conversions. The City Council hereby enacts this Urgency Interim Ordinance establishing a moratorium on the conversion of any ground floor Retail use operating as of March 2, 2015 to any other non-Retail use anywhere in the City. (a) 25% Exemption Suspended. During the pendency of this Ordinance, Section 18.30(C).020 permitting not more than twenty-five percent of the ground floor area not fronting on a street to be occupied by a non-retail service use otherwise permitted in the applicable underlying CD district shall be suspended. (b) Conditionally Permitted Uses Suspended. During the pendency of this Ordinance, no ground floor Retail use operating as of March 2, 2015 may be replaced by any other non-Retail use, including uses for which Conditional Use Permits are currently allowed. (c) Legal Nonconforming Uses. During the pendency of this Ordinance legal nonconforming Retail use shall remain as a grandfathered use and shall not be subject to the change, discontinuance, or termination provisions of Chapter 18.70. 18.85.103 Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from this Ordinance: (a) Pipeline Projects. Any Retail use where a discretionary permit or entitlement application to convert such Retail use to a non-Retail use was submitted to the City on or before March 2, 2015 and is currently pending. For purposes of this Ordinance a “Use and Occupancy” Permit Application shall not constitute a discretionary permit. (b) Vested Rights. Any Retail use for which an applicant has received a valid building permit from the City and performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance on such permit as of the date of this Ordinance. 18.85.104 Waivers and Adjustments. The following shall be grounds for a request for waiver or adjustment of this Ordinance: (a) Economic Hardship. An applicant may request that the requirements of this Ordinance be adjusted or waived based on a showing that applying the requirements of this Ordinance would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (b) Multi-family uses. Any project which (i) contains four or more housing units, (ii) the multi-family housing component constitutes at least one-third or more of the total square footage of the project and (iii) otherwise complies with all sections of the Zoning Code may apply for a waiver or modification from this Ordinance upon a finding that this Ordinance would have a material effect on the multi-family component of such project. 4 150429 cs 0131335 (c) Documentation. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support a waiver or modification request under this Section and shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim, including all supporting technical documentation. Any such request under this section shall be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Director together with an economic analysis or other supporting documentation and shall be acted upon by the City Council. 18.85.104 Reconstruction. Any ground floor Retail use existing as of March 2, 2015 may be demolished and rebuilt provided that the portion of square footage used as Retail use as of March 2, 2015 is not reduced except that Retail square footage may be reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floor and/or lower level parking. 18.85.105 Applicability to Current Requirements. Nothing in this ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Nothing in the ordinance shall be construed to waive the requirement for a conditional use permit or other entitlement where such requirements currently exist.” SECTION 3. Study. The City Council directs the Department of Planning & Community Environment to consider and study possible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance to preserve existing Retail uses. SECTION 4. Written Report. At least ten (10) days before this Urgency Ordinance or any extension expires, the City Council shall issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of this Urgency Interim Ordinance. SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 6. Effective Period. This Urgency Ordinance shall take full force and effect immediately upon adoption. In accordance with Government Code Section 65856, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of forty-five (45) days from adoption. This Ordinance shall expire on June 25, 2015 unless this period is extended by the City Council as provided in Government Code Section 65858. // // // 5 150429 cs 0131335 SECTION 7. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance falls under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption found in Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15061(b)(3) because it is designed to preserve the status quo. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ City Manager ______________________________ Sr. Assistant City Attorney ____________________________ Director of Planning and Community Environment 6 150429 cs 0131335 Attachment B ACTION MINUTES 2.Apply the prohibition to those retail services operating as of March 2, 2015 and for which no discretionary application involving a change of use has been submitted to the City by March 2, 2015; and 3.Include within the ordinance an appeal to the City Council in cases of financial hardship or showing that the facility is unsuited for successful retail use; and 4.Allow existing retail service facilities to be demolished and rebuilt provided that the retail square footage is only reduced by the minimum amount needed to provide access to any new upper floorsand/or lower level parking; and 5.Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain; and 6.The Municipal Code’s definition of retail services and the other uses cited above shall be continued; and 7.The ordinance will be effective for an initial 45 days with an option to extend if the urgency continues. Staff is also directed to prepare a traditional ordinance for consideration by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council as a “backstop” to extend the interim measures until existing retail protections can be reviewed and revised as needed; and 8.Nothing in the ordinance shall alter requirements of site-specific Planned Community zoning ordinances or adopted conditions of approval. Also, 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. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that conditional uses for ground floor retail areas are not permitted in retail districts while the interim ordinance is in effect. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete Number 5- Retail services that are grandfathered in as legal non-conforming shall not be protected or required to remain in the Motion. ACTION MINUTES INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER modify first sentence of Municipal Code Section 18.04.030 (125) to begin “Retail service” means a use predominantly engaged in providing… Council Member Kniss left the meeting at 10:00 PM MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent MOTION: Council Member Scharff moved, seconded by Mayor Holman to direct Staff that once the interim Ordinance is in place: 1.To bring forward the interim Ordinance as a regular Ordinance for Council adoption; and 2.Subsequently, to prioritize consideration of permanent retail protections starting with retail uses allowed on California Avenue and boundaries of the Retail (R) combining district. Also prioritize an analysis of retail trends and desired adjustments to the Ground Floor (GF) combining district in Downtown, followed by consideration ofother commercial zones within the City. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to direct Staff to prepare an Ordinance to extend the boundaries of the (R) combining district to Cambridge Avenue. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that projects in the pipeline that do not have applications for planning entitlements on file on March 2, 2015 would be subject to the Ordinance. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER that both instances of “interim” in the first sentence of the Motion be changed to “urgency.” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 7-0 DuBois, Kniss absent Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Scharff inquired if Council Members should keep the Packet Books for Agenda Item Number 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. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment responded yes. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:23 A.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 5554) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/11/2015 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Urban Forest Master Plan Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan and Approval of a Negative Declaration From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approves the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan and adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. Executive Summary The Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) was envisioned in the 1998 City of Palo Alto comprehensive plan, and development began following the receipt of a 2008 grant. The purpose of the plan is described in the vision statement which can be summarized as maximizing the function of the urban forest for people through effective management, communication, and collaboration. In concept the urban forest is considered to encompass all the trees, plants and associated organisms that inhabit the shared ecosystem within Palo Alto, overflowing and interacting across both public and private properties. The Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan addresses topics such as the state of Palo Alto's tree canopy, tree best management practices, interdepartmental coordination, and tree-related City regulations. Trees provide enormous environmental and social benefits,yet they also require investment. The sustainability of our urban forest and the benefits it provides depends on how it is managed. Management must be adaptive to address widespread impacts such as drought without diminishing urban forest health and function while also being responsive to changing culture of the community as a whole. Extensive feedback was obtained from community groups as well as staff and City of Palo Alto Page 2 combined with new data from a complete update of the street tree inventory as well as resource analysis of ecosystem benefits. Synthesis of this feedback and data compared to recognized benchmarks defines the current status of the urban forest as well as an action plan to address issues raised in the plan. Recommendations are described in the UFMP goals, policies and programs chapter as well as the implementation plan chapter which also prioritizes timing and estimates financial costs and benefits. Staff recommends that City Council consider, approve and adopt the Palo Alto UFMP and associated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts to be utilized as a guiding road map for the future for the City of Palo Alto’s urban forest. Background The City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan includes goals, policies, and programs to preserve, maintain, and enhance the urban forest. Goals from the 1998 Comprehensive Plan were implemented through a grant from the California Department of Forestry and Fire to develop an Urban Forest Master Plan for the City of Palo Alto. In 2008, the City received a $66,000 grant from the State (CALFIRE)to provide partial funding for the preparation of an UFMP. On November 22, 2010 City Council approved a contract with Hort Science, Inc. to prepare the master plan at a cost not to exceed $159,604 (City Manager Report #145:10). The project commenced in December 2010 and on January 12,2011 the consultant introduced the project to the City’s Executive Leadership Team with a presentation describing the goals of the master plan. In January 2011 a survey to gather opinions of the community was sent out. A complete street tree inventory was completed in 2010, costs of managing street trees and associated benefits were analyzed in 2011 and an Urban Forester was hired in 2012. Staff members from multiple departments worked closely with Canopy and other constituent groups to synthesize information into the draft UFMP. Review and feedback from constituents has been included in UFMP. The UFMP was approved unanimously to be conveyed to City Council by the City of Palo Alto Page 3 Planning and Transportation Commission on February 26, 2014, and the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 22, 2014, prompting commencement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. Staff has met and made presentations to others including the Architectural Review Board, the Utilities Advisory Commission, the Canopy Board of Directors, the Community Environment Action Partnership, and a group of Baylands advocates including the Sierra Club and Audubon Society. Input from all groups has been incorporated into the current UFMP. Notable revisions include the addition of an executive summary, enhancement of the description of the ecological benefits of the urban forest, expansion of the development chapter, discussion on solar power, updates to the goals, policies, and programs into an action plan chapter, and addition of an implementation plan with estimated costs and benefits. Description The UFMP includes an introduction and executive sumary;a description of the components and status of the resources;issues are evaluated;and finally recommendations to both address challenges and take advantage of opportunities. Referenced documents such as the resource analysis and survey results report are available on the UFMP web page.The actions are first described in the goals, policies, and programs chapter and then defined as 97 programs, 9 that are ongoing, and 88 that are one-time.Within the implementation plan chapter they are prioritized with financial and staff resources estimated. Recommended actions should significantly improve management thereby optimizing outputs/benefits. The Urban Forest Master Plan provides essential directives to accomplish goals outlined in the comprehensive plan, sustainability/climate action plan (under development), and parks master plan (under development) among others. While this plan contains elements common to urban forest master plans, the data, findings, and recommendations are unique to Palo Alto. In consideration of budget and resource constraints staff recommends a phased implementation approach over ten years. The 97 programs have been divided into three phases to distribute work and budget demands into manageable increments, group similar programs, and complete prerequisite processes to enable larger management improvements. The estimated total costs for all programs during the ten year implementation period (adjusted for inflation) is City of Palo Alto Page 4 $2,103,715, provided by the general fund,while the anticipated derived benefits as outlined in the 2011 resource analysis are valued at $5,353,010 for the same period. Approximately $260,000 of the $2,103,715 will be an ongoing expense, with the remaining $1.9M one time expenses. Ongoing costs related to Development Services permit review, inspection, correspondence, and customer service, shown as a cost of $256,900 in year 1 will be offset by fee revenue. A program for legal compliance with emerging laws and a program for policy updates are ongoing with anticipated cost of approximately $2,500 per year, although increased administrative burden may occur in any year when a new law emerges. Six ongoing programs for procedural updates, outreach, in-house training and staff development, and best practice development are not projected to require funding beyond what is currently budgeted for these activities. No additional city staff is anticipated to implement the plan, however new capacity must be added through mechanisms such as contracts, temporary staff, and partnerships. PHASE YEARS DESCRIPTION COSTS I 1-3 52 Programs -Mostly small cost and short term or initiating/enabling tools for education, information, research, policy analysis, partnership development, and technology updates $896,265 II 4-6 25 Programs -Centered around analysis, motivating action by constituents, and improving policies and procedures $326,030 III 7-10 11 Programs -Data acquisition and analysis to create management plans, strategic plans, and inform crafting the next version of the Urban Forest Master Plan $881,420 Total $2,103,715 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Programs to be implemented first include improvements to policy, procedures, skills development, and collaboration where later programs create management plans, update technology, perform comparative resource analysis, and accomplish other long-term or large-scale initiatives. Benefits are also projected by program, year, and source (such as additional property or sales tax revenue) equating to aggregated returns valued at more than double expected total costs. Summary of Key Issues The UFMP is an essential connector between the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and documents such as the Street Tree Management Plan, Parks Master Plan currently being developed, and proposed Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. It also establishes recommendations for consideration of future amendments to Municipal Code and designated policy such as the Tree Technical Manual. In addition it proposes structural, administrative, or budgetary goals to match performance goals. Staff is aware of cases in other jurisdictions where adoption of their urban forest master plans occurred concurrently with adoption of changes to the Municipal Code. And indeed, staff foresees that to prevent a decline in the appearance of, and benefits from, the urban forest may require changes to Palo Alto’s Municipal Code. However, as such changes will affect multiple departments and the development community, this master plan recommends that such changes be further considered by the urban forester in conjunction with the sustainability team which is inherently cross departmental and holistic in its approach to policies and procedures. Policy Implications The Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan provides recommendations as well as issues to consider for future amendments to Municipal Code, policy documents such as the Tree Technical Manual, and procedures. Resource Impact Substantial staff time and budget has been invested into creation of the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan. Summary of analysis information within the plan City of Palo Alto Page 6 describes costs and benefits of the urban forest in its current condition in addition to potential improvements. Implementation of goals, policies, and programs are expected to correspond to allocations of resources and will have financial implications of both costs and benefits. The overall program costs which will have to be funded by the General Fund are estimated to be $2.1 million over ten years. An approximate annual ongoing expense of $260,000 for Development Services permit review, inspection, correspondence, and customer service, will be needed but will be offset by fee revenue and $2,500 for the legal compliance program. The remaining $1.9M are one-time expenses and staff will analyze each year’s work plan within each phase to establish appropriate funding levels based on timeline, staffing resources and the City’s ability to fund that years activities during the annual budget process. Environmental Review An Initial Study,which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),resulted in a negative declaration determination;it was originally circulated for a 30-day public review period from March 18, 2015 to April 17, 2015. No comments from the public or other agencies were received during the public review period. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a No Effect Determination on April 21, 2015. Courtesy Copies Those interested are encouraged to view or download the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan from the City of Palo Alto web site at, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=36187. Printed copies of the draft plan can be supplied by request. Attachments: ·A -Urban Forest Master Plan March Draft for Council (PDF) ·B -Draft CEQA Initial Study_ForPublicRelease (PDF) ·C -04-22-14 Parks and Recreation Commission APPROVED transcript (PDF) ·D -Planning and Transportation Commission Feb 26 Mins (PDF) Sustaining the Legacy as of M a r c h 2 0 1 5 Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Adopted by the City of Palo Alto on _______________, 2015. Resolution No. _______. 1 Attachment A This page was intentionally left blank 2 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Planii Table of Contents Acknowledgments Funding .................................................................................10 Core Team .............................................................................10 Consultants & Contributors ...................................................11 Special thanks to ...................................................................11 Vision Vision statement ....................................................................15 Executive Summary The legacy.............................................................................19 Sustaining the legacy ............................................................19 Benefits & Value = Canopy Cover & Composition ................20 Coordinated sustainability planning ..................................20 Challenges & Opportunities ..................................................21 Water ................................................................................21 Line clearing .....................................................................21 Solar .................................................................................22 Development .....................................................................22 Community Engagement.......................................................23 The Master Plan survey ....................................................23 Hot Topics .........................................................................24 1. Disparity between north and south Palo Alto .......................24 2. Special considerations for parks & preserves .....................25 2. Species selection .................................................................26 Current Baselines & Future Monitoring .................................27 2010 Master Plan baselines .............................................27 A baseline comparison of 25 cities ...................................27 Future monitoring ..............................................................28 The Urban Forestry division ..................................................28 The Role of the Master Plan .................................................28 Where we are now... Introduction Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan Defining the urban forest .......................................................31 Defining the scope of the master plan...................................32 More than street trees .......................................................32 Objectives .........................................................................33 Action plan ........................................................................33 Information about the trees A brief history 1890-1920: Early plantings ...............................................35 1920-1950: A street tree system and park improvements ....35 1950-1980: A critique of the street tree system and more parks ................................................................36 1982: A street tree management plan and task force .......37 1990-2010: Canopy, tree protection, and Master Plan .....37 2012-2013: An Urban Forester ........................................37 2014: Completion of the Master Plan ...............................37 Benefits & Value 1. i-Tree eco analysis of the Bay Area’s urban forest ..............39 2. i-Tree streets analysis of the Palo Alto street trees .............39 1. Bay Area Report ...................................................................40 2. Palo Alto street tree report ..................................................41 A. Building energy use reduction .............................................41 B. Carbon dioxide sequestration .............................................41 C. Air quality ............................................................................42 4 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Table of Contents D. Storm water runoff reductions .............................................42 E. Aesthetics and property values ...........................................42 Benefit-Investment Ratio ..................................................44 A comparison of the BIRs for 23 cities ..............................44 Ecological services................................................................47 Overall function .....................................................................47 Wildlife habitat ..................................................................48 Social and health benefits .....................................................49 Canopy Cover 1. Overall canopy of the Bay Area.........................................51 2. Overall canopy of Palo Alto ...............................................51 3. Canopy of the Palo Alto’s street trees ...............................51 1. Bay Area Report ...........................................................52 2. Palo Alto overall canopy report ..........................................54 Increases due to private landscaping ......................................56 Increases due to public trees ...................................................58 Decreases due to private landscaping ....................................59 Decreases likely due to street trees ........................................60 Disparity between north and south Palo Alto ...........................62 3. Palo Alto street tree report ..................................................64 Composition A. Information about the composition of the entire urban forest ..............................................................65 B. Information about the composition of Palo Alto’s street trees ......................................................65 1. Oakwell survey .............................................................66 2. Heritage trees ...............................................................68 3. Inventory of private trees within the utility easement ....68 4. Approved landscape plans ............................................68 5. Palo Alto street tree report ............................................68 Species diversity ......................................................................68 Age diversity ............................................................................68 Native species within street tree population .....................67 Drought tolerant species within street tree population ......67 Street tree population by species .....................................67 Information from the community Community surveys 1. Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments survey.........75 2. Master Plan survey ...................................................................75 Urban Forest Master Plan survey & responses .......................76 Hot Topics ................................................................................79 1. What trees mean / importance of trees ...............................80 2. Species selection .................................................................81 3. Drought/water constraints ....................................................82 4. Negative impacts from development ...................................83 5. Negative impacts from city projects and maintenance activities .........................................................84 6. Removals .............................................................................85 7. Communication (from the city) .............................................86 8. Disparity between north and south Palo Alto .......................87 9. City performance and budget ..............................................88 Information about challenges Water Water usage ..................................................................................91 Potable water usage .....................................................................91 Potable water usage and trees ...................................................91 What is NOT known about public trees ...................................91 What is known about public trees ............................................91 What is estimated about private trees .....................................92 Rain water .......................................................................................92 What is known about public trees ............................................92 Estimate of total water use for entire urban forest ...................92 What is known .........................................................................92 What can be extrapolated ........................................................92 Bottom line: ..............................................................................92 What can NOT be extrapolated ...............................................92 Water conservation ...................................................................93 Potable water supply .....................................................................93 5 Table of Contents City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Planiv State Water Conservation Act .....................................................93 Water conservation & trees ..........................................................93 Waste avoidance strategies .....................................................93 More drastic measures ............................................................93 Consideration for trees when implementing water conservation strategies ..................................................94 An urban forest that is climate adapted .........................95 Drought tolerant species ..............................................................95 WUCOLS .................................................................................95 Modified WUCOLS ..................................................................95 Drought tolerant public trees ...................................................96 Drought tolerant private trees ..................................................96 Coaching any species to adapt to Palo Alto conditions ..........96 Alternative waters for landscape irrigation ...................96 Rainwater ..............................................................................94 Greywater ..............................................................................96 Recycled water......................................................................97 Resolution 9035: Salinity Reduction ........................................97 Mixtures of recycled & fresh water ........................................97 Development Urban planning ...............................................................................99 Comprehensive Plan ...............................................................99 American Planning Association ...............................................99 American Society of Landscape Architects .............................99 Individual projects ..........................................................................99 Economics: property values ...............................................100 Hedonic Pricing Methods ...........................................................100 Review of Valuations .............................................................100 Yard and Street Trees ............................................................100 Tree Retention in Development .............................................100 Development: impacts & protection ...............................102 Impacts ..................................................................................102 Protection ..............................................................................102 Government: representation & influence ....................103 Representation & Influence........................................................103 Project review, entitlements, & permits ..................................103 Non-discretionary and discretionary review ....................103 Zoning setback requirements ..........................................104 Solar panel permits & the California Solar Shade Act .....104 Shade requirements for parking lots ...............................105 Designated trees .............................................................106 Mitigation ...............................................................................106 Replacement of removed trees .......................................106 Inspection & enforcement ......................................................106 Outreach ................................................................................107 Education ........................................................................107 Recognition and positive reinforcement ..........................107 Opportunities .....................................................................108 Evolving influences .............................................................108 Green Building Standards .....................................................108 Sustainable Sites Initiative .....................................................108 Inhouse water and energy efficiency programs .....................108 Evolving city policy ..............................................................109 Evolving technologies .........................................................110 Soil volume solutions ..............................................................110 Engineered soil ................................................................110 Structural grids .................................................................110 Solar studies for site planning ................................................111 Line Clearing Trees & power lines ......................................................................113 Palo Alto public assets .................................................................113 Procedures/standards for pruning .............................................114 Right Tree Right Place program .................................................114 Information about stewardship Ownership and Overlapping Roles Ownership ......................................................................................117 Overlapping Stewardship Roles .................................................118 Public Trees ............................................................................118 Overlapping stewardship of public trees .................................118 Private trees ...........................................................................118 Overlapping stewardship of private trees ...............................118 6 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Table of Contents City Hall A History of Commitment .............................................................119 Areas of Concern .................................................................120 1. Policies & protocols ...........................................................121 Comprehensive Plan .............................................................121 Municipal Code ......................................................................121 Climate Protection Plan .........................................................121 Urban Water Management Plan ............................................121 Utilities Strategic Plan ............................................................121 Public tree removal policy ......................................................122 Recycled water policy ............................................................122 Baylands Master Plan ............................................................122 Park and Facility Master Plans ..............................................122 Project review ...............................................................................122 Review by Urban Forestry staff .............................................122 Review by additional departments .........................................122 No Review Required ..............................................................122 Courtesy reviews ...................................................................122 Manuals and Guidelines .............................................................122 Tree Technical Manual ...........................................................122 Street Tree Management Plan ...............................................122 Programs .......................................................................................122 Right Tree Right Place ...........................................................122 Shade Tree Program .............................................................122 Photovoltaic Partners Program .............................................122 2. Field activities....................................................124 Planting ..........................................................................................124 Species selection ...................................................................124 Early tree care ..............................................................................125 Pruning ..........................................................................................125 Line clearing .................................................................................125 Removals ......................................................................................125 Emergency response ..................................................................126 Wood & green waste recycling ..................................................126 3. Resources ..............................................................................127 City staff .........................................................................................127 Canopy ..........................................................................................127 Volunteers .....................................................................................127 Technology ....................................................................................128 Urban Forestry website .........................................................128 TreeKeeper ............................................................................128 Citywide Geographic Information System (GIS) ....................128 Citizen oversight ..........................................................................129 Funding ..........................................................................................129 General fund ..........................................................................129 Utilities ...................................................................................129 Grants ....................................................................................129 Moving toward the Vision A Message from the Urban Forester ...................................133 Goals, Policies, & Programs ....................................................139 Implementation Plan .....................................................................151 Appendices Thirst ratings of known public tree population ...................................191 Master Plan Sources, Resources, & Terms ......................................201 7 Table of Contents City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Planvi This page intentionally left blank. 8 Acknowledgements 9 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Acknowledgments Core team Funding Funding provided by Proposition 84 Through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban and Community Forestry Program Funding provided by Proposition 84 through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban and Community Forestry Program City of Palo Alto Walter Passmore �����������Urban Forester Gloria Humble ���������������Former Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Environment Dave Dockter�����������������Planning Arborist, Department of Public Works Eric Krebs ����������������������Former City Arborist, Department of Public Works Daren Anderson ������������Manager Parks and Open Spaces, Department of Community Services Tomm Marshall ��������������Assistant Director, Utilities Department Catherine Elvert�������������Account Representative, Utilities Department Karen Bengard ��������������Assistant Director, Department of Public Works Phil Bobel ����������������������Assistant Director, Department of Public Works Steven Turner ����������������Manager Advance Planning, Department of Planning and Community Environment Canopy Catherine Martineau ������Executive Director, Canopy Acknowledgements CAL FIRE This document was prepared by Gloria Humble for the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works: Urban Forestry Division Mike Sartor............................Director Walter Passmore.................Urban Forester 10 Acknowledgments City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Planvi Consultants and Contributors Special thanks to Jimi Scheid ���������������������������CAL FIRE liaison Susan Ellis ����������������������������Former Chair, Canopy Board of Directors Circle Point, Inc� Julie Caporgno ���������������������Former Chief Planning Official Trish Mulvey �������������������������Environmental Activist and Community Volunteer HortScience, Inc.Dr� James Clark �������������Principal UC Davis: Department of Land, Air, and Water ResourcesDr� Qingfu Xiao ��������������Assistant Research Water Scientist Davey Resource Group Acknowledgements 11 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Acknowledgments This page intentionally left blank. 12 Vision 13 This page was intentionally left blank 14 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Vision Statement Sustaining the LegacyPalo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan 2012Vision Palo Alto’s urban forest will be a model of form and function— a complement of diverse yet symbiotic ecotypes that will mirror the city’s vibrant and thriving population and provide a tangible connection to nature. Trees, vegetation, soil, air, water, and wildlife will be valued for their individual and interdependent attributes— and cared for as a whole. Natural processes will be undisturbed, supplemented, emulated, or mitigated as appropriate. Both tangible and intangible benefits of green infrastructure will be valued and stewardship will reflect collaboration by city leaders, city staff, residents, property owners, business owners, and partners. Careful management that prioritizes efficiency and innovation and takes advantage of technological advances, will ensure the continuance of these benefits and advances. Opportunities presented by new development will be optimized and negative impacts of new development will be minimized. 15 Vision Statement City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page was intentionally left blank 16 Executive Summary 17 This page was intentionally left blank 18 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary Executive summary The legacy Palo Alto’s urban forest has been nurtured by citizens and staff for more than a hundred and twenty years. Measurable benefits define it as valuable infrastructure and immeasurable benefits help define Palo Alto’s quality of life. In deed, Palo Alto has already achieved many of the goals that are the focus of other urban forest master plans. 1 But, the future cannot be taken for granted. Sustaining the legacy Urban forest concerns overlap those of water, infrastructure, development, solar, and budget. Following are the main concepts of the master plan—with the take-home message and applicable policies and programs for each. Many programs will require collaboration between multiple city depart- ments—and the community. 1 See “Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan” chapter. 19 Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value = Canopy Cover & Composition Coordinated sustainability planning • An emphasis on wildlife benefits in parks and natural areas may result in choosing smaller, fruiting trees. • The increasing importance of local food may result in choosing smaller, fruiting trees. An even greater influence will be how future development proceeds. 2 Intensification and related underground utility requirements threaten to result in fewer planting sites with sufficient soil volume for large trees. It will be important for the urban forestry staff to work with the city’s sustainability team to: • Ensure that the benefits and needs of the urban forest are formally incorporated into citywide sustainability planning. • Identify potential conflicts with other pro- grams—and propose mitigation practices such as enhanced soil space. • Adopt an official list of preferred and restricted species that complements the city’s consider- ations for BVOC emissions and acknowledges the role large broadleaf trees. • Evaluate carbon credit programs. Two analyses done for the master plan (2010) established Palo Alto’s urban canopy cover to be a healthy 37.6% with a majority of the trees being of a benefit-rich broadleaf species. 1 To sustain this scenario and related ecological benefits (such as carbon sequestration) would re- quire the retention and continued planting of large stature broadleaf trees. However, the canopy cover and composition of the future urban forest will also be influenced by other sustainability concepts and programs e.g: • An emphasis on drought and recycled-water tolerance may result in choosing trees with less dense canopies. • Solar panel installations may result in the voluntary removal of large trees or may prevent new large trees from being planted. (E.g., where solar panels might be used—instead of trees— to meet shading requirements for parking lots.) • The “Right Tree Right Place” program subsidizes the exchange of large trees for smaller ones near power lines. • An emphasis on appropriate species for riparian corridors may result in choosing smaller trees. Equitable solutions may not always be obvious; in fact, they may require debate. But a citywide Sustainability Plan is an opportunity to consider the compatibility and desired balance of all envi- ronmental policies and programs. The interdisciplinary, collaborative, cooperative, and comprehensive nature of the solutions will de- termine the urban forest’s sustainability, environ- mental value, economic benefit, equability—and ultimately, the quality of life in Palo Alto. Applicable policies: 1.A., 1.G., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.A., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G. Applicable programs: 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 2.A.i., 2. A.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.vi., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.iii., 3.B.i., 3.B.iii., 3.B.iv., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.v., 4.E.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.ii.. 1 Results of these and other analyses are described further in the “Canopy,” “Composition,” and “Value” chapters. 2 Development is discussed further in “Challenges & Opportunities.” 20 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary Challenges & Opportunities • Encourage nurseries to carry appropriate species. • Work with Canopy to encourage property own- ers to plant appropriate species such as drought tolerant native oaks. Until the proportion of vulnerable trees is re- duced—impacts to the urban forest could be ameliorated by introducing water conservation programs in phases. In other words: • Early phases could employ short-term strategies that accommodate existing vulnerable trees— until their numbers can be reduced through natural mortality. • Later phases could be less accommodating. Ameliorating the impacts of water conservation upon the urban forest will require respect for differing view points and the collaboration of multiple departments—and is an appropriate topic for coordinated sustainability planning. Applicable policies: 1.A., 1.B., 1.C., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B. Applicable programs: 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.C.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.B.i., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i. Line clearing This emerged from the master plan’s community survey as a “Hot Topic” and the city acknowledges that power line clearing can result in a less than desirable tree form. However, like water conserva- tion, the need is incontrovertible. Palo Alto’s fairly unique status—as the utility provider within the city limits—means that the utility, poles, transformers, and wires are public assets—just like the street trees. So, staff and the community have a vested interest in both sides of this issue. Illustrative outreach about the need and protocols for line clearing may be helpful toward the goal of engaging the community as a partner in steward- ing the urban forest. Meanwhile, to reduce the number of conflicts, the city’s Right Tree Right Place program encourages and even subsidizes the exchange of large trees for smaller ones—near power lines. But, as appropri- ate as it is, this program will likely diminish the number of large (benefit-rich) broadleaf trees and mitigation of this loss should be considered in the city’s coordinated sustainability planning. Applicable policies: 1.A., 2.A., 3.A., 3.B., 4.H. Applicable programs: 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 2.A.i., 3.A.i., 3.B.iii., 4.H.i., Water The need for water conservation is incontrovert- ible and the master plan envisions an urban forest that is more climate adapted with a much smaller proportion of trees being vulnerable to water constraints. The transition to a more climate adapted urban forest will be accomplished through master plan programs that emphasize the planting of drought and recycled-water tolerant species as well as pro- grams for coaching other—benefit-rich—species to adapt to local conditions. It will be important to: • Develop protocols for coaching and encourag- ing adaptability. • Establish an accurate account of how much water the trees really need and current sources of supplemental water. • Review the health of the trees currently irrigated with recycled water and close gaps in the knowl- edge of how trees respond to recycled water. • Follow up on the progress of the Salinity Reduc- tion Policy for Recycled Water and review its relationship to city requirements for using recycled water for landscape irrigation. 21 Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan street tree planting sites—thus permanently scar- ring the street scape. But, unlike the impacts of water conservation, power-line clearing, or solar installations, there is little or no argument for allowing this impact. In fact, it is within this challenge that opportu- nities are the greatest. The master plan posits that—with protective policies and procedures in place—development projects can be embraced as opportunities to enhance both the built and natural environment. It will be important to: • Develop canopy thresholds or minimum tree planting requirements for development projects. • Develop standards for soil (volume and condi- tion) as well as drainage (on-site water infiltra- tion in conjunction with natural drainage). • Explore ways to prevent conflicts with under- ground infrastructure such as a requirement to locate underground utilities to a corridor—pref- erably coincident with the driveway. • Evaluate the 50% shading requirement for parking lots (public and private) i.e., identify reasons for success and or failure, modify as needed, and clarify the city’s policy regarding solar panels as a substitute for trees. • Evaluate the recent procedure change (intended to expedite the development permitting process) that allows permits to be granted before tree protection installations have been inspected. • Ensure that recommendations of programs such as CalGreen and Sustainable Sites Initiative are incorporated into the development standards. • Evaluate current guidelines for El Camino Real. • Create guidelines for successfully incorporating solar panels and trees into site design. Responses to the master plan survey indicate that the community perceives development/redevelop- ment to be the greatest threat to the urban forest. Preventing the loss of canopy and/or planting sites due to development will require improvements to project review and inspection procedures—and likely—changes to the Municipal Code. This will affect multiple departments as well the development community and is an appropriate topic for coordinated sustainability planning. Applicable policies: 1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 1.G., 1.H., 2.A., 2.B., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.C., 4.D., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G., 4.H., 4.K. Applicable programs: 1.C.i., 1.C.iv., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.ii., 1.E.iii., 1.E.iv., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii.,1.H.i.,1.H.ii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.v., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 3.B.i., 3.B.ii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.v., 4.C.i., 4.C.ii., 4.D., 4.E.i. 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.ii., 4.G.v., 4.G.vi., 4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.H.ii., 4.H.iv., 4.H.v., 4.H.vi., 4.K.i., 4.K.ii., 4.K.iii., 5.1. Solar Solar power is important to the City’s renewable energy program and incentives are available for properly sited solar panels. The City’s review of conflicts between solar panels and trees is based on the California Solar Shade Act (Public Resource Code Section 25980- 25986). However, neither the Shade Act nor existing City policy speak to the increasing interest in using solar panels—instead of trees—to meet the zoning requirement for 50% shading of a parking lot. The potential impact of this trend is huge and it is an appropriate topic for coordinated sustainability planning. Applicable policies: 1A., 1F., 1G., 1H., 2A., 2B., 3A., 4A., 4B., 4C., 4E., 4H. Applicable programs: 1.A.iii., 1.D.i., 1.E.iii., 1.Fi., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 1.Hi., 1.H.ii., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.vi., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 3.A.ii., 3.A.v., 3.A.vii., 3.A.ix., 3.B.ii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.vi., 4.E.i., 4.E.ii., 4.F.i., 4.G.i., 4.G.vi., 4.H.ii. Development There is little vacant land in Palo Alto and most redevelopment is more intense than what it replac- es. The resulting competition for space often leads to the irrevocable loss of planting sites—including 22 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary Community Engagement 4: Importance of trees: The 3 most popular responses were: 1. Provide shade and cool buildings. 2. Are beautiful. 3. Reduce air pollution. 5: What trees mean to you: Response themes included global issues, a calmer and more beauti- ful community, and a connection to nature. 6: What you don’t like about the public and private trees around you: The 3 most popular responses were: 1. Damage caused by tree roots. 2. Mess from fallen leaves or fruit. 3. Potential damage or injury from fallen branches. 7: What changes are needed regarding more, different, or fewer trees: A majority indicated that they would like more trees within the city; but few wanted more trees in their own yards. 8: Expected benefits from more, different, or fewer trees: Responses indicated expectations re- garding size, species, and the related consequences such as shade, root damage, debris, and allergies. However, in each category, expectations were varied and often opposing. 9: Serious threats: The 3 threats for which most respondents gave a ranking of either “Serious” or “Very Serious”: 1. Urban Development/Redevelopment (Note: Re- sponses to #11 indicated that threats from City projects are perceived to be equal to or greater than threats from private projects.) 2. Lack of proper care. 3. Drought and water constraints. 10: Additional thoughts about threats: Re- sponse themes reiterated the multiple choices (see #9) and added topics such as power line clearing, the city’s budget, and “High Speed Rail”. 11: Areas in which the City needs to improve management of trees: Although there was no consensus, the 3 areas that garnered the strongest majorities were: 1. Informing residents about proposed removals of community trees. 2. Informing residents about tree regulations. 3. Making good choices about tree removals. 12: Additional thoughts about City manage- ment of trees: Response themes reiterated the multiple choices (see #11) and added topics such as obscured street signs, improper irrigation sys- tems, electric line clearing, species selection, and responsiveness to requests. 1 There is an expanded representation of the survey responses in “Community Surveys” chapter of this master plan; and a full report of the survey is available on the Urban Forestry website. The master plan survey The bulk of the urban forest is made up of pri- vately owned trees and successful implementation of the master plan is anticipated to be closely tied to a partnership between staff and the community. To this end, the city conducted an online survey (2011) to better understand the community’s perceptions—related to both trees and tree management by the City. There were over 600 respondents and following is a summary of their responses. 1 1: Who took the survey? • 60 Members of Palo Alto leadership (elected of- ficial, neighborhood board, school board, etc.) • 45 Tree and landscape professionals. • 557 Interested citizens (live in, work in, or frequently visit—Palo Alto.) • 18 Undefined. 2: Respondent zip codes (home): 1. 94306 (33%) 2. 94303 (28%) 3. 94301 & 94304 (26%) 4. Other (13%) 2: Respondent zip codes (work): 1. Other (50%) 2. 94301 & 94304 (18%) 3. 94306 (17%) 4. 94303 (15%) 23 Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan 13: Areas for City focus: The 3 most popular choices are: 1. Encouraging drought tolerant species. 2. Providing more tree maintenance. 3. Planting more trees. 14: Additional thoughts about trees: Response themes reiterate concerns about maintenance, species selection, and budget, and mention a need to coordinate with other agencies, taxes, and property rights. It is likely that the Urban Forestry website will be the most cost efficient way to facilitate community input and outreach; but master plan programs also call for community meetings and workshops to: • Introduce resources such as the Urban Forestry and Canopy websites. • Address “Hot Topics” from the master plan survey (“Hot Topics” are discussed further on this and following pages). • Provide information and motivation—to make responsible choices about private trees. Applicable policies: 1.D., 1.H., 2.A., 2.A., 3.A., 3.B., 4.G., 4.I., 4.K. Applicable programs: 1.D.i., 1.H.ii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.v., 3.A.i., 3.A.ii., 3.A.iii., 3.A.iv., 3.A.v., 3.A.vi., 3.A.vii., 3.B.iv., 4.G.iii., 4.I.x., 4.I.xiii., 4.K.ii., Hot Topics In addition to challenges and “hot topics” already mentioned, these are priority concerns that emerged from either the master plan survey or reviews of the draft plan. 1. The disparity between north and south Palo Alto canopy cover. 2. Special considerations for trees within parks and preserves. 3. Species selection. 1. Disparity between north & south Palo Alto Two citywide canopy analyses done for this master plan enabled staff to identify a disturbing trend. In 1982, the average canopy for the predominately residential sections in the north was 11% greater than the average for those in the south—and by 2010, that disparity had grown to 22%. (See below.) To investigate and reverse this trend is a master plan priority. Applicable policies: 1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 1.G., 3.A., 3.B., 4.B., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G., 4.K. Applicable programs: 1.C.i., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.iii., 1.E.v., 1E.vi., 1.F.i., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 3.A.i., 3.B.i., 3.B.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.E.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.v., 4.G.viii., 4.K.ii.. 6.149.93ecarreT egelloC1 544.63etaghtuoS2 3 Community Center 44.3 51.1 4 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC56 University South 34.8 38.6 4.356.94ellivrosseforP7 8 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO9 7.8392htroN nwotnwoD01 Average 42.83 47.81 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.65.649.44kraP norraB3 7.733.73edreV olaP4 3.535.53wodaemneerG5 9.835.14wodaemriaF6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 Average 38.41 39.11 1982 2010 10 residential neighborhoods of North Palo Alto 1982 2010 7 residential neighborhoods of South Palo Alto 6.149.93ecarreT egelloC1 544.63etaghtuoS2 3 Community Center 44.3 51.1 4 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC5 6 University South 34.8 38.64.356.94ellivrosseforP7 8 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO9 7.8392htroN nwotnwoD01 Average 42.83 47.81 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.6 5.649.44kraP norraB3 7.733.73edreV olaP4 3.535.53wodaemneerG5 9.835.14wodaemriaF6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 Average 38.41 39.11 1982 2010 10 residential neighborhoods of North Palo Alto 1982 2010 7 residential neighborhoods of South Palo Alto 24 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary 2. Special considerations for parks & preserves In concept the urban forest may be considered to encompass all the trees, plants and associated organisms that inhabit the shared ecosystem within Palo Alto—overflowing and interacting across the border. However, tangible limits are necessary to enable meaningful measure- ments—that can be repeated for monitoring—and to ensure that policies are applicable—rather than vague. Therefore, in 2010, the master plan team identified a boundary for the urban forest—to enable acquisition of two canopy analyses. This boundary (which has been retained and utilized throughout development of the plan), encom- passes the area between Highways 101 and 280, the Municipal Golf Course, and a small area west of 280 that includes a single-family neighborhood zoned Residential Estate (RE). Excluded are the city-owned lands of the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve, Baylands, and Foothill Park. (See below.) As the city implements this master plan, it will become better and better informed—and may change the boundary or other parameters that define its urban forest. Meanwhile, master plan policies and programs related to species include language to ensure appropriate considerations within areas that are more ecologically sensitive i.e., parks and preserves. For example: • For parks within the urban forest, program language provides that: • The diversity requirement (no species to exceed 10% of the popula- tion), may be relaxed to ensure a preference for native species. • The city should make the most of opportunities to plant species that are rich in wildlife benefits—including messy trees that are seldom chosen as street trees or yard trees. • For parks, preserves, and open spaces outside the urban forest, programs call for: • Ensuring that the preferred and restricted species list will provide consideration of the unique needs of these areas. • Conducting analyses to establish baselines. • Developing or enhancing Comprehensive Conservation Plans. • Ensuring adequate training for staff. • Ensuring adequate review of CIP projects. • Nurturing volunteer programs. • Updating existing individual park and preserve plans to ensure that they adequately address trees Policies for areas outside the urban forest will be further developed in the future Comprehensive Conservation Plan which is one of the master plan’s programs (4.I.iv.) and a significant portion of the master plan’s budget. (See Implementation Plan for budget information.). Applicable policies: 1.A., 1.B., 1.G., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.A., 4.B., 4.F., 4.G., 4.I., 4.J., 5.1. Applicable programs: 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.G.i., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.B.i., 2.B.iii., 2.B.iv., 2.B.v., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.F.i., 4.G.ii., 4.G.iv., 4.G.vi., 4.I.i., 4.I.ii., 4.I.iii., 4.I.iv., 4.I.v. 4.I.v., 4.I.,vii., 4.I.viii., 4.I.ix., 4.I.x., 4.I.xi., 4.I.xii., 4.I.xiii., 4.I.xiv., 4.J.i., Professorville UniversitySouth CrescentPark CommunityCenter Leland Manor/Garland OldPalo Alto Southgate CollegeTerrace EvergreenPark Midtown/Midtown West PaloVerde Fairmeadow CharlestonMeadows Greenmeadow Ventura BarronPark GreenAcres Palo AltoHills UniversityPark CharlestonTerrace ResearchPark Neighborhood DowntownNorth Leland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/Garland City Boundary Urban Forest as identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan City Boundary City owned parks and preserves outside of the urban forest as it was identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan FeltLake Urban Forest boundary defined for this master plan in 2010 City-owned land consid- ered to be ecologically sensitive—that is NOT within the urban forest boundary defined for this master plan in 2010 25 Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan 3. Species selection The master plan does not make species recommen- dations for either: • Environmental categories such as streets, parks, or preserves, or, • Planning categories such as gateways, view cor- ridors, boulevards, etc.1 Such recommendations would lack consideration of essential information about the site conditions (or micro ecosystems) e.g: • Soil type and available volume. • Water type and availability. • Adjacent uses including playing fields. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines, hardscape, underground infrastructure, existing solar installations, hiking trails, etc. • For street trees, there must be the consideration of existing themes. 1 If a landscape plan with species recommendations were deemed desirable, several master plan programs would be on the critical path of that task— including but not limited to: 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii.,4.G.iv., 4.G.v., 4.G.vi., 4.I.ix. • Within more natural areas, there must be a pref- erence for native species and considerations for wildlife breeding and habitat needs. Therefore, the plan directs the development of tools to help staff and the community make in- formed decisions on a site-by-site basis: These tools will include: 1. A preferred and restricted species list. 2. An online species library. 3. A protocol for selecting species based on specific site conditions. 4. Updated management documents such as the Street Tree Management Plan and associated block-site species list These tools are intended to be: • Available through the internet. • For use by staff, property and business owners, the development community, entities such as neighborhood associations, and the Palo Alto Unified School Board, as well as nurseries that provide trees to these groups. These tools are a master plan priority Applicable policies:1.A., 1.B., 1.D., 1.E., 1.Hi., 2.A., 2.C., 3.A., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.E., 4.G., 4.H., 4.I. Applicable programs: 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.B.ii., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.iii., 1.H.ii., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.A.vi., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.i., 3.B.i., 3.B.iii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.iv., 4.E.i., 4.G.i., 4.G.v., 4.G.vi.,4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.H.ii., 4.I.vii., 4.I.ix. 26 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary Current Baselines & Future Monitoring 2010 master plan baselines Analyses and research done for this master plan have yielded the following 2010 baselines—for future monitoring: 1. Citywide canopy cover .................37.6% 2. North/south canopy disparity (difference between average of north neighborhoods and that of south neighborhoods) .20.0% 2. Street tree canopy cover ...............36.8%. 3. Street tree stocking level ..............92.5% 4. Street tree conditions (wood): Good ..........................................58.4% Fair .............................................35.3% Poor, critical, or dead ...................6.3% 5. Street tree conditions (foliage): Good ..........................................80.2% Fair .............................................17.6% Poor, critical, or dead ...................2.2% 6. Street trees (% large stature broadleaf): Deciduous ..................................26% Evergreen .....................................5% 7. Street (and park) tree thirst ratings: Low ............................................23.0% Moderate ....................................42.0% High ...........................................35.0% 8. Street trees (% native species).........0.4% 9. Street tree benefits (annual value per tree): Energy use reduction ...............$20.23 C02 sequestration ......................$1.77 Air quality ................................-$1.61 Storm water interception ...........$5.85 Aesthetics/Other ....................$201.49 10. Street trees benefits investment ratio (BIR—annually per tree) ..............$3.22 A baseline comparison of 25 cities Additional information—relevant to future monitoring-—is provided in the following ranking of cities known to have conducted i-Tree streets analyses between 2000 and 2010. The first list ranks performance based on the benefit-to-investment ratio (BIR) of costs. The second list reflects the differential in actual costs—per capita. Both methods are limited to comparing benefits data which can be monetized against recorded costs and should be considered as indicators— not comprehensive measures. Many values such as wildlife habitat or enhanced learning environment cannot be effectively monetized. (More details are available in tables in the “Benefits and Value” chapter.) A comparison of benefits to investment ratios (BIRS) 1. Elk Grove, CA (2007) .....................$14.97 2. Austin, TX (2008) .............................$9.87 3. Indianapolis, IN (2008) .....................$6.09 4. New York City, NY (2007) ................$5.80 5. Davis, CA (2003) ..............................$3.78 6. Boulder, CO (2005) ..........................$3.64 7. Portland, OR (2007) .........................$3.61 8. Charlotte, NC (2004) ........................$3.25 9. Palo Alto, CA (2011) ..............$3.22 10. Bismarck, ND (2004) .......................$3.09 11. Honolulu, HI (2007) ..........................$2.98 12. Pittsburgh PA (2008) ........................$2.94 13. Glendale, AZ (2002) .........................$2.41 14. Fort Collins, CO (2003) ....................$2.18 15. Cheyenne, WY (2004) .....................$2.09 16. Orlando, FL (2009) ...........................$1.87 17. Goleta, CA (2007) ............................$1.81 18. Santa Monica, CA (2001) .................$1.61 19. Minneapolis, MN (2005) ...................$1.57 20. Berkeley, CA (2005) .........................$1.37 21. Charleston, SC (2006) .....................$1.34 22. Albuquerque, NM (2006) .................$1.31 23. Boise, ID (2007) ...............................$1.30 24. San Francisco, CA (2003) ................$1.01 1. Elk Grove, CA (2007) .....................$95.46 2. Palo Alto, CA (2011) ............$73.21 3. Minneapolis, MN (2005) .................$42.20 4. Portland, OR (2007) .......................$32.23 5. Boulder, CO (2005) ........................$21.73 6. Davis, CA (2003) ............................$20.48 7. Fort Collins, CO (2003) ..................$12.98 8. Austin, TX (2008) ...........................$12.75 9. New York City, NY (2007) ..............$12.29 10. Bismarck, ND (2004) .....................$12.10 11. Santa Monica, CA (2001) ...............$10.77 12. Goleta, CA (2007) ..........................$10.01 13. Cheyenne, WY (2004) .....................$8.78 14. Berkeley, CA (2005) .........................$8.62 15. Orlando, FL (2009) ...........................$8.37 16. Charlotte, NC (2004) ........................$6.49 17. Indianapolis, IN (2008) .....................$6.09 18. Pittsburgh PA (2008) ........................$5.17 19. Honolulu, HI (2007) ..........................$2.88 20. Charleston, SC (2006) .....................$1.73 21. Glendale, AZ (2002) .........................$1.44 22. Boise, ID (2007) ...............................$1.17 23. Albuquerque, NM (2006) .................$0.47 24. San Francisco, CA (2003) ................$0.08 27 Executive Summary City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Future monitoring Among the highest priorities for monitoring are: • An increase in the percentage of native species (oaks in particular) in the street tree popula- tion—thereby capturing their adapted water conservation and hardiness. • A reversal of the canopy cover decreases identi- fied in three south Palo Alto neighborhoods— thereby improving canopy equity throughout the city. • Sustained benefits. The master plan also recommends analyses to establish additional baselines for monitoring e.g: • Canopy cover in the open spaces. (Currently done for street trees and urban area only.) • Benefits and value for overall citywide canopy. (Currently done for street trees only; may be established with only sample data set.) • Wildlife benefits of urban forest and natural area forests. (Unprecedented; also may be established with sample data set.) Regardless of whether specific and/or numeric goals are set, conducting follow up analyses and monitoring change is fundamental to the vision and goals of this plan. Baseline information developed for areas outside the urban forest will also be rel- evant to the future Comprehensive Conservation Plan which, as mentioned earlier, is one of this plan’s programs and a part of this plan’s budget. Applicable policies:1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 4.B., 4.F., 4.G., 4.I., Applicable programs: 1.C.ii., 1.C.iii., 1.D.i., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 4.B.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.ii., 4.I.i., 4.I.ii., The Urban Forestry Division In parallel with the development of the urban forest master plan, the city adopted a tree removal policy, hired its first urban forester, reorganized tree responsibilities, created the urban forestry division, and began the urban forestry website. All programs in this master plan aim to improve the urban forestry division and its ability to func- tion. Programs that may not have been mentioned so far relate to: • Qualifications of staff with tree care or tree-care related responsibilities. • Awareness of city policies that affect trees—by all staff. • Community input and outreach. • Supportive technology. Applicable policies:1.B, 1.C., 1.E., 1.F., 1.H., 2.B., 3.A., 4.B., 4.C., 4.G., 4.H., 4.I., 4.J., 4.K. Applicable programs: 1.B.ii., 1.C.iii., 1.C.iv., 1.E.ii., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 1.H.ii., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 3.A.iv., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.C.i., 4.C.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.iii., 4.G.iv., 4.G.v., 4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.G.ix., 4.H.i., 4.H.iii., 4.H.v., 4.H.vi., 4.I.vi., 4.I.viii., 4.I., ix, 4.I.x., 4.I.xii., 4.I.xiv., 4.J.i., 4.K.iii. The Role of the Master Plan The “Implementation Plan” accommodates year by year planning for: • Budget needs. • Inter-depertmaneal collaboration logistics. • Municipal Code updates. • Monitoring The “Goals, Policies, and Programs” are embed- ded with details to ensure that: • The thoughtful contributions of the many participants will be retained through out its 10 year implementation schedule. • Implementation will fully address the needs that were identified during the process of developing the plan. The “Information,” “Challenges,” and “Steward- ship” chapters reaffirm the intent of the plan and inform the implementation effort with articulate descriptions of: • Existing conditions. • Concerns and threats. • Parameters and resources. The “Vision” will serve as inspiration as the city and community undertake the implementation of the master plan. 28 Where we are now Information about the trees Introduction • A Brief History • Benefits & Value • Canopy Cover • Composition • Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan 29 This page was intentionally left blank 30 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan Fig. 0b: City owned parks and preserves outside the urban forest (as it was defined in 2010 for the Urban Forest Master Plan). Fig. 0a: Urban Forest as defined in 2010 for the city’s Urban Forest Master Plan. Professorville UniversitySouth CrescentPark CommunityCenter Leland Manor/Garland OldPalo Alto Southgate CollegeTerrace EvergreenPark Midtown/Midtown West PaloVerde Fairmeadow CharlestonMeadows Greenmeadow Ventura BarronPark GreenAcres Palo AltoHills UniversityPark CharlestonTerrace ResearchPark Neighborhood DowntownNorth Leland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/Garland City Boundary Urban Forest as identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan City Boundary City owned parks and preserves outside of the urban forest as it was identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan FeltLake Defining the urban forest In concept the urban forest may be considered to encompass all the trees, plants and associated organisms that inhabit the shared ecosystem within Palo Alto—overflowing and interact- ing across the border. However, tangible limits are necessary to enable meaningful measurements—that can be repeated for future monitoring and to ensure that policies are applicable—rather than vague. In 2010, the master plan team identified a boundary for the urban forest—to enable acquisition of a canopy analysis. The boundary encompasses the area between Highways 101 and 280 as well as the Municipal Golf Course and a small area west of 280 that includes a single-family neighborhood zoned Residential Estate (RE). (Fig. 0a) • The Airport was excluded because landscape decisions within the airport are subject to rigorous review and other, more restrictive, policies and regulations. • The Baylands, Atrastradero Preserve, Foothills Park (Fig. 0b), and the majority of the private lands west of Highway 101—were excluded because they are not urban and land- scape decisions within these areas are subject to rigorous review and other, more restrictive, policies and regulations. As the city implements this 10-year plan, it will become better and better informed—and may change the boundary or other parameters that define its urban forest. 31 Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Defining the scope of the master plan More than street trees Many urban forest master plans are about street trees—focusing on goals that Palo Alto has already achieved. This is not to say that Palo Alto street trees do not have issues. Development, infrastructure, solar, and water entail intense concerns. However, given that… • The street tree program had a solid foundation, • Private trees make up the bulk of the urban forest, • Issues apply to both public and private trees, and • City Council discussion included a desire for a baseline of the citywide urban forest... ...the goals, policies and programs of this master plan strive to speak to the whole urban forest. . To this end, the master plan team invested in two citywide canopy analyses—one for 1982 and one for 2010—and conducted an in depth comparison to: • Identify trends of the last 30 years and • Establish existing conditions for future monitoring. Also to this end, the plan accentuates the overlapping roles of city staff and property owners in stewarding all the trees within the urban forest. Having said this, the lengthy history of management of the street trees does mean that the master plan is able to present more detailed information about the street trees than of any other trees. Indeed, the plan suggests that the city’s care for street trees is paramount—not only because they are a beloved community as- set, but also because...how the city cares for the street trees sets a highly visible example for those who own and care for private trees. Palo Alto has already achieved many of the goals found in other urban forest master plans; such as: 1. A single responsible party for the street trees, sidewalk, and associated liabilities. 2. A geocoded digital inventory of 100% of the street trees (not a sampling), their condition, and related maintenance tasks. 3. An annual program to survey and monitor the con- dition of baby street trees (conducted by Canopy and volunteers.) 4. A tree protection ordinance (& illustrated supple- ment that has received national recognition). 5. A planning arborist. 6. A program for ongoing community workshops and tree walks (conducted by Canopy and volunteers.) 7. An i-Tree streets analysis of 100% (rather than a sampling) of the street tree population and base- line of hard numbers for and economic relevance of the urban forest benefits. 8. A relatively dense canopy (both for the street trees and citywide). 9. An urban forester. 10. A recycling program for tree trimmings. 11. Recognition as a “tree city” by the National Arbor Day Foundation. 12. A volunteer program (coordinated by Canopy.) 13. While it is not as detailed or as extensive as the information about street trees, Palo Alto also has extremely valuable information about private trees such as the historical overall canopy analyses, Heritage Tree Inventory, Oakwell survey, and ap- proved landscape plans for commercial and multi- family projects. 32 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan Objectives 1. Establish value: Communicate information about benefits that are integral to Palo Alto’s high quality of life—to affirm that trees should be considered when: • The City Council establishes sustainability policies and makes budget decisions. • Boards and commissions make development recommendations. • Staff make field decisions. • Residents, property owners, and business own- ers make landscaping decisions. 2. Document baselines for future monitoring. 3. Engage the community: Describe: • Overlapping roles of staff and community. • Resources such as Canopy. Communicate that the City: • Is committed to sustaining the urban forest. • Is aware of challenges. • Is aware of the need to manage the public trees cost effectively. • Acknowledges community concerns. • Is committed to improving outreach. 4. Provide an action plan: goals, policies and programs. Action plan (Goals, Policies, and Programs) There are many valuable ways to categorize trees. For example, city-owned trees—which in turn includes: • Rights-of-way. • Developed parks. • Open spaces, and preserves. • Facilities such as the City Hall and libraries. • Facilities such as the Municipal Services Cen- ter, and Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and fire stations. • Municipal Golf Course. • Parking lots. To address each category in an effective way is be beyond the scope of this document. The master plan provides over arching goals and policies— and an action plan for the Urban Forestry Division that directs further advance planning such as: 1. Updating the Street-Tree Management Plan. (Program 4.G.viii.) 2. Developing Comprehensive Conservation Plans. (Program 4.I.iv.) 3. Updating existing park plans and/or developing new plans to ensure that tree issues are ad- dressed. (Program 4.I.v.) To make species recommendations based on categories of any kind—including city planning categories such as gateways, view corridors, bou- levards, etc. would lack consideration of essential information because within any category are site specific conditions (microecosystems) defined by: • Water availability and type (e.g., creek, high water table, or irrigation systems, recycled water, etc.) • Soil type and available volume. • Adjacent property use including proximity to playing fields. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines, hardscape, underground infrastructure, existing solar installations, hiking trails, etc. • Within more natural areas, there must be a pref- erence for native species and considerations for wildlife breeding and habitat needs. • For street trees, there must be the consideration of existing themes. Therefore, instead of making species recommen- dations, the plan directs the development of tools to help both staff and property owners make deci- sions on a site-by-site basis: 1. A preferred species list. (Program 1.A.ii.) 2. A restricted species list. (Program 1.A.ii.) 3. An online species library—searchable by at- tributes. (Program 1.A.i.) 4. A protocol for selecting species based on spe- cific site conditions. (Program 1.A.iii.) 33 Defining the urban forest & scope of the plan City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. 34 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan A Brief History A Brief History Ph o t o s c o u r t e s y o f t h e P a l o A l t o H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Fig. 1: Professorville streets were already lined with trees when they were paved. Presumably some of these trees were native and some planted by residents. This photo shows paving work being done to the section of Waverley Street between Kingsley and Lincoln circa 1902. The following draws from several sources including: • The 1982 Street Tree Management Plan. • “The Ecological Street Tree: Mainstreaming the Production of Street Tree-based Ecosystem Ser- vices in Northern California Cities, 1980-2008” by Georgia Norma Silvera Seamans. 1890—1920: Early plantings In the early years there was no distinction between public and private trees; they were all planted by residents—who were mostly from the east and mid west and tended to plant species they had enjoyed back home e.g., elms, lindens, black walnuts, sycamores. The agricultural explosion brought English wal- nuts, apricot, almond and other orchard trees. Residents such as Senator Stanford, imported exotic species from Australia such as the acacias, eucalyptus, and grevillea. The Australian imports, as well as other fast-grow- ing species, were popular in subdivisions created after World War I. There were no parks (or park trees) yet but that would soon change because—as illustrated by the excerpt on the next page—Palo Alto was destined to become a tree city. Street trees: During the 1920s, the City established a municipal nursery and took on the responsibility of furnishing and planting “street trees”. The City was willing to plant any species and quantity a resident might request as long the trees were available in the nursery. A brief history of the urban forest and the evolution of the city street tree system 1920—1950: A street tree system and park improvements 35 A Brief History City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan In the 1930s, laborers of the federal government’s Work Projects Administration (WPA) produced the city’s first street tree survey—identifying 96 spe- cies along 90 miles of streets. By 1946, the post World War II building boom had begun and the Federal Housing Authority required a tree on every lot which resulted in about 2,000 additional trees a year along the streets—espe- cially in south Palo Alto. 1950—1980: A critique of the street tree system and more parks Street trees: During the 1950s, the Assistant City Engineer, Irwin Johnson, was determined to bring order out of chaos. He analyzed the then street tree system and concluded that: 1. The City’s willingness to plant whatever was requested had resulted in 9,000 sycamores planted 25-30 feet apart and over 10,000 mag- nolias planted 12-25 feet apart. In his opinion, 30,000 trees were growing where 18,000 would be adequate. 2. Only 7 of the 96 species were good street trees. The rest were fast-growing forest giants that were raising sidewalks, bursting curbs, inter- fering with storm drainage, plugging sanitary laterals, interrupting gas and water services and growing into the overhead wires. Mr. Johnson approved 30 species for street trees and throughout the next three decades, 60,000 of these were planted. The result was a city of tree- lined streets that were known for their beauty—but costly to maintain. In 1959, the City, Chamber of Commerce, and Civic Association jointly published, Trees of Palo Alto noting their aesthetic and practical benefits. Parks: During the 1950s, Hoover, Robles, Ra- mos, and Seale parks were developed south of Oregon through a program that called for a park within a half-mile of any residence and next to a school site. During the 1960s and 70s several more parks and open spaces were acquired and the Excerpted from the “Trees of Palo Alto,” published by the City of Palo Alto in 1976 “...From 1903-1916, the women of Palo Alto adopted the role of... guardian angels to all trees. The town could not even cut the trees in the roadways. Teams of horses were adept at circling the trees. You can’t fool a horse, but humans behind the wheel of the newfangled automobiles had problems. There were several accidents, followed by damage claims. One night a local doctor, returning from a mission of mercy, drove into one of the roadway trees. The incident rocked the town, and precipitated the “Great Oak War,” as the news- papers dubbed the controversy. Tree lovers suggested that the doctor should have been more careful. Some irate citizens wanted all the roadway trees removed. Thoughtful citizens suggesting lighting the trees. The town held an initiative election that was inconclusive because of six questionable votes. One councilman resigned in indignation. The increasing popularity of automobiles smoothed the way for removal of trees in the streets, but Palo Alto’s passion for trees had become firmly rooted...” As with the earlier, boom of the 1920s, the prefer- ence was for fast-growing species. Parks: In 1922, the City acquired Rinconado Park and the grove of redwoods now known as “The Magic Forest” came under public ownership. In 1925, the annexation of Mayfield brought May- field, Cameron, Weisshaar, and Werry parks under City management and in 1928, the City planted the trees along the El Camino Real border of El Camino Park. 36 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan A Brief History City passed the Park Dedication Ordinance which continues to protect trees within parks. In 1972 the city added an Open Space element to the Compre- hensive Plan which establishes the importance of trees at the highest level of city policy. 1982: A street tree management plan and task force Street trees: By the 1980s, environmental protec- tion was a priority. In 1981, the Council created the Palo Alto Tree Advisory Task Force to develop a plan. The Task Force identified three concerns: 1. Even-aged stands can decline simultaneously, leaving areas of the City without trees. 2. Mono cultures are more vulnerable to a single threat than areas of diverse species. 3. Species selection had been dominated by the desire for fast-growth for 100 years. The resulting Palo Alto Street Tree Management Plan focused on these three concerns and, unlike the City Engineer’s analysis in the 1950s, ac- knowledged the value of the urban forest citing the role trees play in protection from climate, habitat for birds, insects, and mammals, visual beauty, and a tangible link to our most fundamental heritage. In conjunction with adopting the plan, Palo Alto hired its first City Arborist. Also during the 1980s, the city began keeping an electronic inventory of the street trees—to record data about individual trees, prioritize maintenance requirements, and help set budget needs. Parks: It is interesting to note that the Baylands— identified for park use in the 1930s—had for decades been envisioned as a traditional park with big leafy trees. However, in the 1980s the envi- ronmentally savvy community rejected this vision, and instead, allowed much of the area to revert to its, treeless, natural state. 1990—2010: Canopy, tree-protection, and Master Plan In 1993, the City Council appointed a second Task Force and by 1996, the Council had: • Allocated funding for Canopy, non-profit orga- nization—founded by a group of residents—to serve as the community’s resource on tree- related matters and act as the City’s advisor and partner for tree planting and tree care activities. • Adopted a Tree Protection Ordinance and developed the Tree Technical Manual to guide implementation of the ordinance. • Hired a Planning Arborist. In 1999, a group of residents came together with the goal of transforming El Camino Real into a safe, welcoming, tree-lined boulevard. By 2001, they had formed the Trees for El Camino Project—a 501(c)(3) public benefit organiza- tion—to raise money. The combined efforts of this organization and the City, resulted in the repair of the irrigation system and the planting of over 100 trees. The the organization also spearheaded nego- tiations with Stanford University and Caltrans to increase the number of plantings along El Camino Real. In 1998, the City adopted a Comprehensive Plan that including several goals, policies, and pro- grams to preserve, maintain, and enhance the city’s urban forest. On Earth Day 2006,Council directed staff to create a new Street Tree Management Plan to implement those Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. . In 2007, the City collaborated with Canopy to ap- ply for two CAL FIRE grants: 1. To update and geocode the street tree inventory. 2. To develop a Master Plan. In August of 2008, the grant was awarded; how- ever, due to staffing and budget constraints, the Master Plan was delayed. During 2010 and 2011, the City adopted a tree removal policy for public trees and conducted studies to inform the Master Plan. • Online Community Survey • Citywide Canopy Analysis • Update of Street Tree Inventory and geocoding of records 2012—2013: An Urban Forester In 2012, the City began implementing changes that addressed needs identified in the early stages of the Master Plan process e.g., the City: • Created of an urban forestry section and con- solidated tree-care activities • Hired first urban forester to oversee new division and complete the Urban Forest Master Plan. 2014: Completion of the Master Plan Under the leadership of the new Urban Forester, the Master Plan is being completed. 37 A Brief History City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Figs. 2a-c: University Circle 1894, 1941, and 2011: Although each of these photos is shot from a different angle, the train tracks and familiar curve of University Circle provide enough orientation for the viewer to appreciate the changes during the 117 years spanned by the photos. 1894: These oak trees may well be native —and over 100 years old at the time of the photo. 1941: The downtown area was cleared to accommodate development. 2011: Now, there is very little space for private landscaping in the downtown. However, since the 1970s, the City has aggressively planted street trees and it is not unusual for downtown-oriented advertisements to mention the tree-lined streets. Two historical photos (top and bottom left) courtesy of the Palo Alto Historical Association Aerial photo (bottom right) from Google Maps a1894 b1941 c2011 38 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value Benefits & Value Information about the benefits of the entire urban forest and of the street tree system A view of the overall urban forest A view of the street trees Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f C a n o p y Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy 1. i-Tree eco analysis of the Bay Area’s urban forest: San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report In 2007, the Center for Urban Forest Research published a report by James R. Simpson and E. Gregory McPherson. For this report, the authors used the i-Tree eco model to quantify—in dollars— the benefits of the vast urban forest of the entire Bay Area—county by county. (Fig 3) 2. i-Tree streets analysis of the Palo Alto street trees: City of Palo Alto, California Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis. In 2010 the City engaged Davey Resource Group to do a i-Tree streets analysis of the street trees. (Figs 4-6) Trees provide enormous environmental and social benefits. They also require investment. To enable a comparison of benefits and investment, the USDA Forest Service developed the analytical software: i-Tree eco for analyzing entire urban forests. i-Tree streets for analyzing street-tree systems. These financial analyses of ecosystem benefits are limited and do not include benefits such as wildlife habitat, enhanced learning environment, or increased asphalt duration; however, they are the industry standard and widely accepted as being relevant to city planning. This chapter presents and compares information from an analysis of each type. 39 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Table 14. Benefit Versus Investment Summary for Palo Alto’s Right-of-Way Tree Resource Benets Total ($) $/tree $/capita Energy 589,805 20.23 9.22 CO2 51,563 1.77 0.81 Air Quality - 46,888 - 1.61 - 0.73 Stormwater 170,504 5.85 2.66 Aesthetic/Other 5,873,529 201.49 91.77 Total Benets $6,638,513 $227.73 $103.73 Investment Purchasing/Planting Trees 68,750 2.36 1.07 In-house and Contract Pruning 454,458 15.59 7.10 Pest Management 10,000 0.34 0.16 Irrigation 60,000 2.06 0.94 Removal 164,000 5.63 2.56 Administration 216,792 7.44 3.39 Inspection/Service 200,000 6.86 3.13 Infrastructure Repairs 800,000 27.44 12.50 Litter Clean-up 90,000 3.09 1.41 Total Investment $2,064,000 $70.80 $32.25 Net Benets $4,574,513 $156.93 $71.48 Benet-Investment Ratio 3.22 Fig. 3: Excerpt from Bay Area Report: (Table 11: i-Tree eco analysis of 9 Bay Area counties.) Note: “low” and “high” refer to density. 30 benefit type and tabulated for each county and land use in Appendix 3. Totals in millions of dollars are summarized in Table 10. The largest fraction of ben-efits was associated with low-density residential land use (70 percent), the least with transportation (< 1 percent), with 11, 10, 6 and 3 percent for high-density residential, open space, commercial/industrial and institutional, respectively. Larger counties with sizeable residential populations had the greatest total benefits (e.g. Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Alameda).Comparison of benefits with previous work done by the Center for Ur-ban Forest Research is facilitated by conversion of results to a per-tree basis (Table 11). We expected differences in results because the simulations for this study used more recent median home sales prices, and different benefit prices, tree mortality rates, and average tree sizes. A value of $89 per tree was found for Berkeley (Maco et al. 2005), compared to $104 per tree here, an increase of 17 percent. A similar analysis for San Francisco yielded $77 per tree (Maco et al. 2003), compared to $110/tree found here, an increase of 43 percent. Dif-ferences between studies are similar to the increases in property values that occurred between studies, which were 13 percent for Berkeley and 39 percent County Residential low Residential high Commercial / industrial Institu-tional Transpor-tation Open space Total Alameda 422 118 46 27 3 73 690Contra Costa 666 109 41 25 3 102 946Marin363 32 24 1 2 66 487Napa93 15 3 4 0 21 136San Francisco 6 39 3 5 1 49 103San Mateo 446 60 23 21 5 64 617 Santa Clara 1,136 121 123 56 5 94 1,535 Solano 171 14 13 6 1 29 233 Sonoma 297 61 26 10 1 26 422 Bay Area 3,599 569 303 155 22 524 5,171 Table 10—Total net benefits by county and land use (millions of dollars) County Residential low Residential high Commercial / industrial Institu-tional Transpor-tation Open space Total Alameda 156 116 95 80 3 90 105 Contra Costa 151 110 91 72 2 82 109 Marin 189 139 109 89 4 106 136 Napa 185 134 107 89 3 99 130 San Francisco 197 148 114 107 5 119 110 San Mateo 197 148 114 107 5 119 139 Santa Clara 181 132 107 89 3 99 125 Solano 152 109 90 72 2 80 100 Sonoma 185 134 107 89 3 99 137 Bay Area 172 126 102 86 3 97 120 Table 11—Total net benefits (dollars/tree) by county and land use 1. Bay Area report: The 2007 bay-area analysis is gross; but the consistency between the reports is worth noting. For example: • Table 11 of the Bay Area report states that the “Total” annual value of the benefits of the trees within Santa Clara County—per tree— is $125. • This (Table 11) “Total” value incorporates a variety of values associated with transporta- tion, open space, institutional, and commer- cial/industrial land uses. • Table 11 indicates that for low-density residential land use, the annual value of the benefits of the trees within Santa Clara County—per tree—is $181. • A large percentage—but not all—of the land within the Palo Alto urban forest boundary is low-density residential. So, to be consistent with the bay-area report, the Palo Alto report would need to indicate an annual benefit—per tree—somewhere between $125 and $181. • Table 14 of the Palo Alto report indicates that the annual benefits of the trees within Palo Alto—per tree— is $156. (Figs 3 & 4) Fig. 4: Excerpt from the Palo Alto Report (Table 14: i-Tree-streets analysis of Palo Alto street trees) 40 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value 2. Palo Alto street-tree report The 2010 i-Tree streets analysis measured the benefits of Palo Alto’s street trees and indicated that the annual value of the street-tree benefits is $6,638,513—and that the annual cost of maintain- ing the street trees is $2,064,000. Following are highlights from the analysis. A. Building energy use reduction In hot months, urban trees reduce the need for of air conditioning (electricity) by shading hardscape surfaces and thereby reducing how much radiant heat is transferred into buildings. Trees also help to cool ambient temperature as their leaves convert moisture to water vapor because they are using solar energy that would otherwise heat the air. In cool months, urban trees reduce the amount of electricity and natural gas used to heat interior spaces by reducing the wind speed and, therefore, how much cold air moves into a building through openings or is conducted in through window surfaces. The Palo Alto i-Tree streets analysis indicates that the shading and climate effect of the street trees provides an annual electricity-reduction benefit valued at $485,512 and an annual natural gas- reduction benefit valued at $104,293. The I-Tree streets analysis indicates that the annual benefit from energy reduction has a value of $589,805 or $20.23/tree. The i-Tree streets analysis goes on to say that liquidambar, modesto ash, and tulip trees are cur- rently the greatest contributors—due to their large stature and relative maturity; however, chinese pistache, red maple, yarwoodsycamore, red oak, and ginkgo can be expected to make higher contri- butions as their populations mature. B. Carbon dioxide sequestration Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in two ways: 1. Directly: a. Trees absorb and sequester C02. b. Trees shade parked cars and hardscape thereby reducing the release of hydrocar- bons that are involved in ozone formation. 2. Indirectly: Trees lower the demand for heating and air conditioning, thereby avoiding the emissions associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. The Palo Alto i-Tree streets analysis indicates that Palo Alto’s street trees reduce CO2 as follows: 1. Directly: They sequester 2,263.8 tons/year 2. Indirectly: They avoid 1,567.3 tons/year. The total C02 reduction (direct and indirect) is 3,832.1 tons/year. On the other hand, CO2 is released by vehicles and combustion engines associated with tree maintenance; and when a tree dies, CO2 that has accumulated as woody biomass is released back into the atmosphere (unless the wood is recycled). The Palo Alto i-Tree streets analysis indicates that the urban forest contributes CO2 as follows: 1. Tree-maintenance activities emit -1.7 tons/year. 2. Tree decomposition emits an estimated -391.9 tons/year. The total C02 contribution 393.6 tons/year.. Subtraction of the total C02 contribution from the total C02 reduction results in a net reduction of 3,437.5 tons/year. Reduction Sequestration…………. 2,263.8 tons/year Avoidance……………. 1,567.3 tons/year Emissions Decomposition………. (391.9)tons/year Mainenance activities… (1.7) tons/year Net Reduction………………. 3,437.5 tons/year C02 Reduction and Emission Summary The I-Tree streets analysis indi- cates that the net annual benefit from CO2 reduction has a value of $51,563 or $1.77/tree. Modesto ash, holly oak, and coast live oak are currently providing the highest per tree benefit. Southern magnolia are providing the greatest per- centage of overall benefits due to their prevalence in the street-tree population. 41 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan C. Air quality Urban trees improve air quality by: • Absorbing or intercepting nitrogen dioxide, small particulate matter (dust, ash, dirt, pollen, and smoke), sulfur dioxide, and ozone. • Reducing energy consumption and thereby avoiding air pollutants from being emitted into the atmosphere. • Increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis. • Reducing air temperature and thereby reducing ozone levels. On the other hand, trees emit various biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). These emissions are accounted for by i-Tree Streets in the air quality net benefit. Species vary dramatically in their ability to pro- duce net air quality benefits. While all emit some BVOCs, most species contribute benefits to over- all air quality that far outweigh these emissions. Typically, large-canopied trees with large leaf surface areas that are not high emitters of BVOCs produce the greatest benefits The Palo Alto i-Tree streets analysis indicates that most of Palo Alto’s street trees produce the follow- ing positive air quality benefits annually. They: • Absorb or intercept 6.7 tons of nitrogen dioxide. • Avoid 2 tons of air pollutants . • Increase of oxygen levels through photosynthesis. • Reduce air temperature and there by reduce ozone levels. Chinese elm, modesto ash, and camphor currently produce the greatest per tree net air quality im- provements. Due to its prevalence in the inventory, and its relative maturity, the Modesto ash species accounts for the greatest air quality improvements within the street-tree system. However, four out of the top ten most prevalent tree species in Palo Alto’s public tree inventory are high BVOC emitters that result in net negative air quality for the overall tree resource. Liquidambar, —a species that is no longer planted by the City— results in the greatest overall net loss, followed by southern magnolia, coast live oak, and red oak for a net of 6.7 tons BVOC emissions which has a cost of $82,542 or $10.26 per tree. All the other species demonstrate a net benefit by removing 366 pounds of air pollutants. This has a value of $35,654 or $1.69 per tree. The i-Tree streets analysis indicates that, unfortunately, the bottom line is a annual net air quality loss with an associated cost of $46,888 or $1.61/tree. D. Storm water runoff reductions Urban trees reduce the amount of runoff and pol- lutants that reach water bodies in three ways: 1. Tree leaves and branches intercept rainfall and act as mini-reservoirs that delay flows and re- duce the volume of peak flows. This is especial- ly important in urban settings with significant impervious surfaces near waterways. 2. Root growth and decomposition increase the ca- pacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall— thereby reducing overland flow. 3. Tree canopies reduce soil erosion and surface flows by diminishing the impact of raindrops on barren surfaces. The Palo Alto i-Tree streets analysis indicates that, annually, the street trees intercept 42,600,000 gal- lons of storm water—1,462 gallons per tree. The i-Tree streets analysis indicates that the annual storm-water runoff reduction benefit has a value of $170,504 or $5.85/tree. Camphor trees provide the greatest per tree ben- efit. Southern magnolias provide the second great- est. Many of the species currently demonstrating very low benefits, including ginkgo, red maple, chinese pistache, and yarwood sycamore, are im- mature populations of medium and large-growing trees. With appropriate maintenance, benefits from storm water runoff reductions as well as for energy, air quality, carbon sequestration, and aesthetics will increase significantly. E. Aesthetics and property values Trees make a community more attractive and add value to property. To assign a value to this less tangible benefit, i-Tree Streets compares sales prices of homes with and without trees—giving consideration to circumstances such as: 1. Land use e.g., street trees have the most affect of the value of single-family properties, less on multi-family, and even less on commercial and nonresidential properties. 42 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value Fig. 5: Table 13 from the Palo Alto report breaks down the benefits per species—for the 22 most populous species in the street tree component of the urban forest. Table 13 Summary of Overall Current Annual Per Species Benefits from Palo Alto’s Right -of- Way Tree Resource Species Total Energy ($) Total CO2 ($) Total Air Quality ($) Total Stormwater ($) Total Aesthetic/Other ($) Total All Benets % of Pop Magnolia grandiora 95,018.83 8,128.83 - 6,322.11 35,905.91 815,617.33 948,348.79 13.93 Platanus acerifolia 74,618.45 6,564.88 6,778.74 23,834.72 585,257.80 697,054.59 9.71 Liquidambar styraciua 95,525.89 5,894.32 - 59,093.52 19,588.86 817,989.08 879,904.63 9.16 Fraxinus velutina 'Modesto' 51,270.27 5,107.92 15,044.75 12,283.67 425,592.96 509,299.57 5.08 Cinnamomum camphora 23,104.81 2,363.10 10,428.93 10,074.13 180,937.82 226,908.79 3.89 Pistacia chinensis 10,877.15 513.32 2,162.08 2,303.78 106,242.08 122,098.41 3.52 Ulmus parvifolia 17,452.89 1,177.58 9,622.32 7,111.09 75,973.69 111,337.57 2.81 Quercus rubra 8,780.68 1,029.02 - 7,281.84 2,434.74 176,651.03 181,613.63 2.67 Ginkgo biloba 7,215.28 388.97 1,164.51 1,144.13 66,290.42 76,203.31 2.17 Quercus agrifolia 11,300.52 1,434.47 - 9,844.07 4,482.10 131,303.95 138,676.97 1.83 Platanus acerifolia 'Yarwood' 5,781.80 451.13 - 378.65 1,292.14 132,920.94 140,067.36 1.77 Quercus ilex 11,438.10 1,390.54 - 9,978.24 4,020.18 130,558.26 137,428.84 1.77 Acer rubrum 4,666.94 316.37 480.23 741.89 71,808.26 78,013.69 1.43 Tilia cordata 7,395.09 557.11 1,114.13 1,351.35 80,527.82 90,945.50 1.43 Betula pendula 5,666.29 404.67 718.95 975.55 68,558.33 76,323.79 1.28 Fraxinus oxycarpa 7,399.53 580.16 1,251.70 1,412.27 75,561.63 86,205.29 1.28 Ligustrum lucidum 3,616.06 361.80 1,175.34 1,504.43 33,851.61 40,509.24 1.24 Liriodendron tulipifera 9,560.04 413.59 1,675.89 1,452.79 23,192.05 36,294.36 1.19 Fraxinus holotricha 'Moraine' 5,636.96 419.21 816.13 1,008.36 63,451.31 71,331.97 1.15 Celtis australis 4,359.52 543.90 1,522.51 1,412.10 76,700.65 84,538.68 1.09 Celtis sinensis 3,076.75 382.11 1,021.94 1,062.36 61,186.74 66,729.90 1.04 Pyrus calleryana 4,636.70 286.05 1,755.83 919.03 42,802.87 50,400.48 1.03 Other trees 121,406.47 12,853.60 - 10,723.45 34,187.98 1,630,552.81 1,788,277.41 29.53 Total 589,805.00 51,562.63 -46,887.89 170,503.55 5,873,529.44 6,638,512.73 100% Southern Magnolia London Plane Liquidambar Modesto Ash Camphor Chinese Pistache Chinese Elm Red Oak Glossy Privet Tulip Tree Moraine Ash European Hackberry Japanese Hackberry Bradford Pear Ginkgo Coast Live Oak Yarwood Holly Oak Red Maple Linden Silver Birch Raywood Ash Common name 43 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefit-Investment Ratio The purpose of quantifying the annual benefits of the street trees—in dollars—has been to compare that amount to the annual cost of maintaining the street trees and thereby establish the benefit-invest- ment-ratio (BIR). The Palo Alto I-Tree streets analysis documents that the annual value of the street-tree benefits is $6,638,513—and that the annual cost of maintain- ing the street trees is $2,064,000. The I-Tree streets analysis indicates that the BIR is 3.22:1. That is ...for every $1 that the City spends on street trees ...the City reaps $3.22 in benefits. A comparison of 24 cities i-Tree streets has become the standard for ana- lyzing municipal street tree systems. It enables unprecedented comparisons and the following table compares 24 cities known to have conducted an i-Tree streets analysis so far. Palo Alto ranks high among these cities—all of which have invested in quality tree maintenance, maintain high occupancy rates for available plant- ing spaces, and obtain favorable returns on public investment. The 2-part table (Figs 6a-b) compares each city’s population, urban forest, urban forestry budget, and benefits-investment-ratio established by their i-Tree streets analyses. 2. Tree location 3. Tree maturity: Once a tree is mature, there may be little or no net increase in leaf area from one year to the next; thus, there is little or no incre- mental annual aesthetic benefit for that year, although the cumulative benefit over the course of the entire life of the tree may be large. The I-Tree streets analysis indicates that the annual benefit associated with property-value increases is nearly $5,900,000 or $201.49/tree. These excerpts from online advertisements are designed to “sell” Palo Alto in one way or another and indicate perceived value for trees. • House sale: “Charming house in a convenient and tree-lined neighborhood...” • House sale: “$999900 / 3br - TREE LINED STREET (palo alto)...” • House sale:“On quiet, tree-lined street near...” • Creekside Inn: “...Stroll down.. and Palo Alto’s tree-lined streets to...” • Crown Plaza Hotel: “Enjoy... a sophisticated university town filled with parks and tree-lined streets...” • Garden Court Hotel: “...Situated on the tree lined streets of Palo Alto’s...” • Music @ Menlo Chamber Music Festival and Institute: “...The towns of Menlo Park and Palo Alto offer tree-lined streets featuring...” • Dishcrawl: “..This is your chance to get a taste of what the tree lined streets of Palo Alto have to offer...” Although aesthetic value makes up 91% of the total value per the I-Tree streets model, aesthetic value alone is not an indication that a species is an appropriate street tree. For example, liquidambar is currently providing the most aesthetic benefits, but, the species is the highest emitter of BVOCs and is no longer planted by the City. Note: Although i-Tree streets analysis does not ex- plicitly say so, Canopy suggests that the measure- ment of “aesthetic and property value” may reflect certain public health benefits. 44 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value City, State Year of Study Population (206 US Census est) Per Capita Income (adj to 2010 $) # of Public Trees studied Species Diversity (# species) Planting Spaces vacant Occupancy Rate (stocking) Managed Trees per Capita Street Trees per Capita Total Forestry Budget (time of study) Per Capita Budget (US $) Per Tree Budget (US $) Albuquerque, NM (2006) 504,949 $27,516 21,519 73 N/A N/A 0.03 0.03 $428,500 $0.64 $20.00 Austin, TX (2008)709,893 $31,836 123,395 143 190,000 39.4% 0.18 0.18 $1,038,873 $1.69 $10.00 Berkeley, CA (2005)101,555 $40,155 36,485 279 15,105 70.7% 0.30 0.30 $2,372,000 $23.36 $65.01 Bismarck, ND (2004)58,333 $26,641 17,821 93 30,738 36.7% 0.31 0.31 $273,212 $4.68 $18.00 Boise, ID (2007)198,638 $29,903 23,262 179 145,000 13.8% 0.12 0.12 $770,784 $3.88 $33.13 Boulder, CO (2005)91,481 $35,919 25,281 105 100,000 20.2% 0.28 0.28 $752,606 $8.23 $29.77 Charleston, SC (2006) 107,845 $29,532 15,244 136 3,764 80.2% 0.15 0.15 $531,200 $4.92 $34.85 Charlotte, NC (2004) 630,478 $35,341 85,146 215 285,054 23.0% 0.14 0.20 $1,819,460 $2.89 $21.37 Cheyenne, WY (2004) 55,314 $26,100 17,010 58 6,300 73.0% 0.31 0.16 $469,207 $8.48 $27.58 Davis, CA (2003)60,964 $30,221 23,810 N/A 736 97.0% 0.39 0.39 $449,353 $7.37 $18.72 Elk Grove, CA (2007) 129,184 $27,558 111,924 N/A 0 100.0% 0.07 0.07 $883,069 $6.84 $7.89 Fort Collins, CO (2003) 129,467 $29,162 16,408 95 75,772 17.8% 0.13 0.13 $490,763 $3.79 $29.91 Glendale, AZ (2002)246,531 $25,197 21,480 104 429 98.0% 0.09 0.06 $276,436 $1.26 $12.87 Goleta, CA (2007)29,182 $33,264 9,855 N/A 2,952 77.0% 0.34 0.23 $351,322 $12.04 $35.65 Indianapolis, IN (2008) 785,597 $28,512 117,525 177 620,975 15.9% 0.15 0.15 $940,130 $1.20 $8.00 Honolulu, HI (2007)905,000 $31,873 141,480 213 265,000 34.8% 0.38 0.38 $1,315,281 $1.45 $9.30 Minneapolis, MN (2005) 372,833 $29,889 198,633 60 29,681 87.0% 0.53 0.53 $9,200,000 $24.68 $46.31 New York City, NY (2007) 8,214,426 $29,516 584,036 168 31,526 94.9% 0.07 0.07 $21,000,000 $2.56 $37.00 Orlando, FL (2009)220,186 $27,954 68,211 202 16,882 80.2% 0.31 0.31 $2,128,025 $9.66 $31.20 Palo Alto, CA (2011)62,486 $70,242 29,151 230 2,353 92.5% 0.47 0.47 $2,064,000 $33.03 $70.80 Pittsburgh PA (2008) 312,819 $24,791 29,641 130 250,000 10.6% 0.09 0.09 $816,400 $2.51 $27.54 Portland, OR (2007)537,081 $29,834 236,000 171 531,100 30.8% 0.44 0.44 $1,286,060 $2.39 $19.50 San Francisco, CA (2003) 744,041 $45,530 98,534 115 127,500 43.6% 0.13 0.02 $3,432,000 $4.61 $188.22 Santa Monica, CA (2001) 88,050 $56,489 29,229 215 1,218 96.0% 0.32 0.32 $1,540,000 $17.49 $52.69 Mean 637,347 $33,457 86,712 0.24 $2,276,195 $7.90 $35.64 Min 29,182 $24,791 9,855 0.03 $273,212 $0.64 $7.89 Max 8,214,426 $70,242 584,036 0.53 $21,000,000 $33.03 $188.22 Characteristics of each City's population Characteristics of each City's Urban Forestry Budget and its Relationship to both that City's Population and that City's Urban Forest Characteristics of each City's Urban Forest and its Relationship to that City's Population Fig. 6a: This comparison of 23 cities indicates that Palo Alto ranks high among these cities that have invested in quality tree maintenance, maintain high occupan- cy rates for available planting spaces, and obtain favorable returns on public investment. (continued on next page) * * ** ** *** *** Table notes: In 1990, Keilbaso and Cotrone reported that the national mean stocking level was 38%. In 1989, McPherson and Rowntree reported that national mean of species diversity (for 22 cities) was = 53. Honolulu’s actual total forestry budget is $5.4 million; 1.3 million re-flects portion allocated to inventoried trees. San Francisco: City as-signs maintenance to adjacent private owner (total cost $7,481,466 public + private.) 45 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig. 6b: This comparison of 23 cities (continued from previous page), indicates that Palo Alto ranks high among these cities that have invested in quality tree maintenance, maintain high oc- cupancy rates for available planting spaces, and obtain favorable returns on public investment. City, State Year of Study Albuquerque, NM (2006) Austin, TX (2008) Berkeley, CA (2005) Bismarck, ND (2004) Boise, ID (2007) Boulder, CO (2005) Charleston, SC (2006) Charlotte, NC (2004) Cheyenne, WY (2004) Davis, CA (2003) Elk Grove, CA (2007) Fort Collins, CO (2003) Glendale, AZ (2002) Goleta, CA (2007) Indianapolis, IN (2008) Honolulu, HI (2007) Minneapolis, MN (2005) New York City, NY (2007) Orlando, FL (2009) Palo Alto, CA (2011) Pittsburgh PA (2008) Portland, OR (2007) San Francisco, CA (2003) Santa Monica, CA (2001) Mean Min Max Total Benefits (time of study) Benefits Per Tree Benefits Per Capita BIR Benefit Investment Ratio (@ time of study) Benefit Cost differential per capita $560,979 $26.07 $1.11 $1.31 $0.47 $10,251,979 $83.08 $14.44 $9.87 $12.75 $3,247,545 $89.01 $31.98 $1.37 $8.62 $979,094 $54.94 $16.78 $3.09 $12.10 $1,002,263 $43.09 $5.05 $1.30 $1.17 $2,740,905 $108.42 $29.96 $3.64 $21.73 $717,034 $47.04 $6.65 $1.34 $1.73 $5,910,889 $69.42 $9.38 $3.25 $6.49 $954,477 $56.11 $17.26 $2.09 $8.78 $1,697,815 $71.31 $27.85 $3.78 $20.48 $13,215,361 $118.07 $102.30 $14.97 $95.46 $2,170,799 $132.30 $16.77 $2.18 $12.98 $665,856 $31.00 $2.70 $2.41 $1.44 $643,574 $65.30 $22.05 $1.81 $10.01 $5,728,373 $48.74 $7.29 $6.09 $6.09 $3,923,010 $27.73 $4.33 $2.98 $2.88 $24,933,434 $125.53 $66.88 $1.57 $42.20 $121,963,347 $208.83 $14.85 $5.80 $12.29 $3,971,487 $58.22 $18.04 $1.87 $8.37 $6,638,513 $227.73 $106.24 $3.22 $73.21 $2,400,975 $81.00 $7.68 $2.94 $5.17 $18,591,104 $78.78 $34.62 $3.61 $32.23 $7,542,059 $76.54 $10.14 $1.01 $0.08 $2,488,550 $85.14 $28.26 $1.61 $10.77 $3.46 $1.01 $14.97 Results of the I-tree Streets Analysis done for each City 46 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value Ecological services Although the focus of this chapter is the i-Tree eco and streets analyses, it would be remiss not to include further discussion about ecological services. The following incorporates information from Acterra and Wildcare, (non- profit environmental groups serving Silicon Valley and the Bay Area), as well as information from the Sustainable Cities Institute web page. Fig. 8: Most bird species rely on insects for protein especially when they are laying eggs and rearing chicks. Note: WildCare’s Wildlife Hospital admits over a hundred Anna’s Hummingbirds every year. Many are or-phaned babies that grow up healthy in the hospital. Caring for the hummingbird babies includes feeding them every 20 minutes from dawn until dusk! Fig. 7: Insect bites on these California Bay leaves illustrate how locally evolved trees support a variety of insects that, in urban areas, are often a missing link needed to move solar energy up the food chain from plants to wildlife such as the family of hum- mingbirds in the next photo. Ph o t o b y S h a r o n O s b e r g ; c o u r t e s y o f W i l d C a r e w i l d c a r e b a y a r e a . o r g ” Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f A c t e r r a Overall function Trees provide substantial benefits without which other ecosystem compo- nents would suffer. Likewise trees are influenced by associated vegetation where grasslands or riparian areas provide critical habitat for pollinators and seed distributors, introduce needed fire on occasion, harbor beneficial preda- tors, and reduce grazing pressure on young seedlings. A comprehensive 47 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan understanding of the urban forest recognizes companion vegetation as an important contributor to tree health as well as urban forest function. Layers, ladders, zones, and edges all form vital niches, provide unique benefits and relationships, and subtly influence overall function. Wildlife habitat Life thrives where the complex interactions between organisms and their surroundings are balanced. Trees provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife that might otherwise have a difficult time living in our cities. Native trees support insects that provide pollination services and that move energy up the food chain from plants to birds, frogs, lizards and other wildlife. For example, a single oak tree can support up to 500 spe- cies of insects and invertebrate species, thereby providing a broad range of dietary choices for birds, bats, and other wildlife. This wildlife can in turn provide pest control services in our gardens and agricultural areas. Additionally, by reducing both the amount of pollutants that reach the Bay and soil erosion, the trees support aquatic and riparian wildlife as well as micro-organisms that live in the soil itself. Fig. 9: An Acterra volunteer holds a frog at one of one of Acterra’s ongoing Planting Projects for San Francisquito Creek. It is a reminder that trees contribute to ripar- ian habitat by helping to prevent erosion along creek banks. Fig. 10: The migration route of the monarch butterfly includes the Bay Area and during the winter months, they can be seen clustered together—by the thousands—on tree limbs. Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f A c t e r r a Ph o t o b y L a u r a M i l h o l l a n d ; c o u r t e s y o f W i l d C a r e w i l d c a r e b a y a r e a . o r g ” 48 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Benefits & Value Social and health benefits It is also worth reiterating that respondents to the Master Plan survey gave numerous descriptions of how the urban trees provide people with both tangible and intangible social benefits including a connec- tion to nature, a connection to the past and future, a sense of calm, a reminder of the big picture, etc. Fig. 13: In addition to having a calming effect—during the day—lighted street trees add to the festive atmosphere of University Avenue—at night. Fig. 12: By incorporating an existing oak tree into the design of this Palo Alto resi- dence, the architect has incorporated nature into the daily lives of this family. Ph o t o b y , a n d c o u r t e s y o f , A g u r J o g i , e x - S k y p e r , E s t o n i a Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f O h a s h i D e s i g n S t u d i o , A r c h i t e c t s a n d J. M i c h a e l T u c k e r P h o t o g r a p h y Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f C a n o p y Fig. 11: Events such as the El Palo Alto Spa Day Celebration in El Palo Alto Park (part of the Arbor week events put on by Canopy and the City of Palo Alto in 2013) allow kids to experience and explore nature right here in town—in Palo Alto’s urban forest. 49 Benefits & Value City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page was intentionally left blank 50 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover Canopy Cover Information about the canopy of the entire urban forest and of the street tree system Measuring canopy cover requires sophisticated analysis of aerial photography and or inventory data. This chapter presents information from three such analyses. 1. Overall canopy of the Bay Area: San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report In 2007, the Center for Urban Forest Research published a report by James R. Simpson and E. Gregory McPherson. For this report, Dr. Qingfu Xaio of UC Davis compared the Bay Area’s overall urban canopy for the years of 1984, 1995, and 2002. 2. Overall canopy of Palo Alto: Canopy Cover Assessment of Palo Alto’s Urban Forest Although the Bay Area report is interesting; it was too gross to provide an acceptable baseline for the Master Plan. Therefore, in 2011, the City engaged Dr. Xiao (UC Davis) to do a more refined analy- sis—comparing Palo Alto’s overall urban canopy for the years of 1982 and 2010. 3. Canopy of the Palo Alto’s street trees: City of Palo Alto, California Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis In 2010, the City engaged Davey Resource Group to analyze the street -tree canopy. View of entire urban forest Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy A view of the street trees Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f C a n o p y 51 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Figs. 15a-c are maps excerpted from the 2007 Bay Area Report. They compare the canopy cover of the Bay Area’s urbanized areas for 1984, 1995, and 2002. Note: Palo Alto City boundary line added to map. Fig. 14: This map is provided to assist in reading the maps from the Bay Area report. Palo Alto 8a: Bay Area canopy coverage in 1984—from the 2007 report, San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report 1. Bay Area report Bay Area canopy coverage 1984 The 2007 Bay Area analysis—of canopy cover for the entire Bay Area (not just Palo Alto)—yielded the following: Year: 1984 1995 2002 Canopy cover: 19% 25% 29% The report concludes that urban expansion was the primary reason for the increase—citing that urban areas have more trees than natural areas and maps from the report support this conclusion. (Figs 15a-c) 52 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover 15b: Bay Area canopy coverage in 1995—from the 2007 report: San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report 15c: Bay Area canopy coverage in 2002—from the 2007 report: San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report Palo Alto Palo Alto Bay Area canopy coverage 1995 Bay Area canopy coverage 2002 53 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig. 17: Table 2 from the Palo Alto report compares the canopy cover, impervious surface, and pervious surface of Palo Alto’s urban forest for the years of 1982 and 2010. DowntownNorth Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Commercial/Industrial Areas Palo Alto Neighborhoods(may include commercial or industrial) Crescent Park Duveneck/ St. Francis Embarcadero Road Municipal GolfCourse Midtown/ Midtown West Charleston Terrace Greenmeadow Fairmeadow Charleston Meadows GreenAcresResearchPark BarronPark Ventura EvergreenPark CollegeTerrace OldPalo Alto Leland Manor/Garland Community Center Professorville UniversitySouth DowntownNorth Stanford Shop & Hosp Oak Creek UniversityPark Paly/Town & Country/PASouthgate PaloAltoHills Palo Verde 2. Palo Alto overall canopy report The 2011 analysis of overall canopy, yielded the follow- ing comparison: 1982 overall canopy cover .........32.8% 2010 overall canopy cover ........ 37.6% To make the analysis as meaningful as possible, the anal- ysis is divided into 28 sections that broadly correspond to neighborhoods. (Fig 16) 12 Table 2. Land cover types by neighborhood for 1982 and 2010 Neighborhood Total area (m2) 1982 2010 % Change T I P T I P T I P Embarcadero Road 487,714.1 11.8 76.3 11.9 29.6 61.7 8.7 150.4 -19.2 -26.5 Golf Course 809,049.3 6.7 27.5 65.8 13.8 12.9 73.2 105.5 -52.9 11.3 Oak Creek 457,640.2 23.7 25.3 51.0 40.1 45.2 14.7 68.9 78.6 -71.1 University Park 580,816.3 12.6 83.6 3.8 20.8 79.1 0.1 64.7 -5.3 -96.3 Stanford Shop and Hosp 1,006,896.6 14.8 68.6 16.6 22.8 67.8 9.4 54.0 -1.2 -43.2 Evergreen Park 612,588.1 19.2 71.6 9.2 28.2 65.1 6.8 46.9 -9.1 -26.6 Paly Town Country Pamf 388,603.4 10.8 77.1 12.1 15.4 79.0 5.6 42.3 2.5 -54.0 Research Park 4,794,299.5 18.7 60.2 21.2 26.4 56.6 17.1 41.1 -6.0 -19.2 Ventura 866,900.1 19.7 72.8 7.5 27.1 63.7 9.2 37.3 -12.5 22.8 Downtown North 515,221.4 29.0 61.1 9.8 38.7 60.7 0.6 33.3 -0.7 -94.0 Southgate 221,356.9 36.4 53.5 10.0 45.0 54.4 0.5 23.6 1.7 -94.7 Charleston Terrace 1,601,165.9 25.1 64.3 10.7 29.0 57.8 13.3 15.6 -10.1 24.5 Community Center 825,865.3 44.3 43.9 11.8 51.1 46.5 2.5 15.1 5.9 -79.1 Green Acres 1,250,006.2 35.1 49.3 15.6 39.9 44.6 15.5 13.8 -9.5 -1.0 Duveneck/ St Francis 1,060,242.6 45.5 45.8 8.7 51.3 47.0 1.6 12.8 2.7 -81.2 Palo Alto Hills 1,984,204.6 44.0 13.3 42.7 49.1 12.2 38.6 11.8 -8.2 -9.6 Crescent Park 1,516,114.6 49.4 38.3 12.2 55.1 42.9 2.0 11.5 11.9 -83.9 University South 581,350.1 34.8 58.0 7.2 38.6 59.7 1.7 11.0 2.9 -76.8 Professorville 237,752.6 49.6 43.0 7.3 53.4 45.5 1.1 7.6 5.7 -85.1 Leland Manor/ Garland 859,592.3 45.2 44.8 10.1 47.5 47.6 4.8 5.2 6.5 -51.9 Midtown/ Midtown West 3,124,664.3 36.9 54.2 8.9 38.6 50.9 10.5 4.7 -6.1 17.9 College Terrace 509,102.9 39.9 47.6 12.5 41.6 46.6 11.8 4.2 -2.0 -5.6 Barron Park 1,569,508.6 44.9 45.1 9.9 46.5 42.4 11.1 3.5 -6.2 12.0 Old Palo Alto 1,502,229.1 54.2 37.6 8.2 55.8 41.9 2.3 3.0 11.4 -71.7 Palo Verde 2,038,633.5 37.3 56.6 6.1 37.7 51.5 10.7 1.1 -9.0 77.3 Greenmeadow 1,032,519.8 35.5 54.8 9.7 35.3 52.6 12.1 -0.4 -4.1 24.8 Charleston Meadows 800,660.1 37.7 55.8 6.4 36.9 53.0 10.1 -2.2 -5.1 57.1 Fairmeadow 276,801.5 41.5 53.4 5.1 38.9 51.6 9.5 -6.3 -3.3 85.6 Total 31,511,500.3 32.8 51.6 15.6 37.6 49.4 13.0 14.6 -4.3 -16.3 T= Tree (%), I= Impervious (%), P= Pervious (%) DowntownNorth Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course Commercial/Industrial Areas Palo Alto Neighborhoods(may include commercial or industrial) Crescent Park Duveneck/ St. Francis Embarcadero Road Municipal GolfCourse Midtown/ Midtown West Charleston Terrace Greenmeadow Fairmeadow Charleston Meadows GreenAcresResearchPark BarronPark Ventura EvergreenPark CollegeTerrace OldPalo Alto Leland Manor/Garland Community Center Professorville UniversitySouth DowntownNorth Stanford Shop & Hosp Oak Creek UniversityPark Paly/Town & Country/PA Southgate PaloAltoHills Palo Verde 36.6% 41.1% 14.0% 23.6% 6.7% 13.8% 1982 averages 2010 averages The tables and maps show that canopy cover is not evenly distributed. The following pages discuss some of the ex- treme increases and decreases. (Figs 17-19a-f) Fig. 16: 28 divisions of overall canopy cover analysis Neighborhoods Golf CourseCommercial/ industrial m2 = square meters 54 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover Fig. 18: These maps from the Palo Alto report compare the overall canopy coverage of the Palo Alto Urban Forest in 1982 and in 2010. 13 Canopy cover change between 1982 and 2010 Citywide, canopy cover was increased between 1982 and 2010 (Figure 6). The highest increases were in Embarcadero Road which increased by approximately 151% and followed by Oak Creek which increased by approximately 69%. Canopy cover decreased in three neighborhoods: Fairmeadow decreased by 6%, Charleston Meadow by 2%, and Greenmeadow by less than 1%. Figure 6. Percent canopy cover by neighborhood for 1982 (left) and 2010 (right). Canopy in growth and land infill development are main factors that account for canopy cover increasing. For example, most trees in the neighborhoods built in the 1970’s are relatively young as showing in 1982 image (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). There were considerable amount of areas not developed in 1982 which is classified as bare soil or dry grass. In contrast, these areas were developed in 2010 and included tree plantings (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). 2010 55 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig. 19a: Infrared aerial photos indicate that the 150% canopy increase in the Embarcadero Commercial Area was due to landscaping associated with development of previously bare land; however, even with this massive increase this area’s canopy cover is less than the average for residential areas. (Note: Vegetation indicated in red.) Increases due to private landscaping The Embarcadero Road Commercial Section had the highest increase of all 28 sections—150% (from 11.8% to 29.6%). The aerial photos (Fig 19a) show the development and landscaping that contributed to this dramatic change. However, even with the increase, its canopy is still less than that of most residential neighborhoods and it is unlikely that any large trees will be added in the future as the Baylands design guidelines (adopted in 2008) stress that the natural state of the Bay- lands is treeless and that new development should respect the unobstructed view of the horizon. The Oak Creek Neighborhood Section increased by 69% (from 23.7% to 40.1%) and the aerial photos (Fig 19b) show new landscaping for the Stanford West Apartments, VI Senior Housing, and Ronald McDonald House. The Stanford Hospital and Shopping Center Sec- tion increased by 54% (from 14.8% to 22.8%); the aerial photos (Fig 19b) indicate that this is due to both new landscaping and maturation of existing landscaping. Like the Bay Area report, the Palo Alto report also attributes increases to new development. This is supported by the extreme increases in the Em- barcadero, Oak Creek, and the Stanford Hospital/ Shopping Center sections where large, previously bare areas, are now covered with buildings and private landscaping. The following paragraphs describe the gains in these sections; however, it must be noted that va- cant land is rare and in other sections—where new development replaced existing development— there was a net loss. N Embarcadero Commercial Area 1982 Embarcadero Commercial Area 2010 (150% increase) 56 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover Fig. 19b: Infrared aerial photos indicate that the 69% canopy increase in the Oak Creek Neighborhood section was due to landscaping associated with development of bare land i.e., Stanford West Apartments, VI Senior Housing, and the Ronald McDonald House. And that the 54% increase in the canopy of the Stanford Hospital/Shopping Center area was due to both new landscaping and maturation of existing landscaping . (Note: Vegetation indicated in red.) The Oak Creek neighborhood 2010 (69% increase) Stanford Hospital/Shopping Center 1982 Stanford Shopping Center Stanford Shopping Center Stanford West Student Housing VI Senior Housing Ronald McDonald House Oak Creek Apartments Oak Creek Apartments N Stanford Medical Center Stanford Medical Center The Oak Creek neighborhood 1982 Stanford Hospital/Shopping Center 2010 (54% increase) 57 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Increases due to public trees The University Park Neighborhood increased by 64.7% (from 12.6% to 20.8%). The aerial photos (Fig 19c) indicate that the building footprints preclude much landscaping on private property and the increase in this section is likely due to new public trees—and maturation of existing public trees—along streets and in public parking lots. As with the Embarcadero commercial area, the significant increase in the downtown still leaves its canopy below that of most residential sections. The Municipal Golf Course also had a dramatic increase—105% (from 6.7% to 13.8%). However, it was so low to begin with that—even doubled— it is still the lowest of all 28 sections. In fact, the increase is not readily discernible from the aerial photos and they are not included. It is worth noting that: • Trees are not native to to this part of Palo Alto and have had difficulty thriving. • The Golf Course trees, along with the trees in Greer Park, are irrigated with recycled water and it will be important to monitor their health. Fig. 19c: Infrared aerial photos indicate indicate that the building footprints preclude much landscaping on private property and that the 64.7% canopy increase in this section is likely due to new public trees—and matu-ration of existing public trees—along streets and in public parking lots University Park 1982 above University Park 2010 below (64.7% increase) N 58 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover Decreases due to private landscaping As mentioned earlier, new development that replaces existing landscaping can result in a temporary, or even permanent, loss. The Charleston Meadows Neighborhood decreased by 2.2% (from 37.7% to 36.9) and the aerial photos (Fig 19d) indicate that interior landscaping was eliminated when the Ricky’s Hyatt Hotel site was re- developed as the Arbor Real multi-family complex. On the other hand, the perimeter trees along Wilkie Way and Charleston Road were preserved and new street trees were planted along El Camino Real. Interior landscaping was also eliminated when the Elk’s Lodge was redeveloped as a combination of single-family homes and the Redwood Gate multi- family complex. Additionally, some mature street trees along Wilkie Way were replaced with young ones. On the other hand, the grove of redwoods at the north west corner of the Elk’s Lodge site is now a public park and a new bike path will soon connect Wilkie Way to the park. The aerial photos also indicate that the losses de- scribed above were somewhat offset by the matura- tion of existing trees—both private and public—and this gain will continue as the newly planted street trees along El Camino Real and Wilkie Way mature. However, another redevelopment project is already in process. The Palo Alto Bowl and Motel 6 sites are to be redeveloped with a new hotel and single-family homes and staff anticipates this will result in a loss of canopy. And, in the adjacent section—the Ventura neighborhood—the Palo Alto Commons will soon add an annex. Again staff anticipates that this project will result in a loss of canopy. Ricky’s Hyatt Palo Alto Commons Palo Alto Commons & Future Annex Arbor Real Complex Future new hotel & houses Elks Lodge SF Homes & Redwood Gate Complex Fig. 19d: Infrared aerial photos indicate that the 2.2% decrease in canopy in Charleston Meadows is due to the elimi- nation of landscaping when the Ricky’s Hyatt Hotel site was redeveloped as the Arbor Real multi-family complex. In general, development along El Camino has resulted in loss of private landscaping and more losses are expected. Charleston Meadows 2010 (2.2% decrease) Charleston Meadows 1982 Oak Creek Apartments Palo Alto Bowl & Motel 6 N 59 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Decreases likely due to street trees The Fairmeadow Neighborhood had the most decrease. It went down by 6.3% (from 41.5% to 38.9%). How- ever, in this single-family neighborhood the decrease is not due to large redevelopment projects (though increasing home sizes have impacted space for trees). The aerial photos (Fig 19e) indicate that the decrease is due to loss of street trees and staff confirms that this reflects unfortunate circumstances typical in south Palo Alto. That is, when these post-war subdivisions were developed, there was a push to plant fast growing trees—many of which are: • Short-lived species that have reached the end of their life span. • Problematic for the underground pipes associated with Eichler and Eichler-like construction e.g., radiant heating. • Problematic for the soil volume or watering of other landscape elements. As a result, it is not unusual for a home owner to request removal of the street tree in front of his/her house; and staff indicates that, in many such cases, the home owner requests no replacement. Private trees may be removed for the same reasons. Additionally, homes in post-war subdivisions tend to be single story; therefore, most remodels expand the building footprint—which sometimes triggers the removal of private trees. It is worth noting that, one of the circumstances listed above does not apply in the Fairmeadow Neighbor- hood. That is, while high-clay content (Basin) soils are prevalent in south Palo Alto, the Soils Map (Fig 64) indicates that this section is mostly Alluvial Deposit. Fairmeadow 1982 Fairmeadow 2010 (6.3% decrease) Fig. 19e: Infrared aerial photos indicate that the 6.3% canopy decrease in the Fairmeadow neighborhood s not due to large redevelopment projects and is perhaps due to a loss of street trees. Typical south Palo Alto street tree issues include: 1950s species choices, compatibility issues with soil, and requests from property owners to remove the street trees. (Note: Vegetation indicated in red.) N 60 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover Greenmeadow 1982 Greenmeadow 2010 (0.4% decrease) The Greenmeadow Neighborhood had a mi- nor loss. It went down by 0.4% (from 35.5% to 35.3%). In this case, the aerial photos (Fig 19f) indicate losses and gains that almost cancel each other. For example, a loss was caused by the re- landscaping of San Antonio Road that replaced the existing stone pines with more appropriate, native oaks—which will eventually contribute even more to the canopy in this section. Gains resulted from: • New private landscaping of the Rose Walk multi-family complex—another example of development replacing bare land. • Additions to and maturation of both private and public trees along Middlefield e.g., the Charles- ton Plaza and Cubberly Community Center parking lots. Fig. 19f: Infrared aerial photos indicate both losses and gains in the Greenmeadow neighborhood. New landscaping associ- ated with the Rose Walk, Charleston Plaza, and Cubberly resulted in gains. The relandscaping of San Antonio resulted in an immediate loss but will eventually produce a gain. (Note: Vegetation indicated in red.) N Rose Walk multi-family complex S a n A n t o n i o R o a d S a n A n t o n i o R o a d Cubberley Cubberley 61 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Disparity between north and south Palo Alto 1982 20101 College Terrace 39.9 41.6 2 Evergreen Park 19.2 28.2 544.63etaghtuoS3 4 Community Center 44.3 51.1 5 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC6 7 University South 34.8 38.6 4.356.94ellivrosseforP8 9 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO01 11 University Park 12.6 20.8 12 Downtown North 29 38.7 13 Paly Town Country Pamf 10.8 15.4 1.047.32keerC kaO41 15 Stanford Shop and Hosp 14.8 22.8 Average 33.96 40.36 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.6 3 Charleston Terrace 25.1 29 5.649.44kraP norraB4 7.733.73edreV olaP5 3.535.53wodaemneerG6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 9.835.14wodaemriaF8 1.727.91arutneV9 Average 34.86 36.66 15 sections of North Palo Alto 9 sections of South Palo Alto 1982 2010 1982 2010 1 College Terrace 39.9 41.6 2 Evergreen Park 19.2 28.2 544.63etaghtuoS3 4 Community Center 44.3 51.1 5 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC6 7 University South 34.8 38.6 4.356.94ellivrosseforP8 9 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO01 11 University Park 12.6 20.8 12 Downtown North 29 38.7 13 Paly Town Country Pamf 10.8 15.4 1.047.32keerC kaO41 15 Stanford Shop and Hosp 14.8 22.8 Average 33.96 40.36 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.6 3 Charleston Terrace 25.1 29 5.649.44kraP norraB4 7.733.73edreV olaP5 3.535.53wodaemneerG6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 9.835.14wodaemriaF8 1.727.91arutneV9 Average 34.86 36.66 15 sections of North Palo Alto 9 sections of South Palo Alto 1982 2010 Comparison 1 (Fig. 20) considers 24 of the 28 divisions shown in Fig 9. It excludes Palo Alto Hills, the Municipal Golf Course, and the Embar- cadero Commercial area because of their distance from core residential areas; and it excludes the Stanford Research Park because it is 100% industrial. Fig. 20: Comparison 1 considers 24 of the 28 divisions shown in Fig 9. It excludes Palo Alto Hills, the Municipal Golf Course, and the Embarcadero Commercial area because of their distance from core residential areas; and it excludes the Stanford Research Park because it is 100% industrial. Comparison 1 indicates that, in 1982, the average canopy cover for the south sections was slightly higher than that of the north sections (north 33.96%; south 34.86%). But by 2010 the north average was 10% greater than the south average (north 40.36; south 36.66). Historical comparisons All three sections with decreases are located in south Palo Alto. Furthermore, the Master Plan survey indicates that disparity between north and south Palo Alto is a “Hot Topic.” The following paragraphs examine the analysis results multiple ways to illustrate information regarding the dispar- ity between north and south Palo Alto. Comparison 1 indicates that, in 1982, the average canopy cover for the south sections was slightly higher than that of the north sections (north 33.96%; south 34.86%). But by 2010 the north average was 10% greater than the south average (north 40.36%; south 36.66%). 62 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Canopy Cover 6.149.93ecarreT egelloC1 544.63etaghtuoS2 3 Community Center 44.3 51.1 4 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC5 6 University South 34.8 38.6 4.356.94ellivrosseforP7 8 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO9 7.8392htroN nwotnwoD01 Average 42.83 47.81 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.6 5.649.44kraP norraB3 7.733.73edreV olaP4 3.535.53wodaemneerG5 9.835.14wodaemriaF6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 Average 38.41 39.11 1982 2010 10 residential neighborhoods of North Palo Alto 1982 2010 7 residential neighborhoods of South Palo Alto 6.149.93ecarreT egelloC1 544.63etaghtuoS2 3 Community Center 44.3 51.1 4 Duveneck/ St Francis 45.5 51.3 1.554.94kraP tnecserC5 6 University South 34.8 38.6 4.356.94ellivrosseforP7 8 Leland Manor/ Garland 45.2 47.5 8.552.45otlA olaP dlO9 7.8392htroN nwotnwoD01 Average 42.83 47.81 9.931.53sercA neerG1 2 Midtown/ Midtown West 36.9 38.6 5.649.44kraP norraB3 7.733.73edreV olaP4 3.535.53wodaemneerG5 9.835.14wodaemriaF6 7 Charleston Meadows 37.7 36.9 Average 38.41 39.11 1982 2010 10 residential neighborhoods of North Palo Alto 1982 2010 7 residential neighborhoods of South Palo Alto Fig. 21: Comparison 2 considers only the 17 predominantly residential sections. That is, in addition to the exclusions from Comparison 1, this comparison also excludes Oak Creek, Stanford Hospital and Shopping Center, Paly/PAMF/Town & Country, Evergreen Park, Ventura, and Charleston Terrace. Comparison 2 indicates that in 1982, the average canopy cover of the residential sections of the north was already 11% greater than that of the south residential sections (north 42.83%; south 38.41%) ; and by 2010, the disparity had grown to 22% (north 47.81%; south 39.11%). Comparison 2 (Fig 21) considers only the 17 predominantly residential sections. That is, in ad- dition to the exclusions from Comparison 1, this comparison also excludes Oak Creek, Stanford Hospital and Shopping Center, Paly/PAMF/Town & Country, Evergreen Park, Ventura, and Charles- ton Terrace. Comparison 2 indicates that in 1982, the average canopy cover of the residential sections of the north was already 11% greater than that of the south residential sections (north 42.83%; south 38.41%) ; and by 2010, the disparity had grown to 22% (north 47.81%; south 39.11). Contributing factors 1. As mentioned in the section about the Fairmeadow neighborhood post-war subdivi- sions tended to plant fast growing trees—many of which are: • Short-lived species that have reached the end of their life span. • Problematic for the underground pipes associated with Eichler and Eichler-like construction e.g., radiant heating. As a result, it is not unusual for a home owner to request removal of the street tree in front of his/her house; and staff indicates that, in many such cases, the home owner requests no replacement. Private trees may be removed for the same reasons. 2. Additionally, residential homes in south Palo Alto tend to be single story structures which: • Cover more of the land than a two-story structure—leaving less room for trees in the yards. • Are less subject to discretionary review— and therefore less likely to have any trees be designated for retention. 63 Canopy Cover City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan FeltLake High w ay 1 01 E m bar c ade r o ElCa mino R eal University Oregon PageMill Alma Arastradero E M ea do w Foothill Middlefield Sand Hill SanAntonio Fig. 22: City of Palo Alto GIS Map displaying the vacant street tree planting sites identified by Davey Resource Group in their survey of 20103. The predominant soil type is Basin which has a high clay content and has drainage issues that are not optimal for trees. 4. Many south sections have wide rights-of-way with no planting strips between the sidewalk and curb forcing the street trees to be planted on the house side of the sidewalk. As a result, the 3. Palo Alto street tree report The 3rd and final canopy measurement is a by- product of the 2010 inventory of the street trees by Davey Resource Group. This analysis does not compare multiple years, nor is it broken down into sections; but it does establish the current canopy over the streets and sidewalks to be 36.8%. And, perhaps more importantly, it indicates that 92.5% of the viable street tree sites are already occupied. This means that there is limited opportu- nity for increasing the number of street trees. Fur- thermore, staff indicates that some occupied sites have been compromised by the addition of hard scape or utilities equipment placed close to the tree. In such cases the site may no longer meet the City’s criteria for a viable planting site and when the existing street tree is lost, existing protocols may prohibit replacement. street trees are farther apart and less likely to join canopies over the street. This can make the canopy seem even less dense than it actually is. 64 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Composition Composition Information about the composition of the entire urban forest and of the street tree system View of entire urban forest Photo by Scott Haefner—Courtesy of Canopy A. Information about the composition of the entire urban forest The bulk of the urban forest is composed of private trees and an inventory would be very expensive. Therefore, knowledge will always be limited. Current documentation includes: 1. Oakwell Survey (oak trees only). 2. List of Heritage Trees. 3. Inventory of private trees within the utility easement. 4. Approved landscape plans showing designated trees B. Information about the composi-tion of Palo Alto’s street trees The City’s inventory of street trees (begun in the 1920s and converted to an electronic database in the 1980s) was updated with information from the 2010 survey by Davey Resource Group (DRG). The DRG assessment of the composition is in the same report as their analysis of the benefits i.e., 5. City of Palo Alto, California Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis. This chapter presents information about the composition of the urban forest—from 5 sources: A. The first 4 sources pertain to the entire urban forest i.e., both public and private trees B. The 5th source pertains only to Palo Alto’s street trees A view of the street trees Ph o t o c o u t e s y o f C a n o p y 65 Composition City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Stanford University Baylands Fig. 23: General location Deer Creek Road and the 9,000 native oaks identified in the Oakwell survey of 1997. 1. Oakwell survey Soon after the adoption of the Tree Protection Ordi- nance (Municipal Code 8.10), which protects Coast Live Oaks and Valley Oaks, Canopy initiated a survey to establish a baseline for future monitoring. Four years later, with the help of forty-seven volun- teers, Canopy published the Oakwell Survey document- ing their inventory of “all native oaks east of Deer Creek Road”—regardless of land use classification. Highlights of the survey include: 1. Palo Alto had about 9,000 oaks clusters or 13,000 single oaks 2. 85% ....coast live oaks (quercus agrifolia) 15% ....valley oaks (quercus lobata) 1% ......black oaks (quercus kelloggii) 3. Most were less than 48” in diameter 4. About 13% of the parcels had at least one oak. Neighborhoods farther from the Bay had more oaks. 5. 14% were within Barron Park . 6. 10% were street trees. 50% were on single-family use properties. 18% were on commercial use properties. 20% were on a mix of multi-family use properties, parks, medians, schools, government facilities, on the rail right-of-way, vacant lots, etc. Deer Creek R o a d . 66 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Composition 2. Heritage trees Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property owner(s), the City Council may designate a tree as a heritage tree. Usually, a tree is designated because it: 1. Is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species. 2. Is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto 3. Possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical significance. To date, 7 heritage trees have been designated: 1. El Palo Alto 2. The Rinconada Oak, in Rinconada Park 3. A coast redwood, on private property in the rear of 3759 La Donna Street 4. A dawn redwood, on private property in the front of 1032 Forest Avenue 5. A silver maple, on private property in the rear of 1872 Edgewood Drive 6. An American elm, on private property in the center of the San Alma Homeowners Associa- tion property, 4256 Ponce Drive 7. An aleppo pine, on private property in front of 12291 Ramona Street Fig. 24: Supreme among the Heritage Trees is El Palo Alto. This photo shows the misting pipe installed to simulate the fog—which occurs regularly in the foothills where redwoods are indigenous. Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f p a l o a l t o h i s t o r y . c o m 67 Composition City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan 3. Inventory of private trees within the utility easement The City maintains an electronic database of the privately-owned trees that must be pruned for overhead electric lines. 4. Approved landscape plans Landscaping plans for commercial, industrial and multi-family development are routinely reviewed and approved plans are not to be altered without additional review. These approved plans provide a permanent record of the species on that property. 5. Palo Alto street tree report Davey Resource Group made the following obser- vations about the composition of the composition of the street-tree population in their 2010 report, City of Palo Alto, California Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis. Species diversity With the exception of southern magnolias, Palo Alto’s street trees suggest fairly adequate diversi- fication. That is they comply with the widely ac- cepted rule that no single species should represent more than 10% of the population. • 38% of the total is made up of only 4 species.: 1. Southern magnolia—13.9% 2. London plane—9.7% 3. Liquidambar—9.2% 4. Modesto ash—5.1% • In contrast, 58% of the total is made up of dozens of species that are represented by 10 or fewer trees each. • 95% of the total are broadleaf species Notes: See Fig 18, a list of all street trees by species. Although large broadleaf species tend to provide the most benefits, some of these species have been identified as undesirable because of their water re- quirements or impacts to sidewalks and overhead wires. The future value of the street trees will be affected by species choices for replacement plant- ings and, of course, their management. See Table, “Thirst Ratings for public trees” avail- able in appendix. Age diversity The report suggests that a desirable age distribu- tion might have: • 40% young trees i.e., diameters less than 8” • 10% with diameters more than 24” The age distribution of Palo Alto street trees are as follows: • 34.8% —less than 8” diameter • 14.4% —more than 24” diameter Three of the top ten species have significant representation in the small diameter class—indi- cating that recent plantings have focused on these species. They are: • Ginkgo—47.4% • Red oak—43.8% • Chinese pistache—36.8% It is worth noting that these three species have low to moderate water thirst ratings. Six of the top ten species have significant repre- sentation in the large diameter class—indicating that they were favored in the past: • Modesto ash—56% • Camphor—36.6% • Southern magnolia—19.8% • London plane—17.2% • Chinese elm—17.2% • Coast live oak—15.7% Of these six mature populations, coast live oak is the only species that is also well represented in the small diameter class (19.9%) —indicating that recent plantings have focused on this species too. Species with little representation in the small class—indicating that they are not being planted in as great of numbers are: • Southern magnolia—4.3% • London plane—4.1% • Liquid amber—3.8% • Modesto ash—1.6% 68 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Composition Native species within the street tree population The Davey Resource Group does not discuss the number of native species within the street tree population that they inventoried and analyzed; however, Dr. James Clark of Hortscience created a list that associates certain native species with Palo Alto habitats. The table in Fig 25 reflects that list and indicates the frequency of each species within the street tree population. Drought tolerant species within the street tree population See “Water” chapter for information and see “Ap- pendices” for list. Street tree population by species The table in Fig 26 shows all the species within the street tree population and the frequency of each one. The native species identified by Dr. Clark are highlighted. Fig. 26: Street-Tree Population by Species with native species highlighted (continues on following pages); Note: similar table with water needs in Appendices. Fig. 25: This list—created by Dr. James Clark of Hort- science—associates native species with Palo Alto habitat types. It also indicates the frequency of each species within the street tree population. Street Tree Population by Species Palo Alto Native Species by habitat Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Southern magnolia 4,061 13.97% London plane 2,832 9.74% Liquidambar 2,669 9.18% Modesto ash 1,481 5.09% Camphor 1,133 3.90% Chinese pistache 1,027 3.53% Chinese elm 820 2.82% Red oak 778 2.68% Ginkgo 633 2.18% Coast live oak 534 1.84% Yarwood sycamore 517 1.78% Holly oak 515 1.77% Red maple 418 1.44% Littleleaf linden 416 1.43% White birch 374 1.29% Raywood ash 373 1.28% Glossy privet 361 1.24% Tuliptree 346 1.19% Moraine ash 334 1.15% European hackberry 318 1.09% Chinese hackberry 302 1.04% Ornamental pear 301 1.04% Coast redwood 243 0.84% Purpleleaf plum 242 0.83% Autumn Purple ash 238 0.82% Chinese tallow 226 0.78% Valley oak 215 0.74% Shamel ash 196 0.67% Crape myrtle 189 0.65% Red horsechestnut 187 0.64% Shumard oak 157 0.54% Deodar cedar 148 0.51% Italian cypress 147 0.51% Cork oak 147 0.51% Habitat Common name Oak woodland Coast live oak 534 Blue oak 0 Oak woodland, riparian Bigleaf maple 98 Toyon 1 Valley oak 215 California bay 14 California buckeye 0 Oak woodland, foothills Western redbud 13 California flannel bush 0 Catalina cherry 0 California black oak 8 Foothillls Madrone 1 California Incense cedar 33 California Wax myrtle 0 Coast redwood 243 Riparian Boxelder 0 White alder 8 Oregon ash 0 Western sycamore 0 Fremont cottonwood 0 Yellow willow 0 Blue elderberry 0 Palo Alto native species by habitat 534 Frequency in street tree population 328 21 277 8 69 Composition City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population October Glory maple 140 0.48% Carob 140 0.48% Japanese maple 138 0.47% Chanticleer pear 135 0.46% Columbia sycamore 132 0.45% Hawthorn 129 0.44% Autumn Gold ginkgo 121 0.42% Frontier elm 119 0.41% Monterey pine 110 0.38% Japanese pagoda tree 109 0.37% White mulberry 104 0.36% Bradford pear 104 0.36% Silver maple 101 0.35% Blackwood acacia 100 0.34% Western catalpa 100 0.34% Bigleaf maple 98 0.34% Italian stone pine 92 0.32% Carolina cherry laurel 91 0.31% English walnut 90 0.31% Southern live oak 87 0.30% Greenspire linden 84 0.29% Tupelo 82 0.28% Fern pine 79 0.27% Horsetail tree 74 0.25% Honey locust 69 0.24% Japanese flowering cherry 68 0.23% Purple Robe locust 65 0.22% Loquat 64 0.22% Australian willow 63 0.22% Crape myrtle 'Natchez' 63 0.22% Edible plum 63 0.22% Eastern redbud 60 0.21% Calif. pepper 60 0.21% Canary Island pine 57 0.20% Street Tree Population by Species (continued from previous page) Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Mexican fan palm 55 0.19% Sawleaf zelkova 55 0.19% Evergreen pear 54 0.19% Other, deciduous medium 54 0.19% Mayten 53 0.18% Idaho locust 53 0.18% Green Mountain linden 50 0.17% Green Column maple 49 0.17% Black locust 49 0.17% Freeman maple 48 0.17% Xylosma 48 0.17% Flowering plum 47 0.16% American elm 47 0.16% Weeping bottlebrush 44 0.15% Scarlet oak 44 0.15% Pin oak 44 0.15% Olive 43 0.15% Mimosa 42 0.14% Crabapple 40 0.14% Aristocrat pear 39 0.13% Almond 38 0.13% Red Sunset red maple 37 0.13% Lemon bottlebrush 37 0.13% Arizona ash 37 0.13% Water gum 37 0.13% Silver dollar gum 36 0.12% Stone fruit 36 0.12% Lemon 34 0.12% Red mulberry 34 0.12% Brazilian pepper 34 0.12% Calif. incense cedar 33 0.11% Saucer magnolia 33 0.11% Canary Island Date palm 33 0.11% Oak 33 0.11% Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Athena elm 33 0.11% Evergreen maple 32 0.11% Apricot 32 0.11% Tree-of-heaven 31 0.11% Maple 30 0.10% Upright hornbeam 30 0.10% Silver linden 30 0.10% Water gum (Elegant)30 0.10% Calif. fan palm 30 0.10% Hollywood juniper 29 0.10% Sterling linden 29 0.10% Jacquemontii birch 28 0.10% Bloodgood sycamore 28 0.10% European beech 27 0.09% 26 0.09% Snakebark maple 24 0.08% River she-oak 24 0.08% Jacaranda 24 0.08% Chinese fringe 23 0.08% Other, broadleaf small 23 0.08% Green dracaena 22 0.08% Edible apple 21 0.07% Aleppo pine 21 0.07% Ruby horsechestnut 20 0.07% Horsechestnut 20 0.07% European hornbeam 20 0.07% Eucalyptus 20 0.07% Elm 20 0.07% Spanish dagger 20 0.07% Other, deciduous large 20 0.07% Oleander 19 0.07% Colorado spruce 19 0.07% Windmill palm 19 0.07% Other, deciduous small 19 0.07% Fig. 26 continued: Street Tree Population by Species w/ native species highlighted (continues on following pages) Note: similar table with water needs in Appendices. 70 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Composition Street-Tree Population by Species (continued from previous page) Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Silver dollar tree 9 0.03% Juniper 9 0.03% Mock orange 9 0.03% Victorian box 9 0.03% White alder 8 0.03% Edible fig 8 0.03% Avocado 8 0.03% Fraser photinia 8 0.03% Calif. black oak 8 0.03% Other, palm 8 0.03% Fig 7 0.02% Goldenrain 7 0.02% Fern-Leaf Catalina ironw 7 0.02% Jelecote pine 7 0.02% American arborvitae 7 0.02% African sumac 6 0.02% Linden 6 0.02% Atlas cedar 5 0.02% Monterey cypress 5 0.02% Bushy yate 5 0.02% Wilson holly 5 0.02% Flax-leaf paperbark 5 0.02% Myoporum 4 0.01% Karo 4 0.01% Leyland cypress 3 0.01% Arizona cypress 3 0.01% Rubber tree 3 0.01% Juniper 3 0.01% Cape pittosporum 3 0.01% Interior live oak 3 0.01% English yew 3 0.01% Other, conifer small 3 0.01% Guadalupe palm 2 0.01% Mediterranean 2 0.01% Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Grapefruit 2 0.01% Carrotwood 2 0.01% Sweetshade 2 0.01% Calif. juniper 2 0.01% Sweet bay 2 0.01% Blue potato bush 2 0.01% Cajeput tree 2 0.01% Tarata 2 0.01% Pyracantha 2 0.01% Willow 2 0.01% Japanese viburnum 2 0.01% Yucca 2 0.01% Other, broadleaf large 2 0.01% Other, conifer medium 2 0.01% Madrone 1 0.00% Western hackberry 1 0.00% Port Orford cedar 1 0.00% Hopseed 1 0.00% Red-flowering gum 1 0.00% Pineapple guava 1 0.00% Toyon 1 0.00% Burford holly 1 0.00% Australian tea tree 1 0.00% Date palm 1 0.00% Giant sequoia 1 0.00% Western redcedar 1 0.00% Other, conifer large 1 0.00% Common Name Frequency in Street Tree Population % of Street Tree Population Hedge maple 18 0.06% Calif. black walnut 18 0.06% Orange 17 0.06% Yoshino cherry 17 0.06% Edible pear 17 0.06% Paul's Scarlet hawthorn 16 0.06% Blue gum 16 0.06% Magnolia 16 0.06% Norway maple 15 0.05% Strawberry tree 15 0.05% Pink Dawn chitalpa 15 0.05% Eastern black walnut 15 0.05% Jap. black pine 15 0.05% Pittosporum 15 0.05% Yew pine 15 0.05% Soapbark tree 15 0.05% Akebono cherry 14 0.05% Douglas-fir 14 0.05% Queen palm 14 0.05% Calif. bay 14 0.05% Western redbud 13 0.04% Dogwood 13 0.04% Red ironbark 13 0.04% Sycamore 13 0.04% Edible peach 13 0.04% Other, broadleaf medium 13 0.04% Paperbark maple 12 0.04% River birch 12 0.04% Crape myrtle 'Tuscarora' 12 0.04% Bottle tree 11 0.04% Japanese persimmon 11 0.04% Silk oak 11 0.04% Pine 11 0.04% Lily of the valley tree 10 0.03% Fig. 26 continued: Street-Tree Population by Species w/ native species are highlighted (continues on following pages) Note: similar table with water needs in Appendices. 71 Composition City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page was intentionally left blank 72 Where we are now Information from the community 73 This page was intentionally left blank 74 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys Community Surveys This chapter presents results from two surveys. Ye a r o f s u r v e y Op e r a t i n g e x p e n d i t u r e s (i n m i l l i o n s ) Au t h o r i z e d s t a f f i n g ( F T E ) (G e n e r a l F u n d ) To t a l n u m b e r o f C i t y m a i n t a i n e d t r e e s (i n c l u d e s t r e e s p l a n t e d b y C a n o p y ) Nu m b e r o f t r e e s p l a n t e d (i n c l u d e s t r e e s p l a n t e d b y C a n o p y ) Nu m b e r o f t r e e s t r i m m e d o r r e m o v e d (e x c l u d e s t r e e s t r i m m e d t o c l e a r p o w e r l i n e s ) Pe r c e n t o f u r b a n f o r e s t p r u n e d Pe r c e n t o f t o t a l u t i l i t y l i n e s c l e a r e d Nu m b e r o f t r e e r e l a t e d el e c t r i c a l s e r v ic e d i s r u p t i o n s Av e r a g e c o s t p e r t r e e m a i n t a i n e d 2002 $2.7 16 37,941 295 5,986 $71.79 2003 $2.3 16 34,939 322 5,298 $66.93 2004 $1.9 14 35,440 242 5,222 $53.52 2005 $1.9 14 35,096 164 4,775 14% 26% 5 $54.42 2006 $2.2 14 34,841 263 3,422 10% 21% 13 $63.28 2007 $2.3 14 34,556 164 3,409 10% 30% 15 $67.90 2008 $2.5 14 35,322 188 6,579 18% 27% 9 $71.52 2009 $2.2 14 35,255 250 6,618 18% 33% 5 2010 $2.4 14 35,472 201 6,094 18% 27% 4 2011*$2.8 14 33,146 150 5,045 15% 26% 8 * Historical results of the citizen surveys taken for the City Auditor's annual "Service Effort and Accomplishments" report 68% 32% 72% 28% 67% 33% Pe r c e n t r a t i n g s t r e e t t r e e m a i n t e n a n c e "e x c e l l e n t " o r " g o o d " 70% 30% 82% 18% 69% 31% FY 2011 was the first year, since 1989, the trees were officially counted. Data prior to to FY 2011 was estimated. Citizen Survey Results Budget benchmarking measures 66% 34% 70% 30% Pe r c e n t r a t i n g s t r e e t t r e e m a i n t e n a n c e "f a i r " o r " p o o r " 72% 28% Fig. 27: Historical results excerpted from the “Service Effort and Accomplishments” reports 1. Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments survey In these annual surveys—conducted by the City Audi- tor—citizens rate their satisfaction with street-tree main- tenance. In each year shown here, a majority have rated the service as either “good” or “excellent”. However, in some years as many as 34% have rated the service as either “fair” or “poor.”(Fig. 27) 2. Master Plan survey In January 2011, the Master Plan team conducted an online survey to get input from a broad cross section of the community about perceptions related to trees as well as tree management by the City. The City and Canopy co-conducted a campaign to en- courage participation (e-mails, web announcements, new letters, and networking) and more than 600 members of the community logged on to contribute their thoughts about the “trees around them.” The results were analyzed using Vovici’s Enterprise Feedback Management (EFM) software—and published in a report titled, Survey Results & Analysis for Urban Forest Master Plan Survey. The Vovici report is avail- able on the City’s website. In this chapter are: 1. An Executive Summary of the responses. 2. An expanded review of the responses. 3. Excerpts from the open-ended responses . 75 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Urban Forest Master Plan survey & responses Like the Executive Summary, this expanded review reflects information in the Vovici report, Survey Results & Analysis for Urban Forest Master Plan Survey. It is expanded in that it reflects all the multiple choices (instead of just three), briefly describes the question, and includes excerpts from the open-ended responses (in the “Hot Topics” section.) The complete Vovici report is available on the City website. #1: Who took the survey? 60 Members of Palo Alto leadership (elected official, neighborhood as- sociation board, school board, etc.) 45 Tree and landscape professionals. 557 Interested citizens (live, work, or frequently visit Palo Alto.) 18 Undefined. #1: Order here is same as in survey question; respondents chose first that applied. Number reflects total number of responses to each choice. #2: Home zip codes of respondents 1. 94306 (33%) 2. 94303 (28%) 3. 94301 & 94304 (26%) 4. Other (13%) #2: Order reflects response popularity; % reflects portion of total responses. #3: Work zip codes of respondents 1. Other (50%) 2. 94301 & 94304 (18%) 3. 94306 (17%) 4. 94303 (15%) #3: Order reflects response popularity; % reflects portion of total responses. #4: Trees are important to me because they... Responses to 4 rank positive tree attributes and it is worth noting that almost all of the positive attributes were selected—by a strong majority. 1. Provide shade and cool buildings (97%) 2. Are beautiful (94.7%) 3. Reduce air pollution (86.5%) 4. Combat global climate change (81.2%) 5. Provide habitat (80.9%) 6. Reduce Noise (72.5%) 7. Add to property values (71.6%) 8. Aid in storm water management (70.8%) 9. Provide edible fruits and nuts (61.7%) 10. Calm traffic (44.6%) 11. Other (9.6%) #4: Respondents were asked to choose “all that apply.” Therefore, % reflects portion of total respondents that chose each response as one of their choices. Order reflects relative popularity of response. #4 also provided for additional thoughts (open-ended responses) and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. #5: What do trees mean to you? This was an open ended question; themes that emerged include: • The big picture and environmental benefits • How trees affect a community / daily life • Personal experiences. #5: This was an open ended question and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. 76 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys #6: What don’t you like about the public and private trees around you? Responses to 6 rank what are generally deemed to be negative tree attri- butes and it is worth noting that ONLY ONE of the negative attributes was selected by a majority—and a slim majority at that. 1. Damage caused by tree roots (51%) 2. Mess from fallen leaves or fruit (35.2%) 3. Potential damage or injury from fallen branches (28%) 4. Other (20%) 5. Maintenance costs (19.7%) 6. Amount of water needed (13.3%) 7. I am allergic to some trees (12.6%) 8. Shade my home and yard too much (9.5%) #6: Respondents were asked to choose “all that apply.” Therefore, % reflects portion of total respondents that chose each response as one of their choices. Order reflects relative popularity of response #6 also provided for additional thoughts (open-ended responses) and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. #7: What would benefit my yard, my neighborhood, the area around my work, the City of Palo Alto? Responses indicate that a majority of the respondents would like to see more trees within the City; but few would like to see more trees in their own yards. Responses to this four-part question are as follows: 7.1: My yard would benefit from... 1. OK as is or no opinion (46.1%) 2. Different trees (28.7%) 3. More trees (23.3%) 4. Fewer trees (5.1%) 7.2: My neighborhood would benefit from... 1. More trees (44.2%) 2. OK as is or no opinion (32.4%) 3. Different trees (29.7%) 4. Fewer trees (1.1%) 7.3: The Area around my workplace would benefit from... 1. More trees (40.5%) 2. OK as is or no opinion (33.1%) 3. Different trees (12.7%) 4. Fewer trees (.05%) 7.4: The city of Palo Alto would benefit from... 1. More trees (57.5%) 2. Different trees (30.1%) 3. OK as is or no opinion (20.3%) 4. Fewer trees (1.1%) #7: Respondents were asked to choose “all that apply.” Therefore, % reflects portion of total respondents that chose each response as one of their choices. Order reflects relative popularity of response. #8: What benefits would you expect from more, different, or fewer trees? Expected benefits (from more, different, or fewer trees): Common themes that emerged have to do with size, species, and the related consequences such as shade, root damage, debris, and allergies. However, in each catego- ry, expectations vary—and are sometimes opposing #8: This was an open ended question and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. #9: How serious are these threats to the health of the com- munity trees in Palo Alto? The following ranking indicates the threats for which most respondents gave a ranking of either “Serious” or “Very Serious”: 1. Urban Development/Redevelopment (69.4%) 2. Lack of proper care (64.5%) 3. Drought and water constraints (61.2%) 4. Tree Removals (56.9%) 5. Insects and disease (53.8%) 6. Major storms (42.2%) 7. Climate change (41%) 8. Fire (23.5%) 77 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan #9: Respondents were able to choose “all that apply.” Therefore, % re- flects portion of total respondents that chose each response as one of their choices. Order reflects relative popularity of response. #10: Additional thoughts about threats to the health of the community trees in Palo Alto? Common themes reiterated the multiple choices (from #9) and added topics such as electric line clearing, the city’s budget, and “High Speed Rail” #10: This was an open ended question and some of the common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. #11: How is the City doing in the following areas? The strongest majorities, or concentration of responses, indicate a strong desire for improved communication from the city about tree removals and regulations. Responses to the eleven parts were as follows: 11.1: Managing street trees: 1. Needs improvement (48.7%) 2. Good job (40.5%) 3. No opinion (10.8%) 11.2: Managing trees in parks: 1. Good job (53.1%) 2. Needs improvement (27%) 3. No opinion (19.9%) 11.3: Managing trees in open space: 1. Good job (47.1%) 2. No opinion (36.3%) 3. Needs improvement (16.6%) 11.4: Managing trees near power lines: 1. Good job (42.3%) 2. Needs improvement (37.4%) 3. No opinion (20.2%) 11.5: Planting new trees: 1. Needs improvement (49.8%) 2. Good job (25.5%) 3. No opinion (24.7%) 11.6: Making good choices about tree removals: 1. Needs improvement (57.7%) 2. No opinion (22.3%) 3. Good job (20%) 11.7: Protecting trees from negative impacts of private development: 1. Needs improvement (40.7%) 2. Good job (29.9%) 3. No opinion (29.4%) 11.8: Protecting trees from negative impacts of City projects and mainte- nance tasks: 1. Needs improvement (42.3%) 2. No opinion (33.2%) 3. No opinion (24.5%) 11.9: Setting appropriate tree regulations: 1. Needs improvement (38.8%) 2. No opinion (35.6%) 3. Good job (25.5%) 11.10: Informing residents about tree regulations: 1. Needs improvement (60.9%) 2. No opinion (24%) 3. Good job (15.1%) 11.11: Informing residents about proposed removals of community trees: 1. Needs improvement (64.2%) 2. Good job (18.6%) 3. No opinion (17.2%) #11: Respondents were unable to choose multiple responses.” Therefore, % reflects portion of total responses for each ranking choice. Order reflects relative popularity of response. 78 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys #12: Additional thoughts about the City of Palo Alto’s management of the urban forest? Response themes reiterate the multiple choices (from #11) and add top- ics such as obscured street signs, improper irrigation systems, electric line clearing, species selection, and responsiveness to work requests. #12: This was an open ended question and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. #13: Rate the 3 most important areas the City of Palo Alto should focus on. Responses yielded a ranking of eight areas for the City’s focus:. 1. Encouraging the planting of drought tolerant species (24.4%) 2. Providing more tree maintenance (pruning, disease and insect con- trol, etc.) (23.1%) 3. Planting more trees (21.7%) 4. Increasing the amount of resources committed to tree care (11.4%) 5. Reducing the number of tree removed (11.1%) 6. Making tree regulations less restrictive (4.1%) 7. Making tree regulations more restrictive (3.3%) 8. Reducing the amount of resources committed to tree care (0.9%) #13: Respondents were asked to rank any three of the choices with a value of 1, 2, or 3. Order reflects popularity of choice.; % reflects portion of total responses. However, the popularity, or ranking was calculated in a way that is more complicated than the other responses. That is, per the Vovici report, these percentages “were calculated on the sum of points obtained by each focus area item. Items that were ranked as a number 1 (or highest) received a point value of 3, whereas a ranking of 2 received 2 points, and a 3 received 1 point. For instance “encouraging the planting of drought…” received 883 points out of 3,621 total points, or 24.4% of the points. #14: Additional thoughts about trees Response themes reiterate concerns about maintenance, species selection, and budget, and mention of a need to coordinate with other agencies, taxes, and property rights. As with other open-ended responses, preferences and desires vary and are sometimes opposing. #12: This was an open ended question and common themes that emerged are reflected in excerpts within the “Hot Topics” section. Hot Topics Themes emerged from responses to open-ended questions and on the fol- lowing pages are excerpts from those responses—grouped into these 9 themes or, “Hot Topics”: 1. What trees mean / importance of trees 2. Species selection 3. Drought and water constraints 4. Negative impacts from development 5. Negative impacts from city projects and maintenance activities 6. Removals 7. Communication (from the city) 8. Disparity between north and south Palo Alto 9. City performance and budget It is worth mentioning that a common theme does not imply consensus. The following excerpts illustrate that, for each theme, desires and expectations can vary and can even be opposing. 79 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Big picture: ...lungs of the earth... Big picture: Living proof of a shared environment Big picture: ...continuity and endurance in our world. Community One of the reasons Palo Alto is different than al-most all other cities... Comm u n i t y : ...walk a b l e neighb o r h o o d s . . . a brea k f r o m m a n made e d g e s ...a ca l m i n g e f f e c t o n our in c r e a s i n g l y u r b a n landsc a p e . . Community: ...[hide]the ugly utility crucifixes laced with ugly cable wires...” Community THEY MAKE THIS CITY Community ...visiting frie n d s c o m - ment on how m a n y trees we have . . . Personal: A few years ago I led an initiative in the church I attend (First Presbyterian on Cowper St.) to replace the plain brown painted wall at the front of the church with a large window, thus enabling the congregation to see the redwood tree growing behind the wall. Countless people have thanked me over the years for this small contribution, which enables us all to see the breeze moving the beautiful branches and the sky and clouds beyond. Big pictur e : Trees mea n a n i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e future, a w i l l i n g n e s s t o t h i n k farther th a n m y s e l f , f a r t h e r t h a n just today . Community: I choose where I live based on the types and numbers of trees in the area. Big picture:...make me fe e l humans can be part of life without taking over ...that we are l o o k -ing out for sp e c i e s other than ou r o w n . Personal : I can’t imagin e P a l o Alto without t h e m Big picture ...preserving what we have left of our natural environ- ment, helping with global warming giving lost refuge and food to wildlife Big picture: ...a symbol of hope for the future. We may not live to see a tree planted today reach maturity, but by planting trees today, we increase the odds that there will be shade and all the other benefits of trees for future generations ... Community A respite from a l l hard surfaces t h a t most cities hav e . 1. What trees mean / importance of trees Survey responses spoke to: • The Big Picture • Enhancement of the community • Personal experiences 80 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys Size: ...neighbors 40’ tall trees shade our swimming pool. Fruit: I do n o t l i k e t h e fact th a t P a l o A l t o p l a n t s sterile f r u i t t r e e s . R e a l f r u i t trees w o u l d b e e x c e l l e n t . Size: ...Prefer taller, leafier - more tall canopy over the street/ sidewalk... Sycamores: sycamore, I think every- one is allergic Size: Would prefer smal l e r trees with less wor k , a n d less damage to our y a r d . Diversity: More and different trees would add to the palette.Allergies: I would like t h e city to plant t r e e s that are less l i k e l y to cause aller g i e s Sycamores: I would like to see more large trees, such as syca- mores, rather than small trees. Also, we need trees along El Camino.Fruit: I wou l d l i k e t o see le s s o r n a m e n t a l trees a n d m o r e f r u i t trees . Fruit: Prope r l y s e l e c t e d trees s t a y t h e r i g h t size a n d d r o p f e w e r leave s a n d f r u i t . Diversity: Reduce the pallet of species planted for less exotics, more natives; Size: Many trees in t h i s area are too s m a l l and too few. Diversity: ...the vast m a j o r i t y o f t r e e s planted in P a l o A l t o b e l o n g t o another p a r t o f t h e w o r l d . . . Size: Obscure and li m i t s t r e e t lighting and re d u c e safety Maintenance: We often pick trees thinking they will be easier to maintain but should choose on the basis of Urban Design and character - big, covering the street etc. Diversity: Like diverse and inter-esting architecture, the diversity of trees adds to the beauty of a street, neighborhood and city. Damage: Over the last 30 y e a r s b e a u t y o f our town has be e n d o w n g r a d e d by the selection o f n e w t r e e s t h a t don’t provide sh a d e . I n p a r t t h e decision was to s e l e c t t r e e s t h a t would not invade t h e s t o r m d r a i n system that the c i t y r e f u s e d t o maintain for ove r 3 0 y e a r s ; M t . View and Menlo P a r k L A U G H at how little PA h a s s p e n t o n i t s storm drains ove r t h i s p e r i o d . W e should have been p l a n t i n g m a j o r trees to shade st r e e t s a n d p e r f o r m the storm drain m a i n t e n a n c e w h e n those tree roots b e c a m e p r o b l e m s . Small, skinny, p o l e s a r e n o t u r b a n shade trees.Diversity : Trees that pro v i d e different look s d u r - ing different t i m e s o f the year Speci e s : plant m o r e n a - tive t r e e s l i k e oaks, b u c k e y e s , gray p i n e s , b i g leaf m a p l e , e t c . Diversity: Benefits of different trees: increased genetic and ecosystem diversity...Species: Do not allow Redwood Tree s on city residen t i a l lots as they sip h o n t o o much ground w a t e r . . . Diversity: . . . Although I f a v o r n a - tives, tree s f r o m a n y w h e r e c a n l e n d welcome v a r i e t y . M o r e o f t h e b e t t e r small-med i u m e u c a l p t s a n d p a l m s and flowe r i n g t r e e s o f w h a t e v e r s o r t . ... Damage: Roots in the ground attract termites. Damage: the main benefit would be to have trees that have roots that do not destroy side-walks, streets, or paths. 2. Species selection The consequences of species include but are not limited to size, diversity, mess, dam- age, allergies, drought resistance, etc. And opinions about each varied greatly. 81 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Native : I am v e r y c o n c e r n e d about i n v a s i v e , non-na t i v e s p e c i e s , especi a l l y a i l a n t h u s (tree o f h e a v e n ) . I t i s startin g t o t a k e o v e r some a r e a s o f P a l o Alto, a n d w e m u s t keep i t o u t o f s e n s i t i v e ecosys t e m s . Native: More foc u s o n n a t i v e t r e e s w o u l d be good w h e r e p o s s i b l e , f o r example , r e p l a c i n g e u c a l y p t u s with nati v e t r e e s a t P a r d e e p a r k . Native: More native trees would enhance the habitat for native pollinators, bees and other wildlife. More fruit and nut trees would enhance Palo Alto’s resilience, providing a local source of food should climate, economic or energy issues impact our community. Native: I’m primarily interested in preserving/enhancing the natural forestation of this area, especially native oaks. Water: I urge the c i t y t o p l a n t native trees w h e r e v e r possible, bo t h t o r e d u c e water use an d t o a t t r a c t desirable wi l d l i f e . Water: Fruit trees re- quire spraying of poisons and more water than local natives Water: Long ago Su n s e t recommend e d s o m e real water h o g s l i k e liquidambe r . T h i s was big mis t a k e . Water : Forget water use - [the urban forest] creates dynamic equilibrium of evaporating water that in turn creates microclimate that in turn reduces water consumption in the City. Native: ...planned correctly, more trees can ...have no impact on water con - sumption, Native: ...the vast majority of trees planted in Palo Alto belong to another part of the world Native: More focus on native trees would be good where possible, for example, replacing euca - lyptus with native trees at Pardee park.Water: ...Mature tr e e s d o n ’ t n e e d additional w a t e r , i f t h e y have surviv e d . I f a t r e e died before m a t u r i t y - n o problem => t h i n k w h y a n d replant.... Water: ...it is time to start replacing the old Southern Magno- lias with drought- tolerant species. Water: The city needs to plan for ways to help home-owners properly irrigate the city trees on their property. Water:...plan for protect -ing and replac-ing heritage oak , redwood and other species, as opposed to find i n g new drought-re-sistant, low mai n -tenance, evergr e e n shrubs like San Jose, Santa Cla r a and Sunnyvale. Water: Trees will die from natural causes like drought, storms and insect damage. We have to accept that fact. However, there are things that we humans do that make things much worse -- that’s what concerns me. 3. Drought and water constraints Respondents often expressed their concerns about drought and water constraints by advocating native species. 82 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys Developme n t ...More pe o p l e i n P a l o Alto need to u n d e r - stand the i m p o r t a n c e of trees in o u r c o m - munity... Development: More coordina t i o n with city and de v e l - opment projects u p - front with regar d s to urban forest. Development Private develop- ments with dense housing need more trees.Protection:Palo Alto has enough wealth to elevate this subject to a level most communities can’t afford; by forcing, through the will of the community, property owners and developers to be active participants in the long-term health of the u.f. Protection: .[Regulations] too stringent and always favors the tree.. Protection: A few years ago Dave Dok-tor inspected an oak tree and suggested how to install a driveway with minimal impact on the oak roots. Protection:[Trees are] given too much consideration during develop-ment projects. Development: ...urban development often greatly improves the inventory of trees in the city. Development: ... Lots with mature fruit trees are being razed to have multiple housing units put in... Development: Too many homeowners and residential developers damage trees during construction, often purposely, so they can jus-tify removing Development ...trees get sick after full base - ments are put in near large trees . . . Develo p m e n t Planti n g s i t e s a r e constr i c t e d o r l o s t from d e v e l o p m e n t a n d over p a v i n g , w a l l s , walkw a y s , U - s h a p e d drivew a y s , e t c . Protection: Compaction under root zone, threatening life of tree, due to improper protection of many trees on private property dur- ing construction. Protection: street tree protection for construction is over the top and not necessary. Developme n t : Trees in wi l d l a n d u r b a n i n t e r f a c e areas shou l d b e t h i n n e d a n d reduced, n o t m o r e t r e e s p l a n t e d or required w i t h n e w d e v e l o p m e n t . Protection: We ought to do everything to protect them Developmen t : It’s not a pr o b l e m . L e t p e o p l e build. Char g e f o r p l a n t i n g n e w trees, or le t t h e m p l a n t . M o s t of people w i l l s p e n d m o n e y t o make their p r o p e r t y b e a u t i f u l . Development: ...trees look very unhealthy... . Clay soil and dr o u g h t are probably the primary causes. Allowing de-w a t e r i n g of sites to build b a s e -ments, despite t h e City’s denial of h a r m , cannot be helpf u l . . . . Ground subside n c e is also occurrin g . Development: ...I still wince at the pruning job done to the live oak at Bryant and Channing to accommodate the Woodmark condos. Developers won the day... 4. Negative impacts from development For # 9, a majority indicated that development is a serious or very serious threat. And many responses support regulations and protection. But others indicate that current regulations and protection are excessive. 83 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Pruning: Some don’t get pruned correctly or often enough. Some trees are also under power- lines which leads to odd pruning by Asplundh. Pruning: Pruning of publ i c trees is often do n e poorly. The utilit y people need trai n i n g in arboriculture a n d aesthetics. And t h e y need to do it reg u l a r -ly so that big cut s a r e not needed whic h a r e unsightly and d a m a g -ing to the trees. Pruning: ...damage done to tree structure by contract util-ity line clear-ing crews.... Protection: need to be protected from the city. Protection: Need for stan- dards of care, protection and preservation. Pruning: Mature trees are excessively pruned and removed. Pruning: I don’t like the way the City treats its public trees. They never prune them or water them. Pruning: ...Contractor s o f t e n p r u n e t r e e s in a V-shape w i t h o u t a p p r o p r i - ately shorteni n g l i m b s , w h i c h leads to a we a k , u n a t t r a c t i v e tree. There m u s t b e a b e t t e r w a y to do this ec o n o m i c a l l y . Pruning:I don’t like that the city spen d s money to trim trees (and dist o r t s them) away from the utility lines-I’d prefer that the mone y be spent putting the utilities underground. Damage: From differen t t r e e s I would expe c t l e s s mess, root dam a g e , and maintena n c e Maintenan c e : Increased s u p e r v i s i o n o f contractor s t h a t c a r e f o r trees by c i t y s t a f f a n d neighborh o o d g r o u p s . Pruning: ... Some [con - tractors] top trees rather than direct them... Pruning: It appears the crews are clearing everything within 5 feet or so of some power lines. This seems to me to be unnecessary structural damage... for example, clearing out the center of an old tree so that it looks like a lollipop with a power line going through the middle, or cutting out all limbs near the power lines making a tree into a structural “v”, or cut-ting off one whole side of a tree’s limbs that are near power lines... more thoughtful pruning would limit interference with power lines while preserving the trees. If that can’t be done, then the power lines should be undergrounded! Pruning: Too many tree s i n parks and bac k y a r d s have been sa v a g e d i n the name of t h e u t i l i t i e s Infrastructure: Palo Alto does a good job of maintaining its urban forest. However, a “good job” doesn’t cut it when faced with global climate change, an aging urban forest, a utilities department that occa- sionally seems to view trees as an operational hindrance, rather then a valuable asset that needs to be protected. Pruning: ... The report on the eucalyptus trees at Pardee park basically said that they were poorly pruned into a dangerous state. That means lack of training. And home-owners are worse.... Pruni n g : ...ma y b e o f f e r s o m e outrea c h - - n e i g h b o r h - ood m e e t i n g s t o r e - inforc e p o s i t i v e a p - precia t i o n o f h e r i t a g e trees, a d v i c e a b o u t c a r e ‘for p r o p e r t y v a l u e ’ a n d such. c r e a t e a w a r e n e s s of mis s i o n a m o n g c i t y depart m e n t s i n v o l v e d , and w o r k w i t h t h e “ t r e e butche r s f o r h i r e ” w h o mainta i n u t i l i t y p a t h s . 5. Negative impacts from city projects and maintenance activities In #11 respondents indicated that they think the threat from city projects and maintenance activities is equal to or greater than the threat from private projects. 84 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys Removals: Neighbors should not be allowed to stall progress of homeowners regard- ing tree removals. If the City feels that it is for public safety to remove trees, the City should not be stopped by vocal tree lovers. Remo v a l s : I live n e a r E l e a n o r Parde e P a r k a n d I t h i n k the a g i n g E u c a l y p - tus tr e e s t h e r e p o s e a dange r t o t h e c i t i z e n s . While I l o v e t r e e s a n d the lo o k o f t h o s e t r e e s , we ne e d t o e n s u r e t h a t we are p r o t e c t i n g t h e citize n s i n h i g h l y t r a f - ficke d a r e a s . Removals: I think the city arborist should have the final word on whether or not city trees should be eliminated and that the Council should not give in to the minority but loud view of neighbors. Removals: I think we have old trees that are dropping limbs... don’t know what the city is waiting for-they should be replaced. ... so that something new can start growing ... Removals: Debate about the fate of trees seems overheated... occasionally have to cut down trees.... Removals: There seems to be a desire to remove older trees and replace them with new, which is often not necessary or desirable. Removals: No one city employee should have the authority to tell a contractor to remove trees. A double-signature system may be more cumbersome, but I think it is needed in light of what happened on Cal. Ave. Removals: i do not appro v e of removing m a t u r e trees that are h e a l t h y just because t h e y a r e not native. Removals: The city should p l a n t trees which a r e n a t i v e to our enviro n m e n t a n d cut and remov e a l l n o n - native city tree s . Cal Ave:I think that you are putting the trees in the right places. I am glad that you replaced the trees on California Street. Cal Ave:I work on California Ave and would love to have the look and feel back that we had be-fore the trees were removed Remova l s : [a threat t o t h e urban fo r e s t i s ] n o t r e p l a c - ing olde r t r e e s w i t h y o u n g e r trees un t i l t h e y d i e - be proac t i v e ! Removal We need to stop cutting own trees! Removals: THE CITY SH O U L D REPLACE TH E T R E E S IT REMOVE D F R O M THE CORNER O F F O R - EST AND WAV E R L E Y . Remo v a l s ...[tre e s ] s h o u l d be tre a t e d w i t h respe c t a n d o n l y cut d o w n o r r e - moved a s a l a s t resor t . Removals:Cost of trimming neighbors trees that overhang my yard and interfere with electric wires. Homeowner at ...has refused to allow the city to remove these old diseased trees. Removals: Mature trees are excessively pruned and re- moved. Removals: ...the way some arborist feel that trees should be removed because “they are beyond useful life” these folks need to find a new job if they dont want to love and protect these trees. Removal: ...Remove ALL eucalyptus trees in the city... Cal Ave:...the recent tree removal on California Ave is beneficial to the businesses because their signage is now visible... 6. Removals The topic of tree removals appears in the responses to several survey questions. Opinions vary. 85 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Commun i c a t i o n : Cal. Ave d e b a c l e w a s a B I G goof. Sta f f d i d a g r e a t j o b on outrea c h r e l a t e d t o S a n Antonio tr e e r e m o v a l s . . . Better com- munication about tree work would be helpful and greatly appreciated. Communicatio n : ...publicize ea c h year what you h a v e done in the pri o r a n d preceding yea r s . . . Communication: Need more public e d u c a t i o n about the value of t r e e s , t r e e care (watering, pru n i n g , e t c . ) , tree selection (rig h t t r e e f o r t h e right place) Communication: a city tree was removed from our property. When I called to inquire about replacement I never got a call back. I also was not informed about when or what would replace it. I figured with budget cuts another one was not coming. Our neighbor across the street was able to get a more maple looking tree whereas the one we ended up getting was the chinese (forgive me I don’t know the whole name and it may be Japanese something!) and we just hope it’s not the one that drops a lot of ber-ries. I would have appreciated a little more communication. Communication: Communication seems to be the main problem. Communication: I think the City is gener- ally doing a good job on trees. The only big issue I have is when all the street trees were removed on California Avenue. I think they did not think it through clearly and/or it was not communicated or vetted properly in a public forum so that folks could be informed in advance. As a result, when it happened, most of us were shocked and outraged. Communication: Thank you for including public input! Communication: Need better communi- cation & cooperation between the “tree department” and the “sidewalk depart- ment” and “power department”. (not to mention the “water billing department”! Communicatio n : Excepting the ho r -rible snafu on C a l i -fornia Ave. last y e a r , PA usually does a good job - I’m g l a d that communicat i o n about tree remo v a l s (and their reaso n s ) seems to have i m -proved since the n . Comm u n i c a t i o n : City tr e e p o l i c y i s not kn o w n t o c i t i z e n s , ...Ne w o w n e r s o f prope r t i e s w i t h h e r i t a g e oaks d o n ’ t k n o w h o w t o take c a r e o f t h e m , a n d over w a t e r t h e m . A l l prope r t y o w n e r s s h o u l d be giv e n b a s i c o a k c a r e infor m a t i o n a s p a r t o f city c o m m u n i c a t i o n t o resid e n t s . Communication: I think the Cal Ave tree removal was blown out of proportion. It was [a] com- munications problem, not a problem with the actual tree removal. Communicati o n : Vandalism, lac k o f community ou t r e a c h / education and p o o r planning are th r e e other importan t p o t e n - tial threats to c o n s i d e r . Comm u n i c a t i o n : Califo r n i a a v e n u e remo v a l w a s w r o n g . But th e c i t y a n d CTRA o u t r e a c h w e r e great t o g e t i n f o r m e d opinio n s t o r e a c h a good o u t c o m e . Communication: The California Avenue incident should never have happened. It stresses the importance to have concerted planning & outreach efforts, even in a heavilyforested City such as Palo Alto. Education: Public education could help us homeowners plant more sensibly in the future. 7. Communication (from the city) Responses were fairly consistent i.e., that communication from the City is appreciated—and more communication would be appreciated...more. 86 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Community Surveys South P a l o A l t o : Many o f t h e n e w hosui n g c o m p l e x - es in s o u t h P A d o not ha v e a d e q u a t e room f o r h u m a n s or tree s . D i s a p - pointi n g . South Palo A l t o : You need t o p r o v i d e b e t t e r c o m - munication , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e area of Pa l o A l t o t h a t i s s o u t h o f Churchill. T h e a r e a w h e r e y o u are most l a c k i n g i n t h e C a l i f o r - nia Avenu e / B a r r o n P a r k a r e a . South Palo Alto: For years, the city has ignored the south part of the city. The contractors hired to maintain trees in our neighborhood are not as skilled or experienced as those who maintain trees elsewhere in Palo Alto. The city is very quick to remove healthy trees in Midtown, and very slow to replace them. When mature trees are removed, they are replaced with tiny trees that will not provide shade or ambience for many decades. This is an inequity in the allocation of city resources, and we who live here know it and feel it keenly. South Palo Alto: I want the master plan su r - vey to begin work in sou t h Palo Alto, where the nee d for more trees is most ur - gent. Typically, programs like this start in north Palo Alto, and run out of money before they ever get to Midtown or any other neighborhood south of Oregon Expressway. South Palo Alt o : The rolled cu r b s in South Pal o A l t o make for an u g l y tree scape. W e should explo r e planting tree s i n well placed b u l b outs on wide r streets (on the s t r e e t side of the si d e w a l k ) which would b o t h calm traffic a n d add to the can o p y . South Palo Alto : Many neigh- borhoods, particularly in South Palo Alto would benefit from more tre e s . South Palo Alto: ...I live in North Palo Alto because there are more trees than in South Palo Alto. South Palo Alto: North Palo Alto looks beautiful because it has more established tree canopies on both sides of streets, I would like to see more trees in Midtown & South Palo Alto streets, to make the entire Palo Alto to look uniform vs. distinct look between north of Page Mill neigh- borhood and south of Page Mill neighborhood. South Palo Alto: ...areas in south Palo Alto that have far fewer trees suffer as a result... South Palo Alto: More street trees needed in South Palo Alto... street trees. South P a l o A l t o : ...The r e i s a s t a r k differe n c e w h e n you cr o s s t h e O r e g o n Expre s s w a y f r o m t h e North t o t h e S o u t h s i d e i n atmos p h e r e , a s t h e S o u t h side h a s f e w e r t r e e s a n d feels m o r e b a r r e n a n d expos e d t o t h e h a r s h s u n . the N o r t h s i d e i s a b s o - lutely g o r g e o u s w i t h i t s tree-l i n e d s h a d y s t r e e t s . South Palo Alto: The parts of Palo Alto tha t a r e west of Alma/train tracks o r s o u t h of Oregon Expressway de f i n i t e l y need more shade, more ple a s -ant places to walk and chat w i t h neighbors... South Palo Alto: ...When I look at the dif-ferences between what is approved in the north and what is approved in the south, I see much more room for trees and open space in the north. South Palo Alto : South Palo Alt o i s n o t getting its fair s h a r e o f replacement o r additional tree s t o b a l a n c e the rapid and s p r e a d i n g development. South Palo Alto: A city official tol d a member of our ne i g h b o r - hood association’ s t r e e committee that th e r e a s o n North Palo Alto h a s m o r e road blocks to cu t t i n g down trees is tha t t h e y hire lawyers and s u e !South Palo Alto: ...We also need more street trees in areas of South Palo Alto and Barron Park, even though it is often a challenge to plant them because of utilities or hardscape. I think the longer we wait, the more difficult it will become. 8. Disparity between north and south Palo Alto No survey questions mentioned this issue specifically; however, it emerged as “Hot Topic”—and opinions were uniquely consistent. 87 Community Surveys City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Value: I could say yes to many of these but think the benefits o f the trees far outw e i g h the drawbacks. P u b l i c education could he l p us homeowners pl a n t more sensibly in t h e future. Performance: We are a wonderful Tree City. Budget: Continuati o n o f C i t y funding an d s t a f f t o b e stewards o f o u r u r b a n forest, and s u p p o r t Canopy (an d s i m i l a r groups) Performance: Palo Alto streets and parks have lovely trees, so I credit the city’s care. Performance: Just fire the current staff. Canop y : It app e a r s t h a t some i n d i v i d u a l s are try i n g t o c o n t r o l City th i n k i n g . F u n d i n g for th e C a n o p y o r g a n i z a - tion s h o u l d b e s t o p p e d a n d the ca s h s p e n t o n m a i n t e - nance. Canop y : The c i t y s h o u l d r e l y o n Canop y m o r e . . . Performance: Many of the problems t h a t a r i s e are due to planting th e w r o n g t r e e in the wrong place. It w o u l d b e great if the City could p r o v i d e homeowners with adv i c e o n choosing the right tree f o r t h e i r property. Budget: if there is no budget to increase planting and maintenance (which is a long term commitment) additional trees then don’t plant them. And please don’t increase parcel tax to support such a project. Performance: All of the cat-egories that need improvement ne e d to be taken in th e context of curre n t budget constraint s In addition, the c i t y appears to be m o v i n g i n the right directi o n w i t h respect to strea m l i n i n g the process and g i v i n g clearer direction. P l e a s e see prior comme n t . . . Budget: I hope the purpose of this survey isn’t to say that the public is de- manding more services, so our taxes must go up. The city staff is grossly overpaid, so instead of asking us to pay more in taxes, cut the wages at city hall or fire the current staff and hire people who will work at market rates. Performance: Poor choices were made throughout the city. Liquid ambers being among the worst (shallow roots, tenden-cy to split, prickly dropping). Planting was always homoge-neous - it should be mixed. Budget: while i sup p o r t h a v i n g m o r e trees in the c i t y , I a m a l s o concerned a b o u t t h e c o s t o f maintainin g a d d i t i o n a l t r e e s . Advice:Do not try to do everything at once. Adopt a long range plan, then break it into logical annual portions. Be certain to finish each annual portion on time and keep evaluating as you go. Start with the streets and neighborhoods that are most positive and active and keep going, being certain to pub-licize each year what you have done in the prior and preceding years. Just do it. Performan c e : I appreciat e t h e C i t y ’ s considerati o n f o r t h e importanc e o f t r e e s . Budget: It’s not an easy job, it’s a big place, every tree is precious. Not enough budget for educated staff. Perfo r m a n c e : ...Som e t i m e s the c i t y n e e d s to ign o r e public o u t c r y and d o w h a t ’ s logic a l . . . 9. City performance and budget Opinions vary. 88 Where we are now Information about challenges • Water • Development • Line Clearing 89 This page was intentionally left blank 90 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Water Water Fig. 28: 2010 water usage by customer class in acres feet/year and gallons/years (Excerpted from the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan: Table data from Table 10 on page 41 and pie chart from page 43) Water usage Potable water usage The Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is the guiding document to assess the reliability of the City’s water sources, support long-term resource planning, and ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future demands. Updated every five years, the UWMP documents historic and projected water use. Excerpts from the most recent update (2010 UWMP) show water sales data by customer class (Fig 28). Total 2010 usage: 3,661,261,836 gallons Potable water usage and trees What is NOT known about public trees Although many parks and large landscape areas are separately metered for irrigation use, the UWMP does not indicate how much water is used for outdoor purposes at city and public facilities. Furthermore, outdoor usage does not imply irriga- tion. For example, one analysis found that a sig- nificant amount of city facility usage was related to wetting down compostable materials. Even further, irrigation is not necessarily for trees. Most irrigation systems exist for turf. What is known about public trees Very few irrigation systems exist for public trees. They receive supplemental water as follows: 5: 2010 Water Use by Customer Class Public Facilities 4% Industrial 8% Commercial 21% Multi- family 16% Single- family 46% City Facilities 5% Customer class Acres feet/ year Gallons/ year Single family 5,334 1,738,089,234 Multiple family 1,806 588,486,906 Commercial 2,311 753,041,661 Industrial 847 275,995,797 City facilities 544 177,262,944 Public facilities 395 128,711,145 Total 11,236 3,661,261,836 2010 Water Use by Customer Class 2010 Water usage by customer class Temporary supplies of water to public trees Regardless of species, new plantings need supple- mental water during the first three years. This is accomplished as follows: 1. For new trees in parks or at city facilities, tem- porary irrigation systems are set ups. 2. For some new street trees in residential neigh- borhoods, close-by residents agree to provide the water. 3. For other new street trees and trees located in places such as medians, City trucks deliver water. This amounts to approximately 486,000 gallons/year—0.013 % of the citywide usage of potable water documented for 2010. Permanent supplies of water to public trees 4. Permanent systems are established for certain downtown tree wells that lack adequate soil space to store necessary water. 5. Public trees near turf irrigation systems at city/ public facilities may receive water from that system. The amount is not documented. Further- more, most systems use a mix of potable and recycled water e.g., • Golf course..................60% recycled • Greer Park...................60% recycled • Baylands Athletic........60% recycled • Animal Services..........70% recycled 91 Water City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan What is estimated about private trees It is roughly estimated that outdoor water use ac- counts for 50% of residential use, though most is applied frequently and shallowly for turf and not much is accessible by trees. Rain water Palo Alto’s Mediterranean climate of cool wet winters and warm dry summers is illustrated by the following chart. (Fig 29). What is known about public trees US Climate Data indicates that the average an- nual rainfall for Palo Alto is 15.8” or 21,909 acre feet of water. The Davey Resource Group street tree analysis indicates that trees intercept 42.6 million gallons annually or 131 acre feet of water. Therefore, street trees intercept approximately 0.6% of the annual rainfall. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Western Regional Climate Center Precipitation Statistics for Palo Alto Average Total Precipitation (in.) for 1/1953 to 12/31/2005 Fig. 29: Western Regional Climate Center Precipitation Statistics for Palo Alto: Average Total Precipitation (in.) for 1/1953 to 12/31/2005 Estimate of total water usage for entire urban forest Bottom line: 1. Street trees receive 486,000 gallons /year of supplemental water via truck: 10.67 x 486,000 = 5,185,620 gallons or 0.14 % of citywide wa- ter usage documented for 2010. 2. Street trees intercept 131 acre feet/year of rain water: 10.67 x 131 acre feet/year = 1,397.8 acre feet/year or 6.4% of the average annual rainfall. What is not known & CANNOT be extrapolated 1. The amount of water from the residents who water a young street tree near their home. 2. The amount of water from turf irrigation sys- tems that reach trees. Amount in gallons Percentage of total usage (2010) Amount in gallons Percentage of total usage (2010) Temporary irrigation for new trees in parks and at CIP projects. Both Unknown Water from residents to nearby new street trees Unknown Unknown Water trucked to new street trees Both 486,000 0.013%10.67 5,185,620 0.14% Irrigation for certain downtown tree wells that lack adequate space to store necessary water. Both Unknown Irrigation (primarily for turf) at city/public facilities.Both Unknown Rain water intercepted by street trees Rain 42,600,000 0.600%10.67 454,542,000 6.40% Usage known for Street trees Te m p o r a r y On g o i n g Watertype i.e., potable or recycled Usage extrapolated for entire urban forest Water source Extrapolation factor (available street tree data represents 9.37% of total land area) Fig. 30:Table summarizes known and extrapolated data about water use by the entire urban forest. What is known The Davey Resource Group street tree analysis indicates that street trees cover approximately 574 acres or 3.5% of the total land area and 36.8% of the street and sidewalk area. Therefore, that analy- sis and information about water usage applies to about 9.37% of Palo Alto’s total land area. What can be extrapolated Since the street tree data provides information about water usage for 9.37% of Palo Alto’s total land area, an estimate of the total water usage can be extrapolated by multiplying that amount by 10.67 (9.37 x 10.67 = 100%). 92 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Water Water conservation Potable water supply Palo Alto receives water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System, oper- ated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Com- mission (SFPUC). This supply consists almost entirely of snow-melt from the Sierra Nevada mountains delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts. Precipitation levels can vary greatly within any given year. Climate conditions coupled with long-term limited supplies mean it is in our best interest to use water as efficiently as possible. State Water Conservation Act In 2009, California enacted the State Water Conser- vation Act (SBx7-7) which mandates a 20% reduc- tion in the state wide use of water—by the year 2020. To comply, the City will establish a baseline for daily per capita water use and establish a target that is 80% of that usage. Water conservation & trees Waste avoidance strategies Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California—by the Pacific Institute (2003) suggests that...“Existing technolo- gies have enormous untapped potential for reduc- ing waste and therefore use.” Waste avoidance strategies that focus on leaks and other inefficiencies do not impact the urban forest and the more that usage can be reduced through these waste avoidance measures, the less need there will be for more drastic measures. To this end the Municipal Code includes prohibi- tions against defected irrigation equipment and incorporates Green Building Standards for water efficiency in new construction. Additionally, the city’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes programs that offer sig- nificant incentives to improve leaky or inefficient equipment. (Fig 32) More drastic measures While the state advocates waste avoidance it man- dates 20% reduction in use. And, though the use of water for trees is a small percentage of the per capita usage, there are existing trees that could be impacted by the implementation of drastic water- conservation measures e.g.: • Public trees planted near turf irrigation were chosen with the assumption that they would receive supplemental potable water throughout their lives. They are dependent on that water. • Any mature street tree that has been receiving supplemental water from a nearby irrigation system for its entire life has likely become dependent—regardless of species. • Private trees near irrigation whether chosen to be or not, are now likely dependent. • New 15-gallon street trees need water for the first three years.. Fig. 31: Palo Alto’s potable water comes from the Hetch Hetchy system through a wholesale contract with the City and County of San Francisco. 93 Water City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Consideration for trees when implementing water-conservation strategies Impact to existing trees—i.e., that may be accustomed to supplemental water—from-conservation strategies might be mitigated by allowing for both short and long term versions of those strategies. Short-term strategies Short-term strategies would not modify water supplies to these trees in a way that would traumatize them. For example: • City programs that encourage recycled water might consider a mix of recycled and fresh water for cer- tain areas or trees—for the short term. • Turf replacement programs might include the task of identifying any nearby trees that might be im- pacted by the removal of an existing turf irrigation system—and mitigate that impact by installing tree- specific irrigation. This approach would contribute to accomplish the city’s goal for coordinated citywide sustainability planning. Long-term strategies Over time, the number of existing trees—that may be accustomed to supplemental water—will diminish through implementation of the Master Plan policies (as described on the following pages and as recom- mended in the Goals, Policies, and Programs) and natural attrition. At that point, water-conservation strategies will not need to be so accommodating. Fig. 32: Urban Forest Master Plan programs offer significant incentives and invite the community to part- ner with the City in an effort to reduce waste and thereby avoid water conservation measures that might be more detrimental to the urban forest. Details are available on the city’s website. 94 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Water An urban forest that is... climate adapted Fig. 33: Canopy’s online “Tree Library”: Although it is still a work in progress, this interactive database is already an easy-to-use resource for members of the community interested in helping the city transition to a less thirsty forest. The Master Plan advocates drought tolerant species. It also advocates adaptation of other species—which may not be drought tolerant but provide needed benefits—to Palo Alto’s climate and growing conditions. Adaptation will be crucial to maintaining: 1. Diversity—which makes the urban forest less vulner- able to species-specific diseases. 2. A full spectrum of benefits such as those described in the “Benefits” chapter and/or submtted by survey participants. Drought tolerant species WUCOLS The California Department of Water Resources maintains a list referred to as WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species). It rates the water needs of 1,9000 species as: High: requires irrigation throughout summer. Moderate: able to tolerate periods without water but not several years of drought. Low: requires irrigation until established; will then sur- vive without supplemental water. Modified WUCOLS In 2009, a team of Canopy staff and board members, city- taff, and community members agreed to modifications to the WUCOLS ratings deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. Canopy incorporated the modified ratings into their online Tree Library.(Fig 33) 95 Water City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Drought tolerant public trees The Master Plan applied the modified WUCOLS ratings to TreeKeeper data to develop the following information and tables: 1. The table in Fig 34 (below) shows that, by 2010, the city had begun planting fewer thirsty trees. 2. The table in Fig 35 (below) shows what percent- age of the street and park tree population (as inventoried in 2010) falls into each of the three rating categories. This will serve as a baseline for future monitoring. 3. A table, “Thirst Ratings for public trees,” (in the Appendices) lists: a. Modified WUCOLS ratings for 400 species b. Frequency of each species in street tree popu- lation as inventoried in 2010. Drought tolerant private trees There is not enough available data to assess. Coaching a species to adapt to Palo Alto conditions To maintain diversity as well as environmental and social benefits, it will be important to encourage adaptability in species with desirable attributes. Strategies for coaching adaptability include: • Planting very young/small trees or even seeds. • Planting methods such as bare rooting that encourage rapid development of a fully capable root system. • Providing adequate non-compacted soil. • Providing mulch to help soil retain water. • Avoiding competition from other plants. • Avoiding opportunities for dependency on supplemental water. Fig. 35: 2010 baseline for monitoring progress towards less thirsty forest. Rating High Moderate Low % of total 35% 42% 23% Modified WUCOLs thirst ratings for all street/park trees as of spring 2010 woLetaredoMhgiHgnitaR % of total planted > 10 years ago 36%41%23% % of total planted within past 10 years 30%50%20% % change (approximate)17% fewer 22% more 13% fewer Compares thirst ratings of street & park trees planted prior to 2000... ...and those planted between 2000 and 2010 Note: if ratings from the unmodified WUCOLs list were applied, the change would be greater; however, it is the City's intention to incoroporate the modified list Fig. 34: By 2010, the city had begun to plant fewer thirsty trees and more moderate trees. Alternative waters for landscape irrigation Alternatives to potable water for landscaping irri- gation are rapidly evolving in terms of legislation, technology, and knowledge of the results. Rainwater As of late 2009, California had no regulations pertaining to rainwater collection. But, in 2012, the state adopted the Rainwater Capture Act which recognized its usefulness and clarified its legality. By then, the City of Palo Alto already had incen- tive programs in place in the form of rebates for measures to reduce runoff to the storm drain sys- tem. Example measures include capturing rainwa- ter in rain barrels or cisterns for use on landscap- ing and gardens. Palo Alto continues to offer incentives for qualify- ing systems. Permit requirements depend on the complexity of the system and what it involves. Greywater Generally, greywater is wastewater from wash hand basins, showers, baths, and in some cases, washing machines, that has been captured and filtered for reuse. Note that wastewater from dishwashers and kitchen sinks is generally excluded due to the high nutrient levels. In California, greywater systems: 1. Must adhere to Chapter 16A of the California Plumbing Code: “Nonpotable Water Reuse Systems.” 96 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Water 2. May require a permit e.g., laundry-to-landscape systems no longer require a permit. 3. Must be contained within their own property. 4. May be eligible for rebates e.g., laundry-to- landscape systems are eligible for rebates from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Greywater systems are most popular in single- family residences where regulation criteria can be more easily met; however, the water-conserva- tion potential would naturally be greater for an industrially-sized system. Greywater systems for landscape irrigation vary widely e.g., some rely on gravity—while others em- ploy pumps. Evapotranspiration systems typically involve a septic tank for pre-treatment and perfo- rated pipes for distribution into a shallow sand bed below the target plant roots. Note that the sand bed must be lined with either plastic or very imperme- able soil to prevent the greywater from seeping into the ground. Shallow trench greywater which is piped from the house into shallow trenches that are properly spaced and close to the surface. Currently, Palo Alto has no incentive programs for greywater. However, permits for proper installa- tions of greywater systems may be obtained. Recycled water In California, legislation increasingly encourages and, in some cases, requires the expansion of the use of recycled water. In Palo Alto, recycled water comes from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. It is cur- rently used for landscape irrigation at several sites; however, concerns—raised by experts—about the salinity levels and its potentially detrimental affect on the urban forest have triggered a full Environ- mental Impact Report—still underway. Resolution 9035: Salinity Reduction In January of 2010, the City Council responded to the above mentioned concerns by adopting the Salinity Reduction Policy for Recycled Water (Resolution 9035—Fig 36). The accompanying staff report (CMR: 111:10 ) states, “The issue of salinity of recycled water was raised by Canopy and the Stanford Real Estate office when they reviewed the recycled water proj- ect’s draft environmental document...” The policy itself states that the purpose is to, “... ensure that the City is taking all practical steps to reduce salinity in recycled water.” The policy language refers to the salinity level in terms of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)—a com- mon measure of salinity in a water system Highlights of the policy are: • It shall be the policy...to prevent unnecessary addi- tions of salt ...with a goal of lowering the TDS...to less than 600 parts per million. • The major way in which salts can be reduced is by controlling the infiltration of saline ground- water which is currently entering sewer pipes through cracks and problem areas in those pipes as they cross saline areas near San Francisco Bay. Other sources of controllable salt must also be explored. • RWQCP Partners, including Palo Alto, will be asked to identify controllable salt inputs to wastewater from their communities and to implement control measures. • Implementation shall include: 1. Determine the salinity levels for each entity whose wastewater is treated by the RWQCP. 2. Identify the sources of salinity. 3. Develop alternatives for reducing the salinity. 4. Identity the actions that can be implemented to meet the TDS goal. 5. Prepare Salinity Reduction Plan. 6. Monitor TDS and report to Council biannu- ally on progress... 7. Monitor impact of TDS and all the relevant constituents of concern for salinity on com- post, plants, and soil. Mixtures of recycled & fresh water Mixtures of recycled and freshwater are a fourth possible alternative to using potable water for landscape irrigation. For example, in 2013, the Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence began a trial at a vineyard—using recycled water diluted with freshwater to reduce the salinity. Potential sources for the freshwater component of a mixture might even be greywater and/or cap- tured rainwater. 97 Water City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig. 36: Resolution 9035: Salinity Reduction Policy for Recycled Water—adopted in January of 2010. 98 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Development Urban Planning The urban forest provides many functions that enhance development locally such as gateways, focal points, sense of place, screening incompatible land uses, transportation calming and separation of users (pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle), noise control, access control, parking enhancements, and connect- edness or transitions between parcels or areas. In architectural terms the urban forest provides the natural doorways, walls, windows, roof, skylights, and porches of the community. Comprehensive Plan These concepts are supported throughout Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan refers to the Urban Forest Master Plan for policy regarding the urban forest. American Planning Association The American Planning Association Policy Guide (2000) supports planning policies, programs, and state and federal legislation that support incentives and other economic tools to improve the sustainability of our natural envi- ronment, enhance natural resources, and improve community subdivision and building design standards. American Society of Landscape Architects The American Society of Landscape Architects program for “Sustainable Landscapes” provides guidelines to promote the use of urban forests to improve development and provide benefits such as cleaner and cooler air, human health, energy efficiency, water quality and quantity management, and others. Economics Urban Forest DevelopmentGovernment Individual projects However as much as people may subscribe to these concepts, the landscap- ing of individual development projects is often defined by the challenge of balancing parameters such as: 1. Economic considerations such as the operating budget for the project and its potential value upon completion. 2. The desire to achieve maximum development potential (perhaps to sup- port premium land prices.) 3. Government regulations. The following pages discuss these parameters relative to trees. 99 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Economics Urban Forest DevelopmentGovernment Economics: property values parks. Hedonic values can be capitalized by local governments as increased property tax assess- ments or as excise taxes paid on property sales. The calculated value across all properties influ- enced by a natural feature can be aggregated, and the case may be made that the sum is adequate to pay for annual debt and maintenance of the fea- ture, such as street trees or greenspace. Review of Valuations ...The remainder of this section emphasizes studies using statistical analysis of market sales or ap- praisals. Yard and Street Trees ...Although there have been a few exceptions, homes with trees are generally preferred to compa- rable homes without trees, with the trend across studies being a price increase of about seven per- cent. Here are results from a selection of studies: Increase Condition 2% mature yard trees (greater than 9-inch dbh) 3-5% trees in front yard landscaping 6-9% good tree cover in a neighborhood 10-15% mature trees in high-income neighborhoods Hedonic Pricing Method ...Hedonic pricing is a revealed willingness-to-pay technique. [In this case] the proportion of property prices that are derived from the non-use value of trees and other natural elements... Hedonic pricing studies have been done since the 1960s. Most use least squares regression analysis as the primary statistical tool. Property prices or assessments are regressed against sets of control variables: environmental attributes of the house or property, other neighborhood variables (such as the quality of local schools), and structural characteristics of the house (such as number of bedrooms). One can then estimate how a change in a natural feature, such as yard trees or proximity to a nearby park, is related to a change in property value, holding other characteristics of the property constant. The advantage of this method over others is its use of actual market transactions versus hy- pothetical questionnaires or indirect assessments. Urban areas are ideal for application of hedonic pricing because there is usually a wealth of data available on house and property sales. Geographic databases enable analysis of value increments based on proximity to natural features such as Price effect is variable and depends on how tree presence is defined. In addition, the socioeconom- ic condition of a residential area makes a differ- ence. For instance, greater increments of value are seen for tree planting and landscape improvements in lower-quality neighborhoods. Tree Retention in Development Market price studies of treed versus untreed lots show this range: Increase Condition 18% lots with substantial mature tree cover 22% tree-covered undeveloped acreage 19-35% lots bordering suburban wooded preserves 37% open land that is two-thirds wooded Generally, trees and forest cover in development growth areas add value to parcels. One study found that development costs were 5.5 percent greater for lots where trees were conserved. Given increased lot and home valuations, builders have reported that they were able to recover the extra costs of preserving trees in a higher sales price for a house and that homes on wooded lots sell sooner than homes on unwooded lots. This excerpt from Kathleen Wolf’s, “City Trees and Property Values” (International Society of Aboriculture, 2007), augments the messages of the “Value” and “Community Surveys” chapters. 100 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development “Nationally, business districts with street trees were found to generate 9 to 12 percent more consumer spending than districts without trees.” —Wolf, K.L. 2005. “Business District Streetscapes, Trees and Consumer Response.” Journal of Forestry 103, 8:396-400. “New tree plantings are associated with a 9 percent increase in property values.” —Wachter & Gillen, Public Investment Strategies: How They Matter for Neighborhoods in Philadelphia,” The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (April 2006). “Good aesthetic value was also shown to increase average commercial office rental rates by 7 percent.” —Laverne, R.J., & K. Winson-Geideman. 2003. “The Influence of Trees and Landscaping on Rental Rates at Office Buildings. “Journal of Arboriculture 29, 5:281-290. Clevelan Additional economic analyses yield the following: Fig 37: World Music Day (2011): Crowds linger to shop and dine on pleasant tree-lined streets in the downtown. Fig 38: Residences on tree lined streets are in high demand. Fig 39: The beautifully forested Stanford Research Park attracts significant tenants. Ph o t o b y M e g h a M a k a m Ph o t o f r o m z i l l o w . c o m po s t i n g o f 2 0 1 1 Ph o t o f r o m a u t o b l o g . c o m po s i t n g o f 2 0 0 9 101 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development: impacts to & protection Impacts There is little vacant land in Palo Alto and most re-development will be more dense than what it replaces. This can lead to crowding components on a site: • Street-trees or planting sites can be diminished if utilities or driveways are installed too close. • Private trees or planting sites can be diminished by basements, founda- tions, and hard scape that leave little space for landscaping. • Trees and future trees may be forfeited to avoid: • Root damage. • Shading of solar panels. • Obscuring commercial signage. Additionally: • Trees can be damaged by construction-related activity e.g., • Trenching and excavation can damage roots. • Storing equipment against a trunk or within the drip line can damage trunk or roots. • Soil can become compacted—or compromised by toxins. Protection City protection procedures can be effective; but they require commitment from both the City and the Community. For example, although trees add value to a property, Kathleen Wolf advises that, “One study found that development costs were 5.5 % greater for lots where trees were conserved.” As a result, project participants whose benefit is tied only to the efficiency of the process—who will not benefit from added value to the site and com- munity—may perceive tree protection as a burden. Fig 40: This century-old valley oak framed this Lowell Avenue house beautifully until it fell in 2004. Extensive analysis traced the cause back to trenching—done for a gas line in the 1990s. The roots on one side of the tree had been severed. This tragedy neither was, nor is, unique. In fact, by the time this tree fell, the City had already adopted the Tree Protection ordinance (in 1996), published the Tree Technical Manual, hired a Planning Arborist, and begun rigorous review of site plans.. However, in spite of these precautions, trenching and tunneling continue to pose potential impact that may not be realized for more than a decade. The Master Plan recommends that site plans limit trenching to an identified utility corridor—coincident with the driveway—to preserve undisturbed area for existing and future trees. It is worth noting that, currently, some permits involving trenching—such as installations of back-flow preventers—require only a plumbing permit and are not reviewed for tree impacts. The installation of back-flow preventers often involves digging close to the street trees. Economics Urban Forest DevelopmentGovernment Photo by staff 102 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Government: representation & influence Fig 41: Examples of required tree protection: Proven best practices of retaining a tree’s value and survivability during remodeling or development activity requires an expert’s help, typi-cally provided as a tree protection report for staff review. These best management practices, integrated with other City sustainability policies from water quality, public works engineer- ing and planning department conditions of adopted approval become part of the building permit construction documents. Advances such as this have bridged a gap that traditionally has plagued cities for years, and allows for more order, construction and compliance monitoring for truly successful outcomes. Representation & influence The City strives to represent the environment and the community with regulations for development. The City influences development through project review, mitigation, inspection, enforcement, and outreach. Project review, entitlements, & permits Non-discretionary and discretionary review Ministerial applications are not subject to discre- tionary review. In these cases projects are reviewed only for potential impacts to regulated trees (see chart center of page). Economics Urban Forest DevelopmentGovernment Significant projects are subject to discretionary review which is not limited to regulated trees. This provides an opportunity to designate any tree for retention and/or protection. Where potential impact is identified—either through , those trees must be protected. (Fig 33) Note: When the tree protection ordinance was adopted, protection had to be installed and inspected prior to the issuance of any permit. Recent changes—intended to expedite the permit- ting process—allow permits to be issued first. This change has resulted in increased instances of noncompliance. Regulated Trees Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code provides regulation for specific trees to protect them from removal or disfigurement. • Publicly-owned trees such as street trees or trees on public land. • All coast live oak and valley oak trees > 11.5” in diameter. • Coast redwood trees > 18” in diameter. • Heritage Trees (designated by City Council). • All trees that have been designated by the City to be saved and protected through a dis- cretionary review process such as a variance, home improvement exception, architectural review, site and design, subdivision, etc. 103 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Note: Some permit applications are not reviewed. Back-flow preventers require only a plumbing per- mit—even though installation involves excavation near street trees. The following paragraphs discuss criteria and regula- tions applicable to all projects that are reviewed—dis- cretionary or non-discretionary. Zoning setback requirements Most applications must meet front, rear, and side setbacks that provide room for landscaping features such as tree roots. However, setback requirements do not preclude trenching or even constructs such as light wells which can impact trees on the project parcel as well as the adjacent parcel. Solar panel permits & the California Solar Shade Act Solar power is important to the City’s renewable en- ergy program and incentives are available for properly sited solar panels. However, shade trees are also im- portant. The City’s review of solar panel installations that involve tree conflicts is based on the California Solar Shade Act: Provision • Section 25982 prohibits a newly planted tree to cast a shadow over more than 10% of a solar panel on a neighboring property at any time between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Exemptions: • Section 25984(a) exempts trees that were planted prior to installation of a solar panel. • Section 25984(c) exempts trees that replace exempt trees that die or are removed for the protection of public health, safety, or the environment. Fig 42 a & b: For conflicts between the optimal performance of a solar panel and nearby trees, City policy is based on the Solar Shade Act. For non regulated trees, such as the privately owned trees shown above, the City gives precedence to whichever came first. For regulated trees, such as the street trees shown below (also see “Regulated Trees” in the “Development” Chapter), the City does not consent to removing or pruning to optimize solar panel performance. Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f C a n o p y . Ph o t o b y a n d c o u r t e s y o f D a v e E d w a r d s P h o t o g r a p h y 104 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Fig 43a: Giant oak trees make the Town & Country Village parking lot a pleasant place for summer con- certs. Shown is 2013 con- cert arranged by Celebrity Concerts. • Section 25984(d) exempts regulated trees such as protected species, designated trees, and heri- tage trees. • Section 25985(a) empowers cities to exempt— via an ordinance—trees that are planted and maintained by the city. Therefore: • For non regulated trees, the City gives prece- dence to whichever came first. • For regulated trees, the City does not consent to removing or pruning to optimize solar panel performance. Note: See “Evolving Technology” (this chapter) for discussion of solar studies. Shade requirements for parking lots Currently the zoning ordinance 18.54.040 requires that 50% of a parking lot’s surface be shaded and, traditionally, this shading has been provided exclu- sively by trees. However, increasingly, develop- ers are expressing an interest in substituting solar panels for trees—to meet the shade requirement. City policy regarding such substitutions will be significant because trees, larger trees in particular, produce benefits which cannot be equaled or fully replaced by solar panels. Fig 43b: This West Valley College parking lot provides a local example of a partial conversion from shade trees to solar panels. 105 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig 44: The increase in density resulted in a net loss of canopy; however, early review resulted in sav-ing many mature oak trees such as the ones shown below. Designated trees Discretionary review may result in designating a non-regulat- ed tree for retention. Although the Arbor Real project was a much denser use of the site (than Ricky’s Hyatt Hotel), early review enabled the design to accommodate: • Designation of mature oak trees for retention. • Appropriate placement of driveways and hardscape. • Appropriate placement of underground utilities The result was that many mature oak trees were preserved. (Fig 44) Note: Even though several oaks were preserved, the Arbor Real development did result in a net canopy loss and currently, there are no policies regarding canopy loss or gain—per project. Mitigation Replacement of removed trees Even if discretionary design review does require keeping a tree—it might require mitigation for its removal—e.g., trans- planting or replacing it. Key issues for transplanting trees are: clearance at the receiv- ing site, lengthy recovery from shock and root loss of 75-90%, new irrigation. Property owners must provide a two-year status report on the transplanted tree’s health to the city arbor- ist. (Fig 45) Inspection & enforcement Changes to approved plans are not permitted.—unless they are reviewed again and approved again. Note: Hard scape NOT installed per approved plans can trigger a series of changes e.g., location of utilities which can impact an existing tree or planned tree. And site inspections may not discover this in time to prevent issues.Fig.45: This oak tree was moved from a residential development site to Heritage Park and several oaks were transplanted as part of the new Stanford Medical Center project. Ph o t o b y s t a f f Ph o t o b y s t a f f 106 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Outreach As well as supporting Canopy financially, the city collaborates with Canopy on outreach programs. Education Each year Canopy conducts at least 3 work- shops—a planting leader training in the fall, a young tree pruning workshop in the spring, and a tree talk on various subjects each summer. Fig 46: Left: In 2013, Canopy presented the Arnold Sofrenko Award to King Asset Management, DES Architects + Engineers, Urban Tree Management, Inc. the Wentz Group as well as others involved with the successful preservation of this mature oak tree as part of the 265 Lytton Avenue redevelopment. Fig 47: Above: In 2014, Canopy presented the Arnold Sofrenko Award to Hewlett Packard, Gensler and Asso- ciates, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, as well as others involved with the successful preservation of a historic oak tree at the entrance of Hewlett Packard World Headquarters and Executive Briefing Center. The tree is now the centerpiece of the redesigned building. Above left is the tree in 1979; above right is the tree in 2014. In 2001, the City and Canopy conducted the “PALO ALTO TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL: A WORKSHOP FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC” to introduce newly adopted requirements and recom- mended practices for homeowners and develop- ers. The workshop provided an overview of city regulations, explained the city’s Tree Management Program, discussed what permits are required for different types of work, and provided valuable information on how to care for protected trees. Recognition and positive reinforcement Each year, at the Mayor’s Tree Planting and Can- opy Awards, Canopy acknowledges projects that have made a significant contribution to the health of Palo Alto’s urban forest. (Figs 46 & 47) P h o t o g r a p h y C o p y r i g h t : D e a n J B i r i n y i P h o t o g r a p h y Ph o t o s c o u r t e s y o f C a n o p y 1979 1979 107 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig 48: Sustainable Sites Initiative websiteOpportunities Evolving influences Construction standards and criteria are evolving under the influence of sustainability goals. However, so far, they have not been tree cen- tric and have a complicated effect on the urban forest--adding to the need and opportunity for a coordinated Sustainability Plan. Green Building Standards In 2000, the Green Building Council released the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for new construction. In 2004, the Green Building Initiative (created to as- sist the National Association of Homebuilders in promoting Green Building Guidelines for Residential Structures) introduced the Green Globes® environmental assessment and rating tool to the US. These programs inspired others and, today, there are likely over 100 such rating programs in the marketplace. Sustainable Sites Initiative The Sustainable Sites Initiative is an effort by the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, and the U. S. Botanic Garden—to extend green building concepts outside—to create more sustainable landscapes. This group is in the process of publishing voluntary national guidelines and performance benchmarks for sustainable land design, construction and mainte- nance practices. Inhouse water and energy efficiency programs • Some programs (required or encouraged by the city) add to the competition for space—underground e.g., • Separate water systems for recycled water. • Electric charging stations. • Installation of solar panels has the potential to make existing and future trees less desirable because of shade. 108 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Evolving city policy A major goal of this Master Plan is to promote a complementary relationship between develop- ment and the urban forest. See subsections of “Moving towards the Vision” e.g., • “Message from the Urban Forester.” • “Considerations for the goals, policies, and programs.” • “Goals, Policies and Programs.” A recent and promising example of evolv- ing city policy is the Municipal Golf Course Renovation. It challenged the city to broaden its definition of urban forestry to include a diver- sity of ecosystems from the bay wetlands where trees are rare sentinels in the landscape, to the foothills oak woodlands and grasslands. A similar expansion of how regulations and mitigation are interpreted—and applied—will enable insightful decision making, create healthy, productive, and thriving urban eco- systems, and ultimately, yield the maximum long term benefits in the most efficient manner. Ecosystem services will be the natural currency of the future. Fig 49: The new Golf Course design reflects insightful decision-making that will result in a productive and thriving urban ecosystems. Fifty-four acres of thirsty turf will be replaced by native grasses and shrubs. Trees will include existing Blue Gum Eucalyptus and Stone Pine trees as well as new, native, Pacific Wax Myrtle and California Live Oak trees. Note: This image is excerpted from the (slide show) presentation by Forrest Richardson & Associates, Golf Course Architects to the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission on February 13, 2013. California Live Oak | Quercus agrifolia 109 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan PALO ALTO MITCHELL PARK LIBRARY & COMMUNITY CENTER SITE PLAN BEASLEY SCULPTURE Fig 51: (below) Beneath the new library parking lot structural grids work in concert with the bioswales to enable both maximum surface and maximum shade. Using Silva Cell™ technology to accommodate root growth under the asphalt was an important design component. Evolving technologies Soil volume solutions Crowded sites often don’t provide acceptable growing conditions. When there is not enough soil volume or when the soil becomes compacted under hardscape, existing trees die and new trees cannot become established. Engineered soil Engineered soil mix is designed to be compacted enough to support pave- ment yet permit root growth and can be a valid option for some hardscape challenges. Key issues are its limitations. Structural rock provides a good foundation, but only a small amount of viable soil per volume (5-15% ); so, the benefit may not be sufficient for all challenges. (Fig 50) Fig 50: Palo Alto was the first western city to ust the Cornell University patented method planting mix (390 Lytton—not shown) and in the above photo, structural soil 24” deep provided room for the roots of this Chinese pistache—below the parking lot surface—at another downtown location. Structural grids Structural grids of interlocking frames filled with non-compacted healthy soil can be employed to provide an adequate volume of quality soil to grow trees to the desired mature size. Suspended pavement using structural con- crete over a foundation of piers and/or bridging may also be employed to provide a similar function. Using Silva Cell™ technology to accommodate root growth under the as- phalt was an important design component of the new Mitchell Park Library. (Fig 51) 110 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Development Solar studies for site planning Although existing trees and (in most cases) their replacements may be exempt form the Solar Shade Act restrictions, future plantings may need to consider existing solar panels. Fig 52: Several solar study applications like the ones shown above already exist. In order to identify the most efficient way to aid in site planning decisions related to trees and solar panels, the city is exploring not only available tools but also evaluating the potential capabilities of the city’s GIS in combination with lidar technology—to enable a much more de-tailed and reliable estimation of the ecosystem services of private trees (or any subset of data points that can be delineated). In most cases, including a solar study that indicates plot, plan, & trees as part of the development application package will help ensure that new solar in- stallations will function efficiently and that future conflict evaluations can be resolved. 111 Development City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page was intentionally left blank 112 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Line Clearing Line Clearing Palo Alto public assets Cities around the world face this conflict; but for most of those cities—only the trees are a public asset. For Palo Alto—operator of its own electric utility—the poles, transformers, and wires, are also public assets. Therefore, staff and community have a vested interest in both sides of this issue. Trees and power lines The City’s Urban Forestry website acknowledges the conflict between trees and power lines—stat- ing that, “Often, power line clearing can result in a less than desirable tree form.” Power line clearing is performed for the following reasons: To comply with state law The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires all electrical-service providers to ensure that higher voltage electric conductors (“wires”, “lines”) are kept clear of vegetation at all times and that specified distances are kept between conductors and vegetation when line clearing work is done. Failure to comply can result in cita- tions and fines. To help ensure continued service While it may appear that excessive distances are kept clear, most electrical outages occur during storms when high winds blow limbs or tree tops into the conductors. Rain-heavy limbs can droop into the power lines and also cause outages. To help ensure safety If a tree limb causes a conductor to break and fall to the ground it may pose a dangerous safety haz- ard to anyone coming in contact with the wire. Fig. 53: Communication wires may run through canopy. However, power lines have strict clearance requirements established by the California Public Utility Commission. Ph o t o b y s t a f f Power lines Communication lines 113 Line Clearing City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Procedures/standards for pruning • Pruning for line clearance is managed by the Urban Forestry staff. • Pruning is done by contractors with specific expertise. • Contracts specify standards established by the International Society of Aboriculture. • Most trees are pruned for line clearance every two years. • Fast-growing trees are pruned for line clearance every year. • In some cases, removal of the tree may be best. • In addition to pruning that is done as part of the power line clearing, public trees are pruned every 5-7 years to clear dead branches and branches that may be crossed or rubbing. Right Tree Right Place program Property owners facing conflicts between power lines and trees on their property are eligible for help through this program e.g., • Removal of qualifying trees at no cost • Reimbursement for stump removal. • Reimbursement for appropriate replacement. Information about this program is available on both the City’s website and Canopy’s website. Fig 54:City website page for Right Tree Right Place Program 114 Where we are now Information about stewardship • Ownership & Overlapping Roles • City Hall 115 This page was intentionally left blank 116 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Ownership & Overlapping Roles Ownership & Overlapping Roles Ownership Public Trees may be what people think of as the urban forest; however, as the four schematic maps (right) show...the vast bulk of the urban forest is made up of Private Trees. (Figs. 55 a, b, c, & d) Fig 55a. The most familiar category of publicly-owned trees are those located within the rights-of-way. Fig 55c: Many more trees are located on privately-owned land zoned for single-family use....or...Fig 55d: ...on privately-owned land zoned for commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential use. Fig 55b: Other publicly-owned trees are located at parks, preserves, libraries, City Hall, fire stations, parking lots, etc. Areas of public trees Areas of private trees 117 Ownership & Overlapping Roles City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Public trees Public trees can be said to fall into two categories: 1. Street trees (within rights-of-way) (Fig 56a) 2. Trees within parks, the municipal golf course, open space, public facilities such as the water treatment plant, libraries, fire stations, and public parking lots.(Fig 56b) Overlapping stewardship of public trees Public trees are managed by city staff; however, they are a community asset and private citizens have important roles: 1. Informally—by watering nearby young street trees. 2. More formally—by protecting street trees during construction projects. 3. At a higher level—by volunteering to organizations like Canopy or Friends of the Parks. 4. At the highest level—by voting for City Council members who : • Appoint commissioners to review projects, budgets, policies, and legislation and make recommendations to the council • Adopt budgets, policies, and legislation that affect trees. Private trees Private trees can be said to fall into two categories: • Trees within single-family residential zones. (Fig 56c) • Trees within commercial or multi-family zones. (Fig 56d) Overlapping stewardship of private trees In general, private trees are managed by property owners; however, some private trees are subject to regulations i.e., 1. Coast and valley oaks as well as coast redwoods of a certain size. 2. Heritage trees—designated by the City Council. 3. Trees designated for retention or protection as a condition of ap- proval for a permit are protected. 4. Trees that interfere with utility lines. Overlapping Stewardship Roles Palo Alto’s legacy is the result of—both citizens and staff—acting as both stakeholder and stewards—for both public and private trees. 118 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall City Hall A History of Committment In January 2014, Barrie Coates—a renowned arborist who has been a valued consultant to Getty Museum, Disneyland, multiple state agencies, and many local residents—received Canopy’s Soforenko Award for a life time of contributions. His acceptance remarks (which follow) salute Palo Alto’s history of commitment: “It is an honor to be given Canopy’s Soforenko award, and I appreciate it, but the real honor must go to the vision of a tree canopy covered city, created many years ago by a city government and a strong planning department that recognized the value that trees contribute to our lives. The continuing support for effective tree preser- vation regulations, followed by sincere attention to adherence to those regulations is virtually unique to Palo Alto. The results are apparent when we leave this meeting, no matter which direction we go we will encounter the city forest that makes Palo Alto the delightful, healthy city it is.”Ph o t o p r o v i d e d b y C a n o p y Barry Coates leading one of several Palo Alto tree walk—showcased above are the magnolias in front of the Palo Alto Art Center. 119 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Areas of Concern The City’s forestry concerns are not limited to the urban forest (Fig. 56a) which includes: • Municipal Golf Course....approx. 180 acres • 32 Urban parks................approx..170 acres • Street tree system............approx. 29,074 trees • Some private trees...........unknown They extend to 4,000 acres of park and open space as well (Fig. 56b) which includes: • Baylands Preserve............approx. 1,940 acres • Arastadero Preserve .........approx.622 acres • Foothills Park ...................approx.1,400 acres This chapter discusses these concerns in terms of: 1. Policies & protocols e.g., master plans, regula- tions, and project review. 2. Field activities such as planting and mainte- nance tasks. 3. Resources e.g., humans, technology, and budget. Fig. 56a: The Urban Forest Boundary—defined for the purposes of this Master Plan—reflects the area for which the overall canopy was measured (“Canopy” chapter). Fig. 56b: Palo Alto Parks and Open Space outside of the Urban Forest boundary. Professorville UniversitySouth CrescentPark CommunityCenter Leland Manor/Garland OldPalo Alto Southgate CollegeTerrace EvergreenPark Midtown/Midtown West PaloVerde Fairmeadow CharlestonMeadows Greenmeadow Ventura BarronPark GreenAcres Palo AltoHills UniversityPark CharlestonTerrace ResearchPark Neighborhood DowntownNorth Leland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/GarlandLeland Manor/Garland City Boundary Urban Forest as identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan City Boundary City owned parks and preserves outside of the urban forest as it was identified in 2010 for the purpose of establishing an overall canopy cover baseline for city’s first Urban Forest Master Plan FeltLake 120 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall 1. Policies & protocols • Requires installation of recycled water in- frastructure and separate meters for certain proj- ects within the “recycled water project areas.” Encouragement of Solar Energy Titles 2, 16, 18, and 21 encourage installation of solar panels. Climate Protection Plan (2006) In 2006, the mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force recommended to: a. Expand City urban forest management/master plan to recognize energy savings and CO2 sequestration benefits. b. Expand utilities’ “right tree in the right place” program to accommodate solar access for PV and hot water. c. Increase tree canopy coverage for parking lots. Reduces fuel consumption for car air condi- tioners and heat island effect.” In 2007, the Climate Protection Plan states, •“6. Employ Urban Forest Opportunities to Reduce Energy Use and Increase Carbon Se- questration...” • “...Promote use of shade trees that reduce en- ergy use and trap carbon as an extension to the “Right Tree in Right Place” program.” •“Implement water efficiency. Examples might include Xeriscaping, weather linked irrigation controllers, native plantings.” (Appendix I.) Urban Water Management Plan (2011) The 2011 update includes a multi-faceted program that assists residents and property owners upgrade irrigation systems to avoid wasting water. • For the “recycled water project areas”, the UWMP Table 9 indicates a potential 3-fold increase in the use of recycled water for land- scape irrigation over the next 4 years. • On the other hand, for City facilities, the UWMP Table 11 indicates only limited increases stat- ing, “...The City has not made a commitment to expand the use of recycled water in the City...” Utilities Strategic Plan (2011) The stated mission of this plan is to , “Provide valued utility services to customers and depend- able returns to the City” and in the plan’s “Key Strategies with Tactics” (Attachment C), trees are mentioned as follows: • Key Strategy 1-M: Continue the citywide under- grounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of under grounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. • Key Strategy 1-N: Continue with line clearing and vegetation management activities and meet the goal of 9000 trees per year that interfere with power lines. • Strategy 6 includes continued support for the Right Tree Right Place as well as the Shade Tree Program. Comprehensive Plan (1998) The “Natural Environment” chapter establishes... • A goal for, “...a thriving urban forest that provides ecological, economic and aesthetic benefits...” • A policy to protect, revitalize, and expand the urban forest. • Programs to implement the policy and achieve the goal. The “Community Services” and “Land Use” chapters include protective programs that apply to development and capital improvement projects. Municipal Code Authority and Protection of Trees Title 8 (1996) • Establishes city control of trees on public land. • Incorporates the tree protection ordinance. • Provides protection for certain trees. • Authorizes the Tree Technical Manual. Titles 18 and 21 include landscaping requirements for private development. Title 22 protects trees in parks and open space. Conservation of Potable Water Title 12 prohibits defective irrigation equipment. Title 16... • Incorporates California Green Building Stan- dards • Establishes the existence of “recycled water project areas.” 121 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Public Tree Removal Policy In 2009 the City established protocols for street tree removal that provide: • Detailed criteria for determining if a street tree should be removed. • A detailed series of steps to follow including in- spections, authorizations, and notification prior to removing the street tree. Recycled Water Policy (2010) Resolution 9035,_the Recycled Water Salinity Re- duction Policy—states that its purpose is to ensure that the City is taking all practical steps to reduce salinity in recycled water and that the policy acts to prevent unnecessary additions of salt to the sewer system, with a goal of lowering the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the recycled water to less than 600 parts per million (PPM). The policy statement also includes development of “alternatives for reducing the salinity levels.” Baylands Master Plan (2008) Includes design guidelines that promote low native marsh vegetation allowing for panoramic views that are not interrupted by tall trees. Various Park and Facility Master Plans Trees within different parks face different chal- lenges and the Urban Forest Master Plan includes a program that calls for updating and/or develop- ing park plans where appropriate. Project review Review by Urban Forestry staff Most permit applications are subject to review by the Urban Forestry staff—for potential impact to the health of a regulated trees e.g., street trees, heritage trees, and species protected by ordinance. Review by additional departments Projects requiring discretionary review and large projects require coordination with staff from mul- tiple departments including: • Planning and Community Development: Build- ing and Planning Divisions • Community Services: Parks and Recreation Division • Fire Department • Utilities Department These reviews are not limited to regulated trees; but rather they consider the entire site. No review required Some permits are considered ministerial and do not require review for impact to either regulated or non-regulated trees. Courtesy reviews Staff sometimes review projects outside of the city limits—that do not require permits from Palo Alto. In these cases staff recommendations are not likely to be compulsory. On the other hand, review of the Caltrans project to add auxiliary lanes to High- way 101 resulted in saving 5 historic eucalyptus trees at a city gateway (San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway). They had been identified for removal by Caltrans. Manuals and Guidelines Tree Technical Manual (2001) Provides the criteria, procedures, and standards for implementing tree protection regulations. Note: Written by the City of Palo Alto Planning Arborist and—intentionally not copyrighted—this docu- ment has become a standard resource for commu- nities across the nation. Street Tree Management Plan (1982) Sets strategies for the preservation and care of the street tree system—one component of the urban forest. This document is currently being updated. Programs Right Tree Right Place Program Assists residents and businesses to remove / re- place private trees that conflict with power lines. Shade Tree Program Funds replacement of municipal shade trees in order to mitigate the “heat island effects” within the community. Photovoltaic Partners Program Encourages photovoltaic installations. 122 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall Fig. 57: A schematic representation of the rleationships between select major policy documents. Note: Not all relevant documents are shown. Comprehensive PlanMunicipalCode Tree Technical Manual Urban Forest Master Plan Utilities StrategicPlan Street Tree Management Plan Foothills Park Trail Maintenance Plan Climate ProtectionPlan Future Sustainablity Plan(in progress) Water ManagementPlan Baylands Master Plan Foothills Park Wildland Fire Management Plan Arastradero Preserve-Trails Managemen Plan City Hall Policy Documents 123 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan • City’s goal of 50% shading goals for rights-of-way • Preference for native species • Availability of water and the City goals for conserving potable water • Availability of recycled water and the City goals for recycled water • Need for age diversity • Preference for species with fewer undesirable traits such as surface rooting, prolific fruit or seed production, susceptibility to insects and diseases (e.g., sooty mold and aphids), and other documented impacts specific to a species. • Resident’s request • Surrounding theme i.e., predominant species on that block— and the past performance of that species • Adjacent property use • Potential visibility issues (e.g., intersections) • Available soil volume • Available water 2. Field activities City maintenance activities generally apply to public trees. (Exceptions are emergencies and tree trimming for power lines.) Whenever possible, maintenance procedures follow Best Management Practices established by the International Society of Arboriculture. Planting Each year, city staff and Canopy staff and volun- teers participate in planting public trees— gen- erally between November and March to take advantage of the dormant season. Planting street trees includes:: • Stump removals • Repositioning of the site to minimize conflicts • Notifications to residents • Agreements with residents to irrigate the tree during the establishment period. • Species selection • Acquisition Currently, there is not a reliable monitoring plan to assess the number of plantings and removals in comparison to the number of vacant sites. A Mas- ter Plan policy establishes a goal to ensure that plantings exceed removals until a 98% stocking level can be verified and to monitor results. Species selection When replacing street trees, staff take many things into consideration such as: • Ecological benefits • Storm water runoff reduction potential • Aesthetics Ph o t o p r o v i d e d b y C a n o p y Fig. 58: Each year, city staff and Canopy staff and volunteers participate in planting public trees. Shown is a tree plant-ing event in Greer Park organized by Canopy. 124 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall Ph o t o p r o v i d e d b y s t a f f Fig. 59: Tree trimming training for city staff organized by Canopy. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines • Potential conflicts with hard scape • Potential conflicts with underground utilities • Avoidance of monocultures For sites in parks staff must also consider: • Existing and future irrigation systems for nearby park turf. • Maintenance issues specific to each park e.g., litter on playing fields. For sites in natural areas, it is even more important to choose native species and to consider: • Threats such as Sudden Oak Death (SOD). • Wildlife breeding time lines. • Wildlife habitat needs. • Relationship and impact to trails. Natural succession and disturbance trends which transform species composition over time Early tree care Even drought tolerant trees need water during the early years. 1. Young street trees get watered by: • City trucks deliver some potable water and some recycled water to young street trees. • Residents provide water to young street trees nearby. 2. Young trees in urban parks often get water from the irrigation systems that are there for the turf. Pruning Unlike line clearing, pruning is done for the ben- efit of the trees. In addition to cyclical pruning, staff provides pruning services on an as-needed basis. Most often this service is provided in response to a request from a resident. Line clearing See “Line Clearing” chapter. Removals See “Management” section. • For young trees, the goal is to promote good structure and growth. • For mature trees, the goal is to reduce incidenc- es of branch failure by removing: • Dead wood • Crossing and/or rubbing branches Note: In 1999, the City implemented a program to prune every 5 years and this increase in frequency resulted in a reduction in emergencies. However, since then, budget constraints have required changing to a 7-year cycle. 125 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Emergency response A Public Works Operations standby crew is avail- able for emergencies 24 hours per day every day of the year, including holidays. • Internal and external communications methods are established. • Contracts are in place for a variety of services. • Staff is trained in standards established by the Federal Emergency Management Act (Incident Command System standards) and the American National Standards Institute. Wood & green waste recycling Loose branches and limbs that result from mainte- nance on city trees are made into wood chips and used as mulch in the city parks, open spaces, and at the Municipal Golf Course. Ph o t o p r o v i d e d b y s t a f f Fig. 60: City crews remove a street tree (Cowper Street) with decayed roots to abate a public safety risk. The branches and trunk will be recycled—perhaps as wood chips to be used as mulch in the city parks, open spaces, and at the municipal Golf Course. 126 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall Fig. 61: One of the most important tree-related activities of the City is the ongoing monitoring and care of El Palo Alto. In 2013, the City engaged Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting Inc. to locate the magnificent redwood’s roots behind the concrete channel wall of San Francisquito Creek— using ground penetrating radar technology. Ph o t o c o u r t e s y o f A r b o r i s t O n S i t e H o r t i c u l t r u a l C o n s u l t i n g , I n c . 3. Resources City staff Most tree-related tasks are performed by the Ur- ban Forestry Division which comprises: • An Urban Forester: inter-departmental col- laboration, technical liaison, and designated representative. • Planning Arborist: project review. • Project Manager: contracts and utilities • Project Manager: Parks and Public Works • 2 Tree maintenance specialists: contract com- pliance, utilities vegetation management, and inspection services • 8 Tree trimmers/line clearers • 1 Administrative Assistant. Additionally, Community Services Parks Division staff perform tree-related activities as part of man- aging 4,000+ acres of parks, open space, natural areas, and other public land such as medians. Canopy Begun in 1996, and now partially funded by the city, Canopy is a non-profit group that serves as a community resource on tree related matters. In ad- dition to implementing the Right Tree Right Place program, Canopy conducts: • Tree-planting/tree-care events with volunteers. • Surveys such as the: • Oakwell survey: documented existing na- tive oaks. • Young Tree survey: documented status of newest street trees. • Tree walks for each neighborhood. • Tree care classes for property owners. • Programs that foster collaboration with schools other communities, and other agencies. • Inspirational events that: • Recognize (and encourage) stewardship. • Expose Palo Alto to exceptional speakers and ideas. • Advocacy to the city, county, and state levels. • Consultancy. Volunteers The importance of volunteers cannot be overstat- ed. For example, in addition to Canopy volunteer activities, Acterra volunteers provide invaluable help to city rangers by helping to plant trees and remove invasive plants in the Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and along San Francisquito Creek. 127 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Arastradero Lake FeltLake BorondaLake Highway101 Emb a rc a der o El Camino Real University Oregon PageMill Alma Arastradero E M ead o w Foothill Middlefield Sand Hill SanAntonio Alluvial deposits Alkaline soils Basin soils Terrace soils Arastradero Lake FeltLake BorondaLake d Aratsra eor dR SantaCruz A ve Mars MiddlefieldRd GlenwoodAve RavenswoodAve y R d SandHillRd Palm D r AlmaSt Waverley S t LouisRd OldMiddlefieldRd RengstorffAve M CentralExprwy C Miram on teAve San Ant o n i o R d ArastraderoRd East Meadow Dr CampusDr E ast Dr supmaC West DeerCreekRd Alpine Rd LosRobles A ve JuniperoSerraBlvd AlexisDr SanAntonio Page Mill Rd AltamontRd WillowRd Rd Quarry e CaliforniaAve HanoverSt Rd Foothi l lExpwy HetchHetchyAqueduct HetchHetchyAqueduct San FranciscoBay MataderoCreek BarronCreek AdobeCr. aM t da e orC.r Priisma rC . u Ad boe Cr. Peramen tneCr. aSnrFa cnisquitoCerek eD Creek er M ayfield Sl ough Charlest o n S lough BorondaLake LakeLagunita ShorelineLake FeltLake ArastraderoLake Arastradero Creek Los Tr anc os Cr ee Ad o b e Cre e k Cre e k B arron Dee r Creek Hale Cr eek HeritagePark Palo AltoBaylandsNaturePreserve Shoreline Park Mtn.ViewGolfC PaloAltoMunic.GolfCourse ArastraderoPreserve CameronPark WeisshaarPark MayflieldPark PeersPark ElPaloAltoPark El CaminoPark LyttonPlaza CogswellPlaza ScottPark KelloggPark BolPark RinconadaPark BowdenPark JohnsonPark HopkinsPark EleanorPardeePark BoulwarePark TermanPark RoblesPark MonroePark MitchellPark D Jesus RamosPark HooverPark GreerPark BaylandsAtheletic BaylandsInterpretiveCenter ByxbeePark BowlingGreen HenrySealePark SarahWallisPark WerryPark JuanaBrionesPark EstherClarkPark WilliamsPark School CommunityCommercial LightIndustrial Research/Office Park StreamsideOpen Space Conservation Land Open Space/ Major Institution/Special Facilities Public Parks NeighborhoodCommercial ServiceCommercial Mixed Use Multiple Family Single Family 13 Canopy cover change between 1982 and 2010 Citywide, canopy cover was increased between 1982 and 2010 (Figure 6). The highest increases were in Embarcadero Road which increased by approximately 151% and followed by Oak Creek which increased by approximately 69%. Canopy cover decreased in three neighborhoods: Fairmeadow decreased by 6%, Charleston Meadow by 2%, and Greenmeadow by less than 1%. Figure 6. Percent canopy cover by neighborhood for 1982 (left) and 2010 (right). Canopy in growth and land infill development are main factors that account for canopy cover increasing. For example, most trees in the neighborhoods built in the 1970’s are relatively young as showing in 1982 image (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). There were considerable amount of areas not developed in 1982 which is classified as bare soil or dry grass. In contrast, these areas were developed in 2010 and included tree plantings (Figure 7a, 7b, and 7c). 2010 Land Use Designations (as of 2012) Soil Types (from 1982 Street Tree Management Plan) Fig. 63: In the City’s GIS, tree data from TreeKeeper can be viewed atop other relevant information and map layers. Examples (in addition to the ones shown) include: watershed boundaries, overhead lines and pole, underground infrastructure, current trenching projects. Canopy Cover by Neighborhood (2010 analysis) Technology Urban Forestry Website Ongoing enhancements including open portal will improve interaction between the community and staff. TreeKeeper The city has maintained a digital database of public trees—and mainte- nance activities—for more than 20 years in TreeKeeper. As a result of the 2010 inventory update, those records are now geocoded and can be viewed as “dots” on a map in TreeKeeper. However TreeKeeper cannot show the “dots” with other map layers of the City’s GIS. Citywide Geographic Information System (GIS) When (TreeKeeper) data is moved to the City’s GIS database, the “dots” can be viewed atop other relevant layers of information. (Like the layers shown in Fig 63) However, as TreeKeeper is updated constantly, diligent procedures are required to keep the two data sets synchronized. 128 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan City Hall Citizen Oversight Landscape plans may be reviewed by the: 1. Planning and Transportation Commission. 2. Architectural Review Board. 3. Historic Resources Board. 4. Parks and Recreation Commission. Whereas the traditional focus for many of these bodies tended to be privacy, historical, and aesthetic issues, ecological view points are in- creasingly a part of the process—in particular in reviews by the Parks and Recreation Commission. However, there is no elected or appointed body intended specifically to investigate and comment on the impact of projects on trees, or more broadly the ecosystem. Funding General fund • The 2013 Urban Forestry Program budget is $2.4 million (1.6% of the General Fund.) • The Parks Division also uses budget resources for tree-related activities. • Capital Improvement Projects may receive ad- ditional funding on an as-needed basis. Utilities • The 2013 power-line clearing contract budget is $1,062,000 not including administrative and oversight budget. Grants The City has received grants from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) including recent grants that enabled: • The Urban Forest Master Plan. • Urban Forest Inventory update and geocoding. 129 City Hall City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. 130 Moving toward the Vision • A Message from the Urban Forester • Goals, Policies, and Programs • Implementation Plan 131 This page was intentionally left blank 132 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Message from the Urban Forester A Message from the Urban Forester To the Palo Alto Community, Working on this plan has provided a great introduction to my job. It’s helped me to see what efforts have resulted in this robust urban forest that is a hallmark of the city. Quantitative measures such as size, health, and diversity tell me that Palo Alto is out-performing many of its neighbors. The cost benefit analysis tells me that the street trees are a bona fide as- set. And the qualitative measures tell me that the forest is in good condition, well cared for, and productive. On the other hand, some chapters indicate room for improvement and I look forward to building on this strong foundation to create an even richer fabric of people interacting with the urban forest in a symbiotic relationship that strives toward harmony with the natural environment. I believe that Palo Alto’s urban forest is poised for a renaissance and that we’ll move toward our stated vision by preserving past successes while acknowledging that influences on the forest are changing. We must anticipate and prepare. Innovation will be imperative. Challenges that I think we’ll face include: • The time it takes for results: It takes a long time before a new tree is mature enough to make an observable difference in the landscape or to provide ecological benefits. The City must engage the commu- nity’s trust and patience. • Changes in the perceptions and values of the community: Cultural, generational, and societal influences mold choices. Through action or inaction people are the most significant influence on how nature functions. Partnerships and relationships must be enhanced or forged perpetually. Fig. 64: Walter Passmore joined the City in 2012—Palo Alto’s first Urban Forester. 133 Message from the Urban Forester City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan • Water: Its vital role to all life on earth and uncertain reliabil- ity make water usage a passionate debate. We will treat it with respect—considering supply, movement, storage, consumption, transpiration, and utilization. • Soil: While the formation of soil may require thousands of years, common human activities can rapidly degrade it; and even unseen changes in the soil can have significant impacts on trees and vegetation, water availability, and habitat. Protection of and improvements to soil health will benefit all the inhabitants of the urban forest (including people). • Redevelopment and densification on existing sites: This is where innovation will be most needed if we are to sustain existing canopy and benefits and establish productive new urban ecosys- tems. The Wiki Commons development in Japan (Fig. 65) is much denser than would be appropriate in Palo Alto; however, the project serves as an inspiring example of innovation. Trees and landscape are engineered into every elevation contributing to the urban forest and its benefits Fig. 65: Although the Wiki Commons develop- ment in Japan is a much denser than would be appropriate in Palo Alto, it is certainly inspiring. Trees and landscape are engineered into every elevation contributing to the urban forest and its benefits. 134 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Message from the Urban Forester Solutions and innovations that I will be striving to employ include: • Connections: I will always be looking for ways to create and strengthen bonds between people and nature while avoiding the creation of obstacles. Although the scale and densities of Dallas Texas (Fig. 66) are not comparable to those of Palo Alto, Dal- las’ Klyde Warren Park is a reminder of what is possible. This well-used park improbably spans the Woodall Rogers Freeway to create a social corridor, valuable green space, and an opportunity for anyone to have a personal connection to nature in between the busy downtown and uptown. Fig. 66: Although the scale and densities of Dallas Texas are not comparable to those of Palo Alto, Dallas’ Klyde Warren is a reminder of what is possible. This well used park improbably spans the Woodall Rogers Freeway to create a social corridor, valuable green space, and an opportunity for anyone to have a personal connection to nature in between the busy downtown and uptown. • Native ecosystems: These will be established, protected, or en- hanced whenever possible. Fully functioning ecotypes should rep- resent the natural history of the area with a complete complement of plants and wildlife. Edge effect, dead or dying woody material, as well as different successional stages should all be considered as important indicators of environmental health. 135 Message from the Urban Forester City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan • Layering: A compatible and complete forest needs the anchor of established mature trees along with a diversity of younger/ smaller trees, compatible trees and vegetation of various species, and complementary organisms. Rich and complex ecosystems can thrive with proper care in conjunction with unity of purpose across ownerships. More collaborative and cooperative relation- ships are important. Fig. 67: The high line rail conversion in New York City is an stunning example of the reuse and recycle philosophy. So, while there are likely no comparable opportunities within Palo Alto, it does tempt the imagination. • Reduce, reuse and recycle philosophy: The high line rail conver- sion in New York City (Fig. 67) is an stunning example of the reuse and recycle philosophy. So, while there are likely no com- parable opportunities within Palo Alto, it does tempt the imagina- tion. And, in that vein, I hope to enhance existing programs and be open to opportunities of an nontraditional nature including short term opportunities—such as vacant properties. 136 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Message from the Urban Forester Before closing, I’d like to acknowledge …. • The community: This legacy would not exist if not for support from the community and I will always keep this in mind. As improved communication was a recurring theme in the Master Plan survey responses, this will be a priority. I will explore the potential for a recurring forum—perhaps here at City Hall. Or, we may find that, as the City expands its use of open portals, the internet will be the most convenient way for us to stay in touch. • Canopy: The support of the community comes in many ways, thanks to Canopy (See back cover of Canopy’s 2012 Annual Report to the Community—Fig 68) and I cannot overstate the value of this partnership. I look forward to working with Canopy on many of the Master Plan programs. • My colleagues at City Hall: In developing this plan, it became clear that the relationship between the Urban Forest Master Plan and the citywide sustainability policies will be paramount and I look forward to working with the other departments to cre- ate a citywide plan. Urban forest concerns overlap concerns for water, development, infrastructure, and economics, so solutions may not always be obvious or absent of debate. To that end, this plan intends to dem- onstrate the value of the urban forest, define its needs, and make it easier to identify appropriate solutions. The interdisciplinary, collaborative, cooperative, and comprehen- sive nature of the solutions we employ, will determine the urban forest’s sustainability, environmental value, economic benefit, and equability–and ultimately—the quality of life in Palo Alto. Sincerely, Walter Passmore City of Palo Alto Urban Forester JOIN US ON: Facebook Twitter: CanopyTrees CANOPY 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650 964 6110/f: 650 964 6173 info@canopy.org/www.canopy.org Tax ID: 01-0565752 Canopy grows healthy trees and healthy communities. CANOPY’S MISSION: Because trees are a critical element of a livable, sustainable urban environment, Canopy’s mission is to educate, inspire, and engage residents, businesses, and government agencies to plant, protect, and enhance local urban forests. It Takes A Village To Grow A Forest Many generous donors, volunteers, and friends make Canopy’s tree plantings and community education possible. We thank you for the tremendous support you provide. Printed on recycled FSC Certified paper using vegetable-based inks. HONOR SOMEONE WITH A TREE GIFT A tree gift helps Canopy plant a new tree at a school, in a community park, or along a street. Buy a tree gift online at canopy.org or call 650 964 6110. CREATE A LEGACY To discuss a planned gift, email catherine@ canopy.org or call 650 964 6110. GIVE STOCKS Transfer tax deductible shares to Canopy. Email catherine@canopy.org or call 650 964 6110. VOLUNTEER Sign up for a tree planting or to volunteer for a community education event. 7JTJUDBOPQZPSH DONATE A CAR Donate a vehicle to Canopy, a simple process that includes free towing. $BMMPSWJTJUDBOPQZPSHQBHFT EPOBUFDBSEPOBUJPOT LEARN ABOUT THE URBAN FOREST Join a Canopy Tree Walk. Sign up for our TreE-NEWS updates at info@canopy.org. Fi g . 6 8 : B a c k c o v e r o f C a n o p y ’ s C A N O P Y A n n u a l R e p o r t t o t h e C o m m u n i t y F i s c a l Y e a r 2 0 1 2 137 Message from the Urban Forester City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan This page was intentionally left blank 138 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1. A well developed citywide urban forest that: • Is a mix of native and exotic species—to minimize vulnerability to disease, storms, drought, pests, and other stressors. • Emphasizes drought-tolerant species. • Is a mix of young, semi-mature and mature ages—to facilitate uniformity in annual maintenance costs and con- tinuity of benefits. • Maximizes environmental and aesthetic benefits while trying to minimize conflicts with infrastructure and water-conservation goals. • Maximizes the potential in each neighborhood—to achieve the greatest possible canopy equity. Policy 1.A. Strive for: • Species diversity appropriate to the setting—e.g., native species should be favored in natural settings. • A greater percentage of native & drought-tolerant species where appropriate e.g., drought tolerance is not as neces- sary in riparian corridors or areas where the ground water level is higher. • Minimal undesirable traits where appropriate e.g., messy trees that produce fruit and attract bugs may be desirable in natural areas. • Appropriate species for specific site conditions . • Appropriate age diversity. • No net loss of benefits—as defined in iTree eco analysis. • No net loss of habitat or health and social benefits. Program 1.A.i. Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library”— to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. En- deavor to include information from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Native Plant Society about the value for birds and butterflies for species listed in the library. Ensure that searches can include multiple attributes. Program 1.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List” that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. The list will acknowledge differing priorities for: • Public street trees • Public park trees • Public trees in nature preserves • Private trees on residential property • Private trees on commercial property • All trees in riparian corridors The list will consider: • Energy use reduction potential • Carbon sequestration potential • Emission levels of (BVOCs) • Storm water runoff reduction potential • Aesthetics • City’s goal of 50% shading goals for rights-of-way • City’s goal to emphasize native species • City goals for conserving potable water • City goals for recycled water • Need for age diversity • Preference for species with the least undesirable traits such as surface rooting, prolific fruit or seed pro- Goals, Policies, and Programs It is worth noting that: • In this section, policies and programs are grouped under 5 over arching goals. • In the “Executive Summary”, they’re grouped under discussion topics such as “water”. • In the “Implementation Plan” the programs—or action items—are grouped in phases i.e., the chronological order of the actions. 139 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan duction, susceptibility to insects and diseases (such as sooty mold and aphids), and other documented impacts specific to a species. Note: Currently, research does not support species selection for allergens. • Ecological benefits such as shelter, food, and nesting sites—for both resident and migratory wildlife. • Toxicity to birds. • Potential to become invasive (vegetation reproduction). • Potential to provide healthy, local food to homeowners. Notes: • The resulting list should be searchable by attributes. • Special consideration should be given to the golf course. • A comprehensive conservation plan is needed to ad- dress the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces and the fact that the desirability of traits is often contingent upon location i.e., problems on one site may be benefits on another. For example, where messy trees might not be appropriate in urban areas, they may be desirable in natural areas. (Also see programs related to natural areas:Policy 4.I.) Program 1.A.iii Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop site-specific- species-selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii.) In addition to the criteria above, include consideration of: • Resident’s requests. • Surrounding species theme and the past performance of that species. • Adjacent property use. • Potential visibility issues (e.g., at intersections). • Available soil volume. • Available water. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines. • Potential conflicts with hard scape. • Potential conflicts with underground utilities. • Avoidance of monocultures. For sites within parks, selection should also consider: • The Comprehensive Plan’s vision that parks should inte- grate nature with recreation and aesthetics and strive to bring people closer to nature. • Existing and future irrigation systems for nearby park turf. • Maintenance issues specific to each park e.g., litter on playing fields. • Species selection for trees in natural areas should prefer native species and also consider: • Threats that may be more likely to affect trees in natural areas than in urban areas—especially SOD. • Wildlife breeding time lines. • Wildlife habitat needs e.g., the creation of understory to provide shelter for birds. • Relationship and impact to trails. • Soil types and natural heritage. • Potential for appropriateness of “messy” trees in areas not used for sports. Note: As mentioned earlier, a separate Resource Manage- ment Plan—or Comprehensive Conservation Plan—is needed to address the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces. For example, where messy trees might not be appropriate in urban areas, they may be desirable in natural areas. (Also see programs related to natural areas under Policy 4.I.) Policy 1.B. Endeavor to ensure availability of appropriate trees. Program 1.B.i. Work with Canopy to encourage local nurseries and garden centers to supply trees on the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” with emphasis on increasing the availability of species that are drought-tolerant as well as tolerant to recycled water. Program 1.B.ii. Consider feasibility of a city-owned nursery or partnership with a local non-profit. 140 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Policy 1.C. Conserve and grow native tree population. Program 1.C.i. Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Program 1.C.ii. Work with Canopy to update the Oakwell survey to assess changes in the population of native oaks since 1997. Program 1.C.iii. Consider incorporating Oakwell survey data into Tree- Keeper and City’s GIS. Program 1.C.iv. Evaluate needs and benefits of a possible requirement that digital information about protected trees be submitted to the City as a condition of approval for permit applications. Program 1.C.v. Establish a baseline for existing ratios of native species within the following categories of trees and formalize goals for increasing those ratios as follows: • Street trees...................................10% • Urban parks..................................25% • Open spaces and preserves...........at least 80% Also formalize a monitoring program to track progress. Policy 1.D. Strive for canopy equity—prioritizing areas in which the UC Davis report indicated a decrease between 1982 and 2010. Program 1.D.i. Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto. This should include evaluation of: • Development review procedures. • Maintenance activities and contracts • Property-owner objections to street trees. • Prohibitive physical conditions such as soil type, absence of planting strip, etc. Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in this area e.g., • Plan and budget to work with Canopy on an outreach program to ensure residents, property owners, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the canopy and encourage them to plant trees. • Add new planting sites where possible • Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that this is a City priority. Policy 1.E. Conserve viable street tree planting sites. Program 1.E.i. Develop criteria for viable street tree planting sites, increased planting of street trees, and related protocols to ensure optimal stocking level of 98%. Add criteria to Tree Technical Manual. Program 1.E.ii. Use criteria for viable street planting sites to review and update information about existing and available viable sites in TreeKeeper and GIS. Program 1.E.iii. Evaluate effectiveness of the requirement for 50% shading for parking lots (public and private). Identify reasons for success and or failure. Modify as needed. Note: Give special consideration to the impact of substituting solar panels for trees to meet the 50% shading requirement. Evaluate this using ecosystem service calculations. Program 1.E.iv. Consider requiring new commercial, multi-unit, and single- family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. Program 1.E.v. Collect, retain, and analyze electronic tree surveys to quan- tify the impact of development. (Also see Program 4.G.iii.) Policy 1.F: Strive for optimal stocking levels. Plantings should exceed removals until a goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites on street and in parks is achieved. Assume an average 50 year life span and consistent replacement and removal rates. Fluctuations should be expected due to past trends of planting as well as other variables. Program 1.F.i. Monitor removals and plantings and produce annual reports showing progress towards policy goal. 141 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Policy 1.G . Strive for no net loss in canopy cover. Program 1.G.i. Develop canopy thresholds—possibly based on zoning and land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Consider appro- priateness to the ecotype e.g., Baylands canopy should be much less than riparian corridors. Note: This program does not intend to concentrate plant- ings in open space grasslands and, thereby, reduce plant- ings in developed areas. Thresholds suggested by orga- nizations such as American Forests may be helpful as guidelines. However, where such suggestions are less than existing density, they should not imply a need or desire to reduce density. Program 1.G.ii. Explore the possibility of mandates for certain projects to meet minimum canopy thresholds and possible incentives such as increased density. Program 1.G.iii. Manage species diversity such that no one species accounts for more than 10% of the population and no one genus ac- counts for more than 20% of the population. Policy 1.H . Recognize El Camino Real’s importance as the preeminent link between Palo Alto and adjoining communities. Program 1.H.i. Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real: • El Camino Real Guidelines • Appropriate scenic design plans • Appropriate plans of nearby jurisdictions and agencies Program 1.H.ii. Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions and agencies regarding trees within the El Camino Real Corridor e.g., • Management of existing trees. • Development impacts and opportunities. • Projected future needs. • Grand Boulevard Project. Note: These guidelines for reviewing projects within the El Camino Real Corridor should be reflected in the Tree Technical Manual. Goal 2. A citywide Sustainability Plan that coordinates the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan with those related to water conservation, carbon neutrality, solar energy, etc. Policy 2.A. The City’s Sustainability Plan shall... • Incorporate the contributions and needs (including water needs) of the urban forest emphasizing the importance of carbon sequestration by the urban forest and the need to preserve canopy and ecosystems. • Identify conflicts between the goals of the urban forest and other sustainability concepts—and advise about mitigation. Program 2.A.i. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii.) to ensure that it complements the City’s Sustainability Plan in considering BVOC emissions and incorporates the need to preserve benefits provided by large broadleaf trees. Program 2.A.ii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs. Program 2.A.iii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the establishment of an oversight group (elected or appointed by the City Council), to investigate and comment on the im- pact of projects on the urban forest and overall ecosystem. Program 2.A.iv. Work with the Utilities Department to publish tools and priorities for citing of solar collection devices. Program 2.A.v. Work with the Sustainability Team and/or the Utilities De-partment and Canopy to create a guidance document—how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design—for those considering solar. Program 2.A.vi. Work with the Sustainability Team to explore new funding sources for the Urban Forestry program. 142 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Policy 2.B. The well being of the urban forest and preservation of its eco- logical, environmental, aesthetic, economical, social, and com- munity benefits will be considered in all decisions pertaining to the environment, sustainability, and capital improvements. Program 2.B.i. Formalize the Urban Forester’s role relative to: • Citywide Sustainability Plan. • Development of citywide policy. • Inter-departmental collaboration. • Technical advice. Program 2.B.ii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to develop a “Land- scape Sustainability Checklist”—for development review— that incorporates citywide goals for water use, sustainabil- ity, storm water management and tree selection. Program 2.B.iii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to educate staff about the importance of including a description of poten- tially negative impacts to the urban forest and ecologic balance in staff reports about Capital Improvement Proj- ects—whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. (Also see Program 4.B.iii.) Program 2.B.iv. Continue to utilize wood chips from the city trees as mulch to suppress weeds. Program 2.B.v. Explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end products that do not break the wood down. Note: breaking wood up to create mulch releases previously sequestered carbon whereas, recycling urban wood as a higher end product that does not break down the wood, will allow the carbon to remain sequestered within the wood. Also see program for exploring carbon credit programs. Policy 2.C. Salinity levels of recycled water will continue to be monitored. And options will be explored for adjusting potable/recycled mix rates, soil modification/augmentation—to improve leaching—on a site by site basis. Program 2.C.i. Review existing monitoring programs regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at the Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park. Modify as needed. Program 2.C.ii. Develop a report describing what has been achieved relative to Resolution 9035 since it was adopted in January of 2010. Ensure that staff are aware of this City policy and under- stand the implications. Program 2.C.iii. Work with Canopy to develop a list of tree species appropri- ate for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. Goal 3. A community that appreciates its urban forest and partners with the city and Canopy to steward it. Policy 3.A Optimize communication between the City, residents, property owners, business owners, other cities and other government agencies, and non-profits. Program 3.A.i. Work with Canopy to conduct at least 4 community out- reach meetings to educate and get feedback: • Introduce the website as a resource. • Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey. Program 3.A.ii. Work with Canopy and the community to develop outreach pro- cedures to follow prior to making any significant changes to the urban forest —whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. Program 3.A.iii. Work with Canopy to establish a recurring forum that pro- vides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree concerns and ideas. Note: this may coincide with the similar ideas for the citywide Sustainability Plan. Program 3.A.iv. Continue pruning workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. 143 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Program 3.A.v. Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District re- garding plantings, species selection, maintenance, manage- ment of landscapes, and Arbor Day events. Program 3.A.vi. Develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. Program 3.A.vii. Explore outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press re- leases, and newspaper columns. Program 3.A.viii. Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. Program 3.A.ix. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s Urban Forest birds and butterflies practices. Program 3.A.x. Educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Policy 3.B. Ensure exhaustive exploration into the common concerns that emerged from the responses to the Master Plan survey and ensure that the resulting information is well communicated. Program 3.B.i. Explore ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks beyond just matching growth characteristics to the conditions of the planting site. For example, explore root barriers and solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, sus- pending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with recycled rubber sidewalks. Program 3.B.ii. Explore ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor—prefer- ably coincident with the driveway. Program 3.B.iii. Explore ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as running the power lines through pro- tective conduits that don’t require as much clearance. Program 3.B.iv. Emphasize the Utilities Department’s “Waste Avoidance” programs (for water) on the Urban Forestry website. Goal 4. An efficient and effective Urban Forestry Division. Policy 4.A. Updates to Palo Alto’s Building Standards shall consider the following as key factors: • Conservation of existing trees. • Appropriate species and placement for new trees. Program 4.A.i. Review the updated CalGreen standards to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Program 4.A.ii. Review the Sustainable Sites Initiative to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Program 4.A.iii. Provide education to staff and ensure that tree maintenance practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons. Policy 4.B. Review of both private and public projects will: • Seek ways to add trees, canopy, and benefits. • Occur early in the design phase. • Be coordinated with the reviews of other departments. Program 4.B.i. Ensure that staff is knowledgable about innovative ways to add trees to development projects and in limiting situations. Program 4.B.ii. Ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in early phases of review by the Development Review Committee. Program 4.B.iii. Educate development review staff about this City prior- ity and the need to include information about potentially negative impacts and/or improvements to the urban forest in the staff reports about development projects (including impacts to wildlife)—for boards and commissions.(Also see Program 2.B.iii.) 144 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Program 4.B.iv. Ensure that any updates to the City’s Building Standards e.g., standards for landscape installations and renovations, considers appropriate species selection and placement of trees—especially relative to existing trees. Program 4.B.v. Review citywide documents for the need to revise relevant technical specifications and standard details to be current with environmental laws, best practices, and innovative solutions. Repeat on a regular basis. Policy 4.C. Private and public landscape and irrigation plans that include both trees and turf will be reviewed to ensure that each is pro- vided enough independent space to ensure that their differing maintenance needs can be met efficiently e.g., so that: • Water can be applied appropriately and efficiently. • Nearby plantings will support optimal performance e.g., only forest species should be planted near trees whereas turf areas may support ornamental landscape plants. Program 4.C.i. Incorporate guidelines into the Tree Technical Manual that reflect the above policy regarding relative placement of trees and turf. Guidelines should consider best practices pertaining to urban runoff bioswale maintenance and requirements of Municipal Regional Permits and should emphasize the advantages of: • Planting trees and shrubs that create an understory and a more complex habitat for birds in private and public landscaping. • Taking opportunities provided by the presence of natural water sources e.g., creeks or higher water table level—to plant less drought resistant species. • Taking opportunities provided in areas without overhead wires—to plant larger broadleaf trees. Guidelines should also consider best practices pertaining to urban runoff bioswale maintenance and requirements pertaining to Municipal Regional Permitting. Program 4. C.ii. Incorporate the same guidelines into project review stan- dards. Policy 4.D. Approved development plans shall not be modified in any way that may affect street trees or approved landscape plans without review of those modifications by the Urban Forestry Division. Policy 4.E. Provide incentives to increase canopy and ecological benefits. Program 4.E.i. Consider incentives to plant additional trees, either through additional points via LEED certification , Build It Green (BIG) Green Points, or similar certification systems such as those defined by the Sustainable Sites Initiative. Program 4.E.ii. Consider the feasibility of a tree adoption program—possi- bly to be modeled after programs offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has been operat- ing successfully for 15 years. Note: this policy is supported by several programs in other sections e.g., Program 4.G.vii. Policy 4.F. Monitor changes in the urban forest and ecological benefits. Program 4.F.i. Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan— with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council. Ensure that the follow-up canopy cover assessment con- siders the open spaces as well as the urban forest. (See programs related to Policy 4.I.). Note: canopy assessments such as these analyze both private and public tree—and provide only one piece of information: canopy cover percentage. 145 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Program 4.F.ii. Follow up the 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis done by Davey Resources with either: • A similar comprehensive inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis in approximately 2020. • OR a series of seven partial inventories done—annually— on one-seventh of the entire street tree population. Ensure that follow-up analyses consider open spaces as well. (Also see programs related to Policy 4.I.) Note: An analysis such as this would be for city-owned trees—and provide multi-faceted information about the trees. Policy 4.G. Strive for best possible information (citywide) and technology to support the Urban Forest Master Plan vision, goals, policies and programs. Program 4.G.i. Augment project-review standard conditions of approval with: • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site. • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group. Program 4.G.ii. Conduct a UFORE analysis (or similar city wide approach) to establish a city wide benchmark that spans the entire population of both public and private trees and then to monitor change in the future. Note: The analysis described here would be for both pubic and private trees—and would provide multi-faceted infor- mation about the trees. Note: Metrics should be compared to changes in order to craft policies, provide incentives, and adapt partnerships. Program 4.G.iii. Develop open portals for data entry–as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy: • Electronic submittals of tree surveys might allow more accurate queries and reports to quantify the influence of development. (Also see Program 1.E.iii.) • Open source mapping might allow input by anyone agree- ing to comply with standards and complete training. • Open portals might accommodate reports of maintenance needs from community members. Note: Any such tools should be compatible with the mobile reporting application that is currently being developed for the city to both report and monitor service requests. Program 4.G.iv. Integrate the information in Tree-Keeper with the city’s GIS to enable review of the relationship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, watersheds, creeks, pavement, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure. Program 4.G.v. Develop or obtain a more up-to-date and accurate soils map and add it into the GIS. Program 4.G.vi. Consider developing a map showing the depth of available water within the urban forest. Program 4.G.vii. Update the Tree Technical Manual. The update should: • Include new and innovative ways to add trees in difficult circumstances. • Review and expand the requirements and options for mitigating the removal of existing trees. Roof top plant- ings–which are expensive initially but have a long term life cycle may be worth more as a mitigation measure than a transplanted tree–which often suffer from dimin- ished survival potential. • Include information about employing structural grids to provide an adequate volume of quality soil to grow trees to the desired mature size. • Establish soil volume requirements in a manner similar to the table on page 41 of the city of Raleigh’s Landscape Manual. 146 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs • Establish requirements for providing independent spaces for trees and turf so that water can be applied appropri- ately and efficiently and nearby plantings will support optimal performances e.g., only forest species should be planted near trees where as turf areas may support orna- mental landscape plants. Note: In addition to the above listed enhancements, the Tree Technical Manual will be the repository for many of the products called for by programs in this master plan such as: criteria for a viable street tree planting site (Pro- gram 1.E.i.) . As a result, the role of the Tree Technical Manual will be significantly expanded. Program 4.G.viii. Complete the update of the Street Tree Management Plan. Include information,criteria, procedures, and strategies regarding: • Selecting street tree species. • Providing for age diversity. • Ensuring that planting parallels tree removal to avoid canopy and benefit loss. • Young tree care. • Preventing loss of viable street tree sites. • Optimizing opportunities for adding trees for new private development and Capital Improvement projects. • Canopy disparity between north and south Palo Alto. • Standards used for line clearing and criteria for selecting contractors. • Sidewalk repair. • Recycled water and progress relative to the Salinity Re- duction Policy for Recycled Water. • Benefits to local birds, butterflies, bees, and other wildlife. Program 4.G.ix. Explore ways to improve the way maintenance work done by field crews is documented and uploaded into TreeKeeper and/or the City’s GIS. This exploration should include Smart Phone capabilities. Policy 4.H. Minimize the negative effect on the urban forest from develop- ment and infrastructure maintenance. Program 4.H.i. Review line clearing standards and criteria for selecting contractors; publish on the Urban Forest website. Program 4.H.ii. Analyze and resolve conflicts regarding the space required between utilities underground equipment and other criteria related to what makes a planting site viable for street trees. Program 4.H.iii. Evaluate adequacy of contract cycle pruning policy and en- sure that pruning continues to consider bird nesting seasons. Program 4.H.iv. Consider development requirements such as no net loss of canopy or minimum tree plantings (related to Policy 1.G and related programs.) Program 4.H.v. Review and update current fines and incentives as related to tree malpractice and vandalism. Program 4.H.vi. Amend fee schedule to include development fees to enable appropriate participation in project review, building and other permit issuance, regulatory compliance, and auditing. Policy 4.I. Strive for optimal conditions in the natural areas of the city preserves and open spaces. Note: the needs of preserves and open spaces may differ from those of the urban forest and Resource Management Plans—specific to those environments—are needed. Program 4.I.i.. Ensure that any citywide canopy cover analysis (Program 4.B.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces. Note: Natural habitats are complex and it is important to keep both habitat diversity and specific species interactions in mind when dealing with natural areas. Therefore, al- though the percentage of canopy cover in the natural areas 147 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan is worth monitoring, it may not have the same relevance—in terms of optimal conditions—as it may have to the urban forest. Program 4.I.ii. Establish a baseline for relevant information to be moni- tored (in addition to canopy cover). A statistically valid sample should be collected to analyze current conditions. Sampling methodology should enable long term monitoring, direct management decisions, and analyze the effectiveness of current practices. A permanent plot system would be an option. Experimentation in conjunction with analysis of natural regeneration practices, simulated disturbance regimes, and predation relationships should be employed. Note: This is not redundant with Program 4.G.ii; the UFORE analysis of 4.G.ii. will inform this task. Program 4.I.iii. Develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in the open spaces that includes: • Tree inspections • Tree removal and replacements • Forest restoration • Training for rangers • Technology for tracking maintenance tasks Program 4.I.iv. Develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan that includes: • Up-to-date information regarding Sudden Oak Death Disease. • Best Management Practices for forest restoration. • A well-defined plan for tree replacement within the parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.v. Update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are addressed. Program 4.I.vi. Coordinate between departments and with partners re: • Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses • Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire • Response to use and impacts. • Appreciation by the community. Program 4.I.vii. Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii) includes consideration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces e.g., • Importance of native species in natural areas. • Need for evergreen canopy to support watershed protec- tion and wildlife habitat. • Need for shrub and understory species for increased and multi-layered canopy. • Maintenance impacts of root damage to trails. • Maintenance impact of litter on playing fields. Program 4.I.viii. Develop database management tools to assist with monitor- ing, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. Program 4.I.ix. Review the City’s Tree Keeper database with regard to trees within the 32 parks and Municipal Golf Course to ensure completeness and accuracy. Program 4.I.x. Work with Canopy to educate the community regarding the necessity of tree removals in the parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.xi. Require consideration of tree preservation and tree replace- ment for capital improvement projects within city parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.xii. Consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from Community Services Parks Division to Public Works Urban Forestry Division for: • Trees in developed areas of Open Space (along park roads and around structures/park facilities) • All trees on the golf course. 148 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Program 4.I.xiii. Nurture existing volunteer support groups and work with non-profit organizations to reach out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forest-restoration projects. Program 4.I.xiv. Explore a collaboration between relevant local fire pro- tection districts and CAL FIRE regarding an educational campaign to inform homeowners about selecting species and pruning trees to achieve “defensible spaces” as part of vegetation management in appropriate areas of the city. Policy 4.J. Strive for optimal qualifications in city staff Program 4.J.i. Evaluate needs and opportunities for training tree staff and park rangers that includes: • Certification as arborist. • Certification in pesticide application. • Proficiency in relevant software programs. Review should include exploration of conferences, in-house training, online training, etc. Policy 4.K. Strive for optimal efficiency in project review. Program 4.K.i. Coordinate with other departments to ensure that trees are discussed during the early stage of a project’s design. Program 4.Kii. Work with Canopy and other stakeholders to educate the development community about the need to discuss trees during the early stage of a project’s design. Program 4.K.iii. Ensure that Forestry Division budget will accommodate fluctuations in the number of development applications requiring review. Additional manpower during such periods will help avoid delays. Program 4.K.iv. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and other wildlife organizations to educate the development commu- nity about minimizing project effects on local wildlife. Goal 5. An urban forest that enhances the built environment and connects it with the natural environment. Policy 5.1. Utilize American Planning Association recommendations for land use objectives and actions including: • Promote regional and local designs that respect the regional ecosystems and natural functions which support human communities. • Promote responsible storm water management that reuses and restores the quality of on-site run-off e.g., constructed marsh or wetlands systems. • Promote the maintenance of natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation, minimizing disruption of natural systems. • Create vibrant community-based economies with employ- ment opportunities that allow people economic self-deter- mination and environmental health. • Promote restoration of damaged natural systems through regenerative design approaches. • Promote the creation of green space systems within and among communities. • Promote the use of regionally native plants. • Promote appropriate development and population growth policies linked to carrying capacity of natural systems and community facilities. • Promote development patterns that respect natural sys- tems such as watersheds and wildlife corridors. • Promote preservation and planting of trees and other vegetation that absorb carbon dioxide and air pollutants. 149 This page was intentionally left blank 150 Implementation PlanPalo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan 79 Implementation Plan Details and Summaries The detailed nature of the Master Plan’s programs ensure that the thoughtful contributions of the many participants will be retained throughout a 10-year roll out. However, for readability, the “Implementation Plan” uses abbreviated versions of the program language. The “Implementation Plan” is prefaced by the following summaries of the strategy, costs, and benefits—to provide a concise overview. Implementation strategy summary Years 1 & 2 The community survey identified development as the greatest threat to the urban forest and Years 1 & 2 focus on improvements to development review procedures to minimize impact (especially to street trees), avoid costs, and maximize measurable benefits. Years 1 & 2 also address the “Hot Topics” of species selection and improved community outreach— and initiate the investigation of—and resolution to—disparity between the canopies of North and South Palo Alto. Years 3 & 4 Programs of Years 3 & 4 build on those of 1 & 2—going beyond devel- opment review procedures to establish development design standards. They call for thoughtful analyses of successes and failures and innovative ways to ensure that new development can be embraced as an opportunity to enhance both the built and natural environment. These analyses will examine concerns related to canopy density, carbon sequestration, water conservation, solar programs, and wildlife. Year 5 It is likely that some programs of Years 1-4 will still be in process and Year 5 has a limited focus—an overhaul of relevant guidance documents to ensure that they reflect improvements and requirements resulting from the programs of Years 1 through 4. Years 6 & 7 Years 6 & 7 focus on parks, preserves, and open spaces, calling for a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each open space/preserve. Year 8 Year 8 programs take the City to new levels with programs for exploiting the City’s Geographic Information System and for exploring unprecedent- ed ideas and partnerships. Years 9 & 10 Years 9 & 10 look backwards and forwards. Programs call for a UFORE survey for comparison to the canopy assessment of 2010—and specify that the new survey will capture unprecedented information about private- ly owned trees and will include the open space forests as well as the urban forest. Year 10 calls for a 2nd i-Tree streets analysis for comparison to that of 2010—and for continued detailed monitoring of the health, composi- tion, maintenance activities, and cost benefit ratio of the street trees. Most years include programs that support the main focus in the form of technology, administration, partnerships, and monitoring. Effective implementation will require collaboration between mul- tiple departments and/or changes to the Municipal Code. 151 Palo Alto Urban Forest Master PlanImplementation Plan Year Costs Benefits Net 1 ($440,160)$358,681 ($81,479) 2 ($210,560)$383,481 $172,921 3 ($245,545)$501,681 $256,136 4 ($44,330)$495,281 $450,951 5 ($188,230)$519,281 $331,051 6 ($93,470)$543,881 $450,411 7 ($429,000)$569,081 $140,081 8 ($102,650)$569,081 $466,431 9 ($180,020)$691,281 $511,261 10 ($169,750)$721,281 $551,531 ($2,103,715)$5,353,010 $3,249,295 Year General Fund General Fund/ Development Services General Fund / Utilities Development Services Utilities Utilities / Grants Grants/ Revenue Cost Savings/ Grants CSD CIP Totals 1 ($104,810)($15,800) ($256,900) ($42,900)($19,750)($440,160) 2 ($210,560)($210,560) 3 ($70,300)($7,900) ($104,705) ($27,900) ($21,580) ($3,160)($10,000)($245,545) 4 ($36,430)($7,900)($44,330) 5 ($112,950) ($75,280)($188,230) 6 ($93,470)($93,470) 7 ($429,000)($429,000) 8 ($85,270)($1,580)($15,800)($102,650) 9 ($180,020)($180,020) 10 ($169,750)($169,750) ($1,063,560) ($75,280) ($23,700) ($361,605) ($78,700) ($23,160) ($3,160) ($15,800) ($10,000) ($448,750) ($2,103,715) Summary of Costs & Benefits by Year Summary of Costs Sources by Year Implementation Plan Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Year Costs Benefits Net 1 ($440,160)$358,681 ($81,479) 2 ($210,560)$383,481 $172,921 3 ($245,545)$501,681 $256,136 4 ($44,330)$495,281 $450,951 5 ($188,230)$519,281 $331,051 6 ($93,470)$543,881 $450,411 7 ($429,000)$569,081 $140,081 8 ($102,650)$569,081 $466,431 9 ($180,020)$691,281 $511,261 10 ($169,750)$721,281 $551,531 ($2,103,715)$5,353,010 $3,249,295 Year General Fund General Fund/ Development Services General Fund / Utilities Development Services Utilities Utilities / Grants Grants/ Revenue Cost Savings/ Grants CSD CIP Totals 1 ($104,810)($15,800) ($256,900) ($42,900)($19,750)($440,160) 2 ($210,560)($210,560) 3 ($70,300)($7,900) ($104,705) ($27,900) ($21,580) ($3,160)($10,000)($245,545) 4 ($36,430)($7,900)($44,330) 5 ($112,950) ($75,280)($188,230) 6 ($93,470)($93,470) 7 ($429,000)($429,000) 8 ($85,270)($1,580)($15,800)($102,650) 9 ($180,020)($180,020) 10 ($169,750)($169,750) ($1,063,560) ($75,280) ($23,700) ($361,605) ($78,700) ($23,160) ($3,160) ($15,800) ($10,000) ($448,750) ($2,103,715) Summary of Costs & Benefits by Year Summary of Costs Sources by Year Implementation Plan Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Costs and benefits summary Costs totals reflect: 1. Anticipated cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff assigned to work on Master Plan programs. 2. Anticipated costs such as materials and consultant fees. Benefits totals reflect: 1. Anticipated benefits* for programs implemented in that year. 2. Anticipated recurring benefits* of programs implemented in previous years. * Dollar amounts are based on industry standard methods for quantifying the eco- logical benefits of trees. For further information regarding these methods, see the “Benefits” chapter. Totals Totals 152 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Pe r s o n n e l 1 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l 2 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 3 Oth e r ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Implementation Plan 1 . D . i . Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto... [and] Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in this area... ye s ye s ye s Ye a r 1 Be n e f i t s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , P & C E , D S Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Year 1 programs 1 through 22 focus on improvements to development review procedures including supportive technology, administration, and partnerships. These improvements intend to reduce impact from development, avoid costs, and maximize benefits. Effective implementation for most programs will require collaboration between multiple departments and some programs may changes to the Municipal Code. 1 . C . i . Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance.Al l ye s ye s ca s e s p r o c e s s e d Ne e d s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s po l i c y re p o r t i n g Al l 2 . B . i . Formalize the Urban Forester’s role to: • Citywide Sustainability Plan. • Development of citywide policy. • Inter-departmental collaboration. • Technical advice. ye s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan153 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l 4 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 5 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 5 , 8 0 0 ) General Fund Utilities 6 Ot h e r Ye a r 1 Analyze and resolve conflicts regarding the space required between utilities underground equipment and other criteria related to what makes a planting site viable for street trees. ye s si d e w a l k d e s i g n , s t a n d a r d d e t a i l s , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Be n e f i t s PW D , U t i l i t i e s , P & C E , D S ma y b e ye s ye s ye s 4 . H . i i . Ag r e e m e n t s , co n t r a c t s , C a l T r a n s p e r m i t s PW D , P & C E , D S 1 . H . i . Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real: • El Camino Real Guidelines • Appropriate scenic design plans • Appropriate plans of earby jurisdictions and agencies ye s ye s ye s 1 . H . i i . Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions and agencies regarding trees within the El Camino Real Corridor… ye s Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , S t a n d a r d Co m m e n t s , S t a n d a r d D r a w i n g s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan154 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) CIP (pilot projects) 7 Ot h e r $4 , 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 $1 2 , 0 0 0 $1 6 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 4 , 0 0 0 $2 8 , 0 0 0 $3 2 , 0 0 0 $3 6 , 0 0 0 $4 0 , 0 0 0 Infrastructure repair cost avoidance associated with improved planting and replacement practices; will increase until trees mature at 50 yrs. Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) Utilities 8 Ot h e r $2 , 0 0 0 $4 , 0 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 $8 , 0 0 0 $1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 2 , 0 0 0 $1 4 , 0 0 0 $1 6 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 4 , 0 0 0 Infrastructure repair cost avoidance associated with improved planting and replacement practices; will increase until trees mature at 50 yrs. Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 9 Ot h e r $1 6 , 4 0 0 $3 3 , 2 0 0 $5 0 , 4 0 0 $6 8 , 0 0 0 $8 6 , 0 0 0 $1 0 4 , 6 0 0 $1 2 3 , 8 0 0 $1 4 3 , 8 0 0 $1 6 4 , 4 0 0 $1 8 6 , 0 0 0 Environmental services associated with achieving 98% stocking level (Based on NTBC estimated benetits for 50 yr maturity) Ye a r 1 3 . B . i i . Explore ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor— preferably coincident with the driveway. ye s ye s Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , s t a n d a r d co n d i t i o n s & s t a n d a r d d r a w i n g s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s & d r a w i n g s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s 1 . E . i . Develop criteria for viable street tree planting sites, increased planting of street trees, and related protocols to ensure optimal stocking level of 98%. Add criteria to Tree Technical Manual . Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , In v e n t o r y ye s 3 . B . i . Explore ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks…e.g., explore root barriers and solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, suspending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with recycled rubber sidewalks. ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan155 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 10 Ot h e r Benefits described in Program 1.E.i of Year 1. Pe r s o n n e l 11 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l 12 Ot h e r Ye a r 1 ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s Coordinate with other departments to ensure that trees are discussed during the early stage of a project’s design. ye s ye s 4 . B . i i . Ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in early phases of review by the Development Review Committee. En t i t l e m e n t & P e r m i t R e v i e w PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ye s y e s PW D , C S D ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . K . i . Ne e d s 1 . F . i . Monitor removals and plantings and produce annual reports showing progress towards policy goal [ 98% full stocking] and produce reports bu d g e t i n g , w o r k p r i o r i t i z a t i o n im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Be n e f i t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan156 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 13 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 14 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 15 Ot h e r $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 $1 1 5 , 2 8 1 Increased property taxes (0.2% ) & sales taxes Ye a r 1 Educate the development community about the need to discuss trees during the early stage of a project’s design. Ap p l i c a t i o n s u b m i t t a l , pr e - s u b m i t t a l m t g s . 4 . K i i . Be n e f i t s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ensure that staff is knowledgable about innovative ways to add trees to development projects and in limiting situations. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ma y b e ye s ye s 4 . B . i . 4 . I . x i . Require consideration of tree preservation and tree replacement for capital improvement projects within city parks and open spaces. ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n ye s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan157 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 16 Ot h e r ($ 8 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund: One-time cost. Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 17 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) Development Services: One-time cost 18 Ot h e r $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 Permit fees (No increase to permit fees-- rather a predicted increase in permit activity.) Ye a r 1 ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . H . v i . Amend fee schedule to include development fees to enable appropriate participation in project review, building and other permit issuance, regulatory compliance, and auditing. Fe e s c h e d u l e , c o d e e n f o r c e m e n t Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Be n e f i t s Al l ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s PW D , P & C E , D S Ne e d s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s ye s ye s 1 . C . i v . Evaluate needs and benefits of a possible requirement that digital information about protected trees be submitted to the City as a condition of approval for permit applications. st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , Bl d g . p e r m i t s 4 . J . i . Evaluate needs and opportunities for training tree staff and park rangers…PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan158 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 19 Ot h e r $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 $1 , 0 0 0 Recurring revenue Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 , 0 0 0 ) Development Services 20 Ot h e r ($ 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 ) Development Services Pe r s o n n e l 21 Ot h e r $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 $1 0 0 , 0 0 0 Leverage capabilities (assumes different partnerships though consistent financial leverage) Ye a r 1 Ne e d s ye s ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D im p l e m e n t a t i o n Al l ye s ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Be n e f i t s Nurture existing volunteer support groups and work with non-profit organizations to reach out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forest- restoration projects. Review and update current fines and incentives as related to tree malpractice and vandalism. Co d e e n f o r c e m e n t 4 . K . i i i Ensure that Forestry Section budget will accommodate fluctuations in the number of development applications requiring review….fe e s c h e d u l e PW D , P & C E , D S ye s 4 . H . v . 4 . I . x i i i . Be n e f i t s Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan159 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l 22 Ot h e r $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 , 0 0 0 Cost Avoidance Pe r s o n n e l 23 Ot h e r ($ 3 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund: One-time cost. Pe r s o n n e l 24 Ot h e r ($ 3 5 , 0 0 0 ) Utilities: One-time cost. Ye a r 1 Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library" to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. Year 1 programs 23 through 24 focus on the online "Tree Library" and "Preferred and Restricted Species" list being codeveloped by the City and Canopy. These valuable tools are intended for use by staff, Canopy, and the community. 1 . A . i . Be n e f i t s Ri g h t T r e e R i g h t P l a c e ( R T R P ) ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s ye s Be n e f i t s ye s co m p l e t i o n PW D , C S D ye s 2 . B . i v . Continue to utilize wood chips from the city trees as mulch to suppress weeds. 1 . A . i i . Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species Lis" that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s ye s RT R P , b l o c k s i t e l i s t , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s RT R P , b l o c k s i t e l i s t , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan160 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l 25 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l 26 Ot h e r ($ 1 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund: One-time cost. Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 27 Ot h e r Ye a r 1 Year 1 programs 25 through 28 focus on community engagement. Explore outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press releases, and newspaper columns. no PW D , U t i l i t i e s , I T , C C O no ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s ye s ye s se a t h o u r s , p a r t i c i p a n t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 3 . A . i v . Continue pruning workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. ye s PW D , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 3 . A . v i i . 3 . A . i . …conduct at least 4 community outreach meetings to educate and get feedback: • Introduce the website as a resource. • Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey. ti f i c a t i o n , o u t r e a c h , t r e e r e m o v a l po l i c y l i n e c l e a r i n g Be n e f i t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan161 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund 28 Ot h e r ($ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Ye a r 1 ($161,160) ($279,000) $358,681 ($81,479) Y e a r 1 S u m m a r y Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 1 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 1 programs. Benefits of Year 1 programs. Year 1 net co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 3 . A . v i . …develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. PW D , I T , C C O ye s ye s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan162 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 29 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 30 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 31 Ot h e r ($ 2 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund (Linked to Foothills Fire Plan funding.) Ye a r 2 ye s ye s Co d e e n f o r c e m e n t , w a s t e mg m t . , s t a n d a r d c o m m e n t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D , D S , P & C E ma y b e 4 . B . i i i . Educate development review staff about this City priority and the need to include information about potential negative impacts and/or improvements to the urban forest in the staff reports… (including impacts to wildlife). (Also Program 2.B.iii.) im p l e m e n t a t i o n 2 . B . i i i . Be n e f i t s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Work with the Sustainability Plan team to educate staff about the importance of including ... potentially negative impacts to the urban forest... in staff reports about Capital Improvement Projects whether or not CEQA review is required. st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s Al l ye s ye s Year 2 programs 29 through 38 continue to focus on improvements to project review procedures--and supportive technology, administration, and partnerships. 4 . I . x i v . Explore a collaboration between relevant local fire protection districts and CAL FIRE re: an educational campaign to inform homeowners about selecting species and pruning trees to achieve “defensible spaces” as part of vegetation management in appropriate areas.... Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan163 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l 32 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 33 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 5 , 8 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 34 Ot h e r ($ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund: One-time cost Ye a r 2 Be n e f i t s 1 . E . i i . Use criteria for viable street planting sites to review and update information about existing and available viable sites in TreeKeeper and GIS. ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Integrate the Tree-Keeper & GIS to enable review of the relation- ship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, wate- rsheds, creeks, pave- ment, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure.IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , s e c u r i t y , & c u s t o m e r s u p p o r t Ne e d s Al l ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . G . i v . ye s 3 . A . v . Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District regarding plantings, species selection, maintenance, management of landscapes, and Arbor Day events. Be n e f i t s ye s ca n o p y m e t r i c s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan164 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 35 Ot h e r ($ 8 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund: One-time cost for IT contractor $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 $2 , 0 0 0 Environmental services associated with improvements enabled by timely and accurate field information ($4/tree x 500 trees). Pe r s o n n e l 36 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 37 Ot h e r Ye a r 2 Al l ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s RT R P , b l o c k s i t e l i s t , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s 4 . G . i i i . Ne e d s Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” to ensure that it complements the City’s Sustainability Plan in considering BVOC emissions and incorporates the need to preserve large broadleaf trees. 2 . A . i . im p l e m e n t a t i o n ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s B e n e f i t s 4 . I . v i i . Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii) includes consideration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces…. PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Develop open portals for data entry as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy….IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , se c u r i t y , a n d c u s t o m e r s u p p o r t Al l City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan165 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 38 Ot h e r Ye a r 2 $2,000 $381,481 $172,921 Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 2 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 2 programs. Benefits of Year 2 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Year 1 that recur in Year 2. Year 2 net ($50,560) ($160,000) Y e a r 2 S u m m a r y ...develop site-specific species selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” bl o c k s i t e l i s t , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 1 . A . i i i bl o c k s i t e l i s t a n d st n a d a r d c o m m e n t s co m p l e t i o n City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan166 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 39 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 5 , 8 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 40 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 41 Ot h e r Ye a r 3 Year 3 programs 39 and 40 focus on public participation in urban forest policy. 2 . A . i i i . ye s Al l Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s …establish a recurring forum that provides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree concerns and ideas. es t a b l i s h e d o v e r s i g h t g r o u p ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s ye s 3 . A . i i i . re p o r t i n g ye s ye s Ne e d s 4 . H . i v . st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , AR B , I R , b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s Consider development requirements such as no net loss of canopy or minimum tree plantings (related to Policy 1.G and related programs.) Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the establishment of an oversight group (elected or appointed by the City Council), to investigate and comment on the impact of projects on the urban forest and overall ecosystem. PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s , C S O ma y b e ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Be n e f i t s ye s Al l Year 3 programs 41 through 48 focus on design standards relative to canopy density and composition. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan167 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) Development Services 42 Ot h e r ($ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) Development Services Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 43 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 44 Ot h e r Ye a r 3 ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 1 . G . i . Develop canopy thresholds— possibly based on zoning and land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan… ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s 1 . G . i i . Explore the possibility of mandates for certain projects to meet minimum canopy thresholds and possible incentives such as increased density. ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s PW D , P & C E , D S Establish a baseline for existing ratios of native species...and formalize goals for increasing those ratios… Pl a n t i n g s p e c i e s s e l e c t i o n f o r st r e e t s a n d p a r k s st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , Bl d g . p e r m i t s ye s 1 . C . v . RT R P , b l o c k s i t e l i s t , ma n a g e m e n t p l a n s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan168 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l 45 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) Grants, Revenue 46 Ot h e r $2 0 , 0 0 0 Cap and trade (one time--likely year 2) Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 47 Ot h e r Ye a r 3 an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n ye s y e s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s ye s ye s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s 4 . I . v i . Coordinate between departments and with partners re: • Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses • Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire • Response to use and impacts. • Appreciation by the community.Co m m u n i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s , B o a r d s & C o m m i s s i o n s Al l an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s 2 . A . i i . re v e n u e , g r a n t s , c o n t r a c t s PW D , U t i l i t i e s , C S O ma y b e ye s 4 . E . i . Consider incentives to plant additional trees, either through additional points via LEED certification , Build It Green (BIG) Green Points, or similar certification systems such as those defined by the Sustainable Sites Initiative.Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs. ye s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan169 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) Development Services 48 Ot h e r $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 $6 5 , 0 0 0 Fee/Permit (no change in development activity- likely begin year 5) Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) Development Services 49 Ot h e r ($ 4 5 , 2 2 5 ) Development Services Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) Utilities, grants 50 Ot h e r ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) Utilities, grants $1 0 , 0 0 0 Grant (One time--likely in year 3) Ye a r 3 st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , Bl d g . p e r m i t s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s 2 . A . i v . Work with the Utilities Department to publish tools and priorities for citing of solar collection devices. Be n e f i t s ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 1 . E . i i i . Evaluate effectiveness of requirement for 50% shading for parking lots (public and private). Identify reasons for success and failure. Give special consideration to the impact of substituting solar panels for trees to meet this requirement. st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 1 . E . i v . Consider requiring new commercial, multi-family, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , bu i l d i n g p e r m i t s PW D , P & C E , D S ye s ye s Year 3 programs 49 through 51 focus on design standards relative to solar program concerns. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan170 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) Utilities 51 Ot h e r ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) Utilities Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 52 Ot h e r ($ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund/ Development Services Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 53 Ot h e r ($ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) CSD Ye a r 3 Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s im p l e m e n t a t i o n ye s ye s ye s ye s 4 . K . i v . 3 . A . i x . Be n e f i t s 2 . A . v . Work with the Sustainability Team and/or the Utilities Department and Canopy to create a guidance document—how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design—for those considering solar.st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , A R B , I R , Bl d g . p e r m i t s ...develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s Urban Forest birds and butterflies practices. PW D , U t i l i t i e s P & C E , D S ma y b e ye s Educate the development community about minimizing project effects on local wildlife. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s , & d r a w i n g s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s , C S O Year 3 programs 52 through 57 focus on design standards relative to wildlife concerns. im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan171 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 54 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 55 Ot h e r ($ 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 56 Ot h e r Ye a r 3 Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l PW D , C S D ...educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s PW D , C S D ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . A . i i i . Provide education to staff and ensure that tree maintenance practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons. 3 . A . v i i i . Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. 3 . A . x . City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan172 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund Utilities 57 Ot h e r Ye a r 3 ($160,225) ($85,320) $95,000 $406,681 $256,136 Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 3 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts fort Year 3 programs. Benefits of Year 3 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 2 that recur in Year 3. Year 3 net PW D , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s Y e a r 3 S u m m a r y 4 . H . i i i . Evaluate adequacy of contract cycle pruning policy and ensure that pruning continues to consider bird nesting... Tr e e r e m o v a l p o l i c y ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan173 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund 58 Ot h e r ($ 9 0 ) Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 59 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund 60 Ot h e r Ye a r 4 PW D , C S D ye s Year 4 programs 58 through 62 focus on a review of existing recycled water programs. ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s sp e c i e s s e l e c t i o n , w a t e r m i x i n g ra t e s , i r r i g a t i o n PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 2 . C . i i . Develop a report describing what has been achieved relative to Resolution 9035 since it was adopted in January of 2010. Ensure that staff are aware of this City policy and understand the implications. sp e c i e s s e l e c t i o n , w a t e r m i x i n g r a t e s , ir r i g a t i o n PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s 2 . C . i . Review existing monitoring programs regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at the Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park. Modify as needed. sp e c i e s s e l e c t i o n , wa t e r m i x i n g r a t e s , i r r i g a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 2 . C . i i i . Develop a list of tree species appropriate for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan174 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 5 , 8 0 0 ) General Fund 61 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund 62 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 63 Ot h e r Ye a r 4 ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s im p l e m e n t a t i o n PW D , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , s e c u r i t y , & c u s t o m e r s u p p o r t 4 . H . i . Review line clearing standards and criteria for selecting contractors; publish on the Urban Forest website. ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n st a n d a r d c o n d i t i o n s , AR B , I R , b u i l d i n g p e r m i t s Al l ye s co m p l e t i o n 3 . B . i v . Emphasize the Utilities Department’s “Waste Avoidance” programs (for water) on the Urban Forestry website. ye s ye s PW D , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Year 4 programs 63 and 64 focus on a review of line clearing procedures. 2 . B . i i . Work with the Sustainability Plan team to develop a “Landscape Sustainability Checklist”—for development review—that incorporates citywide goals for water use, sustainability, storm water management and tree selection. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan175 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) Utilities 64 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 65 Ot h e r Ye a r 4 $0 $495,281 $450,951 Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 4 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 4 programs. Benefits of Year 4 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 3 that recur in Year 4. Year 4 net IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , se c u r i t y , a n d c u s t o m e r s u p p o r t 3 . B . i i i . ($44,240) ($90) Explore ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as running the power lines through protective conduits that don’t require as much clearance.St a n d a r d d r a w i n g s , ma i n t e n a n c e s t a n d a r d s PW D , U t i l i t i e s PW D , U t i l i t i e s D S Explore ways to improve the way maintenance work done by field crews is documented and uploaded into TreeKeeper and/or the City’s GIS. This exploration should include Smart Phone capabilities. ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s B e n e f i t s ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s 4 . G . i x . Y e a r 4 S u m m a r y Year 4 program 65 provides technological support for all field activities. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan176 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 9 , 5 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 66 Ot h e r ($ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund & Development Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund, Development Services 67 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund, Development Services 68 Ot h e r ye a r 5 ma y b e 4 . G . v i i . Update the Tree Technical Manual…. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s & d r a w i n g s Al l ma y b e ye s ye s Incorporate the same guidelines into project review standards. ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n 4 . C . i i . Al l ma y b e Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s co m p l e t i o n 4 . C . i . Incorporate guidelines into the Tree Technical Manua l that reflect the above policy [4.C] regarding relative placement of trees and turf.... co r r e l a t e d t o e x t e r n a l la w s a n d p o l i c i e s Al l co r r e l a t e d t o ex t e r n a l l a w s & pol i c i e s Year 5 programs 66 through 74 focus on an overhaul of relevant guidance documents to ensure that they reflect improvements and requirements resulting from the efforts of Years 1 through 4. ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan177 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 9 , 5 0 0 ) General Fund 69 Ot h e r ($ 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l (1 5 , 8 0 0 ) General Fund, Development Services 70 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 71 Ot h e r ye a r 5 ma y b e ye s ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Augment project-review standard conditions of approval with: • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site. • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group. 4 . G . v i i i . ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s co r r e l a t e d t o e x t e r n a l la w s a n d p o l i c i e s ye s ye s 4 . G . i . 4 . B . v . Review citywide documents for the need to revise relevant technical specifications and standard details to be current with environmental laws, best practices, and innovative solutions. Repeat on a regular basis. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , s t a n d a r d co n d i t i o n s & d r a w i n g s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ma y b e Al l Complete the update of the Street Tree Management Plan….bl o c k l i s t & s t n a d a r d c o m m e n t s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ye s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan178 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 3 , 1 6 0 ) General Fund, Development Services 72 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund 73 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 74 Ot h e r Ye a r 5 Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ($108,230) ($80,000) $0 $519,281 $331,051 Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 4 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 5 programs. Benefits of Year 5 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 4 that recur in Year 5. Year 5 net 4 . B . i v . ye s ye s ye s PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s st a f f r e p o r t r e v i e w b y U F s t a f f Ensure that any updates to the City’s Building Standards e.g., standards for landscape installations and renovations, considers appropriate species selection and placement of trees—especially relative to existing trees. im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . A . i i . Review the Sustainable Sites Initiative to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , St a n d a r d C o m m e n t s , S t a n d a r d Dr a w i n gs PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s , C S O 4 . A . i . Review the updated CalGreen standards to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Tr e e T e c h n i c a l M a n u a l , St a n d a r d C o m m e n t s , S t a n d a r d Dr a w i n gs PW D , P & C E , D S , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s ye s y e s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s B e n e f i t s Y e a r 5 S u m m a r y ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan179 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 75 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 76 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 77 Ot h e r Ye a r 6 ye s an a l y s i s , ne x t s t e p s 4 . I . x . Educate the community regarding the necessity of tree removals in the parks and open spaces. PW D , C S D ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s B e n e f i t s 4 . I . x i i . Consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from CS Parks Div. to PW Urban Forestry Division for: • Trees in developed areas of Open Space (along park roads and around structures/park facilities) • All trees on the golf course.Or g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e PW D , C S D ma y b e ye s ye s PW D , C S D ye s ye s Review the City’s Tree Keeper database with regard to trees within the 32 parks and Municipal Golf Course to ensure completeness and accuracy. Ne e d s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . I . i x . Year 6 programs 75 through 83 focus on parks and are complementary to the single program in Year 7…the development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan foreach open space/preserve. The programs of both these years will involve working closely with the Community Services Department. City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan180 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund 78 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund 79 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l 80 Ot h e r Ye a r 6 PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . I . i i i . Develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in the open spaces… Or g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n 4 . I . i . . Ensure that any citywide canopy cover analysis (Program 4.I.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces…. PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 4 . I . v . Update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are addressed. Pa r k s M a s t e r P l a n PW D , C S D ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan181 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund 81 Oth e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund 82 Ot h e r Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund: Estimated portion of one-time cost for temporary personnel to underfill for regular staff completing Master Plan programs. 83 Ot h e r ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Ye a r 6 Ne e d s $0 $543,881 $450,411 co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Be n e f i t s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n ($20,000) 1 . C . i i i . Consider incorporating the Oakwell survey into TreeKeeper and the City's GIS. pr o t e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a n d ap p r a i s e d m i t i g a t i o n CS D , P W D Y e a r 6 S u m m a r y Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 6 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 6 programs. Benefits of Year 6 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1-5 that recur in Year 6. Year 6 net ye s ye s ye s 4 . I . v i i i . Develop database management tools to assist with monitoring, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , s e c u r i t y , & cu s t o m e r s u p p o r t ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ($73,470) 1 . C . i i . ...update the Oakwell survey… pr o t e c t i o n d e c i s i o n s a n d ap p r a i s e d m i t i g a t i o n PW D , C S D , I T ye s ye s CS D , P W D City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan182 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 , 0 0 0 ) CIP 84 Ot h e r ($ 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) CIP Ye a r 7 Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 7 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 7 programs. Benefits of Year 7 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 6 that recur in Year 7. Year 7 net Develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan…. Or g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e PW D , C S D ye s ye s ye s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Be n e f i t s Year 7 has a single program that complements Year 6 programs which focus on parks. Y e a r 7 S u m m a r y ($79,000) ($350,000) $0 $569,081 $140,081 Ne e d s 4 . I . i v . City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan183 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) General Fund 85 Ot h e r ($ 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 86 Ot h e r ($ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l 87 Ot h e r ($ 3 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Ye a r 8 ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 4 . G . v i . Consider developing a map showing the depth of available water within the urban forest. IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , s e c u r i t y , a n d cu s t o m e r s u p p o r t Al l ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 4 . G . v . Develop or obtain a more up- to-date and accurate soils map and add it into the GIS. IT a c c e s s a b i l i t i y , s e c u r i t y , a n d cu s t o m e r s u p p o r t Al l ye s Year 8 programs 85 through 90 take the City to new levels with programs for improvements to geographic information and exploration of innovative ideas and partnerships. ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 1 . B . i . …encourage local nurseries and garden centers to supply trees on the “Preferred and Restricted Species List”… AR B a p p l i c a t i o n s , st a n d a r d c o m m e n t s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan184 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund 88 Ot h e r ($ 1 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund $5 , 0 0 0 Grant (one time) Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) Utilities or revenue & grants 89 Ot h e r $1 7 , 2 0 0 $1 7 , 6 0 0 $1 8 , 0 0 0 Environmental Services associated with add of 200 trees/yr. Likely to begin in year 3 and increase until trees mature at 50 yrs with a benefit of $45,546/yr. Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 5 , 8 0 0 ) Cost savings, grants 90 Ot h e r $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 $5 0 , 0 0 0 Cost Avoidance ($27,650) ($75,000) $72,200 Ye a r 8 PW D , U t i l i t i e s , P & C E ma y b e ye s ye s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s $595,081 $564,631 PW D , C S D ye s ye s 1 . B . i i . Consider feasibility of a city- owned nursery or partnership with a local non-profit. jo b d e s c r i p t i o n s , c o n t r a c t s C S D , P W D ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 4 . E . i i . Consider the feasibility of a tree adoption program—possibly to be modeled after programs offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has been operating successfully for 15 years. ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ut i l i t i e s e a s e m e n t s l i c e n s e ag r e e m e n t s , e n c r o a c h m e n t per m i t s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s 2 . B . v . Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 8 programs. Tr e e m a i n t e n a n c e an d w o o d d i s p o s a l Explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end products that do not break the wood down… Y e a r 8 S u m m a r y Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 8 programs. Benefits of Year 8 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 7 that recur in Year 8. Year 8 net City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan185 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund 91 Ot h e r ($ 7 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 , 5 8 0 ) General Fund 92 Ot h e r ($ 2 5 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 9 0 ) General Fund 93 Ot h e r Ye a r 9 ye s Be n e f i t s 4 . I . i i . Establish a baseline for relevant information to be monitored (in addition to canopy cover). Note: This is not necessarily redundant with Program 4.G.ii. Be n e f i t s PW D , P & C E , U t i l i t i e s , C S O Year 9 programs 91 through 94 focus on management and monitoring and call for a Ufore analysis to assess changes in the overall urban forest canopy since 2010 4 . G . i i . Conduct a UFORE analysis (or similar city wide approach) to establish a city wide benchmark that spans the entire population of both public and private trees and then to monitor change…. PW D , P & C E , U t i l i t i e s , C S O ye s ye s ye s ye s 1 . G . i i i Manage species diversity such that no one species accounts for more than 10% of the population and no one genus accounts for more than 20% of the population. bl o c k s i t e l i s t a n d s t n a d a r d c o m m e n t s PW D , P & C E , D S , C S D ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s ye s im p l e m e n t a t i o n Ne e d s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan186 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 7 , 9 0 0 ) Development Services 94 Ot h e r ($ 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) Development Services ye a r 9 ($150,000) $0 $691,281 $511,261 ($30,020) 1 . E . v . Collect, retain, and analyze electronic tree surveys to quantify the impact of development. PW D , P & C E , D S ye s ye s ye s an a l y s i s , n e x t s t e p s Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Y e a r 9 S u m m a r y Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 9 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 9 programs. Benefits of Year 9 programs. Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 8 that recur in Year 9. Year 9 net City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan187 # Description may be abbreviated; for complete language, see "Goals, Policies, & Programs."Ch a n g e s t o Po l i c i e s o r Pr o c e d u r e s De p a r t m e n t a l Co l l a b o r a t i o n Ch a n g e s t o Mu n i C o d e St a k e h o l d e r Pa r t i c i p a t i o n St a f f Ed u a t i o n Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h / Mo n i t o r i n g Cr i t e r i a Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Source / Notes Program Orgazational & Logistical Needs Fiscal Needs & Benefits Pe r s o n n e l ($ 1 9 , 7 5 0 ) General Fund 95 Ot h e r ($ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Pe r s o n n e l 96 Ot h e r ($ 3 0 , 0 0 0 ) General Fund Ye a r 1 0 ($19,750) 4 . F . i i . Follow up 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis with either: • A similar cmprehensive inventory & analysis. • OR a series of 7 partial ones done annually.PW D , U t i l i t i e s ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Year 10 calls for a new i-Tree streets analysis to assess changes to the street tree population and enable continued detailed monitoring of health, maintenance activities, and stocking levels.. 4 . F . i . Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan—with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council…PW D , P & C E , U t i l i t i e s , C S O ye s ye s ye s co m p l e t i o n Ne e d s Be n e f i t s Y e a r 1 0 S u m m a r y Personnel i.e., temporary personnel underfilling for regular staff who are working on Year 10 programs. Costs such as materials and contracts forYear 10 programs. Benefits of Year 10 programs. $721,281 $551,531 ($150,000) $0 Benefits from programs implemented in Years 1- 9 that recur in Year 10. Year 10 net City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Implementation Plan188 Appendicies • Thirst ratings of known public tree population • Master Plan Sources, Resources, & Terms 189 This page was intentionally left blank 190 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees Thirst ratings for known public tree population based on Davey Resource Group inventory update of 2010 Fig _: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inven-toried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Low Pyracantha -- 2 --Pyracantha spp. Low -- 19 --Tristaniopsis confertaLowCoast live oak 1213 534 679 Quercus agrifoliaLowChinese pistache 1141 1027 114 Pistacia chinensis Low Chinese elm 962 820 142 Ulmus parvifolia Low Holly oak 701 515 186 Quercus ilex Low Glossy privet 565 361 204 Ligustrum lucidum Low European hackberry 332 318 14 Celtis australisLowChinese hackberry 318 302 16 Celtis sinensisLowValley oak 297 215 82 Quercus lobata Low Italian stone pine 251 92 159 Pinus pinea Low Deodar cedar 230 148 82 Cedrus deodara Low Shamel ash 228 196 32 Fraxinus uhdei Low Blackwood acacia 220 100 120 Acacia melanoxylon Low Carob 202 140 62 Ceratonia siliquaLowItalian cypress 177 147 30 Cupressus sempervirens Low Blue gum 164 16 148 Eucalyptus globulus Low Cork oak 154 147 7 Quercus suber Low Calif. pepper 136 60 76 Schinus molle Low Olive 135 43 92 Olea europaea Low Almond 133 38 95 Prunus dulcisLowCanary Island pine 122 57 65 Pinus canariensis Low Eucalyptus 121 20 101 Eucalyptus spp. Low Horsetail tree 109 74 35 Casuarina equisetifolia Low Silver dollar gum 109 36 73 Eucalyptus polyanthemos Low Western catalpa 102 100 2 Catalpa speciosa Low Red ironbark 100 13 87 Eucalyptus sideroxylonLowTree-of-heaven 96 31 64 Ailanthus altissimaLowLoquat80 64 16 Eriobotrya japonica Low Lemon bottlebrush 78 37 41 Callistemon citrinus Low River she-oak 68 24 44 Casuarina cunninghamiana Low Atlas cedar 63 5 58 Cedrus atlantica Low Mexican fan palm 58 55 3 Washingtonia robustaLowMimosa56 42 14 Albizia julibrissinLowCalif. incense cedar 55 33 22 Calocedrus decurrens Low Canary Island Date palm 54 33 21 Phoenix canariensis Low Green Mountain linden 52 50 2 Tilia tomentosa Green Mountain Low Silver linden 50 30 20 Tilia tomentosa Low Weeping bottlebrush 49 44 5 Callistemon viminalis Low Xylosma 48 48 --Xylosma congestumLowCalif. bay 45 14 31 Umbellularia californica Low River red gum 42 -- 42 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Davey 2010 inventory count of… WUCOLS The California Department of Water Resources maintains a list referred to as WUCOLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) that rates the water needs of 1,9000 species as: High: requires irrigation throughout summer. Moderate: able to tolerate periods without water but not several years of drought. Low: requires irrigation until established; will then survive without supplemental water. Modified WUCOLS In 2009, a team of Canopy staff and board mem- bers, city staff, and community members agreed to modifications to the WUCOLS ratings deemed appropriate for Palo Alto. The Master Plan applied the modified WUCOLS ratings to TreeKeeper data to develop this tables which shows a. Modified WUCOLS ratings for 400 species b. Frequency of that species within the street tree population as inventoried in 2010. Baseline for future monitoring The City’s goal of a hearty and sustainable urban forest will include emphasizing less thirsty species for new plantings and this list will provide a base- line for measuring the progress of that strategy. Diversity and benefits are also important; therefore, the City will also employ strategies to coach a vari- ety of species to adapt to Palo Alto’s conditions. 191 Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Low Arizona ash 38 37 1 Fraxinus velutina Low Aleppo pine 37 21 16 Pinus halepensisLowCalif. fan palm 36 30 6 Washingtonia filiferaLowGreen dracaena 35 22 13 Cordyline australis Low Oleander 35 19 16 Nerium oleander Low Fern-Leaf Catalina ironwood 33 7 26 Lyonothamnus floribundusasplenifolius Low Windmill palm 33 26 7 Trachycarpus fortunei Low Athena elm 33 33 --Ulmus parvifolia AthenaLowBrisbane box 32 -- 32 Lophostemon confertusLowEnglish yew 32 3 29 Taxus baccata Low Spanish dagger 31 20 11 Yucca gloriosa Low Hollywood juniper 29 29 --Juniperus chinensis Torulosa Low Sterling linden 29 29 --Tilia tomentosa Sterling Low Strawberry tree 28 15 13 Arbutus unedo Low Myoporum 26 4 22 Myoporum laetumLowEdible pear 26 17 9 Pyrus communis Low Bailey acacia 25 -- 25 Acacia baileyana Low Bushy yate 25 5 20 Eucalyptus lehmannii Low Juniper 24 3 21 Juniperus chinensis Low Silk oak 23 11 12 Grevillea robusta Low Douglas-fir 23 14 9 Pseudotsuga menziesiiLowRed river gum 22 -- 22 Eucalyptus rudis Low Calif. buckeye 21 -- 21 Aesculus californica Low Juniper 19 9 10 Juniperus spp. Low Siberian elm 18 -- 18 Ulmus pumila Low Mock orange 1798Pittosporum tobira Low Soapbark tree 17 15 2 Quillaja saponariaLowAllee elm 17 -- 17 Ulmus parvifolia AlleeLowWestern redbud 16 13 3 Cercis occidentalis Low Italian buckthorn 16 -- 16 Rhamnus alaternus Low Pink Dawn chitalpa 15 15 --Chitalpa Pink Dawn Low Japanese persimmon 15 11 4 Diospyros kaki Low Dwarf blue gum 15 -- 15 Eucalyptus globulus CompactaLowWhite ironbark 15 -- 15 Eucalyptus leucoxylonLowToyon15 1 14 Heteromeles arbutifolia Low Bottle tree 14 11 3 Brachychiton populneus Low Queen palm 14 14 --Syagrus romanzoffianum Low Green wattle 13 -- 13 Acacia decurrens Low Edible fig 1385Ficus carica Low Pecan 12 -- 12 Carya illinoinensisLowCalif. black oak 12 8 4 Quercus kelloggii Low Manna gum 11 -- 11 Eucalyptus viminalis Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) 192 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Low Silver dollar tree 10 9 1 Eucalyptus cinerea Low Pomegranate 9 -- 9 Punica granatum Low Firethorn 9 -- 9 Pyracantha coccinea Low Nepal camphor 8 -- 8 Cinnamomum glanduliferumLowHollyleaf cherry 8 -- 8 Prunus ilicifoliaLowForest Green oak 8 -- 8 Quercus frainetto Schmidt Low African sumac 8 6 2 Rhus lancea Low Other palm 8 8 -- Low Sydney golden wattle 7 -- 7 Acacia longifolia Low Arizona cypress 7 3 4 Cupressus glabra Low Hackberry 6 -- 6 Celtis spp.Low Drooping she-oak 5 -- 5 Casuarina stricta Low Quince 5 -- 5 Cydonia oblonga Low Lemon-scented gum 5 -- 5 Eucalyptus citriodora Low Red-flowering gum 515Eucalyptus ficifolia Low Flax-leaf paperbark 5 5 --Melaleuca linariifolia Low Marina madrone 4 -- 4 Arbutus MarinaLowCalif. juniper 422Juniperus californica Low Sweet bay 422Laurus nobilis Low Swiss mountain pine 4 -- 4 Pinus mugo Low Catalina cherry 4 -- 4 Prunus lyonii Low Blue elderberry 4 -- 4 Sambucus caerulea Low Silver wattle 3 -- 3 Acacia dealbataLowCommon hackberry 3 -- 3 Celtis occidentalisLowCypress3 -- 3 Cupressus nevadensis Low Hopseed 3 1 2 Dodonaea viscosa Low Swamp mahogony 3 -- 3 Eucalyptus robusta Low Chinaberry 3 -- 3 Melia azedarach Low Boobyalla 3 -- 3 Myoporum insulareLowMexican palo verde 3 -- 3 Parkinsonia aculeataLowKeith Davey pistache 3 -- 3 Pistacia chinensis Keith Davey Low Chinkapin oak 3 -- 3 Quercus muehlenbergii Low Interior live oak 3 3 --Quercus wislizenii Low Yucca 3 2 1 Yucca recurvifolia Low Guadalupe palm 2 2 --Brahea edulis Low Calif. lilac 2 -- 2 Ceanothus spp.Low Texas redbud 2 -- 2 Cercis canadensis texensis Low Mediterranean fan palm 2 2 --Chamaerops humilis Low Russian olive 2 -- 2 Elaeagnus angustifolia Low Lilac melaleuca 2 -- 2 Melaleuca decussata Low Western tea myrtle 2 -- 2 Melaleuca nesophila Low Cajeput tree 2 2 --Melaleuca quinquenervia 193 Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Low Calif. wax myrtle 2 -- 2 Myrica californica Low Ponderosa pine 2 -- 2 Pinus ponderosa Low Blue oak 2 -- 2 Quercus douglasiiLowSatin Shadow linden 2 -- 2 Tilia tomentosa Satin Shadow Low Knife acacia 1 -- 1 Acacia cultriformis Low Madrone 1 1 --Arbutus menziesii Low Coyote bush 1 -- 1 Baccharis pilularis Low Western hackberry 1 1 --Celtis reticulata Low Cotoneaster 1 -- 1 Cotoneaster buxifoliusLowRed clusterberry 1 -- 1 Cotoneaster lacteus Low Cotoneaster 1 -- 1 Cotoneaster spp. Low Willowleaf peppermint 1 -- 1 Eucalyptus nicholii Low Wallangaria white gum 1 -- 1 Eucalyptus scoparia Low Evergreen euonymus 1 -- 1 Euonymus japonica Low Pineapple guava 1 1 --Feijoa sellowianaLowChinese parasol tree 1 -- 1 Firmiana simplexLowFlannel bush 1 -- 1 Fremontodendron spp. Low Kentucky coffee tree 1 -- 1 Gymnocladus dioica Low English holly 1 -- 1 Ilex aquifolium Low Burford holly 1 1 --Ilex cornuta Burfordii Low Primrose tree 1 -- 1 Lagunaria patersoniiLowAustralian tea tree 1 1 --Leptospermum laevigatumLowDrooping melaleuca 1 -- 1 Melaleuca armillaris Low Date palm 1 1 --Phoenix dactylifera Low Peruvian pepper 1 -- 1 Schinus polygamus 10,294 6,563 3,752 Low - moderate Pine 52 11 41 Pinus spp.Low - moderate Oak 49 33 16 Quercus spp. Low - moderate Araucaria species 4 -- 4 Araucaria spp. Low - moderate Holly 3 -- 3 Ilex spp. 108 44 64 Moderate Goldenrain -- 7 --Koelreuteria spp.Moderate Sycamore -- 13 --Platanus spp.Moderate London plane 3362 2832 530 Platanus x acerifolia Moderate Modesto ash 1480 1481 --Fraxinus velutina Modesto Moderate Camphor 1214 1133 81 Cinnamomum camphora Moderate Red oak 841 778 63 Quercus rubra Moderate Ginkgo 712 633 79 Ginkgo biloba Moderate Yarwood sycamore 519 517 2 Platanus x acerifolia YarwoodModerate Ornamental pear 368 301 67 Pyrus calleryana Moderate Purpleleaf plum 344 242 102 Prunus cerasifera Total for Low rating Total for Low-moderat rating 194 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Moderate Moraine ash 334 334 --Fraxinus holotricha Moraine Moderate Monterey pine 279 110 169 Pinus radiataModerate Chinese tallow 242 226 16 Sapium sebiferumModerate Crape myrtle 238 189 49 Lagerstroemia indica Moderate Red horsechestnut 236 187 49 Aesculus carnea Moderate Shumard oak 159 157 2 Quercus shumardii Moderate Hawthorn 156 129 27 Crataegus laevigata Moderate Japanese flowering cherry 153 68 85 Prunus serrulataModerate Chanticleer pear 134 135 --Pyrus calleryana ChanticleerModerate Columbia sycamore 132 132 --Platanus x acerifolia Columbia Moderate White mulberry 131 104 27 Morus alba Moderate Evergreen pear 126 54 72 Pyrus kawakamii Moderate Silver maple 122 101 21 Acer saccharinum Moderate Autumn Gold ginkgo 121 121 --Ginkgo biloba Autumn Gold Moderate Frontier elm 121 119 2 Ulmus FrontierModerate Carolina cherry laurel 117 91 26 Prunus caroliniana Moderate Edible plum 116 63 53 Prunus domestica Moderate English walnut 114 90 24 Juglans regia Moderate Japanese pagoda tree 112 109 3 Sophora japonica Moderate Bradford pear 104 104 --Pyrus calleryana Bradford Moderate Fern pine 98 79 19 Podocarpus graciliorModerate Southern live oak 97 87 10 Quercus virginiana Moderate Australian willow 92 63 29 Geijera parviflora Moderate Apricot 90 32 58 Prunus armeniaca Moderate Honey locust 85 69 16 Gleditsia triacanthos Moderate Eastern redbud 73 60 13 Cercis canadensis Moderate Purple Robe locust 65 65 --Robinia ambigua Purple RobeModerate Crape myrtle 'Natchez'63 63 --Lagerstroemia NatchezModerate Black locust 59 49 10 Robinia pseudoacacia Moderate Water gum 57 37 20 Tristaniopsis laurina Moderate Eastern black walnut 54 15 39 Juglans nigra Moderate Scarlet oak 51 44 7 Quercus coccinea Moderate Pin oak 50 44 6 Quercus palustrisModerate Green Column maple 49 49 --Acer nigrum Green ColumnModerate Flowering plum 49 47 2 Prunus x blireiana Moderate Victorian box 46 9 37 Pittosporum undulatum Moderate Brazilian pepper 43 34 9 Schinus terebinthifolius Moderate Jap. flowering crabapple 42 -- 42 Malus floribunda Moderate Lemon 40 34 6 Citrus limon Moderate Aristocrat pear 39 39 --Pyrus calleryana AristocratModerate Stone fruit 38 36 2 Prunus spp. Moderate Red mulberry 37 34 3 Morus rubra 195 Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Moderate Edible apple 33 21 12 Malus sylvestris Moderate Evergreen maple 32 32 --Acer oblongumModerate Ash 32 -- 32 Fraxinus spp.Moderate Jacaranda 32 24 8 Jacaranda mimosifolia Moderate Upright hornbeam 31 30 1 Carpinus betulus Fastigiata Moderate Western sycamore 31 -- 31 Platanus racemosa Moderate Water gum (Elegant)31 30 1 Tristaniopsis laurina Elegant Moderate Chinese fringe tree 28 23 5 Chionanthus retususModerate Colorado spruce 28 19 9 Picea pungensModerate Bloodgood sycamore 28 28 --Platanus x acerifolia Bloodgood Moderate Edible peach 28 13 15 Prunus persica Moderate Orange 26 17 9 Citrus sinensis Moderate Jap. black pine 25 15 10 Pinus thunbergiana Moderate Flowering ash 24 -- 24 Fraxinus ornus Moderate Blue potato bush 24 2 22 Lycianthes rantonneiModerate Yew pine 23 15 8 Podocarpus macrophyllus Moderate Edible cherry 23 -- 23 Prunus avium Moderate Ruby horsechestnut 21 20 1 Aesculus carnea Briotii Moderate Yoshino cherry 19 17 2 Prunus yedoensis Moderate Hedge maple 18 18 --Acer campestre Moderate Norway maple 18 15 3 Acer platanoidesModerate Calif. black walnut 18 18 --Juglans hindsii Moderate Pittosporum 17 15 2 Pittosporum spp. Moderate American arborvitae 17 7 10 Thuja occidentalis Moderate Paul's Scarlet hawthorn 16 16 --Crataegus laevigata Pauls Scarlet Moderate Fraser photinia 16 8 8 Photinia x fraseri Moderate Port Orford cedar 15 1 14 Chamaecyparis lawsonianaModerate Tarata 15 2 13 Pittosporum eugenioidesModerate Akebono cherry 14 14 --Prunus yedoensis Akebono Moderate Jelecote pine 13 7 6 Pinus patula Moderate Karo 13 4 9 Pittosporum crassifolium Moderate Pittosporum 13 -- 13 Pittosporum ralphii Moderate Crape myrtle 'Tuscarora'12 12 --Lagerstroemia TuscaroraModerate Crabapple 12 40 --Malus spp. & cultivarsModerate Avocado 12 8 4 Persea americana Moderate New Bradford pear 12 -- 12 Pyrus calleryana New Bradford Moderate Lily of the valley tree 11 10 1 Crinodendron patagua Moderate Goldenrain 10 -- 10 Koelreuteria paniculata Moderate Trident maple 9 -- 9 Acer buergeranum Moderate Carrotwood 9 2 7 Cupaniopsis anacardioidesModerate Flowering dogwood 8 -- 8 Cornus florida Moderate Fig 871Ficus spp. 196 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Moderate Washington thorn 7 -- 7 Crataegus phaenopyrum Moderate Japanese cedar 7 -- 7 Cryptomeria japonicaModerate Zumi crabapple 7 -- 7 Malus x zumi CalocarpaModerate Tawhiwhi 7 -- 7 Pittosporum tenuifolium Moderate Krauter Vesuvius plum 7 -- 7 Prunus cerasifera Krauter Vesuvius Moderate English oak 7 -- 7 Quercus robur Moderate Dogwood 6 13 --Cornus spp. Moderate Monterey cypress 6 5 1 Cupressus macrocarpaModerate Walnut 6 -- 6 Juglans spp.Moderate Formosan sweetgum 6 -- 6 Liquidambar formosana Moderate Leyland cypress 5 3 2 Cupressocyparis leylandii Moderate Wilson holly 5 5 --Ilex altaclerensis Wilsonii Moderate Prairiefire crabapple 5 -- 5 Malus Prairiefire Moderate Cape pittosporum 5 3 2 Pittosporum viridiflorum Moderate Oriental plane 5 -- 5 Platanus orientalisModerate Portugal laurel 5 -- 5 Prunus lusitanica Moderate Japanese viburnum 5 2 3 Viburnum japonicum Moderate Silver Cloud michelia 4 -- 4 Michelia doltsopa Silver Cloud Moderate Madeira Bay fig 4 -- 4 Persea indica Moderate Thundercloud plum 4 -- 4 Prunus cerasifera Thundercloud Moderate Linden 4 6 --Tilia spp.Moderate Forest Pansy redbud 3 -- 3 Cercis canadensis Forest Moderate Hinoki falsecypress 3 -- 3 Chamaecyparis obtusa Moderate Grapefruit 3 2 1 Citrus x paradisi Moderate Rubber tree 3 3 --Ficus elastica Moderate Chinese photinia 3 -- 3 Photinia serrulata Moderate Japanese red pine 3 -- 3 Pinus densifloraModerate Cherry plum 3 -- 3 Prunus cerasifera GreenModerate Mt. Fuji cherry 3 -- 3 Prunus serrulata Mt. Fuji Moderate Shirofugen cherry 3 -- 3 Prunus serrulata Shirofugen Moderate Water oak 3 -- 3 Quercus nigra Moderate English oak (Skyrocket)3 -- 3 Quercus robur Fastigiata Moderate English oak (Skymaster)3 -- 3 Quercus robur PyramichModerate Brush cherry 3 -- 3 Syzygium paniculatumModerate Western redcedar 312Thujaplicata Moderate English elm 3 -- 3 Ulmus procera Moderate Calamondin 2 -- 2 Citrofortunella x mitis Moderate Common hawthorn 2 -- 2 Crataegus monogyna Moderate Cockspur coral tree 2 -- 2 Erythrina crista-galli Moderate Sweetshade 2 2 --Hymenosporum flavumModerate Flame tree 2 -- 2 Koelreuteria bipinnata Moderate Goldenchain tree 2 -- 2 Labernum x waterii Vossii 197 Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… Moderate Colorado spruce 2 -- 2 Picea pungens Viridis Moderate Oriental arborvitae 2 -- 2 Platycladus orientalisModerate Redmond linden 2 -- 2 Tilia euchlora Redmond Moderate Elm 2 20 --Ulmus spp. Moderate Flowering maple 1 -- 1 Abutilon hybridum Moderate Orchid tree 1 -- 1 Bauhinia variegata Moderate Camellia 1 -- 1 Camellia japonica Moderate American chestnut 1 -- 1 Castanea dentataModerate Red flowering dogwood 1 -- 1 Cornus florida RubraModerate Kousa dogwood 1 -- 1 Cornus kousa Moderate Cockspur thorn 1 -- 1 Crataegus crus-galli Moderate Downy hawthorn 1 -- 1 Crataegus mollis Moderate Common persimmon 1 -- 1 Diospyros virginiana Moderate Bronze loquat 1 -- 1 Eriobotrya deflexaModerate Coral tree 1 -- 1 Erythrina spp.Moderate Hardy rubber tree 1 -- 1 Eucommia ulmunoides Moderate Japanese euonymus 1 -- 1 Euonymus fortunei Moderate Hupeh evodia 1 -- 1 Evodia hupehensis Moderate Moreton Bay fig 1 -- 1 Ficus macrophylla Moderate Saratoga ginkgo 1 -- 1 Ginkgo biloba Saratoga Moderate S. Calif. black walnut 1 -- 1 Juglans californicaModerate Oriental sweetgum 1 -- 1 Liquidambar orientalis Moderate Fan palm 1 -- 1 Livistona spp. Moderate Hop hornbeam 1 -- 1 Ostrya virginiana Moderate Persian ironwood 1 -- 1 Parrotia persica Moderate False pine 1 -- 1 Podocarpus spp. Moderate Lombardy poplar 1 -- 1 Populus nigra ItalicaModerate Japanese flowering apricot 1 -- 1 Prunus mume Moderate Snow Fountains cherry 1 -- 1 Prunus x Snow Fountain Moderate Chinese wingnut 1 -- 1 Pterocarya stenoptera Moderate Sawtooth oak 1 -- 1 Quercus acutissima Moderate Giant sequoia 1 1 --Sequoiadendron giganteum Moderate European mountain ash 1 -- 1 Sorbus aucuparia 14,440 12,125 2,392 High Freeman maple -- 48 --Acer x freemanii High Southern magnolia 4198 4061 137 Magnolia grandiflora High Liquidambar 2992 2669 323 Liquidambar styraciflua High Coast redwood 946 243 703 Sequoia sempervirens High White birch 560 374 186 Betula pendulaHighRed maple 453 418 35 Acer rubrum High Littleleaf linden 435 416 19 Tilia cordata Total for moderate rating 198 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Table continues on following pages.) Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… High Tuliptree 387 346 41 Liriodendron tulipifera High Raywood ash 372 373 -- Fraxinus oxycarpa RaywoodHighAutumn Purple ash 241 238 3 Fraxinus americana Junginger High Japanese maple 166 138 28 Acer palmatum High October Glory maple 142 140 2 Acer rubrum October Glory High Mayten 109 53 56 Maytenus boaria High White alder 106 8 98 Alnus rhombifolia High Bigleaf maple 103 98 5 Acer macrophyllumHighTupelo88 82 6 Nyssa sylvaticaHighGreenspire linden 85 84 1 Tilia cordata Greenspire High American elm 68 47 21 Ulmus americana High Saucer magnolia 65 33 32 Magnolia x soulangiana High Sawleaf zelkova 57 55 2 Zelkova serrata High Idaho locust 53 53 --Robinia ambigua Idahoensis High Autumn Blaze maple 43 -- 43 Acer x freemanii Autumn BlazeHighMagnolia39 16 23 Magnolia spp. High Red Sunset red maple 37 37 --Acer rubrum Franks Red High Jacquemontii birch 31 28 3 Betula jacquemontii High Snakebark maple 25 24 1 Acer capillipesHighHorsechestnut22 20 2 Aesculus hippocastanum High European hornbeam 20 20 --Carpinus betulus High Paperbark maple 17 12 5 Acer griseum High New Zealand Xmas tree 17 -- 17 Metrosideros excelsus High European beech 15 27 --Fagus sylvatica High Maple 13 30 --Acer spp.High River birch 12 12 --Betula nigraHighVillage Green zelkova 12 -- 12 Zelkova serrata Village Green High Schlesinger Red maple 10 -- 10 Acer rubrum Schlesingerii High Copper beech 10 -- 10 Fagus sylvatica Atropunicea High Sugar maple 9 -- 9 Acer saccharum High Cimmaron ash 9 -- 9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica CimmzamHighPatmore ash 8 -- 8 Fraxinus pennsylvanica PatmoreHighBoxelder7 -- 7 Acer negundo High Autumn Fantasy maple 7 -- 7 Acer x freemanii Autumn Fantasy High Urbanite ash 7 -- 7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Urbanite High Bloodgood Japanese maple 6 -- 6 Acer palmatum Bloodgood High Star magnolia 6 -- 6 Magnolia stellata High Willow 6 2 4 Salix spp.High Big-toothed maple 5 -- 5 Acer saccharumgrandidentatum High Weeping willow 5 -- 5 Salix babylonica 199 Appendix: Thirst ratings for public trees City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Thirst rating (Modified WUCOLS) Common name Street & park trees Street trees Park trees Scientific name Davey 2010 inventory count of… HIgh Cutleaf weeping birch 4 -- 4 Betula pendula Dalecarlica High Dawn redwood 4 -- 4 Metasequoiaglyptostroboides High Full-moon maple 3 -- 3 Acer japonicumHIghGlobe maple 3 -- 3 Acer platanoides GlobeHighItalian alder 3 -- 3 Alnus cordata High Purple River beech 3 -- 3 Fagus sylvatica Riversii High Marshall ash 3 -- 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall High Redbay 3 -- 3 Persea borbonia High White poplar 3 -- 3 Populus alba High Cutleaf purple Japanese maple 2 -- 2 Acer palmatum Filiferum Purpureum HIgh Purple beech 2 -- 2 Fagus sylvatica Purpurea High Oregon ash 2 -- 2 Fraxinus oregona HIgh Green ash 2 -- 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica High Edith Bouge magnolia 2 -- 2 Magnolia grandiflora Edith BougeHighMajestic Beauty magnolia 2 -- 2 Magnolia grandiflora Majestic BeautyHighDavid maple 1 -- 1 Acer davidii High American hornbeam 1 -- 1 Carpinus caroliniana High Campbell magnolia 1 -- 1 Magnolia campbellii High Samuel Sommer magnolia 1 -- 1 Magnolia grandiflora Samuel Sommer High St. Mary magnolia 1 -- 1 Magnolia grandiflora St. MaryHighQuaking aspen 1 -- 1 Populus tremuloidesHighSoquel redwood 1 -- 1 Sequoia sempervirens Soquel High Liberty elm 1 -- 1 Ulmus americana Liberty 12,073 10,205 1,946 Unknown Other broadleaf large -- 2 -- Unknown Other broadleaf small -- 23 --Unknown Other conifer large -- 1 -- Unknown Other conifer medium -- 2 -- Unknown Other conifer small -- 3 -- Unknown Other dediduous large -- 20 -- Unknown Other deciduous medium -- 54 -- Unknown Other deciduous small -- 19 --Unknown Other not classified 123 -- 123Unknown Needle bush 1 -- 1 Vachellia farnesiana Unknown Other broad leaf medium 13 -- 124 135 124 Total for unknown rating Total for high rating Fig _ continued: “Modified WUCOLs” ratings for 400 species and frequency of each species within the public tree population as inventoried in 2010 by Davey Resource Group. (Last page) 200 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Sources, Resources, & Terms Sources, Resources, & TermsUrban Forest Master Plan source City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works Canopy Cover Assessment of Palo Alto’s Urban Forest (Dr. Xiao of UC Davis) Heritage Tree List http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=179&TargetID=64 Preliminary Sustainable Urban Forest Report (Jim Clark of Hort Science) Contact the Public Works Urban Forestry Section (650) 496‐5953 Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis (Davey Resource Group)http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36188 Street Tree Management Plan (1982)Contact the Public Works Urban Forestry Section (650) 496‐5953 Survey Results and Analysis for Urban Forest Master Plan Survey http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26236 Tree Technical Manual https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6436 Protected tree removal policy http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2588 Tree Removal Policy—2009 PW Report http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18091 Power line clearing contract with standards Construction with ROW documents http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/development_center/during_construction.asp Golf Course Reconfiguration Project website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/golf/new/default.asp Department of Planning and Community Environment Baylands Master Plan http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/baylandsmp.asp Comprehensive Plan http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp California Green Building Code http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/bsc/CALGreen/2010_CA_Green_Bldg.pdf El Camino Real Master Planning Study http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=14241 Development Center (DC)Blueprint Project http://www.horizoncentre.com/new_site_2009/palo_alto_119/sat_document_links.html Contact the Public Works Urban Forestry Section (650) 496-5953 201 94 Appendix: Sources, Resources, & Terms City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Protected Tree and Landscaping Information http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/details.asp?NewsID=177&TargetID=64 Palo Alto’s Heritage Trees http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/news/details.asp?NewsID=179&TargetID=64 Tree FAQs http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2591 Utilities Department Urban Water Management Plan (2010)http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/eng/water/watermgmt.asp Photovoltaic Partners Program http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/sustainablehome/pvpartners.asp Solar Water Heating Program http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/sustainablehome/swh.asp Waste Avoidance programs (wter) Palo Alto Green http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/15138 Landscape Water Efficiency Standards http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8771 Recycled Water Ordinance # 5002 of 2008 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13200 Recycled Water Matrix 2008 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13201 Recycled Water Reso to Reduce Salinity CMR:111:10 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=18432 Reduce Potable Water Use CMR 212:10 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=19735 Water Fund Budget Amendment Contract with RMC CMR:207:10 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=19683 Community Services Foothills Park Fire Master Plan http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=15866 Open Space website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/parks_and_open_space/preserves_and_open_space s/foothills_park.asp Pearson Arastradero Preserve Master Plan http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/parks_and_open_space/preserves_and_open_space s/pearson_arastradero.asp Office of the City Clerk Municipal Code http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp Office of the City Auditor Annual Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reports http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments.asp Mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force Climate Protection Plan (2007)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9986/ http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/resiwater.asp#Water-Wise House Call Program Recycled Water Resolution to Reduce Salinity CMR:111:10 202 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Appendix: Sources, Resources, & Terms Canopy Canopy website http://www.canopy.org/index.php Canopy's Species Database http://www.canopy.org/pages/about‐trees/canopy‐tree‐library.php Oakwell Survey Report Contact Canopy (650) 964‐6110 Additional San Francisco Bay Area State of the Urban Forest Final Report by James R. Simpson and E. Gregory McPherson (USDA Center for Urban Forest Research in 2007) http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/products/2/psw_cufr719_SFBay.pdf “The Ecological Street Tree: Mainstreaming the Production of Street Tree-based Ecosystem Services in Northern California Cities, 1980-2008” by Georgia Norma Silvera Seamans Contact the Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, University of California, Berkeley, 202 Wurster Hall #2000, Berkeley, CA 94720‐2000, Phone: (510) 642‐ 2962 Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California , by California Department of Water Resources and the Collaboration Among State and Federal Agencies to Improve California’s Water Supply (Pacific Institute 2003) http://www.pacinst.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/02/waste_not_want_not_full_report3.pdf “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability” by Jim Clark published in the Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 23, Issue 1, January 1997. http://www.naturewithin.info/Policy/ClarkSstnabltyModel.pdf Australian Broadcasting Corporation website (ABC News) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008‐03‐20/tree‐row‐heads‐to‐court/1078732 “City Trees and Property Values”, by Kathleen Wolf, published by the International Society of Aboriculture, 2007 http://www.naturewithin.info/Policy/Hedonics_Citations.pdf 203 96 Appendix: Sources, Resources, & Terms City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Where are the Cool Parking Lots , published by Center for Urban Forestry Research 2007 Contact the Center for Urban Forestry Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan Street, West Annex Building, Albany, CA 94710‐0011, Phone (510) 559‐6300 or http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/ Benefits of Trees published by Gregory McPherson, Continuing Education Unit, International Society of Aboriculture, Volume 13 No. 6 2004 Contact the Center for Urban Forestry Research, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan Street, West Annex Building, Albany, CA 94710‐0011, Phone (510) 559‐6300 or http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/uesd/uep/ Palo Alto Historical Association photograph archives http://images.pahistory.org/ American Forests http://www.americanforests.org/ CalGreen http://www.martindale.com/natural‐resources‐law/article_Cox‐Castle‐Nicholson‐ LLP_1272200.htm City of Raleigh Landscape Manual USDA Nor Cal Coast Community Tree Guide http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr228/psw_gtr228.pdf USDA Sustaining America’s Trees and Urban Forest http://nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs62.pdf Sustainable Cities Institute: Benefits of Trees & the Urban Forest. (n.d.) http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/view/page.basic/class/feature.class/Lesson_Benefits _Urb_Forest_Trees Urban Wildlife - US Forest Service Research & Development (n.d.)http://www.fs.fed.us/research/wildlife‐fish/themes/urban‐wildlife.php American Planning Association (2000, April 17). Policy Guide on Planning for Sustainability http://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/sustainability.htm 2. American Society of Landscape Architects (n.d.). Designing Our Future: Sustainable Landscapes http://www.asla.org/sustainablelandscapes/vid_urbanforests.html Urban Forestry Programs and Technologies iTree Streets & iTree eco http://www.itreetools.org/ UFORE http://www.itreetools.org/eco/resources/UFORE%20Model%20FAQs.pdf 204 This page was intentionally left blank for a back cover 205 206 Urban Forest Master Plan Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration March 2015 Attachment B Urban Forest Master Plan Page 2 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 3 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS .......................................... 15 A.AESTHETICS ............................................................................................................................. 16 B.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. ............................................................................................... 17 C.AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................... 19 D.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ................................................................................................... 22 E.CULTURAL RESOURCES. ...................................................................................................... 24 F.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. ........................................................................................................... 25 G.GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 26 H.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ...................................................................... 29 I.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. ............................................................................... 30 J.LAND USE AND PLANNING. ................................................................................................. 32 K.MINERAL RESOURCES. ......................................................................................................... 35 L.NOISE ......................................................................................................................................... 35 M.POPULATION AND HOUSING. .............................................................................................. 37 N.PUBLIC SERVICES. ................................................................................................................. 37 O.RECREATION ........................................................................................................................... 38 P.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................... 39 Q.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.................................................................................... 41 R.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................... 42 III. SOURCE REFERENCES: ................................................................................................................... 43 IV. DETERMINATION ............................................................................................................................. 44 Attachment A: Goals, Policies, & Programs chapter of the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan Urban Forest Master Plan Page 3 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. PROJECT TITLE Palo Alto Urban Forest Management Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, Public Services Division 3201 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Walter Passmore, Urban Forester City of Palo Alto (650) 496-5986 4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, Public Services Division 3201 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Environmental Consultant’s Name and Address: AECOM 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95113 408-297-9585 5. APPLICATION NUMBER(S) There is no application number as the project is a public project of the City of Palo Alto. 6. PROJECT LOCATION The Urban Forest Master Plan is a policy document which is applicable throughout the entire City of Palo Alto. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 4 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Various General Plan designations apply. The Urban Forest Master Plan is a policy document which is applicable throughout the entire City of Palo Alto. 8. ZONING Various Zoning districts apply. The Urban Forest Master Plan is a policy document which is applicable throughout the entire City of Palo Alto. 9. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The City of Palo Alto (City) is proposing to adopt and implement the City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan [UFMP] (Project). The UFMP is intended to provide a vision for the City’s urban forest, and guide future activities relating to the urban forest over the 10-year horizon of the UFMP. The UFMP establishes the quantitative and the qualitative value of the City’s urban forest, documents the baseline conditions for future monitoring, identifies community concerns and opinions relating to the urban forest, outlines key challenges and potential conflicts facing the urban forest, and provides an action plan for the future. The action plan establishes goals, policies, and programs to guide the Urban Forestry Division of the City to achieve its vision for the urban forest—maintaining the health and sustainability of the urban forest, minimizing conflicts with infrastructure and development, and increasing climate adaptability. A brief summary of the UFMP is provided below. The UFMP is also available on the City’s website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187. Vision The vision of the UFMP is as follows: Palo Alto’s urban forest will be a model of form and function— a complement of diverse yet symbiotic ecotypes that will mirror the city’s vibrant and thriving population and provide a tangible connection to nature. Trees, vegetation, soil, air, water, and wildlife will be valued for their individual and interdependent attributes— and cared for as a whole. Natural processes will be undisturbed, supplemented, emulated, or mitigated as appropriate. Both tangible and intangible benefits of green infrastructure will be valued and stewardship will reflect collaboration by City leaders, City staff, residents, property owners, business owners, and partners. Careful management that prioritizes efficiency and innovation and takes advantage of technological advances will ensure the continuance of these benefits and advances. Opportunities presented by new development will be optimized and negative impacts of new development will be minimized. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 5 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Urban Forest Boundary In concept, the urban forest encompasses all the trees, plants, and associated organisms that inhabit the shared ecosystem within Palo Alto. The UFMP identifies a specific boundary for the urban forest to allow for meaningful analysis and future monitoring (see Figure 1, Project Location and Urban Forest Boundary). Urban Forest Master Plan Page 6 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Figure 1: Project Location and Urban Forest Boundary Urban Forest Master Plan Page 7 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration The urban forest boundary encompasses the area between Highways 101 and 280 as well as the Municipal Golf Course and a small area west of 280 that includes a single-family neighborhood zoned Residential Estate. Certain areas within the City were excluded from the urban forest boundary, including the Airport, the Baylands, Pearson Arastradero Preserve, Foothills Park, and the majority of private lands west of Highway 101, as landscape decisions in these areas are subject to rigorous review and other, more restrictive policies and regulations. As part of the plan implementation and obtaining additional information through programs and monitoring, the City may modify the urban forest boundary or other parameters that define the urban forest. Scope of the UFMP Many urban forest master plans are only about street trees. However, the City’s UFMP addresses both public and private trees, given that the City already has a well-established street tree program and private trees make up the bulk of the City’s urban forest. The goals, policies, and programs (see below) of the UFMP address the entire urban forest. The objectives of the UFMP are to: (1) establish the value and benefits of the urban forest to Palo Alto’s high quality of life; (2) document baselines for future monitoring; (3) engage the community to address challenges and concerns; and (4) provide goals, policies, and programs for plan implementation. Baseline Information Baseline information in the UFMP includes an analysis of the benefits and value of the urban forest and information regarding canopy cover and composition of the urban forest as a whole, and street trees in particular. This baseline information is further discussed below. Benefits and Value As part of the UFMP development, the i-Tree streets model was used in the assessment of benefits and value of the urban forest. The i-Tree streets model monetizes the value of the City’s street trees. The analysis indicates that the value of the benefits of City’s street trees substantially exceeds the cost of maintaining the trees. The analysis further indicates that street trees have the following benefits: x Building energy use reduction – shading and climate effect of the street trees provides an annual electricity- and natural gas-reduction benefit. x Carbon dioxide sequestration – urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by direct absorption and sequestration, by shading parked cars and hardscape thereby reducing release of hydrocarbons, and by lowering the demand for heating and air conditioning thereby avoiding emissions associated with electricity generation and natural gas consumption. x Air quality – urban tree species vary in their ability to produce net air quality benefits. All trees emit various biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs), however most species contribute benefits to overall air quality, which far outweigh the BVOC emissions. The benefits of urban trees include absorption of small particulate matter and gases; increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis; reducing energy demand thereby reducing pollutants Urban Forest Master Plan Page 8 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration emitted from electricity generation or natural gas consumption; and reducing air temperature thereby reducing ozone levels. x Storm water runoff reductions – urban trees reduce runoff and associated pollutants through interception of rainfall by leaves and branches; delaying flows and reducing volume of peak flows; increasing the rate of soil infiltration through root growth and decomposition; reducing soil erosion and surface flows by diminishing the impact of raindrops. x Aesthetics and property values – trees make a community more attractive and add value to property. x Ecological values – urban trees improve the overall function of the ecosystem, provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, and support insects through pollination, which move energy up the food chain. x Social and health benefits – trees also provide tangible and intangible social benefits such as connection to nature, connection to the past and future, a sense of calm, etc. Canopy Cover The City commissioned a study to compare Palo Alto’s overall urban canopy for the years of 1982 and 2010 (Xiao, 2011), and also commissioned an analysis of the City’s street-tree canopy (Davey Resource Group, 2010). In 2010, the overall canopy cover density within the urban forest boundary was 37.6 percent, with residential neighborhoods averaging 41.1 percent, commercial/industrial areas averaging 23.6 percent, and the golf course averaging 13.8 percent. Within residential neighborhoods, canopy cover varied from just above 20 percent (University Park) to more than 55 percent (Old Palo Alto, Crescent Park). Residential neighborhoods in northern Palo Alto averaged nearly 20 percent higher canopy cover than residential neighborhoods in southern Palo Alto. The 2010 canopy cover represents an increase of 4.8 percent since 1982 for the overall canopy, an average 4.5 percent increase for residential neighborhoods, an average 9.6 percent increase for commercial/industrial areas, and a 7.1 percent increase at the golf course. Changes in canopy cover in individual neighborhoods between 1982 and 2010 varied from decreases between 0.4 and 6.3 percent (Greenmeadow, Charleston Meadows, Fairmeadow), to increases of over 60 percent (Oak Creek, University Park). The analysis of street tree cover (Davey Resource Group, 2010) found that the canopy cover over the streets and sidewalks is 36.8 percent, and that 92.5 percent of viable street tree sites are already occupied. Composition Several sources were used to provide information about the composition of the City’s urban forest, including: the Oakwell Survey (oak trees only; Canopy, 1997); list of Heritage Trees; inventory of private trees within utility easements; approved landscape plans showing designated trees, and the Right-of-Way Urban Forest Resource Analysis (for street trees only; Davey Resource Group, 2010). The following list describes the composition of the urban forest: Urban Forest Master Plan Page 9 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration x The urban forest contains approximately 9,000 oak clusters comprising approximately 13,000 single oaks; 85% of these are coast live oaks, 15% valley oaks, and 1% black oaks. 10% were street trees, 50% on single-family properties, and 18% of commercial use properties. x Seven designated heritage trees, comprising three redwoods, an oak, a silver maple, an American elm, and an Aleppo pine. x 95% of street trees are broadleaf, with 38% of the total comprising four species, southern magnolia (13.9%), London plane (9.7%), liquidamber (9.2%), and Modesto ash (5.1%). The majority of the street tree population (58%) is made up of dozens of species that are represented by ten or fewer trees each. x Almost 35% of street trees are less than 8 inches in diameter (indicating younger trees), and almost 15% are greater than 24 inches in diameter (indicating older trees). x Coast live oak is the native species with the highest representation in the street tree population (1.84%), followed by Coast redwood (0.84%) and valley oak (0.74%). Community Surveys Throughout the process of developing the UFMP, considerable community engagement was undertaken, both to disseminate information to the community regarding roles and resources within the City and wider community and to identify hot topics of concern to the community relating to trees and the urban forest. In 2011, the Master Plan team conducted an online survey to get input from a broad cross section of the community about perceptions related to trees as well as tree management by the City. More than 600 members of the community responded to the survey. The results of this survey are contained in Survey Results & Analysis for Urban Forest Master Plan Survey, which is available on the City’s website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/26236. Themes emerged from responses to open-ended questions, which were grouped into the following “hot topics:” 1. What trees mean / importance of trees 2. Species selection 3. Drought and water constraints 4. Negative impacts from development 5. Negative impacts from city projects and maintenance activities 6. Tree removals 7. Communication from the City 8. Disparity between north and south Palo Alto 9. City performance and budget Urban Forest Master Plan Page 10 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Challenges The UFMP identifies and describes several challenges facing the urban forest, including water usage and conservation, climate adaptation, alternative water sources, urban planning and development, and conflicts with utilities. x Water – the UFMP envisions an urban forest that is more climate-adapted, including prioritization of drought-tolerant and salt-tolerant species. The need for water conservation is apparent, however addressing the impacts of water conservation on the urban forest will require collaboration of multiple departments and possibly phased water conservation programs to allow the urban forest to adapt. Use of recycled water for irrigation can result in increased salinity, which some species do not tolerate well. x Development – due to the lack of vacant land within Palo Alto, redevelopment tends to increase development density, often leading to loss of open space and planting sites. Recent streamlining of the development review process has allowed permits to be issued prior to the installation and inspection of required tree protections, increasing noncompliance with the tree protection ordinance. x Solar – solar power is important to the City’s renewable energy program; however existing City policy does not address the potential impacts of the increasing interest in the use of solar panels—instead of trees—to meet the zoning requirement for 50 percent shading of parking lots. x Line Clearing – power line clearing is necessary to comply with State law, to help ensure continued service and for safety reasons. However, such clearing can result in a less-than- desirable tree form. The City’s Right Tree Right Place Program seeks to reduce the number of conflicts by encouraging and/or subsidizing the planting of smaller trees near power lines, however this will diminish the number of large broadleaf trees within the City. Stewardship The UFMP provides information about the various roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in stewardship of the urban forest; describes the various City policies, plans, protocols, guidelines, and programs that are currently applicable to the urban forest; and describes current field activities and resources. Section IX of this Initial Study elaborates on the City’s applicable policies and regulations related to the UFMP. Goals, Policies, and Programs The UFMP sets out the goals, policies, and programs that will be implemented in order to achieve the vision of the UFMP. Some of the challenges that have driven the development of the goals, policies, and programs are summarized in Table 1. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 11 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Table 1: Challenges that Drive the Goals, Policies, and Programs Challenges Applicable Policies Applicable Programs Need for coordinated sustainability planning 1.A., 1.G., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.A., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G. 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 2.A.i., 2. A.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.vi., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.iii., 3.B.i., 3.B.iii., 3.B.iv., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.v., 4.E.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.ii., Need for water conservation, use of recycled water and climate adaptability 1.A., 1.B., 1.C., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B. 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.C.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.B.i., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i. Prevent loss of canopy and planting sites due to development 1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 1.G., 1.H., 2.A., 2.B., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.C., 4.D., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G., 4.H., 4.K. 1.C.i., 1.C.iv., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.ii., 1.E.iii., 1.E.iv., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii.,1.H.i.,1.H.ii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.v., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 3.B.i., 3.B.ii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.v., 4.C.i., 4.C.ii., 4.D., 4.E.i. 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.ii., 4.G.v., 4.G.vi., 4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.H.ii., 4.H.iv., 4.H.v., 4.H.vi., 4.K.i., 4.K.ii., 4.K.iii., 5.1. Address the implications of power line clearing on the urban forest 1.A., 2.A., 3.A., 3.B., 4.H. 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 2.A.i., 3.A.i., 3.B.iii., 4.H.i., Address the implications of recent trends towards using solar panels rather than trees to meet shading requirements 1A., 1F., 1G., 1H., 2A., 2B., 3A., 4A., 4B., 4C., 4E., 4H. 1.A.iii., 1.D.i., 1.E.iii., 1.Fi., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 1.Hi., 1.H.ii., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.A.iii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.vi., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 2.B.iii., 3.A.ii., 3.A.v., 3.A.vii., 3.A.ix., 3.B.ii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.B.iv., 4.B.vi., 4.E.i., 4.E.ii., 4.F.i., 4.G.i., 4.G.vi., 4.H.ii. Need for tools to help staff and property owners select appropriate tree species 1.A., 1.B., 1.D., 1.E., 1.Hi., 2.A., 2.C., 3.A., 3.B., 4.A., 4.B., 4.E., 4.G., 4.H., 4.I. 1.A.i., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.B.ii., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.iii., 1.H.ii., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.A.vi., 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.i., 3.B.i., 3.B.iii., 4.A.i., 4.A.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.iv., 4.E.i., 4.G.i., 4.G.v., 4.G.vi.,4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.H.ii., 4.I.vii., 4.I.ix. Need for continued community outreach to establish a partnership between staff and the community to steward the entire urban forest 1.D., 1.H., 2.A., 2.A., 3.A., 3.B., 4.G., 4.I., 4.K. 1.D.i., 1.H.ii., 2.A.iv., 2.A.v., 3.A.i., 3.A.ii., 3.A.iii., 3.A.iv., 3.A.v., 3.A.vi., 3.A.vii., 3.B.iv., 4.G.iii., 4.I.x., 4.I.xiii., 4.K.ii., Investigate and reverse the disparity between north & south Palo Alto 1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 1.G., 3.A., 3.B., 4.B., 4.E., 4.F., 4.G., 4.K. 1.C.i., 1.D.i., 1.E.i., 1.E.iii., 1.E.v., 1E.vi., 1.F.i., 1.G.i., 1.G.ii., 3.A.i., 3.B.i., 3.B.ii., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.E.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.v., 4.G.viii., 4.K.ii.. Include programs for the parks, preserves, and natural areas outside 1.A., 1.B., 1.G., 2.A., 2.B., 2.C., 3.A., 1.A.ii., 1.A.iii., 1.B.i., 1.G.i., 2.A.i., 2.A.ii., 2.B.i., 2.B.iii., 2.B.iv., 2.B.v., Urban Forest Master Plan Page 12 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Table 1: Challenges that Drive the Goals, Policies, and Programs Challenges Applicable Policies Applicable Programs the urban forest 4.B., 4.F., 4.G., 4.I., 4.J., 5.1 2.C.i., 2.C.ii., 2.C.iii., 3.A.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.F.i., 4.G.ii., 4.G.iv., 4.G.vi., 4.I.i., 4.I.ii., 4.I.iii., 4.I.iv., 4.I.v. 4.I.v., 4.I.,vii., 4.I.viii., 4.I.ix., 4.I.x., 4.I.xi., 4.I.xii., 4.I.xiii., 4.I.xiv., 4.J.i., Monitor changes to the baseline information established in the master plan 1.C., 1.D., 1.E., 1.F., 4.B., 4.F., 4.G., 4.I., 1.C.ii., 1.C.iii., 1.D.i., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 4.B.i., 4.F.i., 4.F.ii., 4.G.ii., 4.I.i., 4.I.ii., Improve the urban forestry division of the City 1.B, 1.C., 1.E., 1.F., 1.H., 2.B., 3.A., 4.B., 4.C., 4.G., 4.H., 4.I., 4.J., 4.K. (Additionally, all other policies are applicable.) 1.B.ii., 1.C.iii., 1.C.iv., 1.E.ii., 1.E.v., 1.F.i., 1.H.ii., 2.B.i., 2.B.ii., 3.A.iv., 4.B.i., 4.B.ii., 4.B.iii., 4.C.i., 4.C.ii., 4.G.i., 4.G.iii., 4.G.iv., 4.G.v., 4.G.vii., 4.G.viii., 4.G.ix., 4.H.i., 4.H.iii., 4.H.v., 4.H.vi., 4.I.vi., 4.I.viii., 4.I., ix, 4.I.x., 4.I.xii., 4.I.xiv., 4.J.i., 4.K.iii. Given that the more concrete aspects of the UFMP are embodied in the programs, the major programs included in the UFMP are outlined below. The programs have been grouped by the types of actions required, such as changes to regulation or development review procedures. The full text of the goals, policies and programs section of the UFMP is included as Attachment A: x Develop Tree Species List - Develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (1.A.ii), along with protocols for site-specific-species-selection (1.A.iii), including a list of species appropriate for areas with recycled water (2.C.iii) and consideration of golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces (4.I.vii). Encourage local nurseries to supply trees on the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (1.B.i and 1.B.ii). x Enforce Tree Protection Ordinance - Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (1.C.i) and formalizing goals to increase the ratios of native species (1.C.v). x Modify or Develop Zoning and Other Requirements - Evaluate zoning requirement for 50% shading for parking lots related to the impact of substituting solar panels for trees to meet the requirement and modify as needed (1.E.iii), consider new requirements for street trees and related irrigation (1.E.iv), develop canopy thresholds (1.G.i), explore mandates or incentives for minimum thresholds (1.G.ii) and species diversity (1.G.iii), consider development requirements such as no net loss of canopy or minimum tree plantings (4.H.iv). x Update Development Review Procedures - Update development review procedures to include strategies to reverse the decreasing canopy cover in south Palo Alto (1.D.i), to include a landscape sustainability checklist that incorporates citywide goals for water use, sustainability, stormwater management, and tree selection (2.B.ii), to ensure Urban Forestry Division is included in early phases of review (4.B.ii, 4.H.vi, 4.K.i). The Urban Forestry Division will accommodate fluctuations in the number of development applications requiring review (4.K.iii). Urban Forest Master Plan Page 13 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration x Revise Project Review Standards - Amend project review standards to evaluate potential changes to conditions of approval (1.C.iv), to reflect policy 4.C regarding relative placement of trees and turf (4.C.ii), to require new development projects to provide street trees and related irrigation (1.E.iv), to include requirements for no net canopy loss per project site and soil volume requirements for trees per species group (4.G.i). x Update Tree Technical Manual - Update the Tree Technical Manual to include criteria for viable street tree planting sites and related protocols (1.E.i), to include guidelines for reviewing projects on El Camino Real (1.H.i, 1.H.ii), to reflect policy 4.C regarding relative placement of trees and turf (4.C.i), and to include new and innovative ways to add trees in difficult circumstances, review and expand requirements for mitigating removal of existing trees, include information on structural grids, establish soil volume requirements, establish requirements for providing independent spaces for turf and trees (4.G.vii). x Update Street Tree Management Plan - Update the Street Tree Management Plan to include criteria, procedures, and strategies regarding street trees (4.G.viii). x Review City Documents - Review City Documents to determine if modification is required to reflect the updated CalGreen standards (4.A.i), Sustainable Sites Initiative (4.A.ii), and current with environmental laws, best practices, and innovative solutions (4.B.v). x Updates to Building Standards - Ensure that any updates to the City’s Building Standards considers appropriate species selection and placement of trees (4.B.iv). x Educate Staff - Educate staff regarding impacts to the urban forest (2.B.iii), implications of Resolution 9035—the Recycled Water Salinity Reduction Policy (2.C.ii), continuing need to consider bird nesting seasons during tree maintenance (4.A.iii), innovative ways to add trees to development projects and in limiting situations (4.B.i), need to include information about impacts to urban forests in staff reports on development projects (4.B.iii), arborist and pesticide application (4.J.i). x Conduct Community Outreach – Conduct community outreach and education, including working with Canopy and other organizations (1.A.ii, 1.B.i, 1.B.ii, 3.A.i through 3.A.ix, 4.G.iii, 4.I.x, 4.I.xiii, 4.K.ii, 4.K.iv). x Work with Other Departments & Agencies - Working with other City Departments, and nearby jurisdictions and agencies (1.H.ii, 2.A.i through 2.A.v, 2.B.i through 2.B.iii, 3.B.iv, 4.I.vi, 4.I.xii, 4.I.xiv, 4.K.i). x Avoid Damage and Disfigurement of Roots and Trees - Explore ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks (3.B.i), prevent conflicts between roots and infrastructure (3.B.ii, 4.H.ii) and avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing (3.B.iii). Review line clearing standards and criteria for selecting contractors (4.H.i), evaluate adequacy of contract cycle pruning policy (4.H.iii), and review and update fines and incentives relating to tree malpractice and vandalism (4.H.v). x Changes to Wood Recycling Program - Continue to utilize wood chips as mulch (2.B.iv) and explore changes to the existing urban-wood recycling program to reduce carbon release (2.B.v). Urban Forest Master Plan Page 14 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration x Create Planting Incentives - Consider incentives to plant additional trees (4.E.i) and feasibility of a tree adoption program (4.E.ii). x Collect, Collate and Analyze Information - Collect and collate additional information regarding the urban forest (1.C.ii, 1.E.ii, 1.E.v, 4.F.i, 4.F.ii, 4.G.ii, 4.G.v, 4.G.vi, 4.I.i, 4.I.ii, 4.I.ix) and improve technologies relating to urban forest and related information (1.A.i., 1.C.iii, 4.G.iii, 4.G.iv, 4.G.ix, 4.I.viii). x Monitoring Programs – Monitor removals and plantings and produce annual reports showing progress towards policy goal (I.F.i). Review and possibly modify existing monitoring programs for use of recycled water to address the effects of salinity (2.C.i) x Develop/Update Plans - Develop an Open Space Plan (4.I.iv) and update existing park plans or develop new plans (4.I.v). x Protection of Trees in Parks and Open Spaces - Require consideration of tree preservation and tree replacement for capital improvement projects within city parks and open spaces (4.I.xi). Develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in open spaces (4.I.iii). 10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING Palo Alto is located in the northern part of Santa Clara County, in the portion of the Bay Area known as the Mid-Peninsula. The City shares a boundary with San Mateo County, the Stanford University campus, and the following jurisdictions: East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, and portions of unincorporated Santa Clara County. Palo Alto comprises 16,627 acres, or about 26 square miles. Approximately 40 percent of this area is in parks and preserves and another 15 percent consists of agriculture and other open space uses. The remaining area is nearly completely developed, with single family uses predominating. Less than one percent of the City’s land area consists of vacant, developable land (City of Palo Alto, 2008). 11. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVALS REQUIRED The UFMP is subject to adoption by the City Council, in conjunction with conclusion of the CEQA process and adoption of a CEQA document. There are no other public agencies that must issue permits or approvals for the UFMP. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 15 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 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) “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) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) 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. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 16 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify whether the Project could result in significant environmental impacts. The basis for each answer is included in the discussion portion of each checklist category. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources cited are identified at the end of this Initial Study. A. AESTHETICS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1 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, 3 X e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 X f) Substantially shadow public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21? 1 X DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP would not include any physical development or construction projects which would degrade existing visual character or quality, or adversely impact public views, view corridors, or scenic resources. The UFMP seeks to create a well-developed citywide urban forest that maximizes environmental and aesthetic benefits while trying to minimize conflicts with infrastructure and water- conservation goals (Goal 1). Policy 1.G of the UFMP strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, and Policy 4.E provides incentives to increase canopy cover. Several UFMP programs, such as community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii), potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted. All of the above policies and programs would generally result in beneficial impacts to visual character, public views, and scenic resources throughout the City. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 17 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Other programs, such as the development of site-specific-species-selection criteria (Program 1.A.iii) and encouragement of more drought-tolerant and climate-adapted species through development of a preferred and restricted species list (Program 1.A.ii) might result in changes to the composition of the urban forest and distribution of large broadleaf trees throughout the City. However, these changes would not cause substantial adverse effects to visual character, public views, and scenic resources throughout the City. Implementation of the UFMP would not conflict with any City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies relating to visual resources, as most of the policies relate to the scale and intensity of buildings and structures, architectural design, and/or land use, none of which would be impacted by implementation of the UFMP. The vision and goals of the UFMP are supported by Policy L-70 of the Comprehensive Plan, which seeks to enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. Overall, impacts of the UFMP related to visual character, public views, and scenic resources would be less than significant. Implementation of the UFMP would not include the creation of any sources of light or glare, and therefore would not adversely affect day or nighttime views. Implementation of the UFMP might potentially result in additional trees being planted, some of which might potentially shadow public open spaces during the winter months. However, it is understood that this significance standard is aimed primarily at shadowing caused by new buildings and structures rather than trees. Additionally, given Programs 1.A.ii-iii, many trees would be deciduous, which would minimize the level of wintertime shade associated with new planting. Winter shading effects would also be taken into account in the development of site-specific-species-selection criteria (Program 1.A.iii). Therefore, shadow impacts of the UFMP would be less than significant. B. AGRICULTURE 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adapted by the California Air Resources Board. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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, 4 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 18 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 1, 5, 3:Map L9 X c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526? 1, 3 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, 4 X DISCUSSION: The City of Palo Alto does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), or agriculturally zoned land. There are small portions of land within the foothills area of the City which are considered Williamson Act – Non-Prime Agricultural Land or Williamson Act – Non-Renewal lands. Adoption and implementation of the UFMP would not result in any land use changes within the City, and would therefore not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the UFMP would not result in any conversion of Farmland or agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the UFMP would result in no impacts to agricultural resources. Public Resources Code section 12220(g) defines "forest land" as land that can support 10-percent 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. Public Resources Code section 4526 defines “timber land” as land which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species for lumber or other forest products, including Christmas trees. The City of Palo Alto does not contain any land zoned for forestry or timberland. The UFMP does not conflict with any existing zoning nor propose any change of zoning, and will not result in the conversion of forest land or timber land to non-forest uses. Program 4.I.iii seeks to develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in open spaces, including forest restoration; and Program 4.I.iv seeks to develop an Open Space Plan that includes best management practices for forest restoration. The UFMP would therefore likely have beneficial effects on forests within the City. Implementation of the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts on forestry resources. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 19 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration C. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (2010 Clean Air Plan)? 1, 6 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation indicated by the following: X 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 (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and fine particulate matter of less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10); 1, 7 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, 7 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, 7 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants? 1 X i) Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl) exceeds 10 in one million 1 X ii) Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs would result in a hazard index greater than one (1) for the MEl 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 20 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 1 X f) Not implement all applicable construction emission control measures recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines? 1, 7 X DISCUSSION: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has developed CEQA Guidelines, which indicate that a proposed project could be determined to be consistent with the BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan if the project: 1.Supports the primary goals of the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The primary goals of the plan are to: (1) attain air quality standards; (2) reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protect the climate. 2.Includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan. 3.Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any Clean Air Plan control measures. Attainment of Air Quality Standards: The Bay Area is currently designated as non-attainment for both the 1-hour and 8-hour state ozone standards and is designated as non-attainment for the national 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. The UFMP is further evaluated below to determine whether or not the Project could impact the attainment of air quality standards. Construction Criteria Emissions: The UFMP does not include any construction activities, and would not directly or indirectly result in any additional construction within the City of Palo Alto. As such, the construction criteria emissions are not relevant to this assessment and there are no construction emission control measures that would apply to the UFMP. Operational Emissions: Achievement of the UFMP vision and goals through implementation of the programs in the UFMP would likely result in no net loss of canopy cover throughout the City and a slow change in the composition of the urban forest through development of the preferred and restricted species list, community outreach, and other proposed measures. No operational activities that create emissions are directly included within the UFMP, therefore the operational thresholds of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are not applicable to the Project. Impacts of the UFMP implementation on air quality would be beneficial, including: x An overall increase in the percentage of urban forest species that have lower biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emissions, and therefore higher net benefits to air quality. At present, four of the top ten most prevalent species in the public tree inventory (liquidamber, southern magnolia, coast live oak, and red oak) are high BVOC emitters. Implementation of the UFMP Urban Forest Master Plan Page 21 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration would include development of a Preferred and Restricted Species List, which would include consideration of BVOC emissions (among other factors). Over time, the Preferred and Restricted Species List would likely result in a higher percentage of lower BVOC emitting species within the urban forest, and therefore an overall reduction in the emission of BVOCs. x The presence of trees throughout the City reduces air temperature which in turn reduces ozone levels and decreases energy consumption—thereby reducing the amount of air pollutants being emitted into the atmosphere from energy generation facilities. Trees also increase oxygen levels through photosynthesis and absorb or intercept nitrogen dioxide, small particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and ozone. A decrease in canopy cover throughout the City would decrease such benefits to air quality. The UFMP strives for no net loss of canopy cover throughout the City (Policy 1.G), and other programs such as community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii) or potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted. Therefore, implementation of the UFMP would result in beneficial impacts to air quality. Reduce Population Exposure and Protect Public Health: As noted above, most tree species have positive impacts on air quality. The implementation of the UFMP would likely result in an increase in the number of trees within the City that are low BVOC emitters (and decrease in number of high BVOC emitters), as well as maintenance and/or increase in the overall canopy cover within the City. This would result in a reduction of population exposure to air contaminants and would serve to protect public health. Reduce GHG Emissions and Protect the Climate: As noted above, trees can help to reduce the need for energy consumption for cooling and heating, which reduces GHG emissions. Implementation of the UFMP and achievement of its vision and goals would likely result in maintenance and/or a net increase in the overall canopy cover within the City, thereby reducing GHG emissions from energy consumption. Clean Air Plan Control Measures: Adoption and implementation of the UFMP would support the following applicable control measures from the 2010 Clean Air Plan (Table 1), and would not disrupt or otherwise interfere with the implementation of such control measures. Table 1: Applicable Control Measures of the 2010 Clean Air Plan Control Measure Applicability ECM-1 Energy efficiency The Project strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, which would reduce the need for air conditioning and other energy-intensive. ECM-2 Renewable energy The Project (particularly Goal 2 and Policy 2.a) seeks a citywide sustainability plan that coordinates the goals of the UFMP with those related to solar energy. ECM-3 Urban heat island mitigation The Project strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City. Greater canopy densities would reduce the urban heat island phenomenon. ECM-4 Shade tree planting The Project seeks to increase shading in urban and suburban communities through planting of (low BVOC emitting) trees and preservation of natural vegetation and ground cover. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 22 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Clean Air Plan Consistency: Given the above, the Project would be consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan and would not violate air quality standards. Additionally, implementation of the UFMP would not result in any activities which would emit substantial toxic air contaminants or odors. Therefore, the impact of the UFMP with respect to toxic air contaminants and odors would be less than significant. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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? 1,3:Map N1 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? 1,3:Map N1 X c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1 X 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, 3, 11, 12 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 City of Palo Alto is home to a wide range of wildlife, including the twelve candidate, sensitive, and special-status animal species listed in Table 2 below. The City also contains habitat for such species, as well as riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. An additional twenty-four species of rare, threatened or endangered plants also have the potential to occur within the City, most likely within the grassland and chaparral habitats of the foothills, and in the marsh habitat of the Baylands. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 23 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Table 2: Special-Status Animal Species Known within Palo Alto Class: Species: Birds: American kestrel California clapper rail Great horned owl Northern harrier Sharp-shinned hawk Yellow warbler Mammals: Salt marsh harvest mouse Amphibians: California red-legged frog California tiger salamander Reptiles: Northwestern pond turtle Fish: Steelhead trout Insects: Bay checkerspot butterfly Implementation of the UFMP would not adversely affect any of the above special-status species or their habitats. Policy 4.I of the UFMP would strive for optimal conditions in the natural areas of the City’s preserves and open spaces, and Programs such as 1.A.iii and 4.I.vii would seek to improve or protect habitats through consideration of the importance of native species in natural areas, creation of understory to provide shelter for birds, and the need for evergreen canopy to support watershed protection and wildlife habitat. Programs 4.A.iii and 4.H.iii in particular would ensure that existing tree maintenance and pruning practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons, in order to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds. Policy 2.C of the UFMP would allow for continued monitoring of salinity levels in recycled water and explore options to improve leaching, which would have beneficial impacts on existing trees and habitats that are sensitive to salinity levels. The impacts of the UFMP related to special-status species would be less than significant. As noted in the UFMP, trees provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife that might otherwise have a difficult time living in our cities. Native trees support insects that provide pollination services and that move energy up the food chain from plants to birds, frogs, lizards and other wildlife. Additionally, by reducing soil erosion and the amount of pollutants that reach the Bay, trees support aquatic and riparian wildlife as well as micro-organisms that live in the soil itself. The goal of the UFMP for a well- developed, citywide urban forest (Goal 1) would therefore have beneficial impacts on biological resources. Implementation of the UFMP would not involve any activities which would result in the direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other alteration to riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands, or interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts related to riparian habitat, wetlands or the movement of species. Program 1.C.i of the UFMP would continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance and the UFMP as a whole complements, rather than conflicts with, the Ordinance. Therefore, the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There are no applicable Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. Therefore, the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts related to conflicts with such plans. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 24 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration E. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural resource that is recognized by City Council resolution? 1 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? 1, 3:Map L8 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 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 X f) Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X DISCUSSION: The proposed UFMP does not directly involve any ground disturbance; however some indirect ground disturbance might potentially result from implementation of some UFMP programs. For example, community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii) or potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted with associated ground disturbance. Development of open space and/or park plans (Programs 4.I.iv and 4.I.v) might potentially result in additional ground-disturbing activities within such areas. However, such changes are difficult to quantify and speculative to analyze. Such activities could take place in the future with or without implementation of the UFMP. Tree planting associated with development projects and/or plans would be subject to project-level CEQA analyses, where applicable, and any site-specific impacts related to cultural resources would be evaluated at the time such projects or plans are proposed. In addition, existing regulations (Public Resources Code Section 5097, Health and Safety Code Section 7052) would apply to any ground-disturbing activities and would require that the procedures specified in those regulations be followed in the event of accidental discovery of human remains. Therefore, the impact of the UFMP on as yet unidentified archaeological or paleontological resources, or on human remains, would be less than significant. The UFMP would not include any alteration to or destruction of known cultural resources, historic structures, or important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory within the City. The City’s Historic Inventory lists approximately 400 buildings of historic merit, including 12 buildings and four districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, there are 7 sites or Urban Forest Master Plan Page 25 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration structures listed on the CA Register of Historic Landmarks, and 19 sites registered as California Points of Historical Interest, including the “El Palo Alto” redwood tree, believed to be the site of a 1776 encampment of the Portola Expedition, and protected by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance as “Heritage Tree #1”. Implementation of the UFMP does not propose any alteration or destruction of any historic structures or buildings, and Program 1.C.i would continue to enforce the Tree Protection Ordinance, thereby protecting El Palo Alto. Therefore, implementation of the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to known cultural resources. F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X 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. 1, 13 X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 1,3:Map N10 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1, 3:Map N5 X iv) Landslides? 1, 3:Map N5 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?1 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? 1,3:Map N5 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? 1, 3:Map N5 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 f) Expose people or property to major geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated through the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques? 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 26 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Although the City is likely to be subject to severe seismic shaking at some stage in the future, implementation of the UFMP would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death; or to major geologic hazards. Although unstable geological units and soils, highly erosive soils, and expansive soils are present in some parts of the City, the UFMP does not include any activities that would impact such soils/geological units, and would not create substantial risks to life or property, or result in substantial erosion, loss of topsoil, or on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. If the goals, policies, and programs of the UFMP are achieved, beneficial impacts relating to erosion and soils would result, as urban trees reduce the amount of stormwater runoff, which can cause erosion and siltation, in three ways: 1. Tree leaves and branches intercept rainfall and act as mini-reservoirs that delay flows and reduce the volume of peak flows. This is especially important in urban settings with significant impervious surfaces near waterways. 2. Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall— thereby reducing overland flow. 3. Tree canopies reduce soil erosion and surface flows by diminishing the impact of raindrops on barren surfaces. Policy 1.G of the UFMP strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, and Policy 4.E provides incentives to increase canopy. Several UFMP programs, such as community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii), potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted, which would likely result in beneficial impacts relating to soil erosion and siltation. Therefore, the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to soil erosion and siltation. Additionally, the UFMP does not include septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, the UFMP would have no adverse impacts with respect to soil limitations for septic systems. G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact NoImpact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1, 7 X b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 27 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: In 2006, the State of California enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB32 requires reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Meeting the AB32 reduction targets will require an approximately 30 percent reduction compared with a “business as usual” scenario. The state’s plan for meeting these reduction targets is outlined in the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB)2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan and the subsequent 2014 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) defines a control strategy that the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate. As discussed in Section C, Air Quality above, the proposed Project is consistent with the CAP. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines establish screening criteria based on the size of a project, to determine whether detailed modeling to estimate GHG emissions is necessary. As described in Section C, Air Quality above, no construction or operational activities that create emissions are directly included within the UFMP, therefore the GHG construction and operational thresholds of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are not applicable to the Project. In 2007, the City adopted a Climate Protection Plan (CPP) which presents a comprehensive inventory of municipal and community-generated emissions, proposed reduction targets, and practical steps to reach those targets. The Long Term Goal of the CPP was a reduction of emissions by 15% of 2005 levels (equal to 119,140 metric tons of CO2) by 2020. The CPP acknowledges that the City has CO2 “sinks”, such as city-owned trees (but does not include these sinks in the CPP), and notes that the City is developing an UFMP. It recommends that future reports and updates include the impact of municipal and community actions to increase biotic sinks and sequestration impacts and coordinate the CPP actions with those of the UFMP. The CPP includes utility programs relating to the urban forest, including employing urban forest opportunities to reduce energy use and increase carbon sequestration. Utilities are required to participate in American Public Power Association’s “Tree Power” program, promote use of shade trees that reduce energy use and trap carbon as an extension to the “Right Tree in Right Place” program, using a mix of education and financial incentives, and coordinate with the UFMP. The proposed Project would not conflict with the CPP or otherwise impair the state’s ability to comply with AB32. Urban trees reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) both directly and indirectly, in the following ways: x Trees absorb and sequester CO2. x Trees shade parked cars and hardscape thereby reducing the release of hydrocarbons that are involved in ozone formation. x Trees lower the demand for air conditioning (by reducing how much radiant heat is transferred into buildings and by reducing ambient temperatures by using solar energy that would otherwise Urban Forest Master Plan Page 28 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration heat the air) and heating (by reducing windspeed and therefore how much cold air moves into a building through openings or is conducted in through window surfaces). This in turn reduces the emissions of GHGs associated with electric power generation and natural gas consumption. The i-Tree streets analysis undertaken as part of the UFMP development indicates that the City’s existing street trees directly sequester approximately 2,250 tons per year of CO2, and indirectly avoid the emission of approximately 1,500 tons/year of CO2. The existing street trees also contribute approximately 395 tons/year of CO2, through emissions from vehicles and combustion engines associated with tree maintenance and from decomposing biomass when trees die. Overall, the existing street tree population therefore results in a net reduction of 3,437.5 tons/year of CO2, which is equal to a net reduction of approximately 0.118 tons/year per street tree. Privately owned trees would also contribute a net reduction in CO2 emissions, but this has not been quantified. As noted previously, Policy 1.G of the UFMP strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, Policy 4.E provides incentives to increase canopy cover, and multiple programs might result in additional trees being planted within the City. Additionally, Program 1.A.ii seeks to develop a preferred and restricted species list that would consider energy use reduction potential and carbon sequestration potential. Therefore, implementation of the UFMP would likely result in a greater number of trees within the City, and therefore the benefits of the existing urban forest in relation to GHG emissions would likely increase. Other goals, policies, and programs within the UFMP would also likely contribute to an overall reduction in GHG emissions within the City, although such impacts are much less measurable. For example: x Goal 2 is to develop a citywide Sustainability Plan that coordinates the goals of the UFMP with those related to water conservation, carbon neutrality, solar energy, etc. x Policy 2.A. states that the City’s Sustainability Plan shall incorporate the contributions and needs (including water needs) of the urban forest emphasizing the importance of carbon sequestration by the urban forest and the need to preserve canopy and ecosystems; and identify conflicts between the goals of the urban forest and other sustainability concepts—and advise about mitigation. x Programs 2.A.i, 2.A.ii, and 2.A.v require collaboration with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the preferred and restricted species list; to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs; and to create a guidance document on how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design. x Program 2.B.v would explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end productions that do not break the wood down (and therefore will allow the carbon to remain sequestered within the wood). Implementation of the UFMP would not increase GHG emissions or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to reducing GHGs. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 29 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 1 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 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 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, 14, 3:Map N9 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 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, 15, 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? 1,3: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 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 30 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP would not result in any routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; reasonably foreseeable accidental release of hazardous materials; hazardous emissions; handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste; or construction near any existing or proposed school. Although several properties within the City are included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, implementation of the UFMP would not result in any physical activities on or impacting these properties, and would not expose future occupants or users to contamination in excess of cleanup goals. The UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to hazardous materials. The UFMP would not involve any activities which would result in a safety hazard with respect to airports or private airstrips. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Palo Alto Emergency Operations Plan. The UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to air safety or emergency response. The foothills portion of the City is defined as high or medium risk for wildland fires. Program 4.I.xiv of the UFMP would explore a collaboration between relevant local fire protection districts and CAL FIRE regarding an educational campaign to inform homeowners about selecting species and pruning trees to achieve “defensible spaces” as part of vegetation management in appropriate areas of the City. Implementation of the UFMP would therefore likely result in beneficial impacts associated with reduced wildland fire risks. The UFMP would result in no adverse impacts related to fire hazards. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 1, 3 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 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 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 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 31 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact in flooding on- or off-site? 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 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1 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? 1,3:Map N8 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3:Map N6 X k) Result in stream bank instability? 1 X DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP would not 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. The goals, policies and programs within the UFMP (e.g., Goals 1, 2; Policies 1.A, 2.B, 4.C; Programs 1.A.ii, 1.A.iii, 2.B.ii, 4.C.i, 4.C.ii;) seek to address water conservation issues and increase the climate adaptability of the urban forest. Implementation of the UFMP would not substantially alter any existing drainage patterns, streams or rivers, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, stream bank instability, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so as to cause flooding. Nor would it create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Urban trees reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and pollutants that reach water bodies in three ways: 1. Tree leaves and branches intercept rainfall and act as mini-reservoirs that delay flows and reduce the volume of peak flows. This is especially important in urban settings with significant impervious surfaces near waterways. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 32 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration 2. Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall— thereby reducing overland flow. 3. Tree canopies reduce soil erosion and surface flows by diminishing the impact of raindrops on barren surfaces. As previously discussed, Policy 1.G of the UFMP strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, and Policy 4.E provides incentives to increase canopy. Several UFMP programs, such as community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii), potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted. Therefore, implementation of the UFMP would likely result in additional urban trees within the City, which would have beneficial impacts related to stormwater. The UFMP would not result in adverse impacts related to stormwater. The UFMP would not include the construction of housing or other structures, and would therefore not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. J. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Physically divide an established community? 1 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, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1 X d) Substantially adversely change the type or intensity of existing or planned land use in the area? 1 X e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with the general character of the surrounding area, including density and building height? 1 X f) Conflict with established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses of an area? 1 X DISCUSSION: The UFMP does not propose any land use changes and would not alter the type or intensity of existing or planned land use. The UFMP does not include any physical development or construction, and therefore Urban Forest Master Plan Page 33 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration would not be incompatible with adjacent land uses or general character of the area, or conflict with any established residential, recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses. Additionally, implementation of the UFMP would not result in any activities that would physically divide a community, and there is no applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan that applies to the Project. Several City plans, policies and regulations are of relevance to the UFMP, as shown in Table 3 below. Table 3: Summary of Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations Plan/Policy/Regulation Relevance of Policy to the UFMP Comprehensive Plan (1998) The “Natural Environment” chapter establishes: • A goal for “...a thriving urban forest that provides ecological, economic and aesthetic benefits...” • A policy to protect, revitalize, and expand the urban forest. • Programs to implement the policy and achieve the goal. The “Community Services” and “Land Use and Design” chapters include protective programs that apply to development and capital improvement projects. Municipal Code Title 8 (1996): • Establishes City control of trees on public land. • Incorporates the tree protection ordinance. • Provides protection for certain trees. • Authorizes the Tree Technical Manual. Title 12 prohibits defective irrigation equipment. Title 16: • Incorporates California Green Building Standards • Establishes the existence of “recycled water project areas.” • Requires installation of recycled water infrastructure and separate meters for certain projects within the “recycled water project areas.” Titles 18 and 21 include landscaping requirements for private development Title 22 protects trees in parks and open space. Titles 2, 16, 18, and 21 also encourage installation of solar panels. Climate Protection Plan (2006) In 2006, the mayor’s Green Ribbon Task Force recommended to: • Expand City urban forest management/master plan to recognize energy savings and CO2 sequestration benefits. • Expand utilities’ “right tree in the right place” program to accommodate solar access for PV and hot water. • Increase tree canopy coverage for parking lots. Reduces fuel consumption for car air conditioners and heat island effect.” In 2007, the Climate Protection Plan states: • Employ Urban Forest Opportunities to Reduce Energy Use and Increase Carbon Sequestration. • Promote use of shade trees that reduce energy use and trap carbon as an extension to the “Right Tree in Right Place” program. • Implement water efficiency. Examples might include Xeriscaping, weather linked irrigation controllers, native plantings. Urban Water Management Plan (2011) The 2011 update includes a multi-faceted program that assists residents and property owners upgrade irrigation systems to avoid wasting water. For the “recycled water project areas”, the UWMP Table 9 indicates a potential 3- fold increase in the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation over the next 4 Urban Forest Master Plan Page 34 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Table 3: Summary of Relevant Plans, Policies, and Regulations Plan/Policy/Regulation Relevance of Policy to the UFMP years. For City facilities, the UWMP Table 11 indicates only limited increases stating, “...The City has not made a commitment to expand the use of recycled water in the City...” Utilities Strategic Plan (2011) The stated mission of this plan is to , “Provide valued utility services to customers and dependable returns to the City” and includes the following “Key Strategies with Tactics”: • Key Strategy 1-M: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of under grounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. • Key Strategy 1-N: Continue with line clearing and vegetation management activities and meet the goal of 9000 trees per year that interfere with power lines. • Strategy 6 includes continued support for the Right Tree Right Place as well as the Shade Tree Program. Public Tree Removal Policy In 2009 the City established protocols for street tree removal that provide: • Detailed criteria for determining if a street tree should be removed. • A detailed series of steps to follow including inspections, authorizations, and notification prior to removing the street tree. Recycled Water Policy (2010)—Resolution 9035 The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the City is taking all practical steps to reduce salinity in recycled water and that the policy acts to prevent unnecessary additions of salt to the sewer system, with a goal of lowering the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the recycled water to less than 600 parts per million (PPM). The policy statement also includes development of “alternatives for reducing the salinity levels.” Baylands Master Plan (2008) Includes design guidelines that promote low native marsh vegetation allowing for panoramic views that are not interrupted by tall trees. Various Park and Facility Master Plans Trees within different parks face different challenges and the Urban Forest Master Plan includes a program that calls for updating and/or developing park plans where appropriate. The UFMP acknowledges that a healthy urban canopy cover with related ecological benefits such as carbon sequestration would require the retention and continued planting of large stature broadleaf species, but that potential issues might arise with respect to the following topics: x An emphasis on drought and recycled-water tolerance may result in choosing trees with less dense canopies. x Solar panel installations may result in the voluntary removal of large trees or may prevent new large trees from being planted. x The “Right Tree Right Place” program subsidizes the exchange of large trees for smaller ones near power lines. x An emphasis on appropriate species for riparian corridors may result in choosing smaller trees. x An emphasis on wildlife benefits in parks and natural areas—as well as the increasing importance of local food—may result in choosing smaller, fruiting trees. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 35 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration The UFMP does not propose any activities which would directly conflict with plans, policies, or regulations, but rather acknowledges such potential conflicts and seeks to collaborate with the relevant City departments to discuss the issues and resolutions (e.g., Programs 2.A.i through 2.A.v, 2.B.i through 2.B.iii). Therefore, impacts of the UFMP with respect to conflicts with applicable plans, policies and regulations would be less than significant. K. MINERAL RESOURCES. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact 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 of Palo Alto has been classified by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) as a Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1). This designation signifies that there are no aggregate resources in the area. The DMG has not classified the City for other mineral resources, and the 2010 Comprehensive Plan does not identify any locally or regionally valuable mineral resources within the City. Therefore, the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to mineral resources. L. NOISE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project result in: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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, 16 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? 1 X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 36 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project result in: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 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 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 X i) Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an existing residential area where the Ldn currently exceeds 60 dB? 1 X j) Result in indoor noise levels for residential development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB? 1 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 X l) Generate construction noise exceeding the daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors by 10 dB A or more? 1 X DISCUSSION: The UFMP does not propose any activities that would result in any construction or operational activities that would generate noise. As previously discussed, Policy 1.G of the UFMP strives for no net loss in canopy cover within the City, and Policy 4.E provides incentives to increase canopy. Several UFMP programs, such as community outreach and education activities (e.g., Program 4.K.ii), potential changes to development permit review processes and conditions of approval (e.g., Programs 1.E.iv, 4.G.i) or to zoning and other requirements (e.g., Programs 1.E.iii, 1.E.iv, 1.G.i, 1.G.ii, 4.H.iv) could result in additional trees being planted. Additional tree planting in the City would result in nominal, localized, and short-term increases in noise as a result of any equipment that may be needed during tree planting and subsequent maintenance activities. Therefore, the impacts of the UFMP related to noise would be less than significant. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 37 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration M. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1 X d) Create a substantial imbalance between employed residents and jobs? 1 X e) Cumulatively exceed regional or local population projections? 1 X DISCUSSION: The UFMP does not include any goals, policies, or programs relating to housing or population. Implementation of the UFMP would not create a significant number of new jobs to induce substantial population growth in the area, and would not displace existing housing or people, or create an imbalance between employed residents and jobs. The UFMP would result in no adverse impacts (including cumulative impacts) with respect to population or housing. N. PUBLIC SERVICES. Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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? 1 X - Police protection? 1 X - Schools? 1 X - Parks? 1 X - Other public facilities?1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 38 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP may potentially result in changes to City-owned parks and open space, through the development of open space plans (Program 4.I.iv), the updating of existing (or development of new) park plans (Program 4.I.v), and /or development of a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in open spaces (Program 4.I.iii). However, such changes would not result in new or expanded park or recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The impact of the UFMP with respect to parks would be less than significant. Implementation of the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts with respect to the provision of fire or police protection services, schools or other public facilities within the City. O. RECREATION Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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 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 X DISCUSSION: As discussed above in relation to public services, implementation of the UFMP may potentially result in changes to City-owned parks and open space, through the development of open space plans (Program 4.I.iv), the updating of existing (or development of new) park plans (Program 4.I.v), and/or development of a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in open spaces (Program 4.I.iii). It is not anticipated that such changes would result in any acceleration or physical deterioration of recreational facilities. While a new park plan might feasibly include actions requiring the construction of additional recreational facilities, such potential actions would not be included in the park plan as a result of the UFMP. Therefore, the UFMP would not result in new or expanded recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The impact of the UFMP with respect to parks and recreation would be less than significant. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 39 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration P. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 1 X b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 1 X c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 1 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity that impacts traffic circulation and air quality? 1 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1, 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 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 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 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 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 40 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact operating at LOS F? l) Cause any change in traffic that would increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more? 1 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 tum 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 X n) Impede the development or function of planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities? 1 X o) Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of congestion? 1 X p) Create an operational safety hazard? 1 X DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP includes some programs that might generate minor amounts of traffic, such as community outreach meetings (e.g., Programs 3.A.i and 3.A.iv). Such activities would not be a regular occurrence, and would generate negligible increases in traffic volumes. There would be no impact on the capacity or functioning of the existing circulation system (including pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit facilities); intersection congestion; levels of service; travel demand measures; Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment index; or queuing due to traffic levels generated by programs and activities within the UFMP. Implementation of the UFMP would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, or in inadequate emergency access or parking capacity, and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Implementation of the UFMP would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, or create an operational safety hazard. Consideration of potential visibility issues (e.g., at intersections) would be included within the site-specific-species-selection protocols developed under Program 1.A.iii. Implementation of the UFMP would result in no adverse impacts relating to transportation/traffic. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 41 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1 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 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 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 1 X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 1 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 1 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 X h) Result in a substantial physical deterioration of a public facility due to increased use as a result of the project? 1 X DISCUSSION: Implementation of the UFMP would not result in any generation of waste water or solid waste, and would not result in increased use of public facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would result. There would be no impact in relation to waste water or solid waste service systems. Implementation of the UFMP would not require the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities—as discussed in Section I, Hydrology and Water Quality above, implementation of the UFMP would likely decrease stormwater runoff. There would be no adverse impacts in relation to stormwater drainage facilities. Urban Forest Master Plan Page 42 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration With respect to water supply, the UFMP contains goals, policies, and programs relating to the need for water conservation and the need for coordinated sustainability planning. Policy 1.A strives for a greater percentage of drought tolerant species within the urban forest and for appropriate species for specific site conditions, which if achieved would reduce the demand for water from the urban forest. While implementation of some UFMP policies and programs (e.g., community outreach, incentives and/or requirements for increased canopy density) may result in a greater number of trees being planted within the City, it is likely that many of these new trees would be species that require less water and/or are better suited to the use of recycled water (Programs 1.A.i, 1.B.i, 2.C.iii,), and that watering would be more efficiently applied due to programs such as Programs 4.C.i and 4.C.ii. Maintaining these standards for prioritizing drought and salt tolerant tree species that require less potable water should mean that new water facilities or water entitlements would not be required to support implementation of the UFMP, and there would be no adverse impacts relating to water supply. It is also noted that implementation of the UFMP would not adversely impact electrical utilities. While potential conflicts between the need for overhead line clearing, underground utilities, and solar energy infrastructure are identified and discussed within the UFMP, the programs and policies within the UFMP are for collaboration with the utilities department to discuss, avoid, and/or resolve such issues (e.g., Programs 1.A.iii, 2.A.iv, 2.A.v, 3.B.ii, 3.B, iii), therefore the impact of the UFMP on electrical utilities would be less than significant. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues and Supporting Information Resources Would the project: Sources Potentially SignificantIssues Potentially SignificantUnless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than SignificantImpact NoImpact 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 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 X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X Urban Forest Master Plan Page 43 Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DISCUSSION: As discussed above, the UFMP would be anticipated to have no adverse impacts or impacts that are less than significant in all of the environmental topics discussed. The Project would not result in a considerable contribution to any cumulatively significant impacts. The Project would not have any environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, and would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. Project planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. 2. Draft Urban Forest Management Plan. 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010. 4. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2014. Important Farmland Maps, Santa Clara County. 5. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2013. Santa Clara County Williamson Act FY 2013/2014. 6. BAAQMD, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. 7. BAAQMD, 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 8. California Air Resource Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan 9. California Air Resource Board, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. 10. City of Palo Alto, 2007. Climate Protection Plan. 11. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 – Zoning Ordinance. 12. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.030 – Tree Ordinance. 13. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. 14. Cal/EPA, 2015. Cortese List. 15. City of Palo Alto, 2007. Emergency Operations Plan. 16. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 9.10 – Noise Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS A. “Goals, Policies, & Programs” chapter of the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the x 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. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT 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 ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that aJthough 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. Urban Forester Date Date Urban Forest Master Plan Page 44 Attachment A: Goals, Policies, & Programs chapter of the Draft Urban Forest Master Plan City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Goal 1. A well developed citywide urban forest that: • Is a mix of native and exotic species—to minimize vulnerability to disease, storms, drought, pests, and other stressors. • Emphasizes drought-tolerant species. • Is a mix of young, semi-mature and mature ages—to facilitate uniformity in annual maintenance costs and con- tinuity of benefits. • Maximizes environmental and aesthetic benefits while trying to minimize conflicts with infrastructure and water-conservation goals. • Maximizes the potential in each neighborhood—to achieve the greatest possible canopy equity. Policy 1.A. Strive for: • Species diversity appropriate to the setting—e.g., native species should be favored in natural settings. • A greater percentage of native & drought-tolerant species where appropriate e.g., drought tolerance is not as neces- sary in riparian corridors or areas where the ground water level is higher. • Minimal undesirable traits where appropriate e.g., messy trees that produce fruit and attract bugs may be desirable in natural areas. • Appropriate species for specific site conditions . • Appropriate age diversity. • No net loss of benefits—as defined in iTree eco analysis. • No net loss of habitat or health and social benefits. Program 1.A.i. Work with Canopy to complete the online “Tree Library”— to achieve a helpful tool for staff and property owners. En- deavor to include information from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Native Plant Society about the value for birds and butterflies for species listed in the library. Ensure that searches can include multiple attributes. Program 1.A.ii. Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop a “Preferred and Restricted Species List” that will be a helpful tool for staff and property owners. The list will acknowledge differing priorities for: • Public street trees • Public park trees • Public trees in nature preserves • Private trees on residential property • Private trees on commercial property • All trees in riparian corridors The list will consider: • Energy use reduction potential • Carbon sequestration potential • Emission levels of (BVOCs) • Storm water runoff reduction potential • Aesthetics • City’s goal of 50% shading goals for rights-of-way • City’s goal to emphasize native species • City goals for conserving potable water • City goals for recycled water • Need for age diversity • Preference for species with the least undesirable traits such as surface rooting, prolific fruit or seed pro- Goals, Policies, and Programs It is worth noting that: • In this section, policies and programs are grouped under 5 over arching goals. • In the “Executive Summary”, they’re grouped under discussion topics such as “water”. • In the “Implementation Plan” the programs—or action items—are grouped in phases i.e., the chronological order of the actions. 139 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan duction, susceptibility to insects and diseases (such as sooty mold and aphids), and other documented impacts specific to a species. Note: Currently, research does not support species selection for allergens. • Ecological benefits such as shelter, food, and nesting sites—for both resident and migratory wildlife. • Toxicity to birds. • Potential to become invasive (vegetation reproduction). • Potential to provide healthy, local food to homeowners. Notes: • The resulting list should be searchable by attributes. • Special consideration should be given to the golf course. • A comprehensive conservation plan is needed to ad- dress the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces and the fact that the desirability of traits is often contingent upon location i.e., problems on one site may be benefits on another. For example, where messy trees might not be appropriate in urban areas, they may be desirable in natural areas. (Also see programs related to natural areas:Policy 4.I.) Program 1.A.iii Work with Canopy and stakeholders to develop site-specific- species-selection protocols to complement the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii.) In addition to the criteria above, include consideration of: • Resident’s requests. • Surrounding species theme and the past performance of that species. • Adjacent property use. • Potential visibility issues (e.g., at intersections). • Available soil volume. • Available water. • Potential conflicts with overhead power lines. • Potential conflicts with hard scape. • Potential conflicts with underground utilities. • Avoidance of monocultures. For sites within parks, selection should also consider: • The Comprehensive Plan’s vision that parks should inte- grate nature with recreation and aesthetics and strive to bring people closer to nature. • Existing and future irrigation systems for nearby park turf. • Maintenance issues specific to each park e.g., litter on playing fields. • Species selection for trees in natural areas should prefer native species and also consider: • Threats that may be more likely to affect trees in natural areas than in urban areas—especially SOD. • Wildlife breeding time lines. • Wildlife habitat needs e.g., the creation of understory to provide shelter for birds. • Relationship and impact to trails. • Soil types and natural heritage. • Potential for appropriateness of “messy” trees in areas not used for sports. Note: As mentioned earlier, a separate Resource Manage- ment Plan—or Comprehensive Conservation Plan—is needed to address the complexity of the ecosystems of preserves, and open spaces. For example, where messy trees might not be appropriate in urban areas, they may be desirable in natural areas. (Also see programs related to natural areas under Policy 4.I.) Policy 1.B. Endeavor to ensure availability of appropriate trees. Program 1.B.i. Work with Canopy to encourage local nurseries and garden centers to supply trees on the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” with emphasis on increasing the availability of species that are drought-tolerant as well as tolerant to recycled water. Program 1.B.ii. Consider feasibility of a city-owned nursery or partnership with a local non-profit. 140 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Policy 1.C. Conserve native trees. Program 1.C.i. Continue to enforce the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Program 1.C.ii. Work with Canopy to update the Oakwell survey to assess changes in the population of native oaks since 1997. Program 1.C.iii. Consider incorporating Oakwell survey data into Tree- Keeper and City’s GIS. Program 1.C.iv. Evaluate needs and benefits of a possible requirement that digital information about protected trees be submitted to the City as a condition of approval for permit applications. Program 1.C.v. Establish a baseline for existing ratios of native species within the following categories of trees and formalize goals for increasing those ratios as follows: • Street trees...................................10% • Urban parks..................................25% • Open spaces and preserves...........at least 80% Also formalize a monitoring program to track progress. Policy 1.D. Strive for canopy equity—prioritizing areas in which the UC Davis report indicated a decrease between 1982 and 2010. Program 1.D.i. Investigate reasons for less canopy in south Palo Alto. This should include evaluation of: • Development review procedures. • Maintenance activities and contracts • Property-owner objections to street trees. • Prohibitive physical conditions such as soil type, absence of planting strip, etc. Develop strategies to end the trend of decreasing canopy in this area e.g., • Plan and budget to work with Canopy on an outreach program to ensure residents, property owners, and business owners understand how their decisions affect the canopy and encourage them to plant trees. • Add new planting sites where possible • Ensure that staff and contractors performing maintenance tasks in South Palo Alto know that this is a City priority. Policy 1.E. Conserve viable street tree planting sites. Program 1.E.i. Develop criteria for viable street tree planting sites, increased planting of street trees, and related protocols to ensure optimal stocking level of 98%. Add criteria to Tree Technical Manual. Program 1.E.ii. Use criteria for viable street planting sites to review and update information about existing and available viable sites in TreeKeeper and GIS. Program 1.E.iii. Evaluate effectiveness of the requirement for 50% shading for parking lots (public and private). Identify reasons for success and or failure. Modify as needed. Note: Give special consideration to the impact of substituting solar panels for trees to meet the 50% shading requirement. Evaluate this using ecosystem service calculations. Program 1.E.iv. Consider requiring new commercial, multi-unit, and single- family housing projects to provide street trees and related irrigation systems. Note: The requirement for public art may be a useful model. Program 1.E.v. Collect, retain, and analyze electronic tree surveys to quan- tify the impact of development. (Also see Program 4.G.iii.) Policy 1.F: Strive for optimal stocking levels. Plantings should exceed removals until a goal of 98% full stocking of identified viable planting sites on street and in parks is achieved. Assume an average 50 year life span and consistent replacement and removal rates. Fluctuations should be expected due to past trends of planting as well as other variables. Program 1.F.i. Monitor removals and plantings and produce annual reports showing progress towards policy goal. 141 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Policy 1.G . Strive for no net loss in canopy cover. Program 1.G.i. Develop canopy thresholds—possibly based on zoning and land use goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Consider appro- priateness to the ecotype e.g., Baylands canopy should be much less than riparian corridors. Notes: • This program does not intend to concentrate plantings in open space grasslands and, thereby, reduce plantings in developed areas. • Thresholds suggested by organizations such as American Forests may be helpful as guidelines. However, where such suggestions are less than existing density, they should not imply a need or desire to reduce density. Program 1.G.ii. Explore the possibility of mandates for certain projects to meet minimum canopy thresholds and possible incentives such as increased density. Program 1.G.iii. Manage species diversity such that no one species accounts for more than 10% of the population and no one genus ac- counts for more than 20% of the population. Policy 1.H . Recognize El Camino Real’s importance as the preeminent link between Palo Alto and adjoining communities. Program 1.H.i. Utilize the following resources when reviewing projects on El Camino Real: • El Camino Real Guidelines • Appropriate scenic design plans • Appropriate plans of nearby jurisdictions and agencies Program 1.H.ii. Coordinate with nearby jurisdictions and agencies regarding trees within the El Camino Real Corridor e.g., • Management of existing trees. • Development impacts and opportunities. • Projected future needs. • Grand Boulevard Project. Note: These guidelines for reviewing projects within the El Camino Real Corridor should be reflected in the Tree Technical Manual. Goal 2. A citywide Sustainability Plan that coordinates the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan with those related to water conservation, carbon neutrality, solar energy, etc. Policy 2.A. The City’s Sustainability Plan shall... • Incorporate the contributions and needs (including water needs) of the urban forest emphasizing the importance of carbon sequestration by the urban forest and the need to preserve canopy and ecosystems. • Identify conflicts between the goals of the urban forest and other sustainability concepts—and advise about mitigation. Program 2.A.i. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the “Preferred and Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii.) to ensure that it complements the City’s Sustainability Plan in considering BVOC emissions and incorporates the need to preserve benefits provided by large broadleaf trees. Program 2.A.ii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate future participation in carbon credit programs. Program 2.A.iii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to evaluate the establishment of an oversight group (elected or appointed by the City Council), to investigate and comment on the im- pact of projects on the urban forest and overall ecosystem. Program 2.A.iv. Work with the Utilities Department to publish tools and priorities for citing of solar collection devices. 142 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Program 2.A.v. Work with the Sustainability Team and/or the Utilities De- partment and Canopy to create a guidance document—how to successfully incorporate solar collection and trees into site design—for those considering solar. Policy 2.B. The well being of the urban forest and preservation of its eco- logical, environmental, aesthetic, economical, social, and com- munity benefits will be considered in all decisions pertaining to the environment, sustainability, and capital improvements. Program 2.B.i. Formalize the Urban Forester’s role relative to: • Citywide Sustainability Plan. • Development of citywide policy. • Inter-departmental collaboration. • Technical advice. Program 2.B.ii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to develop a “Land- scape Sustainability Checklist”—for development review— that incorporates citywide goals for water use, sustainabil- ity, storm water management and tree selection. Program 2.B.iii. Work with the Sustainability Plan team to educate staff about the importance of including a description of poten- tially negative impacts to the urban forest and ecologic balance in staff reports about Capital Improvement Proj- ects—whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. (Also see Program 4.B.iii.) Program 2.B.iv. Continue to utilize wood chips from the city trees as mulch to suppress weeds. Program 2.B.v. Explore an expansion of the existing urban-wood recycling program to include higher end products that do not break the wood down. Note: breaking wood up to create mulch releases previously sequestered carbon whereas, recycling urban wood as a higher end product that does not break down the wood, will allow the carbon to remain sequestered within the wood. Also see program for exploring carbon credit programs. Policy 2.C. Salinity levels of recycled water will continue to be monitored. And options will be explored for adjusting potable/recycled mix rates, soil modification/augmentation—to improve leaching—on a site by site basis. Program 2.C.i. Review existing monitoring programs regarding the use of recycled water for landscape irrigation at the Municipal Golf Course and Greer Park. Modify as needed. Program 2.C.ii. Develop a report describing what has been achieved relative to Resolution 9035 since it was adopted in January of 2010. Ensure that staff are aware of this City policy and under- stand the implications. Program 2.C.iii. Work with Canopy to develop a list of tree species appropri- ate for use in areas where recycled water is or may be used for irrigation. Goal 3. A community that appreciates its urban forest and partners with the city and Canopy to steward it. Policy 3.A Optimize communication between the City, residents, property owners, business owners, other cities and other government agencies, and non-profits. Program 3.A.i. Work with Canopy to conduct at least 4 community out- reach meetings to educate and get feedback: • Introduce the website as a resource. • Discuss “Hot Topics” from Master Plan survey. Program 3.A.ii. Work with Canopy and the community to develop outreach pro- cedures to follow prior to making any significant changes to the urban forest —whether or not California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review is required. Program 3.A.iii. Work with Canopy to establish a recurring forum that pro- vides the community an opportunity to communicate with staff and members of the decision making bodies about tree concerns and ideas. Note: this may coincide with the similar ideas for the citywide Sustainability Plan. 143 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Program 3.A.iv. Continue pruning workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to interact. Program 3.A.v. Coordinate with the Palo Alto Unified School District re- garding plantings, species selection, maintenance, manage- ment of landscapes, and Arbor Day events. Program 3.A.vi. Develop a capability for community input on the Urban Forestry website. Program 3.A.vii. Explore outreach possibilities such as city mailings, e-mail blasts, door hangers, bill inserts, social media, press re- leases, and newspaper columns. Program 3.A.viii. Partner with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society for the Palo Alto Christmas Bird Count, Spring Bird Count, and the Backyard Bird Count. Program 3.A.ix. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society to develop programs to familiarize residents with Palo Alto’s Urban Forest birds and butterflies practices. Program 3.A.x. Educate citizens about correct pruning at the best time to protect bird habitat and nesting. Policy 3.B. Ensure exhaustive exploration into the common concerns that emerged from the responses to the Master Plan survey and ensure that the resulting information is well communicated. Program 3.B.i. Explore ways to avoid root damage to sidewalks beyond just matching growth characteristics to the conditions of the planting site. For example, explore root barriers and solutions such as meandering sidewalks around trees, sus- pending sidewalks above tree roots, and replacing concrete sidewalks with recycled rubber sidewalks. Program 3.B.ii. Explore ways to prevent conflicts between tree roots and underground infrastructure such as requirements that limit the location of underground utilities to a corridor—prefer- ably coincident with the driveway. Program 3.B.iii. Explore ways to avoid disfigurement of trees from power line clearing such as running the power lines through pro- tective conduits that don’t require as much clearance. Program 3.B.iv. Emphasize the Utilities Department’s “Waste Avoidance” programs (for water) on the Urban Forestry website. Goal 4. An efficient and effective Urban Forestry Division. Policy 4.A. Updates to Palo Alto’s Building Standards shall consider the following as key factors: • Conservation of existing trees. • Appropriate species and placement for new trees. Program 4.A.i. Review the updated CalGreen standards to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Program 4.A.ii. Review the Sustainable Sites Initiative to determine if any city documents need to be modified with consideration for adopting new measures. Program 4.A.iii. Provide education to staff and ensure that tree maintenance practices continue to consider bird nesting seasons. Policy 4.B. Review of both private and public projects will: • Seek ways to add trees, canopy, and benefits. • Occur early in the design phase. • Be coordinated with the reviews of other departments. Program 4.B.i. Ensure that staff is knowledgable about innovative ways to add trees to development projects and in limiting situations. Program 4.B.ii. Ensure that the Urban Forestry Division is included in early phases of review by the Development Review Committee. Program 4.B.iii. Educate development review staff about this City prior- ity and the need to include information about potentially negative impacts and/or improvements to the urban forest in the staff reports about development projects (including impacts to wildlife)—for boards and commissions.(Also see Program 2.B.iii.) 144 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Program 4.B.iv. Ensure that any updates to the City’s Building Standards e.g., standards for landscape installations and renovations, considers appropriate species selection and placement of trees—especially relative to existing trees. Program 4.B.v. Review citywide documents for the need to revise relevant technical specifications and standard details to be current with environmental laws, best practices, and innovative solutions. Repeat on a regular basis. Policy 4.C. Private and public landscape and irrigation plans that include both trees and turf will be reviewed to ensure that each is pro- vided enough independent space to ensure that their differing maintenance needs can be met efficiently e.g., so that: • Water can be applied appropriately and efficiently. • Nearby plantings will support optimal performance e.g., only forest species should be planted near trees whereas turf areas may support ornamental landscape plants. Program 4.C.i. Incorporate guidelines into the Tree Technical Manual that reflect the above policy regarding relative placement of trees and turf. Guidelines should consider best practices pertaining to urban runoff bioswale maintenance and requirements of Municipal Regional Permits and should emphasize the advantages of: • Planting trees and shrubs that create an understory and a more complex habitat for birds in private and public landscaping. • Taking opportunities provided by the presence of natural water sources e.g., creeks or higher water table level—to plant less drought resistant species. • Taking opportunities provided in areas without overhead wires—to plant larger broadleaf trees. Guidelines should also consider best practices pertaining to urban runoff bioswale maintenance and requirements pertaining to Municipal Regional Permitting. Program 4. C.ii. Incorporate the same guidelines into project review stan- dards. Policy 4.D. Approved development plans shall not be modified in any way that may affect street trees or approved landscape plans without review of those modifications by the Urban Forestry Division. Policy 4.E. Provide incentives to increase canopy and ecological benefits. Program 4.E.i. Consider incentives to plant additional trees, either through additional points via LEED certification , Build It Green (BIG) Green Points, or similar certification systems such as those defined by the Sustainable Sites Initiative. Program 4.E.ii. Consider the feasibility of a tree adoption program—possi- bly to be modeled after programs offered by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) which has been operat- ing successfully for 15 years. Note: this policy is supported by several programs in other sections e.g., Program 4.G.vii. Policy 4.F. Monitor changes in the urban forest and ecological benefits. Program 4.F.i. Follow up the 2010 canopy cover assessment done by UC Davis that established the baseline for this master plan— with a similar assessment in approximately 2020. Present a comparison of the two assessments to the City Council. Ensure that the follow-up canopy cover assessment con- siders the open spaces as well as the urban forest. (See programs related to Policy 4.I.). Note: canopy assessments such as these analyze both private and public tree—and provide only one piece of information: canopy cover percentage. 145 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Program 4.F.ii. Follow up the 2010 inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis done by Davey Resources with either: • A similar comprehensive inventory update and i-Tree streets analysis in approximately 2020. • OR a series of seven partial inventories done—annually— on one-seventh of the entire street tree population. Ensure that follow-up analyses consider open spaces as well. (Also see programs related to Policy 4.I.) Note: An analysis such as this would be for city-owned trees—and provide multi-faceted information about the trees. Policy 4.G. Strive for best possible information (citywide) and technology to support the Urban Forest Master Plan vision, goals, policies and programs. Program 4.G.i. Augment project-review standard conditions of approval with: • Requirements for no net canopy loss per project site. • Soil volume requirements for trees per species group. Program 4.G.ii. Conduct a UFORE analysis (or similar city wide approach) to establish a city wide benchmark that spans the entire population of both public and private trees and then to monitor change in the future. Note: The analysis described here would be for both pubic and private trees—and would provide multi-faceted infor- mation about the trees. Note: Metrics should be compared to changes in order to craft policies, provide incentives, and adapt partnerships. Program 4.G.iii. Develop open portals for data entry–as a way of engaging the community as partners in stewardship and to improve data currency and accuracy: • Electronic submittals of tree surveys might allow more accurate queries and reports to quantify the influence of development. (Also see Program 1.E.iii.) • Open source mapping might allow input by anyone agree- ing to comply with standards and complete training. • Open portals might accommodate reports of maintenance needs from community members. Note: Any such tools should be compatible with the mobile reporting application that is currently being developed for the city to both report and monitor service requests. Program 4.G.iv. Integrate the information in Tree-Keeper with the city’s GIS to enable review of the relationship between trees and other relevant geographic information such as parcel lines, land uses, zoning, soil types, watersheds, creeks, pavement, hazard areas, and utility infrastructure. Program 4.G.v. Develop or obtain a more up-to-date and accurate soils map and add it into the GIS. Program 4.G.vi. Consider developing a map showing the depth of available water within the urban forest. Program 4.G.vii. Update the Tree Technical Manual. The update should: • Include new and innovative ways to add trees in difficult circumstances. • Review and expand the requirements and options for mitigating the removal of existing trees. Roof top plant- ings–which are expensive initially but have a long term life cycle may be worth more as a mitigation measure than a transplanted tree–which often suffer from dimin- ished survival potential. • Include information about employing structural grids to provide an adequate volume of quality soil to grow trees to the desired mature size. • Establish soil volume requirements in a manner similar to the table on page 41 of the city of Raleigh’s Landscape Manual. 146 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs • Establish requirements for providing independent spaces for trees and turf so that water can be applied appropri- ately and efficiently and nearby plantings will support optimal performances e.g., only forest species should be planted near trees where as turf areas may support orna- mental landscape plants. Note: In addition to the above listed enhancements, the Tree Technical Manual will be the repository for many of the products called for by programs in this master plan such as: criteria for a viable street tree planting site (Pro- gram 1.E.i.) . As a result, the role of the Tree Technical Manual will be significantly expanded. Program 4.G.viii. Complete the update of the Street Tree Management Plan. Include information,criteria, procedures, and strategies regarding: • Selecting street tree species. • Providing for age diversity. • Ensuring that planting parallels tree removal to avoid canopy and benefit loss. • Young tree care. • Preventing loss of viable street tree sites. • Optimizing opportunities for adding trees for new private development and Capital Improvement projects. • Canopy disparity between north and south Palo Alto. • Standards used for line clearing and criteria for selecting contractors. • Sidewalk repair. • Recycled water and progress relative to the Salinity Re- duction Policy for Recycled Water. • Benefits to local birds, butterflies, bees, and other wildlife. Program 4.G.ix. Explore ways to improve the way maintenance work done by field crews is documented and uploaded into TreeKeeper and/or the City’s GIS. This exploration should include Smart Phone capabilities. Policy 4.H. Minimize the negative effect on the urban forest from develop- ment and infrastructure maintenance. Program 4.H.i. Review line clearing standards and criteria for selecting contractors; publish on the Urban Forest website. Program 4.H.ii. Analyze and resolve conflicts regarding the space required between utilities underground equipment and other criteria related to what makes a planting site viable for street trees. Program 4.H.iii. Evaluate adequacy of contract cycle pruning policy and en- sure that pruning continues to consider bird nesting seasons. Program 4.H.iv. Consider development requirements such as no net loss of canopy or minimum tree plantings (related to Policy 1.G and related programs.) Program 4.H.v. Review and update current fines and incentives as related to tree malpractice and vandalism. Program 4.H.vi. Amend fee schedule to include development fees to enable appropriate participation in project review, building and other permit issuance, regulatory compliance, and auditing. Policy 4.I. Strive for optimal conditions in the natural areas of the city preserves and open spaces. Note: the needs of preserves and open spaces may differ from those of the urban forest and Resource Management Plans—specific to those environments—are needed. Program 4.I.i.. Ensure that any citywide canopy cover analysis (Program 4.B.i.) is sufficient to establish a baseline of canopy cover in the city’s preserves and open spaces. Note: Natural habitats are complex and it is important to keep both habitat diversity and specific species interactions in mind when dealing with natural areas. Therefore, al- though the percentage of canopy cover in the natural areas 147 Goals, Policies, & Programs City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan is worth monitoring, it may not have the same relevance—in terms of optimal conditions—as it may have to the urban forest. Program 4.I.ii. Establish a baseline for relevant information to be moni- tored (in addition to canopy cover). A statistically valid sample should be collected to analyze current conditions. Sampling methodology should enable long term monitoring, direct management decisions, and analyze the effectiveness of current practices. A permanent plot system would be an option. Experimentation in conjunction with analysis of natural regeneration practices, simulated disturbance regimes, and predation relationships should be employed. Note: This is not redundant with Program 4.G.ii; the UFORE analysis of 4.G.ii. will inform this task. Program 4.I.iii. Develop a long-range budget for tree management and maintenance in the open spaces that includes: • Tree inspections • Tree removal and replacements • Forest restoration • Training for rangers • Technology for tracking maintenance tasks Program 4.I.iv. Develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan that includes: • Up-to-date information regarding Sudden Oak Death Disease. • Best Management Practices for forest restoration. • A well-defined plan for tree replacement within the parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.v. Update existing park plans and/or develop new plans to ensure that tree issues are addressed. Program 4.I.vi. Coordinate between departments and with partners re: • Appropriate mixes of trees, shrubs, and grasses • Natural cycles of disturbance such as fire • Response to use and impacts. • Appreciation by the community. Program 4.I.vii. Ensure that the “Restricted Species List” (Program 1.A.ii) includes consideration of species appropriate for the golf course, parks, preserves, and open spaces e.g., • Importance of native species in natural areas. • Need for evergreen canopy to support watershed protec- tion and wildlife habitat. • Need for shrub and understory species for increased and multi-layered canopy. • Maintenance impacts of root damage to trails. • Maintenance impact of litter on playing fields. Program 4.I.viii. Develop database management tools to assist with monitor- ing, documentation, and evaluation of tree restoration work. Program 4.I.ix. Review the City’s Tree Keeper database with regard to trees within the 32 parks and Municipal Golf Course to ensure completeness and accuracy. Program 4.I.x. Work with Canopy to educate the community regarding the necessity of tree removals in the parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.xi. Require consideration of tree preservation and tree replace- ment for capital improvement projects within city parks and open spaces. Program 4.I.xii. Consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from Community Services Parks Division to Public Works Urban Forestry Division for: • Trees in developed areas of Open Space (along park roads and around structures/park facilities) • All trees on the golf course. 148 City of Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan Goals, Policies, & Programs Program 4.I.xiii. Nurture existing volunteer support groups and work with non-profit organizations to reach out to businesses and corporate sponsors for forest-restoration projects. Program 4.I.xiv. Explore a collaboration between relevant local fire pro- tection districts and CAL FIRE regarding an educational campaign to inform homeowners about selecting species and pruning trees to achieve “defensible spaces” as part of vegetation management in appropriate areas of the city. Policy 4.J. Strive for optimal qualifications in city staff Program 4.J.i. Evaluate needs and opportunities for training tree staff and park rangers that includes: • Certification as arborist. • Certification in pesticide application. • Proficiency in relevant software programs. Review should include exploration of conferences, in-house training, online training, etc. Policy 4.K. Strive for optimal efficiency in project review. Program 4.K.i. Coordinate with other departments to ensure that trees are discussed during the early stage of a project’s design. Program 4.Kii. Work with Canopy and other stakeholders to educate the development community about the need to discuss trees during the early stage of a project’s design. Program 4.K.iii. Ensure that Forestry Division budget will accommodate fluctuations in the number of development applications requiring review. Additional manpower during such periods will help avoid delays. Program 4.K.iv. Work with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and other wildlife organizations to educate the development commu- nity about minimizing project effects on local wildlife. Goal 5. An urban forest that enhances the built environment and connects it with the natural environment. Policy 5.1. Utilize American Planning Association recommendations for land use objectives and actions including: • Promote regional and local designs that respect the regional ecosystems and natural functions which support human communities. • Promote responsible storm water management that reuses and restores the quality of on-site run-off e.g., constructed marsh or wetlands systems. • Promote the maintenance of natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation, minimizing disruption of natural systems. • Create vibrant community-based economies with employ- ment opportunities that allow people economic self-deter- mination and environmental health. • Promote restoration of damaged natural systems through regenerative design approaches. • Promote the creation of green space systems within and among communities. • Promote the use of regionally native plants. • Promote appropriate development and population growth policies linked to carrying capacity of natural systems and community facilities. • Promote development patterns that respect natural sys- tems such as watersheds and wildlife corridors. • Promote preservation and planting of trees and other vegetation that absorb carbon dioxide and air pollutants. 149 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 1 1 2 3 4 MINUTES 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION 6 REGULAR MEETING 7 April 22, 2014 8 CITY HALL 9 250 Hamilton Avenue 10 Palo Alto, California 11 12 Commissioners Present: Stacey Ashlund, Deirdre Crommie, Jennifer Hetterly, Abbie 13 Knopper, Ed Lauing, Pat Markevitch, Keith Reckdahl 14 Commissioners Absent: 15 Others Present: 16 Staff Present: Daren Anderson, Catherine Bourquin, Rob de Geus, Peter Jensen, Claudia 17 Keith, Walter Passmore 18 I. ROLL CALL CONDUCTED BY: Catherine Bourquin 19 Commissioner Ashlund came in after roll call was taken but was 20 present for voting on motions. 21 22 II. AGENDA CHANGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: 23 24 None. 25 26 III. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 27 28 None. 29 30 IV. BUSINESS: 31 32 1.Approval of Draft March 25, 2014 Minutes.33 34 Approval of the draft March 25, 2014 Minutes as amended was moved by Vice Chair 35 Lauing and second by Commissioner Reckdahl. Passed 7-0 36 37 Attachment C APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 2 2. Presentation and Discussion on the "Our Palo Alto" Initiative—a 38 Community Conversation About Our City's Future. 39 40 Chair Hetterly: Daren, do you have an introduction or do we want to just go to Ms. 41 Keith. 42 43 Daren Anderson: Good evening. I'd like to introduce Claudia Keith, who will present a 44 discussion on Our Palo Alto initiative. 45 46 Claudia Keith: Good evening, Commissioners. I am Claudia Keith. I'm the Chief 47 Communications Officer here at the City of Palo Alto. Thank you for inviting me this 48 evening to talk about an initiative that we're working at the City to implement. I've talked 49 to a number of Commissions about it. I'm very honored to be here tonight. Essentially 50 Our Palo Alto is a community conversation about our City's future. This just visually 51 depicts what we're calling the three parallel tracks of the initiative. They include ideas, 52 action and design. I'll go through each one of them in more detail. What we really want 53 to do is create both opportunities for community dialog around important ideas and 54 programs, while tackling the issues that we know the community cares about and that I 55 assume you all hear about as well. We really want a lot of input and participation from 56 our community and our citizens. We've organized the initiative into these three 57 interconnected tracks. Our Palo Alto is really a way to express the totality of what we're 58 talking about, that runs through many departments of the City and through a lot of 59 different areas. It all starts with ideas generated from conversations that build 60 connections between citizens. Our outreach approach is what we're calling Beyond City 61 Hall. We really want to have conversations with our neighbors and businesses in the 62 community, at community centers and schools. Like many folks, we know people are 63 busy. We don't see them come to City Hall or come to Commission meetings. We really 64 want to go out into the neighborhood in new and different ways. We're hoping that these 65 conversations will bring people together to share their hopes and dreams for Palo Alto as 66 well as their worries and their concerns. What we hope to do is deepen understanding 67 and expand the voices that actively participate in our community. We do have folks who 68 do come and spend their time at Commissions and at City Hall. Their voices are very 69 important, but we know that that's a very small segment of our community. What we 70 want to do is really provide opportunities to hear from a broader number of folks, because 71 their voices are important as well. These ideas will take many different forums. We 72 want to connect in different ways. We want to enhance our use of technology to reach 73 constituents and groups that do not come to City Hall, but are very interested in the issues 74 that our leaders are dealing with. We want to have lots of community gatherings, like 75 picnics in the park, bike rides or neighborhood pizza parties. This Saturday we've got a 76 bike along to look at the first of our routes on our Bicycle Boulevard project. Instead of 77 having a meeting and looking at the maps, they're actually going to ride around with 78 consultants and our staff to look at proposed changes to the bike routes. We have a series 79 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 3 of speakers from local thought leaders on issues that we know are important. You have a 80 flyer there from our kick-off event tomorrow at the downtown library at 6:00 p.m., called 81 Who Are We? We're going to look at the changing demographics of Palo Alto and what 82 our population is going to look like in 10-20 years and what does that mean for the City 83 and how should we plan for that, what are the schools going to look like, what kind of 84 languages are going to be spoken. We're really hoping for a lively and interactive 85 discussion on topics that we hope informs the process as we go along. As I mentioned, 86 we want to have greater online connections. We have launched a much greater social 87 media presence. We're building a micro-site that I'll show you at the end, our landing 88 page. We'll have an online web portal and a lot of other ways. We've re-engaged on 89 Open City Hall, which is our civic engagement tool that we launched, by asking a 90 question about the Council's core values. We also are on Next Door which some of you 91 may be on, which is a private social network that's grown organically to about 5,800 92 users in the community just by word of mouth. It's a really great way to get information 93 to the community but also to targeted communities about specific things that are 94 happening in their neighborhood. Ultimately what we hope to do with these ideas is to 95 build citizenship and participation and create a dynamic culture where people are used to 96 interacting with what's going on in the community. As you all know, City leaders and 97 local government representatives can't do it all themselves. It's really a community effort 98 and a collaborative way of working with the community. This is a long process. We 99 recognize that. It will go beyond the programs and even maybe some of the issues that 100 we're going to be talking about. We hope to spark some dialog by having the ideas part 101 of it and the events. We have a number of them planned that I'll talk about. We're also 102 very interested and have been talking to our Commissions about partnering with them in 103 sponsoring such an event. I'd love to talk further about what might make sense and that 104 you all could play a role in. We don't want to be all talk. We know we need to have 105 some action too. As we continue with our ideas dialog, we plan to move forward with 106 some near-term actions on some of our most pressing problems: traffic, parking. We 107 know that a lot of these are things that impact our immediate quality of life. Our Council 108 and certainly you in the community hear about them as well. Things such as our 109 residential permit parking, shuttles, traffic, the California Avenue streetscape 110 improvement project which will be completed by the end of the year. All those kinds of 111 immediate, near-term projects we want to take action on as we continue our ideas dialogs. 112 They do intersect, but we really want to move forward on a lot of these things that we 113 know impact the daily quality of life for our community. Many of these you'll hear are 114 coming to the Council over the next 18 months or so. Finally, Our Palo Alto also 115 includes a design for our future with what is a new Comprehensive Plan for the City. The 116 Plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2015. It's a very ambitious schedule. It's 117 going to rely on broad community participation to really get the right input and to create 118 the right blueprint. The foundation that we're hoping to create by these ideas and events 119 and a lot of community involvement and public dialog as well as the action, we hope will 120 build some civic capacity and momentum as we design a new plan worthy of our City. 121 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 4 All of these are interrelated and build upon each other. Our Planning Director, Hilary 122 Gitelman, is leading our Comprehensive Plan and the outreach associated with that. All 123 of these different elements, the ideas and the action and the design part of it, are linked 124 and part of the whole Our Palo Alto initiative. Finally, I just want to show a screenshot 125 of what we hope to launch in the next month or so. Hopefully the Our Palo Alto website 126 is a one-stop shop for everything Our Palo Alto. It'll have, as you can see, the three 127 buckets; ideas, action and design. It'll have information on all of those. It'll have videos 128 posted of events that we've had. If you aren't able to go to an event, you'll be able to 129 watch a video, either a long version or a short version. We'll have a calendar of 130 comprehensive events about all the things that are going on in the City that, if you were 131 interested for example in just one part of our Comprehensive Plan, you'll be able to go to 132 or if you would like to come to a speaker talk on a particular issue, you'll be able to go. 133 It'll be www.cityofpaloalto/ourpaloalto. We'll also have our social media portal. It's 134 really a good way for anyone who wants to know anything about ideas, action and 135 design. You'll also have Our Palo Alto lapel pins. Hopefully you'll wear them proudly 136 and pass them along. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions about the initiative or 137 anything else. 138 139 Chair Hetterly: Thank you very much. Any questions? Commissioner Crommie. 140 141 Commissioner Crommie: Can you remind me what department you're in? I didn't catch 142 that. 143 144 Ms. Keith: I'm in the City Manager's Office. I'm the Chief Communications Officer. 145 I've been with the City for about a year. It was a new position that was created to bring 146 together all of the City's communications efforts. I work in the City Manager's Officer. 147 148 Commissioner Crommie: Was it the City Manager's idea to launch this initiative? What 149 part of the City did it get inspired by? 150 151 Ms. Keith: It was kind of a group think. I think we came at it with the realization that we 152 needed to broaden engagement. Our City Manager, Jim Keene, has been involved in 153 civic discourse, civic participation, it's not really a movement, in his role in local 154 government for a number of years. We also heard from a lot of different folks that we 155 really wanted to broaden our outreach to groups that may not engage with the City for a 156 variety of reasons. I think everyone comes at it with a different perspective. We also 157 have the Comprehensive Plan which is a very large undertaking. That's a big chunk of it. 158 It kind of depended on what perspective and what lens you looked at it. 159 160 Commissioner Crommie: Are you going to have a metric to measure how well your 161 efforts are working? I know you've brainstormed and are dealing with a tricky problem. 162 How will you know at the end of the day if your approaches work? 163 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 5 164 Ms. Keith: That's a good question too. I think from a pure community engagement 165 standpoint, we're hoping to build a database of folks who come to events, who sign up for 166 our e-newsletter. These are numbers, but they do indicate some level of interest. We do 167 have a pretty good base to work from. We do have people who receive the Mayor's 168 newsletter or other kinds of news that we send out. We can look at the engagement level. 169 We hope to do a lot of this via social media and online presence. Certainly there's a lot of 170 metrics associated with that. There might be some soft ways to do it too. We look at 171 neighborhood gatherings. We talk to people and get the pulse of what's going on out 172 there. I think there are numbers of ways and also some qualitative ways that we're going 173 to be doing that. 174 175 Commissioner Crommie: The reason I ask is because when you're physically at a 176 meeting, you can see who's there. When you're doing these other methods, it's often hard 177 to know. I don't know all the techniques that are used, but it sounds like you're going to 178 employ some. 179 180 Ms. Keith: We are. We definitely are going to look at metrics. Hopefully as we gain an 181 online presence, who's opened a survey, who’s answered a question on our Open City 182 Hall, if these are different people. There's all kinds of metrics and analytics that we'll be 183 looking at as we go along. 184 185 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. 186 187 Chair Hetterly: Other comments? Commissioner Lauing. 188 189 Vice Chair Lauing: I just have one little question. As we roll out more of these 190 community block parties and so on, is that an interesting venue to go to and say, "We'd 191 like the first 15 minutes to just ask you about various things in the City and then we'll 192 mingle for 30 minutes more and then we'll leave you to party"? 193 194 Ms. Keith: Yeah. One thing that we're thinking about doing is embedding Our Palo Alto 195 in our Know Your Neighbor grants that we did last year and having some Our Palo Alto 196 element, whether it's talk about an issue and then send us an email about the conversation 197 or having someone from the City come and just talk. One of the things that we're also 198 doing, I'm going to be talking to the outreach consultant for the Parks Master Plan about 199 joining together in partnership on an Our Palo Alto event as they're going out and talking 200 about what people want to see in parks. That might be a built-in opportunity. There will 201 be ones that we create ourselves and ones that we hope to piggyback onto that are already 202 happening. It really can take any form. We'll try lots of things. Some things might not 203 work. Some people might not want us there or might just love us there. We're really 204 open to any new and different way we can engage with the community. 205 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 6 206 Vice Chair Lauing: I presume your feedback from all of these venues is going to be a 207 combined qualitative and quantitative? 208 209 Ms. Keith: Correct. 210 211 Vice Chair Lauing: So that you're putting a judgment layer over raw statistics or "these 212 people said this and they're passionate about it but they're 3 of the 30,000 that live in this 213 neighborhood." 214 215 Ms. Keith: Exactly, absolutely. 216 217 Chair Hetterly: Other comments? I have a couple of comments. I'm excited about this. 218 I think this is a really great process. It's about time we opened up for a larger 219 conversation. I've lived in Palo Alto many years; I don't remember anything like this in 220 the past. I'm especially happy to hear that you're going to have links to videos of the 221 events. I go to a lot of events, but I miss a lot of events and I often wish that I could go 222 back and get the tone of what happened. I did have two comments. One is I think it's 223 really important when you ask your citizens and your residents to participate in their civic 224 affairs, that it's a two-way conversation, that there is some way for them to know that 225 they've been heard. It's important in all of these different venues to have some piece 226 where you explain not only why you're reaching out to them and inviting them to speak 227 up, but also what's going to happen with their input, where it's going to go, what's the 228 process and how will they know who's heard it and when. I think that's an important 229 piece. Also as you may know, we're embarking on some pretty significant outreach and 230 public engagement around the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Planning 231 process. It would be a huge missed opportunity if these two tracks went in parallel and 232 didn't cross over at all. I would like to see integrated into the various outreach at least 233 providing some information about how residents might get involved in the Parks and Rec 234 and Open Space Master Plan. 235 236 Ms. Keith: I couldn't agree more. In fact I'm having that conversation with your 237 consultant tomorrow about how to integrate, so we're not on two different tracks. They're 238 linked and we really want to be part of that conversation. We've definitely been 239 partnering with a lot of folks who are on that path, whether it's the Comp Plan or the 240 Parks Plan. 241 242 Chair Hetterly: That was it for me. Nothing else from the panel? Thank you very much. 243 244 Ms. Keith: Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing you in the community and 245 getting some ideas. Thank you. 246 247 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 7 Chair Hetterly: Thanks. 248 249 3. Review and Recommend to Council Approval of the Draft Urban Forest 250 Master Plan. 251 252 Chair Hetterly: This is an action item. 253 254 Rob De Geus: Let me just apologize for being late. I was at the Policy and Services 255 Committee meeting next door presenting a reporting on teen services. We were first on 256 the agenda at 6:00, but they were so interested it the discussion went past 7:00. I 257 apologize for that. I'm here now, and happy to welcome Walter Passmore back. 258 259 Walter Passmore: Good evening, Commissioners. Nice to see you again. I just wanted 260 to give you a brief introduction to alert you to what we've been doing with the Urban 261 Forest Master Plan since our last meeting. We have added the Executive Summary 262 which several of you expressed interest in. We've incorporated the About the Document 263 chapter, partially into that and partially into other portions of the Master Plan. We have 264 further enhanced the description of ecological benefits of the urban forest. There were 265 individual comments regarding species benefits and other ecological benefits. We've 266 incorporated the Considerations chapter into City Hall and also some other places. We've 267 made some fairly substantial updates to Goals, Policies and Programs based on your input 268 and used that to create an Action Plan chapter. Also I do want to note that as requested 269 we redlined all of those changes. Some of them are actually in pink, but most of them are 270 in red with the exception of the Executive Summary. That's all new, so we didn't want to 271 redline the whole chapter. Furthermore, based on your input, we met with the 272 community environment action partnership on April 10th to solicit additional community 273 input. We provided an open invitation for them to invite us to give presentations to 274 neighborhood groups. They are representatives from different neighborhood groups 275 interested in environmental issues. We met with them at Lucie Stern Community Center. 276 With that being said, I'm really just going to open it up to questions. We can take another 277 look at this document. 278 279 Chair Hetterly: Great. Do we have any comments on this? Commissioner Markevitch. 280 281 Commissioner Markevitch: I didn't catch it the first time I was looking at it. It was about 282 looking at using shorter trees near power lines instead of larger trees. Say you plant these 283 trees and then that particular neighborhood gets undergrounded power. Are you just 284 going to leave the shorter trees there? What's the plan for that? Maybe the neighborhood 285 wanted bigger trees. I'm a little frustrated. It seems like it's going backwards on that one 286 piece. 287 288 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 8 Mr. Passmore: I would say that the population of trees is very dynamic. We have small 289 changes from year to year. The population is going to be much more dynamic than the 290 rate that we underground new power, because undergrounding is a very expensive 291 operation. There are definitely some small concerns about replacing tall trees with small 292 trees because of power lines and then we underground the lines. In proportion to how 293 swiftly the population changes, it's not going to be as impactful as any of the other goals, 294 policies and programs that we've recommended. 295 296 Vice Chair Lauing: I just want to comment on the format. First, thanks for listening. 297 You really did. Throughout this thing I can see weaved in a number of changes. Not a 298 100 percent, but that's okay. The net is you have a much better formatted document for 299 everybody to read, including the Council. Just much more easily understood in terms of 300 what the objectives are. Thank you for the new effort. 301 302 Commissioner Reckdahl: I do agree. The changes you made have really improved it, 303 especially the Executive Summary. I appreciate that. The Council Members will 304 appreciate that also, because the bulk of them will read this now. Before I think they 305 would have skimmed it and put it aside. They will be able to digest the points that you're 306 making. It's time well spent and I do appreciate you adding that. I did have a couple of 307 questions on the Executive Summary. On page 15, on the middle column there, 308 important tasks will include working sustainably and then you list four different items. 309 Some of them were kind of vague. For example, the second one says identify potential 310 conflicts and mitigation. I'm not sure what that means. Conflicts between what? 311 312 Mr. Passmore: Conflicts between different sustainability initiatives. For instance, we 313 have initiatives to increase the amount of solar power which we talk about in much more 314 detail further into the document. To do that we may have to sacrifice some tree spaces. 315 That's one of the conflicts of many potential ones that we're going to have to deal with. 316 Another one that we talk about in much more detail further in the document is the conflict 317 between water conservation and the amount of canopy and the number of large-growing 318 trees that we plant or the density of that canopy that generates benefits. On one hand, we 319 want to conserve water. It's a very important sustainability aspect for our community in 320 the future. On the other hand, we also know that large-growing trees with dense canopy 321 provide the greatest amount of benefits at the lowest cost. It's a balancing act there. 322 There's some conflict and we should expect that to occur as we have dialog on these 323 subjects. 324 325 Commissioner Reckdahl: That brings up a very good point. For the trees, in general we 326 don't water the trees. If you're talking about boulevard trees, they generally go 327 unwatered. If you're dealing with water conservation, I would think a tree would be 328 much better than any type of grass or other plants that need irrigation. Is that not the 329 case? 330 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 9 331 Mr. Passmore: That's correct. 332 333 Commissioner Reckdahl: When you talk about the conflict between watering and trees, 334 you're just talking in a general sense or is there a specific issue with trees taking water? 335 336 Mr. Passmore: No. It's more of a landscape decision. The further into the conservation 337 topic that we go, the more we're going to have to try to motivate people to make 338 landscape decisions that depart from the traditional lawn and flower bed and go to 339 something that is more sustainable environmentally. 340 341 Commissioner Reckdahl: That second bullet, I would expand that. If you made that a 342 little clearer, it would only take another three or four lines. You could have a much better 343 explanation. Also, the third bullet is saying develop a list of preferred and restricted 344 species. It doesn't say what this list is used for. Is it a binding list? Is it for public 345 education? What's the purpose of this list? 346 347 Mr. Passmore: It's a guideline. It's for public use, but also for City projects. We hope 348 this list is going to be quite extensive in utility. It's not going to be a policy. I anticipate 349 that it's going to be a very useful tool. 350 351 Commissioner Reckdahl: Would you say this list is your office's recommendations? 352 How would you describe this list? 353 354 Mr. Passmore: Correct. That's going to be our recommendations. 355 356 Commissioner Reckdahl: I would put that down also and say that the purpose of this list 357 is to inform the public and inform the City of what you think are the best choices. 358 Finally, the fourth bullet, evaluate carbon credit programs. What does that mean? Is that 359 the City running carbon credit programs or does that mean using existing programs that 360 the State or Federal government is executing? 361 362 Mr. Passmore: Currently we have a lot of energy conservation and carbon neutral 363 initiatives as part of sustainability planning. 364 365 Commissioner Reckdahl: Those are City programs? 366 367 Mr. Passmore: Correct. Carbon sequestration is documented and we know that forests 368 have a benefit. But the urban forest market for carbon credits is really in its infancy. The 369 State has just started to look at new protocols for how to qualify projects for carbon 370 sequestration and cap and trade. We want to be at the forefront of that market as it moves 371 forward to determine if we can use part of our urban forest to account for part of our 372 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 10 carbon footprint. We do have a very widespread and very robust, very functional urban 373 forest. We should be using that as part of our sustainability equation on how we're going 374 to make the City of Palo Alto carbon neutral. 375 376 Commissioner Reckdahl: Does the City have any programs to expand the urban forest, to 377 plant more trees in parks or other spaces? 378 379 Mr. Passmore: Beyond the Urban Forest Master Plan, there's not anything. 380 381 Commissioner Reckdahl: For example, giving CIP money for planting trees. 382 383 Mr. Passmore: Not currently. 384 385 Commissioner Reckdahl: Daren, if a tree falls down in a park, do you have money to 386 replant that? How is that funded? 387 388 Daren Anderson: Yes, that's a regular occurrence. Typically if we do lose a tree, 389 particularly in open space in a high profile area, we do pull from our operating budget to 390 replace the tree. Oftentimes we'll work through Canopy and they get donations. 391 Oftentimes the tree department has in stock contributions they can make to us. Quite 392 frequently the process is to replace one that goes down. Sometimes the location gets 393 tweaked. Oftentimes the configuration of irrigation around trees has changed over the 394 years and it's no longer helpful to the tree or the landscaping. Some little tweaks here and 395 there. 396 397 Commissioner Reckdahl: When you say the tree department has it in stock, do we have a 398 nursery that we run? 399 400 Mr. Anderson: Correct. 401 402 Commissioner Reckdahl: Then they're growing in the ground and then we dig them up? 403 404 Mr. Anderson: Not in the ground. 405 406 Commissioner Reckdahl: They're in pots? 407 408 Mr. Anderson: Yes, at the Municipal Services Center. 409 410 Commissioner Reckdahl: One last question and this again is on the Executive Summary 411 on page 21. This is talking about the benefit to investment ratios. Two comments here. 412 One is a little better description would be good, because I had to really think about the 413 benefit and go back and look at it and say, "What are they trying to say here?" I believe 414 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 11 the middle column is the benefit that the cities get for every dollar they spend on trees. Is 415 that correct? 416 417 Mr. Passmore: Correct. 418 419 Commissioner Reckdahl: On the right hand, you've taken that and expanded that out to 420 the total value. If you had a very high ratio but you didn't spend much, you wouldn't earn 421 much money. You look at the total amount of money that you earn by planting trees, and 422 then divide that by the number of people in the city. That's correct also? 423 424 Mr. Passmore: Correct. 425 426 Commissioner Reckdahl: Number two is Palo Alto. First I'm very proud of that. But 427 then I thought, "Why am I proud of that?" What did we do to get number two on that 428 list? Why are we so high? 429 430 Mr. Passmore: Not only does the City spend money to have a very good maintenance 431 program, but we've also made wise selections of trees over the years. We're spending our 432 money to a very good return. If you're looking at it from a business model, the cost to 433 benefit ratio, like you observed, is only so good. If you don't spend much, then you 434 might have a very good ratio but you might not have much of a return. Whereas, the 435 differential shows that we're actually reducing every person in Palo Alto's tax burden by 436 $73 a year. That's $73 less in taxes you're paying after the cost of the Urban Forest 437 Management Program comes out. 438 439 Commissioner Reckdahl: Of that $73, what's the bulk of that? What's driving that 440 number? 441 442 Mr. Passmore: The bulk of it is on additional property tax and sales tax revenue. Realize 443 this is only street trees. This only represents about 9 percent of the population of trees in 444 Palo Alto. It's not a direct expansion, so you can't just multiply it by 10 and find out your 445 return. Just to put it in perspective, this is only 9 percent of our population being 446 represented for that $73 that you're getting back on your taxes. 447 448 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 449 450 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 451 452 Commissioner Crommie: Yes, I have quite a few comments. Thank you very much for 453 what you've added to the report. I think it's a really big improvement. I'm going to make 454 quite a few comments, because I gave it a very careful reading. I won't give you the 455 typos that I found; I'll email those to you. I won't waste everyone's time on that. I will 456 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 12 make a few comments about taking out a few things. This Master Plan has gone through 457 a lot of iterations which has made it a stronger document and a more balanced document. 458 There's just a few comments in here that I think are holdovers before that balance got in. 459 I'm going to go in order through the document. When I get to those, those are probably 460 the most important things I have to say. I think there's just a couple of those. I'll go in 461 order through the document. Commissioner Reckdahl brought up a few points that I also 462 had on my list, so I can delete those. I just want to start in the Executive Summary on 463 page 17. You have a light green box where you say preventing the loss of canopy and/or 464 planting sites due to development will require improvements to project review and 465 inspection procedures and likely changes to the Municipal Code. I wanted a little 466 clarification on that. I think this section is really important. I'm wondering if there will 467 be any provision here to fine developers that destroy trees. Is that what we're getting at? 468 I notice on developments in my part of town, the south part of Palo Alto, I've seen some 469 trees boxed off for protection and some very big, beautiful trees have then died. That 470 happened on the redevelopment of the Palo Alto Bowling Alley. A beautiful old oak was 471 killed. They had two beautiful oaks boxed off and one of them died. I see you want to 472 put some more teeth into this. Does that fall under this possible change in Code? How 473 would we get at that enforcement piece? 474 475 Mr. Passmore: There's currently enforcement authority in Code, but it's maybe not as 476 specific as some of the input we've received. I'm not going to predict what changes to 477 Code might be, because that would be a Council process that we need to go through. 478 We're basically installing a placeholder because that's an issue that came up. People such 479 as you observed that we weren't doing as good a job as we thought we needed to with 480 some of our tree protection on construction sites. 481 482 Commissioner Crommie: So we don't need to add anything in? It would be carried 483 under that? Is that correct? 484 485 Mr. Passmore: Correct. 486 487 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. Moving on to the next page, 18. There's a section 488 in here headlined Community Input and Outreach, which I think is also really good. I 489 really like the way you organized this Executive Summary. The issue I have here is that 490 when you discuss this, you just go over the results of this survey. I think that's important, 491 but I think it's also important to put a few sentences in about what is the most significant 492 outreach that you're going to do. I'm a little bit unclear of the educational piece of this 493 plan as it pertains to future enforcement. I know that you want to motivate homeowners 494 to possibly plant different kinds of trees. I don't understand exactly how that's going to 495 work. I don't know if that whole concern falls under this subsection entitled Community 496 Input and Outreach. I thought it might be the outreach part. I'm just not seeing anything 497 in the Executive Summary about education. A summary, just a few kernels, about what 498 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 13 you consider most important. I'm not understanding if the recommendations at some 499 point are going to be binding when you're listing recommended trees, if ultimately you're 500 going to try to influence what people are planting, how that's going to be monitored and 501 enforced. Do those concerns fall into this section of the document? 502 503 Mr. Passmore: I would say in part. Now realize that the Urban Forest Master Plan is 504 broad-scale and long-term. We purposefully did not get very prescriptive. That being 505 said, there are goals, policies and programs that call for certain actions to occur. Those 506 are now incorporated into the Action Plan. There are specific educational and outreach 507 items in there about how we're going to reach out to the community, what kind of 508 information we want to have available. As far as enforcement goes, that has to be based 509 on Municipal Code. We are going to continue enforcing the Municipal Code that we 510 have until that's changed. Part of the recommendation in the Urban Forest Master Plan is 511 that Municipal Code is reviewed and that City Council would consider changes. If there 512 needs to be more enforcement or stronger incentives for people to make particular 513 choices, then Council would be the final determinant. We will certainly make 514 recommendations on what options we think are most palatable. 515 516 Commissioner Crommie: That makes sense. I'm sorry I'm not articulating this very well. 517 There should be some summary statement here in this section about where you're going 518 with this. I wasn't quite clear. Under goal number 1 you discuss making these lists of 519 trees. There's also a whole goal about education. When we get to it, I'll remember which 520 one it is. There's a whole goal devoted to education; yet, in this Executive Summary 521 there's no mention of that. I was wondering if you could map what you consider the most 522 important points from that goal into this and not talk only about the survey. On page 19, 523 we have a section on disparity between north and south Palo Alto. I'm glad you 524 highlighted that, because there's quite a lot of discussion of that in the body of the 525 document. One thing that is missing in this table is the Charleston Meadows 526 neighborhood. You've listed neighborhoods in the south of the City that were most 527 deficient in trees in that 20, 30 year gap. The Charleston Meadows neighborhood was the 528 second most deficient. It should be listed there. Is that possible, to add that into that 529 table? 530 531 Mr. Passmore: Yes, certainly. 532 533 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. It's discussed on page 57 of the document. On 534 page 20, I so appreciate the discussion on page 20 where you define what the urban forest 535 is. That's a new addition to this document to define it early. I'm going to ask you to 536 reiterate that when you get to policies. I actually read the policy section of this document 537 first, and I was very confused when you talked about goals and policies that applied to 538 things inside the urban forest and outside the urban forest. This definition is essential for 539 understanding that language that comes up later on. People might only read the policy 540 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 14 section. I just want to reiterate how much I appreciate this definition. There's one thing I 541 don't understand, which is in the second column of page 20 under Parks, Preserves and 542 Open Space Outside the Urban Forest. There's a bullet point that says develop an open 543 space plan. I worked on the natural environment element of the Comp Plan as a 544 Commissioner. We looked in a lot of detail at different policies and programs that 545 pertain to open space. I don't recall something called an open space plan. We had things 546 called comprehensive conservation plans. If you use that language, it ties back to the 547 Comprehensive Plan. I thought Daren might want to chime in on this and whether there 548 is something called an open space plan. It's mentioned a number of times in this 549 document. 550 551 Mr. Anderson: Daren Anderson, Open Space, Parks and Golf. Yes, Commissioner 552 Crommie, that's exactly right. I was in the meetings when the urban forest plan was 553 being discussed. That was bantered about, open space plan. What they're referencing is 554 exactly what you're calling for, a comprehensive conservation plan that would encompass 555 things like trees, trails, all sorts of stuff specific to open space. Wildlife, habitat and 556 recreation are the three components. As you mentioned, that's both in the Comprehensive 557 Plan, at least the update will have a recommendation that all of Palo Alto's open space 558 preserves should have one. As you know, we've already embarked on that; maybe five 559 years ago for the Baylands but ran out of funding. We're continually trying to move 560 forward with that. 561 562 Commissioner Crommie: Can we add that language in? Since it ties back to the other 563 City documents. 564 565 Mr. Passmore: Yes. 566 567 Commissioner Crommie: And can you do a search and maybe swap that at the various 568 places where that language is used? It's also used under the policy section. I'll probably 569 mention it again when we get there. I won't go page by page through this document, but I 570 am going through a lot of pages of the Executive Summary, so bear with me. On page 571 21, where you're talking about the benefit investment ratios, I recall from our prior 572 meeting in review of this, that we mentioned that you might say that the biological 573 ecosystem value is not measured in this. When you're measuring all of these, I don't see 574 where ecosystem and habitat gets measured. Am I missing that? 575 576 Mr. Passmore: There are only certain aspects that are able to be monetized. There's a 577 much more detailed description in the resource analysis that these numbers came out of. 578 I would refer you to that. You're right in that currently there's no way to monetize 579 wildlife habitat benefit. 580 581 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 15 Commissioner Crommie: Can you just make a note of it here? Some people will only 582 read the Executive Summary. I know that it just wasn't me who brought that up at our 583 last meeting to make a note of that. I wasn't able to go back to that section of the 584 document and look and see if it's there. If you can also check on that. I'm moving out of 585 the Executive Summary. I just have some small points here. I was looking under the 586 Action Plan which is also new. That's on page 31. On page 31 where you mention the 587 Action Plan which is an important piece of this. Number 2 also mentions developing 588 open space plans and you cite Program 4.i.4. That's again where I'd like to mention the 589 comprehensive conservation plans. Just talking about tying back to the point I just made 590 about the biological ecosystem value can't be quantified. That relates to the benefits and 591 values section which begins on page 37. If you can just check that it's mentioned there. I 592 didn't have time to look for that. On page 58, this is a discussion of the disparity between 593 north and south Palo Alto. You go into some detail of the various neighborhoods where 594 there's this greater disparity, well where there's a greater diminishment of trees over time. 595 On page 58 you discuss the Fair Meadow neighborhood. There's a discrepancy in how 596 this is written and I just wanted to point it out to you. You give three bullet points on the 597 first column about what might have created that discrepancy. One of your bullet points is 598 listed as problematic for the soil type. At the bottom of that column you actually say that 599 there was good soil in that particular neighborhood. I think it's called alluvial soil. I was 600 just wondering if you can just make that more consistent between having a bullet point 601 that says one thing and the paragraph down below says another thing. I'm quite familiar 602 with this neighborhood over time, in the 13 years I've lived here. One thing that I've seen 603 go on in this neighborhood that hasn't been mentioned here is the transformation of small 604 homes into these humongous homes. That's particularly noticeable in the Fair Meadows 605 neighborhood. When I was on the market looking to buy a home in 2001, I looked in that 606 neighborhood and I saw what I called a lot of monster homes being developed there. I 607 really think that that went on in such a pronounced way in that neighborhood that it 608 actually should be possibly acknowledged. When people increase the footprint of a home 609 that large, you lose space for trees. Now getting into the Action Plan, beginning on page 610 137. This is where I would recommend that you define what the urban forest is once 611 again, at the beginning of this Action Plan. People will start here and not understand it. 612 Because of this dialectic within the document of going between street trees where we 613 have most of our data and open space, you're listing goals and policies for both. Yet the 614 urban forest excludes some of these areas. That makes me realize I forgot a point, a very 615 important point about that. If we go back in the document, can you tell me the page 616 where you first define the urban forest plan? I think it's somewhere in the Executive 617 Summary. 618 619 Commissioner Reckdahl: Page 20. 620 621 Commissioner Crommie: It's on page 20. This is actually a critical point. When you 622 describe how it was defined, you say on the third paragraph on page 20 in 2010 the 623 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 16 Master Plan team identified a boundary for the urban forest. You describe it and you 624 give a diagram which is really great. This plan is now in 2014 and so I think it could be 625 confusing to the reader what's going on now in 2014. I think that you need a sentence 626 that says, "These are the boundaries that we're using for this plan in 2014," to make it 627 very explicit given there's a four-year gap in that description. If you can just again define 628 the urban forest. I think it's so important to have this definition, that I would actually 629 define it at the beginning of the Action Plan and also at the beginning of the policies and 630 goals. If you can make it very succinct or you can refer back. I think it really needs to be 631 defined on page 137 and also on page 140. Again, the fact that when you're articulating 632 some of these concepts, you talk about things that are inside the boundaries and outside 633 the boundaries. The reader really has to understand what those boundaries are. If you 634 didn't use that language, it wouldn't be as important. Again I would ask for the definition 635 on page 137 and in some form on page 140. It can be very minimal, referencing the 636 reader to another page. I'll just illustrate why that's so important. If you look at page 637 139, the second subheading says parks, preserves and open space outside of the urban 638 forest. The reader really needs to understand what that means. Now I'm going to get to 639 something that ... 640 641 Commissioner Reckdahl: (INAUDIBLE) 642 643 Commissioner Crommie: Yeah, that's fine. Whatever you decide to do as long as there's 644 some note there. Now I'm going to get to a couple of things in the policies. I mentioned 645 things that I think need to be deleted. You appropriately and very nicely have balanced 646 this document. I think the balance has been added in by what's in pink. Sometimes in 647 this auburn color. On page 140 under Program 1.A.2, I think the last bullet point, which 648 reads preference for species with the least undesirable traits such as surface rooting, 649 prolific fruit or seed production, susceptibility to insects and diseases, etc., is at odds with 650 what we've added back in, which has to do with what is desirable is really location 651 specific. We've put in all this language to say that, so in some locations it's desirable to 652 have fruit trees. It's desirable to have trees infected with insects for bird food. What I 653 would like you to do is strike that whole bullet point. I think it's too confusing to have 654 that and then go on to say other things are really important. The site specific is very 655 important. You lose the granularity that you've inserted here by having such a broad, 656 sweeping statement that is reflective of one bias for one kind of location which would 657 often be street trees. 658 659 Mr. Passmore: I think that also applies to park trees in developed parks. That is a very 660 important component of our population. I'll certainly consider that comment, but I'm not 661 sure that we're going to completely remove the language on undesirable traits. It is good 662 to recognize that there are undesirable traits and that's why we have a preferred and 663 restricted. We can qualify that with being site specific. There are certain undesirable 664 traits that we should recognize in the list. 665 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 17 666 Commissioner Crommie: Well then as long you modify that by being site specific. You 667 don't go on to say what's desirable at other sites. It's lopsided right now. You're basically 668 talking about certain locations, but it's not defined that way. You don't balance it by 669 talking about what's desirable in other locations. I'm getting close. On page 142, this has 670 to do with Program 1.D.i. This is again the disparity between north and south as far as 671 the last 30 years of canopy. I would like to see a bullet point in here that says, "Create 672 more tree planting sites." I see bullets about studying it, but I don't see a bullet with 673 enough action sense to it. If you can just take a look at that and see if there's a way to 674 insert that. Under Policy 1.F, you mention the stocking of viable planting sites, but I 675 think it's really an important concept to talk about creation of sites when you know there's 676 a deficiency. Moving on to page 145. This is where we have the goal about education, 677 Goal 3, a community that appreciates its urban forest and partners with the City and 678 Canopy to steward it. This seems like it's an important piece of this document. That's 679 why I've asked for some things from this goal to be reflected in the Executive Summary. 680 681 Mr. Passmore: Yes. 682 683 Commissioner Crommie: On page 145 Program 3.A.4, you talk about continue pruning 684 workshops and tree tours and consider additional ways for community and staff to 685 interact. I had a little bit of problem lumping that altogether. I was wondering if you can 686 have a separate program that says educate public about bird nesting season and the best 687 time to do tree trimming and maintenance, so it's not lost in that overly wordy program. 688 Where you say additional ways for community and staff to interact, I found that very 689 vague personally. It might be nice to add some more to that if you can. On page 146 690 Program 4.C.2, where you say incorporate same into project review standards, I would 691 reference back to the other. It's at the top of the second column of page 146 under 692 Program 4.C.2. I just had trouble with the use of the word "same." If you can just 693 specify what you're mapping back to, whatever that program is. I would just define what 694 the word "same" means there. I'm almost done. This is another place where I want to 695 create more balance. On page 147 the second column, you have Program 4.G.VII. 696 Here's a very important section where you're talking about updating the Tree Technical 697 Manual, which is a very important companion document. I'm glad to see that this new 698 bullet point has been added, the second bullet point that says review and expand the 699 requirements and options for mitigating the removal of existing trees. Delete the word 700 "an." That's really good, but what you have written below it is too specific. It's talking 701 about rooftop plantings. I would like to see that deleted, because I think it weakens this 702 really important statement. For instance, this is a statement that supports the whole golf 703 course mitigation that we did, to look at alternatives. This idea of the rooftop plantings 704 doesn't encapsulate any of that. That kind of mitigation was done in a completely 705 different way. I think having that second sentence really weakens the power of that 706 statement. If you feel comfortable, I think it's really important to have that stand on its 707 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 18 own. I'm really close to the end, two more. These are very small points. On page 149 708 under Program 4.1.12, the second column, the very last program. This is just a question. 709 It says consider transferring maintenance responsibilities from Community Services 710 Parks Division to Public Works Urban Forestry Division for, and then it lists two bullet 711 points including the golf course. I don't have a bias, but can you explain to us what the 712 difference is to have one group be responsible for maintenance versus the other group? 713 714 Mr. Passmore: I think it's more budget, economy of scale, administrative oversight. 715 Since the Urban Forestry Division is handling all other trees in the City, it'd be more 716 efficient for us to also handle the trees in the open space along the park roads and in the 717 golf course. 718 719 Commissioner Crommie: My last point is on Policy 4.K which is on page 150, Program 720 4.K.II. It says work with Canopy to educate the development community about the need 721 to discuss trees during the early stage of a project's design. Can you please add work 722 with Canopy and other stakeholders to that bullet point? 723 724 Mr. Passmore: Yes. 725 726 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you so much for all your work on this and your patience 727 with my comments. 728 729 Chair Hetterly: I just have a couple of comments. I'll be very brief. I absolutely agree 730 about the importance of addressing the elephant in the room of the benefits that are hard 731 to quantify. I don't think we can just pretend that they don't exist. I really would also like 732 to see some mention in there acknowledging that they exist and how we're going to deal 733 with them in terms of monitoring, analyzing without the standard quantified data sets for 734 consideration in future City planning. I think you have to say it. I think this is greatly 735 improved. I liked the Executive Summary. I especially liked the Action Plan, those two 736 pages before the goals in the back. One thing I found confusing was that the section 737 headings don't all match up. For example, in the Executive Summary you talk about 738 species. There's a section on species in the Executive Summary. I don't know what page 739 it's on, page 17. But then you go to the table of contents and that's not a main heading. 740 That's a consideration under the section composition. I think it would be helpful for the 741 reader to have some signage. As you're reading the Executive Summary, you can say, 742 "OK, I want to know more about species. Where do I look?" Maybe add a "for more 743 discussion on this, see section whatever." I think that's especially important on page 18 744 for the community input. For the complete survey results, I would go ahead and refer to 745 that. The public who reads this is going to want to know that section especially I think. 746 Referring them to where in the body of the text would be helpful. Also I agree with 747 Commissioner Reckdahl's concern about the benefit investment ratio. It was confusing to 748 me even though I've read this now a couple of times. In the Executive Summary, I got to 749 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 19 that and I thought, "Huh. Who's going to know what the BIR really means, where it 750 comes from?" I think it would be helpful to have one-sentence in English after that first 751 column on page 21 where you list items 1-10. At the top of the second column, have a 752 sentence about what the BIR is. Again, refer to the fuller discussion later in the body of 753 the piece. That's it for me. Yes, Commissioner Markevitch. 754 755 Commissioner Markevitch: I just have one comment on the north/south disparity. While 756 it's obvious, it would be good to note that in a lot of the north neighborhoods the canopy 757 has been around for 50 years or more with regards to the south, which is one of the 758 reasons why there's such a disparity and a difference. Thanks. 759 760 Chair Hetterly: This is an action item for tonight. I would entertain a motion to take 761 some action on this, if there's motivation for that. 762 763 Commissioner Markevitch: I move we approve this. 764 765 Chair Hetterly: Is there a second? 766 767 Vice Chair Lauing: I'll second. 768 769 MOTION: Recommend approval of the draft Urban Forest Master Plan to the 770 Council. 771 772 Chair Hetterly: Any comment on the motion? 773 774 Commissioner Crommie: Can we stipulate with the additions made at this meeting? Is 775 that OK to add that on? 776 777 Vice Chair Lauing: I don't think the Urban Forester has agreed to take every single 778 comment. You might want to couch that a little bit. 779 780 Chair Hetterly: That they'll consider our comments from this evening in the final draft. 781 Would that work? 782 783 Commissioner Crommie: OK. 784 785 Chair Hetterly: Does that work? 786 787 Vice Chair Lauing: Do you take that amendment? 788 789 Commissioner Markevitch: Yeah. 790 791 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 20 Vice Chair Lauing: Yep, I'm OK with that. 792 793 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION: The Urban Forester will review and 794 consider Commissioners' comments in preparing the final draft of the Urban Forest 795 Master Plan for presentation to the Council. 796 797 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments? Then let's vote. All in favor of the Motion. It's 798 unanimous. 799 800 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 801 802 Vice Chair Lauing: Thanks, Walter. 803 804 Mr. Passmore: Thank you. 805 806 Chair Hetterly: Thank you very much. 807 808 4. Recommend to Council a Park Improvement Ordinance for Hopkins Park. 809 810 Chair Hetterly: We have Daren Anderson here to present on that. 811 812 Daren Anderson: Good evening. I'm Daren Anderson. I'm with Open Space, Parks and 813 Golf. I'm here tonight to ask your recommendation to Council to approve and adopt a 814 Park Improvement Ordinance for the design of Hopkins Park capital improvement 815 project. Since we reviewed this project and the plans in-depth at our previous Parks and 816 Recreation Commission meeting and there have been no revisions to the plans since then, 817 I'll be very brief. A community meeting was held in August 2013. Feedback from that 818 meeting was incorporated into the design. In February 2014 staff shared that design with 819 the Commission for review. The Commission noted it was a good design and a vast 820 improvement over the existing design and supported the design. That concludes my 821 presentation. I do have the design if anyone wants to see it up on the board. If you have 822 any questions, I'm glad to answer. 823 824 Chair Hetterly: Are there any questions? Comments, motions? 825 826 Vice Chair Lauing: No speakers? 827 828 Chair Hetterly: No speakers. OK, we have no questions and comments. Would anyone 829 like to take action on this? This is an action item, so we would need a motion. 830 831 Commissioner Reckdahl: I move that we approve it. 832 833 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 21 Commissioner Markevitch: I second. 834 835 MOTION: Recommend approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance for Hopkins 836 Park to the Council. 837 838 Chair Hetterly: All in favor. I guess we need a consent calendar for things like that. 839 840 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 841 842 5. Review New Information and Recommend to Council Approval of an 843 Amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.04.270. 844 845 Chair Hetterly: This is also an action item. We have Daren again. 846 847 Daren Anderson: Good evening again, Daren Anderson. I'm here to seek your 848 recommendation that Council amend the Municipal Code to prohibit feeding wildlife and 849 feral animals in Palo Alto parks and open space areas. I presented this topic to the 850 Commission in May 2013. The Commission supported the idea and suggested I speak 851 with the Audubon Society to get some feedback from them on whether the ordinance was 852 broad enough to cover the overall scope of the issue and the problem. I did meet with the 853 Audubon Society and they recommended that we include in addition to wildlife 854 prohibiting the feeding of feral animals. I returned to the Commission in August 2013 855 and the Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the Council approve that ordinance. 856 Commissioner Ashlund, the one no vote, felt that staff should consult with animal 857 welfare groups to learn more about the impacts this ordinance would have on feral cats. I 858 did meet with two animal welfare groups. I had a discussion that prompted my return to 859 the Commission tonight. Most of the presentation tonight will focus on that discussion. 860 That's the real substantive change. The ordinance itself is the same. The vast majority of 861 the staff report is the same. It's really this discussion with animal welfare groups and an 862 agreement that is the difference and why I'm here tonight. In October 2013, I met with 863 Carole Hyde, the Director of the Palo Alto Humane Society, and Scottie Zimmerman, a 864 Board Member of the Friends of Palo Alto Animal Shelter, to discuss the ordinance. 865 They explained that their concern was that perhaps this was just the beginning, that it 866 would gradually expand and become a bigger prohibition against all cat support 867 throughout the City. That was generally the strong reaction amongst most of the cat 868 welfare groups. They explained that Palo Alto doesn't have a very large feral cat 869 population. That's in part, they say, due to a lot of the work they've done for many years. 870 Lots of money, lots of effort to control those populations, predominantly through trapping 871 and neutering. They also noted, I thought this was poignant, that they aren't aware of any 872 legitimate feral cat feeding currently taking place in any Palo Alto parks or open space 873 areas. They support keeping feeding of feral animals out of sensitive areas where 874 wildlife might be impacted. Both Ms. Hyde and Ms. Zimmerman said they could support 875 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 22 the ordinance if it was clear that staff wasn't intending to prohibit feral cat feeding 876 elsewhere in the City and if cat welfare advocates could submit permit requests to feed 877 when necessary in parks and open space areas. The proposed ordinance already had a 878 stipulation that allowed for feeding with a permit. I put that into the ordinance with the 879 intent really for park rangers, for animal control officers or researchers who may have 880 legitimate needs to feed either wildlife or feral animals or whatever in a park and open 881 space area with a permit from the Director of Community Services. It was just a coverall. 882 It does happen often that animal control officers and rangers do bait traps to catch 883 different animals; because so many are dropped off in some of our urban parks and nature 884 preserves. In speaking with Ms. Hyde and Ms. Zimmerman, who were both very 885 reasonable, they said they didn't believe this would come up very often. It hasn't. It's not 886 currently, but we'd love the flexibility. It seemed a very reasonable request to say, "Can 887 we submit a permit application?" Just like an ACO would or ranger would say, "I've got 888 to feed under these circumstances." I did confer with Director Betts who confirmed that 889 right now no one in CSD is considering or looking at expanding no feeding to anywhere 890 else in the City, just parks and open space. I've been with the City for almost 15 years 891 and I think I'm the only one that I've met in the City who's pushed for this kind of thing. 892 There hasn't been any other endeavors that I've been aware of in that time period to do 893 anything with no feeding. Parks and open space was my concern and I'm very happy to 894 move this forward. I think it's a valid and necessary thing. We've discussed this at length 895 in previous Commission meetings. I passed out a sample permit request that was used for 896 a study at the Baylands. I can open it on the big screen if that's helpful. That's an 897 example I like because it shows the depth in which the person is saying, 'This is where 898 we're going to do it. This is a drawing of the park that shows where I need to do it. This 899 is the timeframe. This is who's going to be here. Here's the contact information." 900 Everything that adds legitimacy and control on the part of the City to say, and this is the 901 big deal, "Feeding is probably going to happen whether an ordinance passes or not." It's 902 very difficult to enforce. Someone can come in at midnight and put down a tray of cat 903 food and no one would be the wiser. The advantage here is there's an opportunity for the 904 City to say, "Yes, we're going to allow you to trap for two weeks at Bol Park in this area." 905 We can monitor it. If there's other issues, like skunks are showing up or there's some 906 negative concerns or issues, we have now someone we can contact and say, "Looks like 907 it's not working. We need you to discontinue that. Maybe there's another spot in that 908 park or maybe it just doesn't work. You'll have to go with something else." We have 909 some dialog now; whereas before, it was this under-the-table thing. I also want to take a 910 quick moment to address a comment that I saw was mailed to the Commission. I just 911 wanted to clarify that the permit would not allow feeding of any predator, cat or 912 otherwise, in areas where we've got endangered species or any sensitive wildlife for that 913 matter. Furthermore we wouldn't be permitting to feed to sustain a cat colony. This 914 would really be special situations. If, for example, one of the two organizations I 915 mentioned or some other legitimate organization needed to feed for a while to help trap a 916 cat or had something special going on, we could use it. It would not be some sustained, 917 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 23 ongoing feeding in a park or open space area and definitely not where there's wildlife 918 present. During this process staff has consulted with State Fish and Wildlife Service, US 919 Fish and Wildlife Service, the Audubon Society, the Palo Alto Humane Society, the 920 Friends of Palo Alto Animal Shelter, and numerous other park and open space 921 stakeholders. I think it's been a good process. I think we've reached a fairly good 922 compromise. I think it still meets the main goal. The primary goal was to protect that 923 wildlife, to protect the park visitors that are using these areas and to keep our open space 924 and parks clean and safe. That concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any 925 questions. 926 927 Chair Hetterly: Any questions or comments? Commissioner Ashlund. 928 929 Commissioner Ashlund: Thank you, Daren. I think this is really thorough and I really 930 appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with the animal welfare folks. It looks 931 really thorough. I like the example of this special permit and why and when and where 932 they would be used and that it still meets the primary goal. I really appreciate that extra 933 effort. Thank you. 934 935 Chair Hetterly: Yes, Commissioner Lauing. 936 937 Vice Chair Lauing: As I read the plans for enforcement, primarily it's going to be new 938 signage to inform constituents what the issues are and maybe slightly more patrolling, but 939 not any incremental cost there. Do you feel like that's going to be sufficient for 940 enforcement? 941 942 Mr. Anderson: That's a challenging question. I think it'll be helpful. I think you'll see 943 the biggest impacts in areas probably where the feeding is most robust now, by the duck 944 pond, by the picnic areas of all the parks and especially open space. By Children's 945 Playground at Mitchell for example, where I know it's currently happening. People are 946 throwing down food for squirrels. I think we can have an impact in those areas more so. 947 I also think gradually the word would spread and it'd be helpful. It's the right thing to do 948 even with some of the challenges of enforcing it. There's nothing right now that would 949 stop you from legally feeding a coyote in Arastradero Preserve. A terrible thing to do for 950 everyone's sake, but there's no law right now on the books to say, "You shouldn't do that. 951 You can't do that." We'll incorporate this into all our interpretative programs. It'll be a 952 part of our messages that we convey in our nature centers and the signage as you 953 mentioned and enforcement when we've caught someone in the act. 954 955 Vice Chair Lauing: You must have considered a friendly surge of friendly rangers to be 956 out there on weekends for the first six weeks just to break bad habits. 957 958 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 24 Mr. Anderson: Yes, yes. The rangers will be out there. Education is always the first and 959 foremost technique that we use for enforcement. They'll continue to do so. 960 961 Vice Chair Lauing: Thanks. 962 963 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Knopper. 964 965 Commissioner Knopper: I too was thinking about how to implement an enforcement 966 program, especially the first few months of the program. Specifically the duck pond area 967 where we have a really big problem right now. One of the things that I was thinking 968 about is how we can create as part of the educational and learning process a service 969 program for school groups, young people to come and monitor during those high bread-970 throwing, doughnut-feeding weekend times. Not only do we get to teach the children or 971 the service group about the importance of why feeding wildlife is very bad, but they have 972 an opportunity to, as we were talking earlier tonight with the Our Palo Alto program, 973 encourage different people in the community that might not necessarily do civic work to 974 be able to draw them into this important issue. I think it's a really great opportunity to 975 reinforce the ordinance in a positive way by having people in the community be our day 976 rangers, for lack of a better word. 977 978 Mr. Anderson: I think that's a critical point and one we've done. When we started 979 pushing the educational companion many years ago now, seven years or more, we 980 brought in partners that were there, like the EVs who have the Eco Center now but before 981 they were running programs. We reached out to them, handed them the literature we 982 wanted shared and the concise message we hoped everyone would hear. They did that 983 for us on all their programs, which includes lots of school groups. Same with Save the 984 Bay. Save the Bay has numerous programs. We're looking at 50 programs a year, most 985 of them have some children component. Because the nursery is right there behind the 986 duck pond, they're coming in and out of that area. It just so happens all their field 987 educators have biology backgrounds and are teachers by trade. They're really good at 988 conveying those messages to the school groups that come in. What's always been the 989 way is people at the duck pond. We just have a connection with them and the rangers, 990 because there's a lot of regulars. They'll serve as that day ranger for you or that goodwill 991 ambassador to share the good word. Usually they get a lot of compliance too. When 992 they don't, they come get a ranger to help. 993 994 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 995 996 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you, Daren, for all of your hard work for on this. It's 997 really good to see this coming online. I think it's a big improvement. I know it's not 998 going to be easy for everyone to adjust. I think you've been very sensitive about 999 developing this ordinance. I think you have good ideas about enforcing it. I hope you'll 1000 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 25 come back to us to let us know how it's going. I have just a couple of questions. I 1001 understand why you're making the exception of considering this idea of having a permit. 1002 I was just a little bit concerned with this word "sustain." In the description you said 1003 animal welfare advocates need the flexibility to feed in order to trap or sustain a feral cat 1004 in an urban park would be beneficial. I understand how you would want to trap a feral 1005 cat, but I didn't understand the sustain part. 1006 1007 Mr. Anderson: I think I probably misspoke on that, or miswrote. It would probably be to 1008 sustain or keep alive a cat until they could trap it. That's what I had envisioned. I believe 1009 from my conversations with Ms. Hyde and Ms. Zimmerman that that was where they 1010 were going. They're very committed and they've been working tirelessly for a number of 1011 years to help reduce that population. They have no goal of increasing or developing 1012 massive colonies of cats. Their goals are to find homes and provide a better living 1013 situation for those cats. 1014 1015 Commissioner Crommie: That sounds really good. I also wanted to point out that our 1016 low-cost spay and neuter clinic hasn't been operational for some time now in the City. 1017 Even though we're lucky to have all these people helping us to keep the population small, 1018 I have some concerns about how that might impact growth of feral cat populations. I am 1019 hoping that that clinic will come back online. Do we have any staff watching that? I just 1020 call up periodically. They have a recording on, saying that the clinic is open but 1021 unstaffed. They've had that recording on for many months now. 1022 1023 Mr. Anderson: I'm sorry I don't have information on that. 1024 1025 Commissioner Crommie: Can you just report back on what the status of that is? It does 1026 concern me. I think that was a very valuable resource. On the recording they do say they 1027 make exceptions. I think they might be spaying feral cats still, but it's still a little bit 1028 confusing when that might come back online. How do you mention the permit process? 1029 Where is that advertised? Or is that by word of mouth, your interaction with these 1030 different groups or is it posted? 1031 1032 Mr. Anderson: It's in the ordinance itself. I would definitely have a dialog with different 1033 communities, like the two organizations that we discussed. 1034 1035 Commissioner Crommie: I looked in the ordinance and I didn't see it. Can you tell me 1036 where it is? 1037 1038 Mr. Anderson: This is on B. It says "Except as authorized by park regulations or with 1039 the written consent of the Director." 1040 1041 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 26 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. I missed that. I appreciate you sending the sample 1042 around of a sample permit. When I was looking at that, one thing that wasn't really clear 1043 to me is how duration was mapped out on the permit. Do you require people to give 1044 dates? 1045 1046 Mr. Anderson: Yes. On the example that I passed out and in similar studies, we'll 1047 usually get down to the day and time. We wanted to know when people would be in the 1048 marsh in that particular example studying birds. Likewise with this one, we'd want to 1049 know when people were in the park conducting this kind of thing. 1050 1051 Commissioner Crommie: I feel comfortable with it as long as there's that oversight and 1052 specificity. Thank you. 1053 1054 Chair Hetterly: Any other comments, questions? Do we have a motion to approve the 1055 ordinance? 1056 1057 Commissioner Ashlund: I make a motion to approve this ordinance. 1058 1059 Commissioner Crommie: I'll second it. 1060 1061 MOTION: To recommend approval of an amendment to the Palo Alto Municipal 1062 Code Section 22.04.270 prohibiting the feeding of wildlife and feral animals to the 1063 Council. 1064 1065 Chair Hetterly: All in favor. None opposed. 1066 1067 MOTION PASSED: 7-0 1068 1069 Chair Hetterly: So that does it for feeding wildlife. Congratulations, Daren. 1070 1071 6. Recommend to Council a Park Improvement Ordinance for the Magical 1072 Bridge Playground in Mitchell Park. 1073 1074 Rob De Geus: We invite Peter Jensen to come up here. I don't believe he has a big 1075 presentation, because we talked about this at some length last month. Hopefully it will be 1076 a fairly quick item. Peter, do you have a presentation? 1077 1078 Peter Jensen: I've got something. 1079 1080 Mr. De Geus: There is a tentative groundbreaking date that I understand is June 23rd, 1081 which is a Monday, for the Magical Bridge at 11:00. 1082 1083 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 27 Commissioner Markevitch: Could you talk a little bit louder? 1084 1085 Mr. De Geus: I'm sorry. There is a date set for the groundbreaking for the Magical 1086 Bridge project provided it gets through Council in May. That is June 23rd, which is a 1087 Monday, at 11:00 a.m. It would be wonderful to see some Commissioners there. 1088 1089 Commissioner Knopper: May I ask you a quick question? 1090 1091 Mr. De Geus: Yes. 1092 1093 Commissioner Knopper: Actually I should wait until comments. 1094 1095 Mr. Jensen: Commissioners, good evening. Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect for the 1096 City of Palo Alto. Like Rob has stated, we reviewed the plans at the last meeting. This 1097 meeting is to approve the Park Improvement Ordinance for the Magical Bridge 1098 Playground. A brief rundown of what's happened since our last meeting. The plan has 1099 gone to ARB, went to the Architectural Review Board last week where they approved the 1100 plan. They did have a few items that they would like to see come back to them. Some 1101 enhancements to the playhouse and a photometric plan for the light and fixtures, which 1102 we'll take back to them on May 1st. We also met with the Transportation Commission 1103 for the School Board and discussed the alternative routes that will occur as the pathway is 1104 under construction during the summer months. We figured out where those would be. 1105 As concerned the plan, there were no revisions or changes made except for, as I said, 1106 some more detailing to the playhouse that the Architectural Review Board would like to 1107 see. I know that there were some questions about the initial study for the Mitigated 1108 Negative Dec. I passed out that initial study for you to review. The initial study's broken 1109 up into A through R components. For the majority of those sections, there is no 1110 mitigation requested. For two of those sections, one being the biological, it refers to 1111 nesting birds and doing a review of the project site before construction. If any nesting 1112 birds are found, mitigation is spelled out; what would need to take place if nesting birds 1113 were found in that location. Also air quality as far as construction, keeping the dust down 1114 was the main element that the mitigation discusses there. As far as the mitigation goes of 1115 environmental impact, there was no other mitigation requirements for that. With that I 1116 will open it up to questions and hopefully answer them for you. 1117 1118 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Reckdahl. 1119 1120 Commissioner Reckdahl: Overall this is a wonderful design. I'm very excited to get it 1121 going. There's still a couple of things that bother me about this. One of them is the 1122 restrooms. There are no restrooms immediate there. We have an existing restroom 1123 across the bridge, but it's pretty small. Is it handicap accessible? It's been a while since 1124 I've been there. 1125 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 28 1126 Mr. Jensen: Yes, the restroom is handicap accessible. 1127 1128 Commissioner Reckdahl: There is a segment of the disabled population that does need 1129 the restroom more frequently. I'm afraid that we're going to be underserved. We have a 1130 lot of people now being drawn to this. With the existing load of the park, I think we'll 1131 need more restrooms in the area, particularly handicap-accessible restrooms. 1132 1133 Mr. Jensen: We studied having a restroom on that segment of the park. Unfortunately 1134 there's no infrastructure there to have a restroom, because of the isolated nature with the 1135 creek there and how it's surrounded by the buildings. The restroom that is in the closest 1136 proximity to it is a ADA accessible and handicap. 1137 1138 Commissioner Reckdahl: I think it's too small. I think we'll have to expand that. When 1139 we do a development like this, do you look at the number of people that'd be drawn to 1140 that area and then you have some formula for calculating the number of restrooms needed 1141 in the area? How's that done? 1142 1143 Mr. Jensen: We currently don't have any type of calculation that is done for restroom 1144 use. In fact it's noted that a lot of Palo Alto parks don't even have restrooms. Mitchell 1145 Park does have two there. This one is along the access route and in close enough 1146 proximity that it is available for use. 1147 1148 Commissioner Reckdahl: I'm just concerned still that we will not have enough restrooms 1149 in the area. The second thing is handicap parking. A lot of these people are not going to 1150 be able to easily walk from the parking lot. The nearest one is over by the drop-off 1151 center, but that's quite a ways. Are there any other plans, any other options for parking? 1152 1153 Mr. Jensen: Currently the Mitchell Park parking lot is the main parking lot for the 1154 playground. There has been some discussions with the facilities around there, the church 1155 in particular, about adding handicap stalls that could be used by patrons of the 1156 playground. No agreement has been resolved yet. We were going to study that as the 1157 park opened to see if that was something that was really needed. It's felt from the parking 1158 study that the parking lot does accommodate the spaces needed for the playground. 1159 1160 Commissioner Reckdahl: We certainly can address the parking lot later. Restrooms, I 1161 guess you could address that later also. It would make sense to do all of the development 1162 at one time. It's much easier to deal with parking then, and plumbing. Apart from that, I 1163 think this is a wonderful project. I'm looking forward to having it built. 1164 1165 Chair Hetterly: Other comments? Commissioner Crommie. 1166 1167 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 29 Commissioner Crommie: I just wanted to echo the comment on the parking. I've also 1168 been quite concerned about the parking, also the access route. When we heard the 1169 presentation last Commission meeting, the presenter mentioned that she considered the 1170 primary access would be over the bridge. I'm not convinced of that. I think that people 1171 who have children that are going to have trouble making that length of a trip might try to 1172 park on the other side. Is it East Meadow? Is the Unitarian Church on ... 1173 1174 Mr. Jensen: Charleston. 1175 1176 Commissioner Crommie: Oh, it's on Charleston. I'm going to be curious to see how it 1177 plays out. My gut feeling is that due to access issues and because it is drawing in a 1178 population that has sometimes more limited access, people might try to park over by 1179 Charleston. My understanding of being there is that it's a shorter route in. Do you agree 1180 with that or not? 1181 1182 Mr. Jensen: I haven't measured the distance to know exactly. I would say it's fairly close 1183 out of the way. If you have to park out on Charleston, you couldn't actually park right at 1184 the entry of the walkway. You would have to park further down the street, which would 1185 probably make that further than parking in the parking lot. 1186 1187 Chair Hetterly: I don't think there is any street parking on Charleston through that 1188 stretch. 1189 1190 Mr. Jensen: No, there's not. It would actually be across the street. 1191 1192 Commissioner Crommie: That's where I think people might explore parking in the 1193 Unitarian parking lot, because that is close. When you're exploring it with the church, is 1194 part of that exploration to see if there could be a cut out in the fence? 1195 1196 Mr. Jensen: Yes. 1197 1198 Commissioner Crommie: Then that would be a very short trip. 1199 1200 Mr. Jensen: We've looked at the potential areas for a cut out. They would be somewhere 1201 in the middle of the walkway between Charleston and the Mitchell Park property line. It 1202 would definitely be closer, yes. 1203 1204 Commissioner Crommie: I've been concerned about this throughout the project; 1205 although, I think it's an amazing park. I'm really looking forward to seeing it come 1206 online. 1207 1208 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 30 Commissioner Reckdahl: Has there been any talk with Abilities United? They have a 1209 parking lot that is actually quite convenient. 1210 1211 Mr. Jensen: Their parking lot is not very large. They can hold between 18 and 22 cars in 1212 that lot and most of the time it's used. They're not interested in allowing any parking 1213 that's not for them. 1214 1215 Commissioner Reckdahl: If we extended a couple of parking spots into that grassy area 1216 and used their driveway, would that be an option? 1217 1218 Mr. Jensen: That is definitely another option. One of the first plans looked at was 1219 developing that area of the grass into a six-space parking lot. That could be developed in 1220 the future since it's not a developed space right now. For our purposes and for park 1221 improvement purposes, we would rather not create asphalt in a designated park area. If 1222 that relieved parking or allowed closer parking, then we would consider that. 1223 1224 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 1225 1226 Chair Hetterly: Other comments or questions? No. OK, this is an action item for 1227 recommending approval of the Park Improvement Ordinance. Do I have a motion? 1228 1229 Commissioner Knopper: I'll make a motion to make a Park Improvement Ordinance for 1230 the Magical Playground in Mitchell Park. 1231 1232 Commissioner Ashlund: I second the motion. 1233 1234 MOTION: Recommend approval of a Park Improvement Ordinance for the 1235 Magical Bridge Playground in Mitchell Park to the Council. 1236 1237 Chair Hetterly: All in favor. None opposed. 1238 1239 MOTION PASSED: 7-0. 1240 1241 7. Ad Hoc Committee and Liaison Updates. 1242 1243 a. Recreational Opportunities for Dog Owners Ad Hoc Committee. 1244 1245 Chair Hetterly: That is Commissioner Knopper and myself. Daren Anderson is our staff 1246 contact. We were working on a work plan that we were hoping to present to you tonight, 1247 but we're still sorting out some details about how our work should interact with the Parks 1248 and Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. We hope to be able to present that next 1249 month. In the meantime, we want to spend May, we would really want to get in touch 1250 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 31 with the dog owners' group and talk about the Master Plan process as well as possibilities 1251 for a shared-use partnership and what their concerns and interests are to do a baseline. 1252 Basically May is our research month. We'd like to meet with them. We'd like to meet 1253 with the Menlo Park City representative about their shared-use model, what the pros and 1254 cons and costs are. Do the same with the Menlo Park dog group who's very active in that 1255 as I understand it. Then summarize what we know about the demands, needs and status 1256 of current resources, focusing primarily on gathering information about a shared-use pilot 1257 possibility. That's where we stand with the dog group. 1258 1259 b. Community Garden Ad Hoc Committee. 1260 1261 Commissioner Ashlund: Commissioner Crommie and I met two times and discussed 1262 this. We have been communicating with Cat Bourquin for our staff person. We mapped 1263 out the three locations of the current community gardens which are all in north Palo Alto, 1264 and talked about the status of the wait lists which aren't up-to-date on the website right 1265 now. We're working that out with Cat. We also are in the process of visiting the three 1266 City community gardens as well as the three that are neighborhood association; private 1267 but also available. We are reaching out to neighborhood associations. Commissioner 1268 Crommie and I are dividing up that list to talk about the needs and of course feeding this 1269 information into the survey process that we'll do as a part of the Master Plan. Lastly 1270 we're keeping an eye out for potential spaces for more community gardens. Two things 1271 that came up this past week that are particularly timely were Friday's Palo Alto Weekly 1272 had an article, "Down on the Neighborhood Farm," about Baron Park residents sharing 1273 gardening resources and benefits. The other is that Assembly Member Rich Gordon 1274 proposed a bill on community and school gardens, community food production for local 1275 fresh food being increasingly important. We think it's a timely issue and we'll have more 1276 actions to update on in the future. Commissioner Crommie may want to add something. 1277 1278 Commissioner Crommie: Thank you. I just wanted to add in that as you can tell from 1279 what Commissioner Ashlund said, we're very much in the information gathering part. I 1280 believe that by next month we can meet with our staff contact, who's Daren Anderson. 1281 Through him we'll also be exploring the Sterling Canal area in conjunction with our 1282 survey of available sites and available needs. We will be able to have a report at the next 1283 Commission meeting. I think we'll probably have something ready by then to let you 1284 know about what we found out and at least a first draft of recommendations we might 1285 have. I'll also add that as part of our community outreach, I did attend the Baron Park 1286 green team meeting. A former Park and Rec Commissioner, Joel Davidson, is on that 1287 committee and has a strong interest in community gardens, so I reached out to him. I just 1288 wanted to get a feel about what interest level there is. I know over the years I've been on 1289 the Commission, about six years now, we do get periodic queries about community 1290 gardens. It was very informative to visit them. What I learned more than anything was 1291 the broader movement in terms of this food sharing, neighborhood farming. It's a whole 1292 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 32 other movement beyond a community garden. It ties into the Urban Forest Master Plan 1293 in terms of the planting of fruit trees. That could be another asset of our community, to 1294 have that local food available. I often talk about it in terms of food for birds, but there 1295 are cities in this country that have robust community fruit trees. I experienced that when 1296 I lived in Portland, Oregon. We're just learning a lot right now. Once we meet with 1297 Daren, we'll try to narrow things down and come up with some more concrete things to 1298 speak about. 1299 1300 Commissioner Markevitch: I seem to recall at one point the issue of Sterling Canal 1301 possibly being used for a dog run. I'd hate to see these two ad hocs not get together, well 1302 I don't want any Brown Act violations, but possibly in an opening meeting discuss the 1303 pros and cons of each. 1304 1305 Chair Hetterly: I think there's a first level question about Sterling Canal, which is 1306 whether it can be used for anything. Once that question is answered, I think you're right 1307 that we ought to have an open discussion about what's the best use for it if it's available. 1308 1309 Commissioner Crommie: Great. We'll keep that in mind. That's what we plan to 1310 evaluate, what you just mentioned, just the preliminary use issues. 1311 1312 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Lauing. 1313 1314 Vice Chair Lauing: I have a pseudo ad hoc committee of one as of last month, which is 1315 to look into the communications, external communications and notification of people 1316 about coming to meetings about parks and so on. I met with Claudia Keith and Daren 1317 since that meeting. Daren put together an initial draft to be edited, which was a great 1318 start. I think we made very good progress. I definitely want to tie that into the whole 1319 Master Plan, which is another reason Claudia mentioned earlier that she's meeting 1320 tomorrow with the consultant on the Master Plan. I think it's reasonably likely that we 1321 could come back at the next meeting with a draft of what that plan should be. 1322 1323 Chair Hetterly: Great. Yes? 1324 1325 Vice Chair Lauing: I have a question. Is there any action on the 7.7 acres for the folks 1326 on that? Or when that might come back. 1327 1328 Commissioner Markevitch: Daren and I met yesterday. There was a follow-up call with 1329 Abbie. We went over a number of ideas that the staff had come up and we gave some 1330 ideas of our own. Since he was busy with the meeting for tonight, he will get something 1331 written up for next month to be able to hand out to the rest of the Commission. 1332 1333 Chair Hetterly: So we can have a discussion item for next month? 1334 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 33 1335 Commissioner Markevitch: Mm-hmm. 1336 1337 Chair Hetterly: Great. Thank you. 1338 1339 Vice Chair Lauing: Great. I actually had one question that was somewhat related to the 1340 ad hocs still. I thought that by this meeting we were supposed to get from Peter Jensen, 1341 who just departed, dates on the public meetings so that those on the ad hocs to start to 1342 calendar that. 1343 1344 Chair Hetterly: For the Master Plan? 1345 1346 Vice Chair Lauing: Yes. 1347 1348 Chair Hetterly: I think we're going to discuss that next month. 1349 1350 Rob De Geus: If the dates are available before that, we'll make sure that all the 1351 Commissioners get them as soon as they're set. 1352 1353 Vice Chair Lauing: He was charged to bring that back for this month. (INAUDIBLE) 1354 make sure we get it for next month. 1355 1356 V. COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1357 1358 Commissioner Knopper: May I make a comment? Rob, can I ask you a question? I 1359 think I asked you this last year. The volume of paper that we get feels counter-intuitive 1360 to being environmentally friendly. Is that a State law or City ordinance, the requirement 1361 for everything to be on paper versus electronic? 1362 1363 Rob De Geus: I would have to defer to the Clerk's Office to know exactly what the law 1364 requires. My understanding is that it is required, that we need to have a printed copy. 1365 1366 Commissioner Knopper: Right. So where does that requirement come from? 1367 1368 Mr. De Geus: I'll find out. I don't know. 1369 1370 Commissioner Knopper: For instance the dec for the urban plan to save trees, this is like 1371 the fourth time that we've received something this thick. 1372 1373 Vice Chair Lauing: We're using trees. 1374 1375 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 34 Commissioner Knopper: We're using trees to save trees, right. I think that this 1376 Commission should consider spearheading an effort to overturn that ordinance. No? I'm 1377 getting a no. 1378 1379 Chair Hetterly: I'm not for that. 1380 1381 Commissioner Knopper: Or consider maintaining, I don't know. It concerns me. 1382 1383 Commissioner Markevitch: Would you like the option of paper versus electronic for 1384 each Commissioner so they can have their own? Say you want to get yours 1385 electronically, but Jennifer is definitely a paper person because she likes to make notes. 1386 1387 Commissioner Knopper: I'm not saying not. I like having an agenda. That's fine. 1388 Something thick that's 157 pages times four times over, just those kinds of documents. 1389 1390 Vice Chair Lauing: Why don't we start with where the ordinance is? 1391 1392 Commissioner Knopper: Yes, right. 1393 1394 Commissioner Markevitch: My guess is it's a Brown Act thing. 1395 1396 Commissioner Knopper: This is a comment section and I'm just commenting that that 1397 bothers me. 1398 1399 Mr. De Geus: Yeah, I understand. 1400 1401 Commissioner Knopper: Thank you. 1402 1403 Chair Hetterly: Other comments or announcements? 1404 1405 Commissioner Knopper: Speaking of dates, we normally get a rolling calendar for a few 1406 months out. Summer's coming up and we tend to skip a meeting in the summer or push 1407 the distance between the two meetings. 1408 1409 Vice Chair Lauing: We tend to talk about skipping the meeting and then we don't. 1410 1411 Commissioner Knopper: I personally need to know what that schedule is, because we 1412 have a lot of family planning with regard to summer holiday, etc. 1413 1414 Mr. De Geus: We definitely want to keep that calendar up-to-date of important dates for 1415 the Commission and include it in the packet. It wasn't in the packet this time? 1416 1417 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 35 Chair Hetterly: No. 1418 1419 Mr. De Geus: We'll need to do that. As far as the summer, I don't think the Commission 1420 has decided whether or not to take a meeting off. I know that Council is taking July off. 1421 1422 Chair Hetterly: I think our joint Council session is tentatively August 2nd or 4th. 1423 1424 Mr. De Geus: I want to say it's the second week of August, but it's right in there. 1425 1426 Commissioner Crommie: I already know I won't be here then. All of us are probably 1427 getting some sense of our summer schedule, so it might be good if we do it by emailing 1428 Catherine or something. Is that good? 1429 1430 Mr. De Geus: We can do that, yeah. 1431 1432 Commissioner Crommie: I'm not going to miss necessarily Commission meetings, but 1433 I'm gone the first half of August. 1434 1435 Mr. De Geus: OK. Just a couple of other announcements from me. One is the May Fete 1436 Parade is coming up. This is the 92nd year of the parade. It's May 3rd. Hopefully 1437 you've received something from Minka, the organizer. Hopefully you can be there if 1438 you're in town. It's a lot of fun. The theme this year is Caring Neighborhoods. It's the 1439 fourth Developmental Asset. It should a lot of fun and the fair at the end is also a lot of 1440 fun with the Kiwanis and Palo Alto Recreation Foundation coordinating the fair. That's 1441 exciting to look forward to. You may be curious about the golf course, so let me talk to 1442 you about that. We don't have a permit from the Water Board yet. Jim Keene is making 1443 progress. He's getting to know Bruce Wolfe quite well, who's the Chief Executive Officer 1444 of the Water Board. They've made some good progress together. We are hopeful that 1445 things are going to improve and we'll be able to get our permit soon. In the meantime, 1446 we have bid the construction contract and they have been received. We also previously 1447 did a pre-qualification of bidders. All four pre-qualified bidders submitted a bid for the 1448 project. We just received them and staff are reviewing them currently. That is what we 1449 know. As a contingency in the event construction is delayed we , I am going to Council 1450 next week to ask for additional funding to operate the golf course May and June. We 1451 have an approved budget to run the golf course until the end of this month. We'll need 1452 more money to pay our vendors if we stay open. If the permit is approved, then we will 1453 not spend additional operating budget and we will close the golf course and get on with 1454 the project. On the soil front, it's going very well. Importing soil is happening every day. 1455 Our dirt broker has received two additional sites with a lot of very good soil. It's looking 1456 at this point like we'll be able to get the full 380,000 cubic yards, which is tied to a $1.3 1457 million payment to the City for accepting that soil. That's good news. 1458 1459 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 36 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Markevitch. 1460 1461 Commissioner Markevitch: As a reminder, on May 15th at 2:00 in Cogswell Plaza is the 1462 plaque placement for the police officers. 1463 1464 Commissioner Reckdahl: What time? 1465 1466 Commissioner Markevitch: 2:00 p.m. 1467 1468 Chair Hetterly: Thank you. Go ahead. 1469 1470 Commissioner Reckdahl: We had talked about the Cost of Service Study coming back to 1471 the Commission. Are there any plans for that? 1472 1473 Mr. De Geus: I haven't heard of that moving recently. In the last month I haven't heard 1474 any activity. Lam Do, who's our Business Analyst, had a baby so he's been out. I don't 1475 know if maybe we didn't get the communication. I'll look into where that is and see if we 1476 can get it on our calendar for the next few months. 1477 1478 Commissioner Reckdahl: Mitchell Park Library, do you want to give us a two-sentence 1479 summary? You could go on for a half hour I'm sure. 1480 1481 Mr. De Geus: I think we're headed in the right direction with the Mitchell Park Library at 1482 this point. We've got a new contractor that's being ... 1483 1484 Commissioner Reckdahl: Are we still shooting for July or August? 1485 1486 Mr. De Geus: No, I think it's going to be after that. I think it'll be in the fall before we're 1487 really open. Part of it is we believe the new contractor is going to be very good, but 1488 they're trying to get their head around exactly what has to be done at the center. There's 1489 some 4,000 punch list items that need to be looked at. Some simple and easy, but some a 1490 little complicated in terms of the roofing and other things. We're having some leaking 1491 issues. They're ramping up, but they're not quite in there working just yet. When they 1492 get in, the estimate is they'll need three to four months to finish the work. When they're 1493 finished and we get occupancy, then there is a move-in time. For the Community 1494 Services Department that's not a huge deal; there's not a lot we're moving in. For the 1495 library it's a big deal. They need four to six weeks to actually move in and bring all the 1496 materials into the center. I don't have a date. They have not provided us with a date. It's 1497 a little bit of a best guess at this point. October is probably a fair guess. 1498 1499 Commissioner Reckdahl: Do we have to wait for the library to get done or can 1500 Community Services move in before the library? 1501 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 37 1502 Mr. De Geus: The goal is to have both departments move in at the same time, to finish it 1503 entirely before anyone moves in. 1504 1505 Commissioner Reckdahl: Is the plan still to do some renovations at Cubberley after the 1506 library moves out? 1507 1508 Mr. De Geus: There is; although, that's somewhat tied to the lease negotiations with the 1509 School District for Cubberley. You may recall we talked about this, that the Council has 1510 given direction that the covenant not to develop be removed from the terms. The cost of 1511 that particular term, I think it's $1.7 million or $1.8 million, that that money be diverted 1512 back to Cubberley to invest in the infrastructure and, we hope, long-term planning of 1513 what we want to do with that center. All of the CIPs for Cubberley are in that holding 1514 pattern until lease negotiations done, because that's where we want to be able to fund the 1515 auditorium remodel and other things that we hope to do there. 1516 1517 Commissioner Reckdahl: Thank you. 1518 1519 Chair Hetterly: Commissioner Crommie. 1520 1521 Commissioner Crommie: I just had an announcement that the City of Palo Alto is hiring 1522 their counselors in training. They don't get paid, but they're selecting them. It's one of 1523 my favorite programs within the City. There's two arms to this program. You can be 1524 what's called a CIT for the parks programs, like all the summer camps. You can also be 1525 what's called an SCA, a Science Camp Assistant, for the science camps. It's just this 1526 wonderful opportunity for kids who matriculate out of being able to take the camps, 1527 because a lot of the camps just go up through kids entering sixth grade. Once you 1528 matriculate out, you can actually apply to be a counselor in training. This is when those 1529 kids are being interviewed and hired. I've always thought it was just this incredibly 1530 enriching program for our youth. On the Commission we do talk about youth needs and 1531 support for youth. One thing I noticed about the SCA program, the science camp 1532 assistant, my understanding is it used to be for kids entering eighth and ninth grade. 1533 When I looked at it recently, I saw it's expanded. The SCA program actually extends 1534 now by a couple of years. It used to be you're unpaid when you take the SCA and then 1535 you can try to get hired when you're older, but a lot of times there are not jobs available. 1536 They've extended this so that kids can have an enriching volunteer experience. They also 1537 cover the developmental assets. When the kids are in this program, not only are they 1538 serving other youth and serving as a role model, they themselves are being nurtured and 1539 paid attention to by the older college-age students. To me it's just this incredible model 1540 of sustaining our youth in a unique and enriching way. I just wanted to talk about that. 1541 1542 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 38 Mr. De Geus: I appreciate those comments, Commissioner Crommie. It is a great 1543 leadership and mentoring program for young teens. We also have a junior life guard 1544 program that we get 30-40 young teens involved in. It's really terrific. 1545 1546 VI. TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR MAY 28, 2014 MEETING 1547 1548 Chair Hetterly: I see we have the 7.7 acres ad hoc for an agenda item, the gardens ad hoc 1549 for an agenda item, park outreach plan for an agenda item, the Master Plan for an agenda 1550 item. Monroe Park, is that coming back to us also next month? 1551 1552 Rob De Geus: Yep. 1553 1554 Chair Hetterly: We may have a website ad hoc update; we're not sure yet about that one. 1555 The question of parking and benches at Arastradero, I think that may well come up for 1556 next month as well. 1557 1558 Vice Chair Lauing: And dogs. 1559 1560 Chair Hetterly: And dogs. Didn't I say that? That was second on the list. 1561 1562 Vice Chair Lauing: I don't think so. 1563 1564 Chair Hetterly: OK, thanks. Do you have anything else you think is coming our way? 1565 That's a pretty long list. 1566 1567 Mr. De Geus: That's a lot. We'll talk during the month; something may come up that 1568 we'll have to bring forward. There is one thing that's pretty interesting that we're working 1569 on. I'll just mention it briefly. Staff are working on July being a month that's focused on 1570 Community Services across the community. We're working on this passport program 1571 where we're creating passports and there's 20 different sites that we're hoping people will 1572 go to and get stamps, such as visit Foothills Park and the Art Center. It's shaping up to be 1573 a pretty exciting marketing effort to celebrating parks and recreation. We may bring that 1574 to the Commission. 1575 1576 Chair Hetterly: Sounds great. 1577 1578 Commissioner Knopper: Maybe as part of that program, we have a duck pond day. I'm 1579 serious. If this ordinance passes, so people are invited out to the duck pond for an event. 1580 However that could be marketed as part of this passport program, so that more people 1581 find out about the ordinance. It sounds like that's logical to include. You can have 1582 rangers out there and environmental people that have been trained in all the issues 1583 concerning feeding wildlife. 1584 APPROVED Approved April 22, 2014 Minutes 39 1585 Mr. De Geus: OK. 1586 1587 VII. ADJOURNMENT 1588 1589 Meeting adjourned on motion by Commissioner Markevitch and second by Vice Chair. 1590 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 4 Wednesday, February 26, 2014, Meeting 5 6:00 PM, Council Chambers 6 7 8 Call to Order: 6:15 PM9 10 Acting Chair Keller: I’m going to call the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)11 for February 26, 2014, to order and it’s 6:15. Secretary will please call roll.12 13 Robin Ellner, Administrative Associate III: Commissioner Alcheck, Acting Chair Keller, Commissioner King,14 Commissioner Martinez, Chair Michael, Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. Four present.15 16 Acting Chair Keller: So the first thing… you want to make the announcement that you were referring to17 about recruitment?18 19 Ms. Ellner: Yes, please. So the City Clerk’s office has asked if I would make an announcement to be part20 of the future of Palo Alto and they are currently recruiting for positions for the Planning and21 Transportation Commission, the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, and the22 Public Art Commission and you can contact them at 329-2571. Fliers are also back on the public table23 and for more information or to apply you can go to I believe the Clerk’s website for board and24 commission recruitment program or board and commission information. So we are looking to fill former25 Commissioner Panelli’s position. Thank you.26 27 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you Secretary Ellner; I’d also add my encouragement for people to apply and28 also encourage people to come to Planning Commission meetings, it’s the best way to find out what we29 do or listen to us on TV I guess. If you’re already doing that then you know a little bit about what we do30 and also feel free to contact any of the current Commissioners. I’m sure any of us would be happy to31 talk to you about what it is to be a commissioner.32 33 Oral Communications: Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three34 minutes per speaker. The Planning and Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit oral35 communications period to 15 minutes. None36 37 Acting Chair Keller: The first item on our, is Oral Communications and I’m seeing no cards. So we’ll end38 Oral Communications.39 40 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions: The agenda may have additional items added to it up41 until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None42 43 Directors Report: Members of the public may not speak to the item(s).44 45 Acting Chair Keller: The next thing is the Director’s Report.46 47 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 2 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening Planning Commission. Aaron Aknin, 1 Assistant Planning Director. Director Gitelman sends her apologies; she’s feeling under the weather so 2 she will not be here tonight. 3 4 I just wanted to recap there was a big night for transportation, Transportation Division at the last Council 5 meeting. There were five big items on the agenda. The first was the Cal Ave. Streetscape Project. The 6 contract for that was approved. It was pulled from the, it was initially on the Consent Calendar and was 7 pulled from the Consent Calendar. They asked a few questions and the Council only made one small 8 change, which was reducing the contingency budget from 15 percent to 10 percent then approved it. So 9 we expect construction to start in March and there is to be an official groundbreaking. We’re currently 10 scheduling that as well as a couple outreach meetings with the merchants before it begins to introduce 11 them to the contracting team and get a point of contact. 12 13 The Lot R Attendant Program was also approved. This is an attendant program to park cars during peak 14 times in Lot R. This is just related to the permit parking on the upper stories of the garage and it’s 15 expected to yield somewhere around 40 additional spaces due to this program. So the contract was 16 approved for up to three years. The staff is treating it as a one year trial program. In general we’re 17 trying to aim to more efficiently use our existing parking supply before we go and build new spaces. So 18 this is something that we’re going to try out on a one year period and see if it works and see if this work 19 could go into other lots as well. 20 21 The biggest item of the night the Council approved a number of different Transportation Demand 22 Management (TDM) programs. This is referred to as the three legged stool in transportation policy 23 recently, which was a focus on parking policies related to additional parking supply, residential permit 24 parking, and now TDM. There were four, actually five separate actions taken. The first was direction for 25 the City Manager to solicit requests for proposals to establish a transportation management association. 26 The second was to expand the Palo Alto shuttle, so once again send out an Request for Proposal (RFP) 27 for, we had a basic idea where we thought an expanded shuttle could go, but we also invited perspective 28 shuttle providers to give us their ideas where it would make sense from a ridership and from an economic 29 standpoint to provide additional shuttle service, solicit proposals for car share services downtown in City 30 owned lots, evaluate ride share tools including a trial of a Two Go rideshare app. 31 32 There was a separate agenda item that got combined to these to establish a Go Pass program for City 33 employees. And what this will do is any employee that is willing to give up their parking pass within the 34 City Hall basement here will get a free Caltrain pass and the cool part about a Go Pass is that it’s an 35 unlimited pass. You could use it in any zone and you could use it on weekends. So we expect probably 36 around 50 or so spaces to be given up and to increase capacity by about 50 spaces within City Hall 37 parking lot by doing this program. So those were the major ones. 38 39 Coming next week is another major item related to the Comprehensive Plan. We will be going forward 40 with an expanded scope of work falling within Our Palo Alto process, so I encourage the Commissioners 41 to take a look at that agenda item when it comes out and perhaps attend the meeting as well. 42 43 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. And I also want to add that the Two Go is spelled t-w-o g-o as in two 44 people go. Talking about the City Council meetings I’m going to go slightly out of order and see if there’s 45 any volunteers for people to serve as the Commission rep for the Council for the month of March? 46 Anybody want to volunteer? Ok, so we have a volunteer from Commissioner… what? No, we’re talking 47 about March. Want to do in March? So I think we have interest from both Commissioner Alcheck and 48 Commissioner King. Maybe you can figure out what your schedules are and work it out so you can cover 49 that and let us know which dates you’ll cover. Thank you. Ok. 50 51 Consent 52 Urban Forest Master Plan - Overview of edits and updates responsive to the Planning and 53 Transportation Commission and others (Walter Passmore – walter.passmore@cityofpaloalto.org) 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Acting Chair Keller: So let’s go to the first agenda item, which is the Urban Forest Master Plan, which is 1 on our Consent Calendar. So our procedure is that unless anybody pulls it off Consent we just entertain 2 a Motion to approve it. 3 4 MOTION 5 6 Commissioner King: So moved. 7 8 SECOND, VOTE 9 10 Acting Chair Keller: So Motion by Commissioner King, second by Commissioner Tanaka, Acting Vice-Chair 11 Tanaka. Any comments? All in favor say aye (Aye). All opposed? That passes unanimously with 12 Commissioner King, Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka, Acting Chair Keller, and Commissioner Alcheck all voting in 13 favor and Commissioner Martinez and Chair Michael absent. 14 15 MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent) 16 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner King, second by Acting Vice-chair Tanaka to recommend 17 adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan. Passed unanimously 4-0-2 with Chair Michael and 18 Commissioner Martinez absent. 19 20 Public Hearing 21 Governance Element - Recommendation for review of the Governance Element of the Comprehensive 22 Plan (Chitra Moitra – chitra.moitra@cityofpaloalto.org) 23 24 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, the next item is the Governance Element and I don’t have any cards for that 25 either so if somebody wishes to speak please bring them up forward. So the Governance Element is a 26 recommendation for the review of the Governance Element of the Comprehensive Plan and I guess we’ll 27 start with a staff report. 28 29 Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Great, thank you Commissioners. I’m Steven Turner, 30 Advance Planning Manager, and staff wanted to provide the Commission with a progress update on the 31 Governance Chapter and request that the Commission temporarily suspend the review of the Chapter so 32 that the Element can be reviewed as part of the Our Palo Alto effort. 33 34 Commissioners, this is the final chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to undergo an overall review by the 35 Commission and the Commission’s subcommittees as well as City staff. The Governance, it’s really a 36 chapter, we’ve been interchangeably I think calling it an element, but it in fact is not an element of the 37 Comprehensive Plan, it is a chapter. It’s not a required portion of a comprehensive or General Plan per 38 State requirements, but it is still a very important part of the Comprehensive Plan. 39 40 The current Chapter provides a lot of good information about the framework of Palo Alto’s government, 41 the organizational structure of our departments, it provides goals, policies, and programs for creating 42 opportunities for public participation promoting civic and neighborhood organizations, really promoting 43 the City as a regional leader for regional wide issues, promotes volunteerism throughout the City. It 44 really suggests that we find new ways to collaborate on land use and development changes that are 45 happening within the City, and ways to improve the development review process. So there’s a lot of 46 good really meaty portions and information within the Chapter, but the subcommittee that has been 47 working on this and these are Commissioners Michael, Martinez, and Alcheck, I think they, the 48 subcommittee and the City staff felt that this Chapter could do a whole lot more. 49 50 The subcommittee met for a few times and came up with a general structure that’s described in your 51 staff report in more detail in your attachments to provide more additional information about important 52 elements that perhaps were not included in part of the Governance Chapter when it was adopted in 53 1998. These are things such as providing information including a government that is responsible to its 54 citizens, information about efficiency and transparency of local government, our fiscal responsibilities, a 55 section talking specifically about the Palo Alto Process, policies that talk about the engagement of the 56 City of Palo Alto Page 4 community and the expertise that is out in the City, and the importance of infrastructure and the 1 importance of that to our City. 2 3 There was also talk about moving this Chapter from its current position in the very back of the 4 Comprehensive Plan to a more prominent position almost in the front. I think the thought was, and this 5 can be talked about by Commissioners, was this Chapter really could be a very important overview of 6 Palo Alto government and really the touchstone policies and programs and goals that are very important 7 to us that really affect all elements within the Comprehensive Plan. And the proposal was then to 8 reorganize and reformat the Chapter and put it in the front almost as an introduction to the 9 Comprehensive Plan and the City as a whole, really for people who may not have engaged with the 10 Comprehensive Plan before and really just trying to get a handle or an understanding about what this 11 document does and how it relates to the functions and operations of the City. The subcommittee felt 12 that there was a potential to really highlight this Element at the very beginning of the Comprehensive 13 Plan. No decisions really have been made at this point to do that, but I think that was an overall kind of 14 view of the subcommittee at the time that we were meeting. 15 16 Staff is recommending at this time that the Planning Commission temporarily delay the further review of 17 this Chapter and really wait until the Our Palo Alto effort starts in earnest. The thought was that the Our 18 Palo Alto effort, which includes an extensive community engagement exercise, will ultimately obtain a lot 19 of good valuable community input that could affect this Chapter in a very positive way. So instead of 20 trying to anticipate what the community might want through further review with the Planning and 21 Transportation Commission (PTC) subcommittee the thought was to really hold off any additional work, 22 let the public engagement exercises happen, take the information we receive and then meet back with 23 the subcommittee later on in the process to finalize this particular Chapter. And we think that we can 24 create a stronger Chapter as a result of just putting a short delay on our work. 25 26 So the staff’s recommendation again is to have the Commission temporarily delay the review of the 27 Chapter so that the Our Palo Alto effort and community engagement exercises can be initiated in order to 28 gain more valuable community input. So that concludes the staff report, thank you. 29 30 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. Who would like to lead off? Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. 31 32 MOTION 33 34 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: I’d like to make a Motion basically I, my Motion is that we follow the staff 35 recommendation to temporarily suspend the review of the Governance Chapter of the Comprehensive 36 Plan and express support for the review of the goals, policies, and programs within Our Palo Alto effort. 37 38 SECOND 39 40 Commissioner King: Second. 41 42 Acting Chair Keller: So Motion by Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka, second by Commissioner King. Do you wish 43 to speak to your Motion? Commissioner King do you wish to speak to your second? Go ahead. 44 45 Commissioner King: Yes, it sounds like a great idea. I as far as any feedback I think it’s so critical that 46 we make government accessible both through this document and then through the website so it’s just 47 easy for people to find out “Oh, if I want to interact or learn about what we’re doing and then where do I 48 provide my feedback?” I mean there are a myriad of commercial websites that do a good job of that for 49 those commercial applications and I suspect there are some for government. I’m not familiar with other 50 government websites that help; anyway, I’m in full favor of postponing and doing it right. I also would 51 like to thank the Commissioners and staff who have worked on it to date on the subcommittee and I’m 52 sure their work will not go for naught, but it’s great to incorporate more feedback and technology as it 53 develops. Thanks. 54 55 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Alcheck. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so I want to start by saying that if I had my way our Comprehensive Plan 1 would be called a General Plan and it would conform to the typical plans that California cities have. 2 Because I think the by definition making something accessible is making something familiar and we don’t 3 do that by having a very unique General Plan in the sense that it’s called a Comprehensive Plan it’s got all 4 these… now we’re referring to it as a chapter, but I think we have toyed with the idea of an element. 5 6 You know, when I started on the Commission I got assigned to this group and I thought about this a lot 7 over the week, but I think this has sort of been an indefensible Chapter and the reason why is because 8 everything in this Chapter I think or 90 percent of what’s in this Chapter could be on a website on a 9 webpage. And I thought a lot about how the process of updating this plan took forever and I was only 10 involved in this small sort of insignificant Chapter’s process and that seemed to take a long time and I 11 wondered why would we want to include this sort of anecdotal discussion of access to our government in 12 a plan that we really would like to push to relevance and we’re constantly trying to keep up with the 13 dates that we’re supposed to get this thing done by and this is not an element, not a chapter required by 14 our State Government. And so the question is: is it something the City of Palo Alto somehow requires to 15 be efficient? And I think you can’t make that argument. 16 17 The City Manager wants to talk about his mission? Let’s make a webpage where we can put our 18 Comprehensive Plan and he can have a little link to his mission, but let’s not let that chapter or element 19 or however you want to refer to it now be a component of something we need to deliver on a deadline. 20 And so am I saying that there is nothing of value in the Governance Chapter as it’s now being referred 21 to? No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying there’s a lot of value in it. Is its place in our, in what should be 22 our General Plan? I don’t think so. And having worked on it myself I remember we were tweaking it in 23 an effort to make it articulate things that were not necessarily relevant to sort of the goals that the State 24 has in particular for our General Plan and for our Comprehensive Plan and I just thought could this be on 25 a webpage? Yeah. And maybe we’re including it in here because we’re trying to make this a full chapter. 26 If you write, if you say this is going to be a chapter it can’t just be two pages, right? And so I think that 27 some of the things that found their way into this section were included in an effort to make it more 28 substantial and make it more relevant as it went from element to chapter and maybe it can go from 29 chapter to forward, but I guess my point is is that we’re so behind in this process that we should be 30 cutting any fat off of it. 31 32 And so my argument would be to not only support this Motion and to see if the Our Palo Alto effort sort 33 of provides us with insight on what’s relevant to Palo Alto, but to also make staff make the argument to 34 us why this is somehow relevant to the Plan itself. Not necessarily that it’s relevant to how we want to 35 have the message that Palo Alto wants to make as a… to what extent is this a part of this document? 36 We’re in an internet savvy community and you could create a whole website or web link to this sort of 37 relevant information and it would be just as accessible as it would be if it was in the digital version of this 38 plan, which is probably how most people are going to get to it. And so the question is, why does it need 39 to be tied to a document where we have deadlines to make? And we want to get this document to a 40 place where we can refer to it as the 2022 general Comprehensive Plan, and we can say, “This is it. It’s 41 finished, it’s not still missing two chapters that are sort of being amended.” And then the webpages can 42 always be updated and they can discuss how, when our meetings are, and who’s in charge, and where all 43 the boards and commissions sit, and it can be a little civics lesson on Palo Alto, but that doesn’t 44 necessarily have to be in this plan. So I support the Motion and I just want to throw that out there 45 because I would like to be a part of a Commission that sees an updated General Plan/Comprehensive 46 Plan. 47 48 VOTE 49 50 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you Commissioner Alcheck. So a couple of things about this, So first of all I 51 think that there is a reason for having this Element from my perspective and that is that it does provide 52 more than simply the City Manager’s webpage and that is that it’s adopted by the City Council, that it has 53 a significant input into the process from the One Palo Alto process and I think that having the One Palo 54 Alto process incorporate Governance items in that process I think is healthy and I think will be useful and 55 we’ll see what comes out of that. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 6 I think that there, the changes that were made to this Element although they are not, the process was 1 not completed, I think are largely beneficial to how Palo Alto governs itself and perhaps should govern 2 itself to the extent that it doesn’t do so according to this now. So I’m going to observe a few things that 3 we might want to address as part of this as this thing goes forward. The first is that there’s an open 4 question as to the relationship between social media and the Brown Act. And I think it’s sort of alluded 5 to in the Governance Chapter. I think that Palo Alto having more people here who understand about 6 social media then perhaps a lot of other cities of our size in California if we could provide some guidance 7 on how to do social media that still satisfies the Brown Act I think that would be interesting. Perhaps 8 that means that we engage the community more and that’s part of the community engagement, perhaps 9 it doesn’t mean that the boards and commission members and Council Members are actively 10 participating, but it might be an opportunity for better input to us outside of this particular forum. So 11 that’s the first thing. 12 13 The second thing is that one of the topics that came up in the Director’s Report is California Avenue 14 Streetscape and repaving and changing that from four lanes to two lanes and I sure hope that that 15 process is much more efficient than the Mitchell Park Library that’s a few blocks from my house. And it 16 would be a death to a bunch of California Avenue businesses if that process were to drag on. And one 17 thing interesting that’s in this Governance Element or Chapter is the idea that business is an advisor to 18 every department. And that might mean assistant advisors to the Public Works Department. And I think 19 that that’s a worthwhile thing. And I think that the idea that each department may be one thing we 20 might add is each department will be audited periodically. There have been audits of Utilities and other 21 things, but I’m not sure if there’s been an appropriate audit of Public Works and that might also be 22 something useful to think about. 23 24 In G3.1.5 there’s a comment there about East Bay, the City facilities in East Bayshore and in terms of 25 their end of life and the need to redevelop those. I think that part of the discussion of redeveloping and 26 considering the future of those sites is the potential for sea level rise and flood protection and I think you 27 can’t, and I think of those things without considering at least in part flood protection sites so I would sort 28 of add a few words to reference about tidal flood protection there. 29 30 In terms of the zoning ordinance I do think that that may be somewhat redundant with what even 31 though that was in the prior Governance Element, but that may be somewhat redundant and obsolete for 32 the Land Use and other elements. So I’m wondering whether that’s still needed. I think that one thing 33 we can do more of and is mentioned in G2.4 is interest lists. And I think we can do a lot more towards 34 creating a plethora of interest lists in various categories people can register on and then notify people so 35 that it’s kind of difficult to go and say I want to access a particular, I want to find out when a particular 36 development happens or particular things on the agenda you have to scour the City Council agenda every 37 week, you have to scour the agendas for the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the PTC and the 38 Historic Resources Board (HRB) and whatever and it would be nice to be, have a better mechanism for 39 indicating what people are really interested in. So I can see that as being an opportunity. And with that 40 are there any other questions/comments? 41 42 Ok, with that I’ll call the Motion for a vote. All in favor say aye. All opposed? The Motion passes 43 unanimously. Motion by Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka, second by Commissioner King. That passes with a 4-44 0 vote with Commissioner King, Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka, Acting Chair Keller, and Commissioner Alcheck 45 voting and present and Commissioner Martinez and Chair Michael absent. 46 47 MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent) 48 49 Acting Chair Keller: Even though we’ll, should we move on to the other agenda item or should we take a 50 moment break to set up? Just go on? 51 52 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Yeah. 53 54 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, great. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Commission Action: Motion by Vice-chair Tanaka, second by Commissioner King to move staff 1 recommendation regarding the Governance Element. Passed unanimously 4-2 with Chair Michael and 2 Commissioner Martinez absent. 3 4 Planning and Transportation Commission review of a Draft Ordinance modifying - (1) Chapter 5 18.16 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the “build-to” line 6 standard and context-based design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b) reduce the allowable Floor 7 Area Ratio on CN zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC 8 Chapter 18.04 to adjust the definition of Lot Area in order to encourage wider sidewalks. Environmental 9 Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per section 15305. 10 (Amy French – amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org) 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: So the next agenda item is Agenda Item Number 3 and this is for the Planning and 13 Transportation Commission (PTC) review of a draft ordinance modifying Chapter 18.16 of the Palo Alto 14 Municipal Code (PAMC) to (a) address building setbacks (the “build-to” line standard and context-based 15 design criteria) in the CN and CS District and (b) reduce the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on CN 16 zoned sites where dwelling units are permitted at 20 units per acre; and (2) PAMC Chapter 18.04 to 17 adjust the definition of Lot Area to encourage wider sidewalks. So do we have, by the way I don’t see 18 any comments for the members of the public so if you want to speak on that please submit a card and 19 let’s start out with a staff report. 20 21 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening once again. I will give a short intro and 22 then turn it over to our Chief Planning Official. This item is here before you tonight as a result of a 23 couple different Council actions and directions that almost went back, one of them went back almost a 24 year ago. The first one had to do, it was a colleagues’ memo related to sidewalk width on El Camino that 25 had somewhat of a more expanded definition of what they would like to do, but the main point of it was 26 to take a look and increase sidewalk widths along the El Camino. 27 28 The second part of it and you’ll see all the separate motions in here, another more immediate need is 29 related to the Housing Element and places that were on, properties that were on our housing inventory 30 list. We took those from a 15 unit per acre to a 20 unit per acre and that was approved as part of our 31 Housing Element process. After that approval the Council looked, asked us to look into reducing FAR on 32 those sites. As we are going through this process we realized that there was a number of other things 33 that could be done to make the code more sound and we included some of those. For tonight’s action 34 though staff, and Amy will go more into this, would like the end result to be a Planning Commission 35 recommendation on at least and specifically focused on the El Camino aspects of it and FAR reduction 36 aspects of it. And what we would propose is that later this month, potentially later this month or in late 37 March we have a joint meeting with the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB also reviewed these 38 ordinances and had a number of good suggestions. They also suggested that the Planning Commission 39 and the ARB meet. So staff concurs that’s a good idea; however, given the Council direction related to 40 the El Camino sidewalk and as well as the FAR reduction we would like to see some type of 41 recommendation specifically related to that to the Council tonight to come out of the Commission and 42 then we could later talk about other nuances of the code at a later meeting. So I’ll turn it over to our 43 Chief Planning Official. 44 45 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. So you’ve read the 46 agenda, which correctly notes that it’s Chapter 18.16 of the PAMC that we are going to address tonight 47 as well as Chapter 18.04. There was a bit of a typo on the attached ordinance, Attachment A; just 48 wanted to call that out. 49 50 So what we, Aaron covered what the Council had done recently about the housing, so that’s covered. 51 The reduction, a modest reduction of FAR on those CN zoned housing sites and there are approximately 52 32 of those sites along El Camino Real. As far as the sidewalk width the Council’s concern was how 53 buildings address the street. Some of that is dealt with already in the context based design criteria, 54 which was derived from the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. So that is actually in the zoning code 55 once again. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 8 The vision that was being looked at with the Grand Boulevard was an eight foot walking zone, a six foot 1 amenity zone, and then they had an additional four feet as a spill out area. So what that would have 2 required an 18 foot sidewalk would be a 10 foot setback on the private property, the building to the right 3 of way and so that’s the question that the ARB has been wrestling with, looking at the various options 4 there. And then of course at some point revising the South El Camino Real Guidelines to be consistent 5 with the zoning that we’re kind of trying to focus on here is to get the low hanging fruit, which we think 6 is the sidewalk width; the build to line, kind of address that head on. 7 8 The Council had noted something about other thoroughfares in their Motion back in April. And those 9 other thoroughfares are not CN and CS zoned the exception of Charleston Road, so we believe that 10 further study is needed and perhaps outreach that those other streets have some different characters 11 than El Camino Real and different, it’s not necessarily a regional roadway as is the El Camino Real. So 12 again we’re focused on CN and CS districts. The Chapter 18.16 does also have the CC district, which is a 13 zone that is also on California Avenue. But again we’re pretty much focused on sidewalk width on El 14 Camino and addressing the building setback as well as the definition of lot area. And the reason we have 15 the definition of lot area is because lot area has an impact on how much floor area can be in a building. 16 Ok so we just are focused on that tonight as well and that’s in 18.04 in the attachment. 17 18 So looking at the slide I have up there the floor area, the proposal is a .8 FAR for mixed-use and that 19 would be .4 residential and .4 non-residential. Those are for those housing sites where they propose a 20 greater than 15 development units per acre. Ok, so then the sidewalk and building frontage the 21 ordinance our goals here are again, increase the El Camino Real sidewalk width beyond what’s required 22 now, which is 12 feet. Twelve feet is currently required, which requires the property owners to set their 23 buildings back and provide sidewalk basically four feet onto their private property. That’s what currently 24 is required. We wanted to clarify or modify the build to line requirements. This is the requirement that 25 says you have to put 50 percent of your building right there at the zero setback or whatever setback to 26 make that twelve foot effective sidewalk. 27 28 And so again we feel that we will have additional study at a later date for other thoroughfares besides 29 the El Camino Real. The El Camino Real is really the focus, that’s where we started and the Council did 30 acknowledge that that’s the focus at this time. Again effective sidewalk width is not a definition in 31 Chapter 10.04. It is described and illustrated in the context based guidelines in Chapter 18.16, but one 32 concept is to actually formally put a definition of that that would say it’s from curb to building face and 33 it’s inclusive of plantings and furnishings. That’s what we have been dealing with as effective sidewalk 34 width. The other definition change is lot area. Again it’s to say that if they do dedicate their private 35 property, and we’re talking about more than four feet at this point, that that area would not be deducted 36 from what they’re calling lot area for the purpose of calculating how much floor area they can put on 37 their site at whatever floor. Ok, and then one question is, is that something the lot area that we want to 38 consider broadening to other zones beyond the CS and CN? So CD, in other words, we have some 39 projects downtown where they did make a wider, a setback and that is walkable. Perhaps that lot area 40 definition we can use that in beyond El Camino. 41 42 The next one, the build to standard, it’s the build to line and there was discussion about possibly 43 eliminating that standard, but what we want to still preserve is some kind of presentation to the street 44 that doesn’t involve too much back and forth from building to building with those setbacks. So what is 45 the appropriate setback? This is what the ARB’s been wrestling with. Is it worth having a build to line 46 and having exceptions such as we’ve been seeing coming through the process exceptions for allowing 47 greater setback or are there other things we can do? So there are special factors such as land use and 48 lot size that the ARB is looking at. When you have a very large parcel you’re going to have a longer 49 building wall and so that’s a consideration. 50 51 So then the concept of do you do a build to line standard or do you do an average setback? This is a 52 concept. One phrase that could be considered is where there’s let’s say on El Camino put it out there 15 53 feet if you do a 15 foot effective sidewalk on El Camino then that would mean you’re going to place the 54 building front wall at 7 feet from the front property line. Seven feet of private property dedicated plus 55 the eight feet right of way that’s currently there. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 9 The other concept is again going back to that build to line and what are we trying to achieve, 1 consideration of a maximum setback. Are you going to have buildings setback farther than 10 feet from 2 the front? That would be an 18 foot. There are places along El Camino that make sense to have a city 3 center, a kind of a Cafe Borrone effect with plazas, etcetera. So how far back do we want that to go? 4 And what’s the concern about placing it farther forward? One of those concerns is parking. Well, there’s 5 a context based guideline that says don’t put parking in front of the building. So we’ve already got that 6 in our zoning code, that says don’t put parking in front of the building, but there are circumstances where 7 that might be a place that it has to go from a feasibility standpoint. So, but any case we could consider 8 adding to the tables, Table 3 and 4, something about parking is prohibited in the front yard or something 9 along those lines like it says in the context based design criteria, which is what I have up next. 10 11 The concept of the upper floors, currently the context based design criteria says the upper floors shall be 12 setback. Well, there might be a place where we want to have the first floor setback to allow for the 13 walking and then the upper floors set forward; the colonnade effect, the arcade. We might want to have 14 some flexibility for that and I have an example here in Redwood City. The measurement from the curb 15 to the columns is nine in some places to the white columns and then it goes back a bit further in the 16 distance there to 10 or 11 feet and then the front wall of the building beyond that arcade is about I 17 believe 19 feet. There are some opportunities there to consider some flexibility. Ok? This is then the 18 context based criteria that talks about we had started to approach it as a range. When we discussed the 19 range with the ARB their recommendation came back as a 9 foot to 15 foot range. Ok? So if we’re 20 thinking of nine feet on thoroughfares elsewhere what we have is eight feet required now other than El 21 Camino in the CN/CS and we have a 12 foot required now. ARB’s recommending take that to 15 rather 22 than going to 18 feet as in the Grand Boulevard, ok? And then the other concept is an average building 23 frontage. So thinking about you have this seven feet. If you’re going to do fifteen feet then the seven 24 feet from the property line to the building could that be an average setback rather than 50 percent of the 25 building has to be at the seven feet. You might look at it that way. 26 27 One thing I should say about 15 feet. It was discussed at the joint meeting back in July with ARB and 28 Planning Commission. It is, has been employed elsewhere. One place is the Rail Corridor Study. 29 Another place is the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) RT zone that’s near downtown here. And then also 30 Menlo Park has a 15 foot standard that they’ve implemented with their Specific Plan. So that concludes 31 the presentation. There’s some pocket slides in the back if anyone needs additional information. We’ve 32 got some other images, maybe I’ll roll to those and let those hang around. Again here’s the Grand 33 Boulevard and here’s a concept for 15 feet that our consultant had generated some time before. Now 34 Randy Popp is here to present as well the ARB’s discussion and we’re here for questions. 35 36 Acting Chair Keller: Do you want to add anything to that Board Member Popp, ARB Board Member Popp? 37 38 Randy Popp, ARB Board Member: Good evening, Randy Popp here representing the ARB. First I want to 39 thank the Council for pushing this issue. I think it’s important for us to be discussing this and Amy you’ve 40 done a great job, you and your staff articulating the specifics of our discussion here. I do want to 41 reiterate a couple of the major points. 42 43 First of all in terms of the width that 9 to 15 foot dimension that Amy has illustrated for you is really a 44 range. We really like to see that as a range. And the goal here would be to allow flexibility and to 45 promote a varied character in the environment along the El Camino corridor. This idea that 15 feet is 46 nervous about creating a number, right? A very specific number that everybody feels like they need to 47 hold to. Each project is different. We looked at the entire length of El Camino, we studied the different 48 lot sizes, different lot dimensions; there is no one size fits all solution here. And so it’s important to have 49 some flexibility for design. And this idea that at very wide lots, the Menlo Center is a great example of 50 this in Menlo Park where Cafe Borrone exists, that places really can recess to a greater degree and still 51 promote fantastic life right at the street front with a building that still has some nice presence. And with 52 that we think that it is critical that we engage a consultant to develop some diagrammatic examples of 53 suggestions in a number of different situations for different lot sizes, different usable widths, placement 54 of accessories and plantings, etcetera so that people really understand clearly the intent and then can 55 launch from that point. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 In regard to the lot area where we are suggesting that the sidewalk width be extended over private 1 property it’s important to understand that the ARB felt strongly that there be no reduction in FAR, but we 2 did not see this in any way as an incentive. We felt that this was really just maintaining the rights of 3 people and again we’re trying to encourage here is the right kind of redevelopment and get people to 4 take down the buildings that are unpleasant and don’t meet the standards that we’re trying to achieve 5 and encourage the right kind of growth. So we’re not suggesting adding area, but we certainly are 6 suggesting that there be a way to maintain all of the rights that you would have even with the extension 7 of the sidewalk width. 8 9 In regard to the build to line and I think the big question here is why a variance in the build to line and I 10 don’t mean a variance in the wrong sense of the word here, variability in the build to line. This is what 11 the ARB is for. We can look at each individual project. We can look at them as they come, we can study 12 this, we can evaluate whether people have got the right amount of building frontage close mass far away 13 tiered back, whatever the solutions are, but on a project by project basis. And again the idea here is to 14 promote some varied character along this corridor. 15 16 The last thing that I want to just quickly address is the inclusion of a discussion about trees. And one of 17 the things that are very clear in my discussions with Dave Dockter and certainly as you drive along El 18 Camino you can see this. The location of trees relative to a curb is really critical, particularly with respect 19 for the building’s placement in terms of the canopy. And if the building is too close to the trees the 20 canopy cannot grow properly. It gets misshapen. We hold the buildings back in the right way at the 21 right places, get the right rhythm it really can be an elegant boulevard and it will really help to further 22 this concept of something magnificent as you cruise through Palo Alto. Again, this is something that we 23 all felt should very much be a part of the diagrams the consultant develops. Quick summary, if you have 24 other questions I’ll hang around for a little while here if there are any other questions I can answer. 25 Thank you. 26 27 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you very much. And we have one speaker from the public. Since we don’t 28 have many people here you’ll have five minutes. 29 30 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Herb Borock. 31 32 Herb Borock: Good evening Acting Chair Keller and Commissioners. On the question of the sidewalk 33 setback first I mean I don’t believe that the objections that we’ve heard from the community about a 34 number of projects are primarily due to the amount of floor area and the decisions that the Council has 35 made to allow that amount of floor area to fit on a site and the real problem that needs to be addressed 36 are the decisions that the Council’s made both in adopting Planned Community (PC) zone districts in 37 some cases and in the past the problem of changing what can be built on a site in a particular zone 38 district both in terms of its allowable floor area and its setbacks. Fifteen years ago staff reports from the 39 Planning Division had histories of how we got to where we are, but the previous City Manager felt that 40 that shouldn’t be there, all you should get essentially would be a sentence saying what would happen if 41 you voted yes or you voted no on a proposal. And that’s essentially the culture that we have now. 42 43 In terms of trying to find the proper setback on a State Highway, El Camino, as if it’s going to be a place 44 that people are going to be spending lots of time walking along I don’t think reflects either what El 45 Camino Real is now or what it can possibly be in the future. There’s also a question which was discussed 46 at the ARB of the difference between a public sidewalk and a wide area that can be appropriated for 47 private use by businesses. A number of years ago at the start of a Council vacation the administrator in 48 the Planning Department whose skills are in utility resource planning, he, that’s where he works now, 49 sent out an interpretation that was signed by the then Director of Planning Mr. Emslie that said they 50 changed their interpretation, people can put tables and chairs on the sidewalks on University Avenue 51 essentially at will, completely ignoring the past policy that if they are increasing the number of seating 52 that they have then that has to be reflected in payments for parking. And so now we don’t have as wide 53 a sidewalk we used to have on University Avenue because they’re occupied by tables and chairs. So a 54 number of members of the ARB when they were talking about a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk were talking about 55 a 9 to 15 foot sidewalk so that a portion of it could be occupied by the private business. It’s called a 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 sidewalk and as Council Member Rosenbaum indicated when people were talking about the sit-lie 1 ordinance, it’s not a place for sitting and laying it’s a place for walking. It’s not a place for business to 2 take place; it’s a place for people to walk. If you really want a wide enough sidewalk to get that kind of 3 feel where people would want to walk on it. 4 5 In regard to the other part of the proposal from Council on the amount of floor area for sites on El 6 Camino that are reflected in the Housing Inventory Sites for the requirement for meeting the State’s 7 Housing Density Bonus Law, under that law because of the size of the City that we have we have to have 8 sites with a minimum density of 20 units per acre and we have some sites that are 15 units maximum. 9 And so we had to agree to make those 20, but when that proposal was approved by the Department of 10 Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California it was based upon what the current zoning 11 regulations are for those sites. So there are two things: one I don’t know if you can do it at all, the 12 second is maybe the only way you can do it is if you reduce the FAR for everything in those zone districts 13 so that when a developer comes in and wants to take advantage of the incentives and concessions that 14 include increasing the floor area by a certain amount, I believe the Council finally agreed the maximum 15 was 25 percent, they get the ability to use that bonus. But by saying first that we get approval from the 16 State to get a certain site approved for a bonus and then say we’re taking away the base, I’m not sure 17 that that’s even legal. Thank you. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So let’s bring that back to the Commission. Who wants to lead us off? 20 Commissioner Alcheck. 21 22 Commissioner Alcheck: I think this is an extraordinary idea the Grand Boulevard. It’s a vision that I have 23 a hard time visualizing because maybe the fact that I grew up in this neighborhood, I grew up in Los 24 Altos. Maybe just having grown up off the El Camino it’s just hard to imagine it any other way that it is. 25 And my, when I think of El Camino it does not bring any sort of warm and fuzzy feelings. It’s just… so 26 the notion that the City is sort of considering something much more visionary I think is awesome and I 27 have a lot of faith in the direction that we have received from the ARB being specialists in the field of 28 architecture. 29 30 With regard to sort of providing the flexibility of a range of setbacks that allow that hopefully will help us 31 avoid something that’s too monotonous it’s hard to imagine what’s the hotel, is it the Plaza? The Crown 32 Plaza on El Camino? It’s sort of hard to imagine, you see that hotel it’s so set back and has this huge 33 parking lot. Last time we had this meeting we talked about how a lot of sites aren’t even that deep. So 34 if we create this setback what are we doing to these lots? Are we destroying their sort of feasibility 35 because we’re making them too narrow or whatever? Too shallow, thank you. You can see that without 36 a very well-articulated plan, there’s not ever going to be a visionary result for the Grand Boulevard. 37 You’re going to have hotels with 400 car parking lots and they’re just distant. I don’t know what the, do 38 we have a name for the site on the corner of Page Mill that has like a movie theatre in it and it’s a bunch 39 of office buildings? 40 41 Ms. French: That’s Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino. 42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so Palo Alto Square is another sort of site that just seems so inaccessible 44 from the street and then right across the street is sort of a retail front. It just seems so opposite. You 45 would want your, I would hope that this boulevard plan would articulate an opportunity for people to 46 really create a uniform sort of feel on the El Camino that encouraged walkable retail. I mean it’s hard to 47 imagine, but who knows? El Camino could be like a monorail one day and we’re all walking off of it, 48 right? And it’s the only place to put that monorail and so everybody’s sort of accessing it. We have no 49 idea, but it’s certainly, it’s suffered from I guess a lack of vision. And so I like the idea of creating a 50 framework that is both suggestive but flexible. Not, it’s hard to imagine that we know the right answer 51 right now for the whole, the whole street. And so I like the idea of there being sort of a range of 52 setbacks that sort of create maybe spaces where you can walk underneath an overhang. That actually 53 seems like an excellent idea, the arcade. You see a lot of that in sort of major metropolitan, I shouldn’t 54 say major, in metropolitan areas in Europe where they sort of focus a lot more on the notion of walkable 55 boulevards if you will. And we sort of don’t, we have them as main streets, but they seem to have them 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 everywhere. So this sort of notion that you have the arcade as one option and then the plaza as another 1 potential option I think that’s great. And so I think having a Cafe Borrone style, what did you call it? The 2 Palo Alto Plaza, that’s what that property is called? 3 4 Ms. French: The Palo Alto Square is the movie theatre. 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: So I know this, so it’s, I mean just this notion of having plazas next to arcades 7 sounds fantastic because it’s a diversity of approaches and so especially since this is, this is a hard to 8 envision vision I would support the idea that we created a flexibility in the approach, but still articulated 9 this notion of yeah, this needs to be walkable and this needs to, there needs to be much more space 10 than we normally require from… in our building code on the sidewalk. 11 12 I think that’s an interesting idea the idea of sort of the FAR, the area you’re taking away you’re going to 13 allow somewhere else in the building. I’m a really strong advocate for height. I think we have a very 14 negative view about it and we have, we have there are limitations that sort of guide us in our approach 15 to height whether it’s our current restrictions or daylight planes and I think we should explore flexibility 16 there too on the Grand Boulevard especially since you’re talking about taking something away. So I like 17 this. 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: Why don’t we do Commissioner King next? 20 21 Commissioner King: Ok, thank you for the report. So I guess I’m just I’m trying to, the agenda item 22 seems there’s a little bit of a license to ramble in here and maybe that’s what we’re supposed to do. 23 There’s not a goal, we’re not supposed to try and draft any, we’re not trying to draft any wording 24 ordinance, we’re just supposed to give you feedback, is that our goal? And fairly limited to El Camino 25 Real? 26 27 Ms. French: Feedback is great. We do have a draft ordinance that could be tweaked if there was some 28 kind of straw poll to provide guidance for the next step that we could come back with. 29 30 Commissioner King: Ok, so at a minimum though you’re just looking for how, our response to these, the 31 items that you’ve delineated here restricted to El Camino Real? 32 33 Mr. Aknin: I would like to add that if you did have a recommendation that you would like to make related 34 to the El Camino specifically and a recommendation related to the FAR reductions we would like that 35 because we would at least like to take that portion of the ordinance on to the Council as soon as possible 36 and then bring back the other points for further discussion with the Planning Commission as well as the 37 ARB. 38 39 Commissioner King: Ok and it seems it just in my mind a bit of a challenge. One, we’re not a design, you 40 know, as Commissioner Alcheck mentioned really ARB are the ones who are the design experts. So I 41 would, I if you said, “Oh, Carl, please write us up an ordinance right now,” I would feel that that is over 42 my head. So I’m going to limit myself. Now Commissioner Keller he might be the man to do that, but in 43 any event so I’m going to limit myself to just addressing and asking some questions. 44 45 So and when I will, I’ll just go right to kind of down the list. One of the things that is an interesting thing 46 about the, I totally understand and in concept agree with the fact that if the building developers agree to 47 widen the sidewalk at the expense of their lot line or setting back their building and therefore they’re 48 giving up space there that we would allow the same FAR. However, on the other hand as you do see 49 then if that same once the building is developed and now the lessee is in there and then they say, “Oh, 50 and we want to put tables out here,” then they’re effectively getting an enhancement. I know there’s 51 somewhere in here I couldn’t find the wording again, but we’re not looking to give them an 52 enhancement, but in fact by default or in practice it could be an enhancement. Then they’re going to 53 take back that floor area so they’ll both get the FAR created by maintaining the lot size and then they’re 54 going to take back that sidewalk area for commercial use. And so maybe if you want to address that 55 now, one how is that, am I missing something? It seems… and then two, if in fact that is a risk, how do 56 City of Palo Alto Page 13 we handle that? Do we say, “Oh, we’re going to count obviously exterior space,” well, actually I’m not a 1 restaurateur, I don’t know. Is it more favorable per square foot? Do they make more money by having 2 outdoor seating for that amount of space or is it less favorable? And so then is there a way we use an 3 adder or subtractor for that space outside relative to the interior FAR? 4 5 Mr. Aknin: So I wouldn’t even take, I mean my opinion we wouldn’t even take it to the financial analysis 6 standpoint. I think is, do we want outdoor dining is something that we want as a community? As far as 7 we incorporate into our land use decisions or is it something that we don’t want? I think outdoor dining 8 in a climate like Palo Alto is a pretty popular thing and even though restaurants might be making 9 additional revenue related to that, still it is a, it seems to be a pretty popular amenity for Palo Alto 10 residents as well as people who visit Palo Alto to eat. So I think in general if our policies encourage that 11 that would be consistent with what people have wanted to see in the past. 12 13 Commissioner King: Well and I, ok, so there are the commercial profitability and numbers aspects, but 14 then there’s also the ok, well every one of those tables is going to when we’re talking about transit, 15 parking is an issue, every one of those tables that’s seated outside in an area that we’re calling, that 16 we’re adding to the base FAR is another car that’s coming in and parking. I mean it’s also dollars to the 17 community, but that we obviously don’t have unlimited, give people unlimited FAR so it seems to me that 18 you’re going to both add people, parking there, and then the FAR that’s being retained for the building 19 itself, the interior portion, that’s filled with people. And so you’re really adding more load to the 20 transportation systems at a minimum. Again I’m not sure about your point, the fairness of it’s something 21 we want to encourage, but you are giving a bonus to the developer relative to having lot lines at the 22 street where they currently are or the sidewalk and you’re then adding traffic, people traffic, which in 23 general is car traffic. Am I missing something? 24 25 Mr. Aknin: No, I think you’re, yeah, I think you have some good points there. I think the overall traffic 26 impact of tables I guess it depends how big it is, right? I mean if you have a few tables out there there’s 27 not going to be a huge traffic impact. If you have something like Cafe Borrone where there’s dozens of 28 tables out there there’s going to be a larger traffic impact. But I think that’s something that we’d 29 probably have to look at independently as part of the overall development approval process, but I hear 30 you what your point is on that. 31 32 Commissioner King: Ok. 33 34 Ms. French: Can I add something as well? So if it’s truly right of way, dedicated right of way there’s a 35 process that requires an encroachment permit. We also have the ARB process for looking at the style of 36 tables they’re putting out there to make sure they’re up to City standards. The other thing is, we find a 37 lot of times the seasonal when it’s sunny folks may be sitting outside. In the winter or rainy they go 38 inside. So it’s sometimes of the year you’ll have seating in both areas, maybe it’s a really popular 39 restaurant, but, we’ve been having this 12 foot setback for years now where they’re dedicated, they have 40 a 4 foot additional sidewalk and so we haven’t found it to be a problem with the 4 feet. So an additional 41 three feet on top of that I don’t know that it’s, we haven’t seen a lot of seating. We’d like to see seating. 42 I think it’s in our context space guideline that that’s encouraged to enliven the street, vibrant retail. 43 That’s part of the vibrant retail. 44 45 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, well I would just say I have concern that then we’re, because basically 46 we’re saying thank you for the sidewalk, for increasing the sidewalk for the benefit of the public and so 47 for that we’re allowing you to maintain your FAR in the interior spaces and then they’re saying, “Oh, 48 that’s great,” and then they’re taking that sidewalk back for their private uses. And it may be great and 49 vibrant, but I just, I’m seeing that the, I have concerns about that. 50 51 Ms. French: The other thing about that, we wouldn’t have permanent covering over that so it would not 52 be considered lot area or lot coverage or FAR. 53 54 Commissioner King: Well and that’s my exact point. Is that they, but they use it for commercial 55 generation of revenues, it really is a public space. Just as we’ve had this issue with some of the PC’s 56 City of Palo Alto Page 14 where they are public spaces, but during lunch hour or when they want to seat people for dinner they’re 1 not public spaces and so I, I just have a real concern over that. So we can move on, we can discuss it as 2 it moves down the road, but that is a concern. 3 4 Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add to that is what cities typically do, the cities all up and down the, 5 actually cities all over the country, is they would issue some type of encroachment permit to go within 6 that area if it was considered public right of way then there would be some charge associated with that 7 encroachment permit as well as conditions or performance standards that that restaurant would have to 8 make. So that’s kind of the typical industry standard of the way that you do it. I mean obviously we see 9 sidewalk dining everywhere in the country and that’s a typical process that someone would go through. 10 11 Commissioner King: Ok, but I will add the natives with the pitchforks and torches are on parking and 12 growth, appropriate or not or not liking growth is that we are really adding, we’re growing where 13 currently the FAR’s do not support growing. And as a sidelight and I know I’m, should be out of time 14 here, I’m stuck on one subject is if we really believe we’re this green city and that we want to support 15 environmental stewardship all those outdoor restaurants they, I mean you could not have a cartoon more 16 showing global warming than having those heaters that just heat the outdoors. I mean that is the 17 definition of global warming, having a heater trying to heat the outdoor ambient environment. And so 18 I’m not going to tackle that, but I do have concerns. I don’t know if anybody’s done any math on hey, 19 just how much what is that the equivalent of miles driven all our outdoor restaurants, which is becoming 20 more and more common. 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: Can I, before you address that I think Board Member Popp wanted to address some 23 of your issues with respect to the issue of setback. 24 25 Board Member Popp: Thank you so much for the opportunity. Commissioner King I think the thing that I 26 wanted to just mention, first of all I think your points are great about FAR and what that means to a 27 developer. I don’t want to get into the aspects of the finances of it. ARB is about character and quality. 28 And in regard to that what I would describe is that this 15 foot goal for setback is really an aesthetic 29 goal. And it can incorporate objects such as tables and chairs and all these things, but our intent really is 30 to get the building face, the mass of the building away from the street in a way that gives you a visual 31 sense of a certain width as you move down this boulevard. And having street life, and having chairs and 32 tables, and having whatever might occur out there is part and parcel of what will make that character 33 and the interest really vibrant in that street. And so I would certainly leave it to you guys to figure out 34 how we manage the financial benefits of what that might be and what a developer might get from that, 35 but I can tell you that the ARB is very much in favor of maintaining a certain width. It’s very usable, but 36 that additional couple of feet, few feet, whatever it might be that might give space for tables and chairs 37 could be terrifically valuable to the public overall in terms of how that space feels. Thank you. 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Commissioner King you wanted to… you want to address the question 40 that you had already? 41 42 Commissioner King: Yeah, so I guess my feedback would be I would say that you don’t give them the 43 extra. I see it I say, well you get to retain rights to that strip of sidewalk for your commercial uses with 44 your building, but you do not get the, but it counts as FAR that you’re not, it’s still, because it is useful 45 space for the building. So I don’t know exactly how that would translate into the draft, but I don’t think I 46 see it that they’re getting an enhancement when we may not want that. 47 48 Ms. French: I would weigh in on that. Just land use could be a critical piece of this, is a critical piece. 49 We’re just looking at it as if it’s all restaurants, but when you have a 15 foot requirement let’s say and 50 you have an office there, which is allowed in the CS zone. If you have personal services something like 51 that, you’re not going to have people going out and drying their pedicure in front in the chairs. 52 53 Commissioner King: So in that case I would say that it’s tied to whether the public has full 24 hour access 54 subject to curfews or whatever there are, 24 hour access to that space, the additional sidewalk space or 55 City of Palo Alto Page 15 whether the business has the right to use that for their commercial purposes. Ok. Thanks, and then I’ll 1 just take another minute just to flip through the other items. 2 3 So in general I think it’s great to have the flexibility. Obviously we’ve all seen the buildings people don’t 4 like when they’re the unintended consequences of this; the buildings moved up to the front has 5 happened so I’m fully in favor of the general concept. And then what are you trying regarding then the 6 FAR change? So you’ve presented some things that look like dropping it to .8. What do you want from 7 us? To me that sounds like a good idea. I think the general idea is we’re allowing more units, but then 8 we want them to be smaller residential units is the goal. And so I’m in general favor of that. 9 10 Mr. Aknin: That’s correct. So I mean that’s what we would like your Motion to move forward with that 11 portion of it. 12 13 Commissioner King: Ok. 14 15 Mr. Aknin: Eventually, not right now. 16 17 Commissioner King: Understood. Ok, ok, well then I’m done and will look forward to someone else who 18 might want to craft the Motion. Thank you. 19 20 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. 21 22 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, so in general I like what I see here. I think supporting the Grand 23 Boulevard makes a lot of sense and I think in general I think this is headed in the right direction. So I 24 think I head that there are 32 projects affected or could be affected? Maybe you could clarify? 25 26 Ms. French: That’s with, sorry, CN housing site’s FAR reduction. That’s specific to that piece of the 27 ordinance. The others, you know there are many more sites on El Camino that would be affected by the 28 sidewalk width and build to line. 29 30 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, and will all of these projects that will be affected are they going to be 31 notified or will the property owners like, you know, be alerted as to some of these things going on? 32 33 Ms. French: I’ll let Assistant Director Aknin address the Housing Element piece with the floor area. I 34 know that it was stated in the Council meeting that that was a direction and I imagine that those housing 35 sites property owners were very much aware of that process. 36 37 Mr. Aknin: We’ll notify any of those property owners before the Council meeting. 38 39 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, that makes sense. I think it’s important that they know. Ok, and then my 40 other point here is I think there’s many ways to accomplish what’s being done here. I’ve heard Acting 41 Chair Keller also mention that perhaps one way of doing this also is to say, “Well, there’s no parking in 42 front” and so I guess I’m just thinking about the mechanics and what is the best ways in terms of 43 mechanics to vote on something like this. I was wondering if staff had some thoughts about the pros 44 and cons of different ways of accomplishing this, this goal? 45 46 Ms. French: Sure. In the context based guidelines currently there’s a statement about this. It’s called, 47 one of the guidelines, I think it’s Guideline 6 is parking design. And so this is the place where and it’s in 48 the zoning code so it is a pretty much a requirement. It’s a context based design criteria and I’m looking 49 for the quote from there, but it is a legitimate way of providing direction to applicants to state that we 50 don’t have parking lots in front of buildings per the context based guidelines. We do provide these 51 guidelines to applicants prior to them coming into the process. It could be strengthened with an out and 52 out prohibition in the table, Tables 3 and 4, if that’s a desire to make it crystal clear, but the context 53 based guidelines do provide some flexibility on this point. It talks about feasibility. There might be a 54 situation where, there might be a situation with a historic building or something where it’s an existing 55 parking lot out front. I don’t know. There’s some potential need for flexibility there, but the majority of 56 City of Palo Alto Page 16 cases especially a new building we would want to look to have the parking in the rear and we’ve done 1 that with all of the projects that have come through since the adoption of the El Camino Real Guidelines 2 is to have that condition. 3 4 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Ok, thank you. 5 6 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So first of all thank you to the Council for referring this to us and to the 7 staff and to the ARB for having analyzed the issues and also for our joint meeting where we discussed 8 these and were able to consider the issues. So the first thing I want to talk about is the FAR. So firstly, 9 it does make sense from my point of view not to penalize the developers who have essentially had that 10 land and then they’re giving that setback to the City that their land area for the purposes of counting FAR 11 should include the area that they’re dedicating to the City. And I think that that is a reasonable general 12 rule because I think that there have been people who have, developers who have avoided dedicating 13 additional land to the City for that or for example some of the special setbacks on the sides of streets in 14 downtown because of the loss of FAR and I think that that is a fairness issue. But there’s a wrinkle here 15 that hasn’t come up and that wrinkle has to do with arcades. So when you have a setback and then you 16 have an arcade, which means you sort of come out from that setback further forward and then what 17 happens is they decide to put tables under that arcade you lose a lot of the visual sense of the space 18 because it’s taken up by people and tables. Now that may be a good thing and may be a bad thing, but 19 in some sense what it addresses is the issue of if you have arcades and you’re contemplating the ability 20 of having tables then the issue of how open that is and how high the arcade is, is it a one story arcade, is 21 it a two story arcade depending on the height of the building? That may appropriately address the issue 22 and still give that open feel even if there are tables in there, but essentially if you have tables in there the 23 effective sidewalk width, the logical effective sidewalk width is somewhat narrowed with an arcade and 24 tables. So it’s that interaction that I’m mostly concerned about. 25 26 Ms. French: I’ll jump in there. With the Redwood City example I think that’s what the ARB was 27 commenting on. If you have a range on El Camino of 9 to 15 feet that’s a perfect example. You still 28 have the 9 foot walkable between the curb and the columns and then you have another in that case it 29 was 19 feet back to the front wall under that arcade. So there could be reasons to have less than 15 feet 30 let’s say if it’s a situation such as the arcade. 31 32 Acting Chair Keller: Yeah, particularly if the arcade is sufficiently open and attractive and has a high 33 enough or whatever so that you actually have the visual thing there. Ok the next thing I’m going to on 34 a roll here with respect to FAR I think that there’s something ironic about reducing the FAR for CN zone 35 for 20 when 20 dwelling units per acre is allowed and not reducing it for the situation when 15 dwelling 36 units per acre is allowed. And it seems to me in general that the limit to how many dwelling units you 37 can put in is primarily FAR and parking. And that’s the first thing. 38 39 The second thing about that is that when you have the increase for the Housing Bonus Density Law that 40 will affect situations that are in the Housing Inventory Element as well as not in the Housing Inventory 41 List. And so it seems to me that in either case there should be a reduction. So I would be in favor of 42 applying the CN reduction across the board and having that when it comes back to us noticed 43 appropriately so that that change could be made particularly since the bonus applies on either case, so 44 I’m not sure that the bonus only applies in El Camino 20. I’m wondering if staff has any comment about 45 that? 46 47 Mr. Aknin: I mean at this point I would say we would stick to our original recommendation because that 48 was the direction given to us by the City Council. I think it makes sense because there was additional 49 incentive given for the, on the Housing Inventory and we needed something to balance that. We haven’t 50 analyzed what the potential impact could be for more widespread look at that and we probably want 51 additional community outreach before it happens as well as additional Council input. But right now we’re 52 focused on what the Council direction was and that was specifically related to the houses, the properties 53 in the Housing Inventory. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Acting Chair Keller: I think that’s fair enough. I just wanted to point that out. And when this comes back 1 to us we could also look at the CS zone. And when we look at the CS zone for hotels we might also want 2 to incorporate some of the degree of retail in hotels. I think that some of the hotels that have been 3 along El Camino you get a hotel, you get no retail, it sort of doesn’t enliven the street in that way and so 4 if we had for example if the hotel had a restaurant and that restaurant was open to the public that would 5 be fine. But if the hotel doesn’t have a restaurant and there’s nothing open to the public it’s sort of 6 deadens the street. So I think that that’s not helpful. 7 8 So then there was a discussion about the nature of the setback on El Camino Real. And so I’m going to 9 suggest first of all the idea that we don’t have a build to requirement and that instead there’s an explicit 10 limit that you have no parking in front. So we have a setback requirement I want to talk about in a 11 moment, but in terms of the build to requirement essentially the if there’s no parking allowed there if the 12 developer wants to set it back further and the developer has a reason for doing that it’s, then let them. 13 Economically the desire for most developers is to push it as far to the street as they can because of how 14 they can fit the massing in the building. So essentially if the developer has an aesthetic, a good reason 15 for not having the building come up to the sidewalk we shouldn’t require a Design Enhancement 16 Exception (DEE) or require a variance. It’s a reasonable thing and I think that it actually adds visual 17 interest to El Camino to actually have more varying frontage and it allows for planting more trees and 18 things like that. So I would suggest eliminating the build to line and replacing that with an explicit 19 prohibition against parking in the front of the building. And I’m wondering if staff can comment and then 20 ARB Member Popp can comment on that and then if we can have a straw poll among the Commission? 21 22 Ms. French: Yeah, I’m happy to. I mean I, conceptually the concept I understand it. There may be a 23 case where we want to consider a maximum setback, I don’t know. It hasn’t been fully studied that way, 24 but I understand the concept. And our ARB member is here and I know you’ve said perhaps there’s a 25 reason to weigh in, so. 26 27 Board Member Popp: Yeah, tough discussion, right? Whether we should force someone to meet a certain 28 criteria when there’s such a wide variety in choices and lots and options for what people might build, and 29 it’s hard to predict what would be right and would fit all of these different sites. But again I think this is 30 an area where the ARB comes into play and it’s our role to help assess whether buildings are placed 31 properly on the site. Is the setback enough? Is it too much? Is the building massing appropriate? The 32 thing we want to avoid is this concept of missing teeth. Right, that as you drive down El Camino there’s 33 some big gap that just looks wrong. 34 35 I want to be clear in saying that and I’ll carefully use this as an example, right? We, this is not us and it’s 36 not what we want to be, but if you look at something like the Champs-Élysées, right, where there’s this 37 incredibly consistent pattern of building after building and these beautiful wide sidewalks and people 38 strolling and dining happening outside, it’s elegant and it’s wonderful, but it’s not what we’re trying to 39 achieve here. Right? There are these visions for what Grand Boulevards might be and again I want to 40 really reinforce the ARB’s position that variation and really high quality character are what we’re trying to 41 achieve here. And the variability that might be present in treating one site differently than another, again 42 this idea that we should get a consultant to come and put together some concepts for different types of 43 sites so that people have an idea about what we are looking for so that when they come forward with a 44 proposal they have the best chance of success and they’ve got the best guidance that we can give them 45 and then they bring it forward and we have a discussion and we take these one at a time as they come. 46 47 Acting Chair Keller: So to operationalize the question from my point of view does the build to line help 48 you or hinder you? And if we got rid of that and replaced it with a parking, no parking requirement, 49 which I assume people would do anyway, they wouldn’t put parking in the front and the reason I’m doing 50 that is so that you don’t set the building back and put parking in the front so that has to go with it. I’m 51 wondering whether your normal process of having a good design review whether that would be 52 satisfactory in that environment. 53 54 Board Member Popp: So there are five of us. I would tell you my opinion since I don’t have all the others 55 here to speak for it and feel free to chime in if you recall something from the hearing that I don’t 56 City of Palo Alto Page 18 remember clearly, but I think there are two separate issues. And requiring no parking in the front 1 setback can be one issue and a second issue can be whether or not we have a build to line. And I 2 welcome your discussion and your thoughts about that, but again my opinion here is that it’s important 3 to try to describe some goals and to promote variation within the guidelines so that people can come 4 forward with the best possible concept for each individual site. And completely eliminating the guidelines 5 makes for a tough discussion in my opinion. It makes it hard for us to talk to an applicant about what is 6 or is not appropriate. 7 8 Design is subjective and even within the Board we have agreement and disagreement about these types 9 of things. I think that the expectation I have is that there is some range of appropriate build to line and 10 whether it’s an average or whether it’s some forward some backward a certain number that we try and 11 give I’d rather the DEE’s or these other devices that people come forward for an exception are the really 12 the exception and not the rule. What’s happening now is that every project that we’re looking at is 13 coming forward with some type of a DEE because it just doesn’t work. Perhaps someone from staff can 14 remind me, 3159 El Camino? 15 16 Ms. French: Yes. 17 18 Board Member Popp: Is the Equinox site? 19 20 Ms. French: Yes. 21 22 Board Member Popp: And this is, I want to just bring this forward as a, what I consider to be a very nice 23 example of thoughtful design and careful planning and a successful project moving through the process. 24 3159 El Camino is the Equinox site and they had done a very elegant job of holding the building back, 25 creating a portion that approaches the street so it holds the street edge nicely, that there’s an arcade 26 area where it’s appropriate and where the uses really encourage that within the buildings. So I think 27 there’s an idea that there’s a restaurant in there and there are spaces that do all these things, but there 28 are nodes along El Camino where these types of things are appropriate and there are places where you 29 just wouldn’t want to have that. And so giving some guidance about what is appropriate is very valid in 30 my opinion. 31 32 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, thank you. 33 34 Board Member Popp: Thank you. 35 36 Acting Chair Keller: Does any staff also want to weigh in? 37 38 Ms. French: Well I was just checking my notes about what was said at the ARB to confirm what Randy 39 said. So the ARB did kind of discuss either deleting the build to requirement and just allowing the ARB to 40 determine the appropriate setback and percentage at the front in each case because we have different 41 land uses and large and small lots so to acknowledge that and make that a valid choice or retain the build 42 to line requirement and then have reasons why exceptions to that are allowed. Again, different land 43 uses. If you have a hotel for instance or residential then that’s a reason to not come forward and to 44 have more landscaping between the sidewalk and the building or a building that has less articulation 45 because of the use, less retail display windows, that building could go back further. So you could get a 46 little bit more specific if you wanted or again you could just leave it up to the ARB to make that judgment 47 on a case to case basis. I think the main thing is the missing teeth and making sure that we’re still 48 holding that building line and not having to go through a DEE per se each time somebody wants to do 49 something less than right at the setback line or for percentage of the building frontage. I mean that’s 50 where we get into some trouble. 51 52 Acting Chair Keller: So perhaps, when would this come back to us and would there be an opportunity for 53 the ARB to have a meeting in between (interrupted) 54 55 Ms. French: Yes. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 Acting Chair Keller: So that they could review and sort of add feedback to this potential? 2 3 Ms. French: We are looking at March 26th if that works for all to have some kind of a, if a joint meeting is 4 desired. I know and Aaron had said and our Director is asking that we kind of move forward and maybe 5 some other things get talked about, but that’s kind of in reserve as a joint meeting if needed. The ARB is 6 planning on meeting next on March 20th to hopefully bring back what the PTC had to say about it and 7 have another discussion at the ARB on March 20th. 8 9 Acting Chair Keller: Well I don’t want to push this too far forward, but I’m wondering if the ARB meets on 10 March 20th would there be an opportunity from that to incorporate things for our meeting on the 26th? 11 12 Ms. French: Sure, the noticing process is still in the same chapters. We tweak things certain ways. I 13 think the only thing that’s, if there’s something that comes up at the ARB on the 20th and we need to do 14 some sort of outreach we might want to get some cards out and notices for something like that. 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: And also I’m not, this is separate from the issue of what the setback would be 17 because we’d have, in other words there’s a setback and the build to line so I’m suggesting replacing the 18 build to line by parking in front of the building. So I’m wondering and any Commissioner want to weigh 19 in quickly on the issue of whether to replace, whether to eliminate the set, the build to line, give the 20 discussion to the ARB, but have the proviso that you can’t have parking in the setback area? 21 Commissioner King. 22 23 Commissioner King: Yea, thank you. Based on Board Member Popp’s comments I hesitate to and the 24 reading of the minutes from their meeting, I hesitate to flip that back over without a more thorough 25 understanding, which I do not possess. 26 27 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner Alcheck? 28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, no I don’t think that I would support that. At least not one at the expense 30 of the other and I want to add another thing. Another sort of element here, which is that and it’s too 31 bad Director Gitelman isn’t here because there’s this sidewalk in Napa that’s boulevard like that’s 32 associated with a new development that they did sort of in the I guess southern quadrant of Napa like 33 just when you’re coming in across the little river. God, I don’t know anything about Napa. But anyway 34 there’s this little sidewalk and they have when Board Member Popp was talking about sort of the use of 35 the sidewalk and how it’s not really about the commercial or financial sort of viability of the sidewalk and 36 which tenants are likely to use it or which tenants are not likely to use it because people don’t necessarily 37 build space specific for service or retail when they’re doing ground floor service and retail they sort of 38 they build it for all comers, right? But anyway, in this sort of notion there’s this section of sidewalk in 39 Napa where they have this floor sculpture and it’s essentially the cha-cha-cha dance, like the footwork of 40 the cha-cha-cha dance on the sidewalk right in the middle of your walking area. And so like the one foot 41 is 1 and there’s 2 and there’s 3 and there’s 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and then the person that faces you they’re 42 feet are also like that. So if you both step on foot space and you get, you all get what I’m saying? 43 Anyways, my point is I was sitting at a restaurant like right next to that and I swear to you for the whole 44 hour and 15 minutes that I was at this restaurant not a single group that walked past this foot thing 45 didn’t try it. Right? So you see all these people are doing this and I thought like, God, you know 46 whoever thought of that they will never know how appreciated; how profound an impact they had on my 47 dinner. Because it was just, it was amazing. And it was, it did create life on a street. 48 49 I will argue that there is no life on El Camino. I’ve never walked down El Camino, ever. I don’t think I’ve 50 ever parked on El Camino. One time maybe I stopped at Mike’s Bikes and even that was sort of scary 51 because I couldn’t get out of my car. It is not what it, it certainly not what it could be and I don’t think 52 we’re going to get there by being too restrictive because it’ll just sort of discourage maybe the thoughtful 53 development we’d like to see. So I think the notion of increasing flexibility certainly we don’t, not every 54 single part of our El Camino, Palo Alto’s El Camino has to be walkable, right? There should be, we should 55 be focusing on the low hanging fruit. There should be, I’m fully confident that the ARB will be able to 56 City of Palo Alto Page 20 identify the right projects that you know what? We really want to see more X from you. We think that 1 this setback should be a little farther back because you’re right next to X and Y and Z and this is starting 2 to look like a nice little walkable area and we should encourage that in the redevelopment. And I think 3 that’s really the key; encouraging redevelopment of assets there that are no longer appealing. So, so 4 again I don’t think I would support the notion of just eliminating the build to line and then having or the 5 setback, I guess it’s the maximum? I think that having the, having a setback range is more effective at 6 articulating the vision idea than solely saying we don’t want parking in the front. 7 8 And I want to say one other thing. I’m hoping that the ARB will handle the issues related to the height of 9 the arcades and the depth of the arcades and we won’t really ever deal with it. And I think we shouldn’t 10 consider the use of this is sort of in response to Commissioner King’s comments. I’m not sure really we 11 should be weighing into consideration whether a potential tenant would use outdoor space into whether 12 the developer who’s investing a tremendous amount of money into rehabilitating an asset or even 13 reinvesting, redeveloping an asset. We’ve all had conversations about encouraging ground floor retail, 14 ground floor service, ground floor restaurants and the like and I think you’re talking about a decision that 15 they would have to make so far in advance about how they would use their floor area that you would be 16 maybe encouraging people to shy away from restaurants because immediately if there was a potential for 17 using space for tables they’d be like “No, no, no, no restaurants. We’ll just be retail here because we 18 want that space on the fifth floor.” And so every time we create sort of a… they are going to find a way 19 to make, to get the space they want and it may be, the result may be no restaurants for a quarter mile 20 and maybe that’s something we didn’t really want because the dollar per square foot of the space is so 21 valuable that they’re just saying no to it. So it’s important. 22 23 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to weigh in? 24 25 Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka: Sure. I think a lot of interesting points by my fellow Commissioners. I also I’m 26 not sure about the proposal. I think it would be good to get the ARB’s take on it, but I did have some 27 other thoughts. It’s been awhile since I’ve been at the Champs-Élysées in Paris, but last time I went 28 there it was kind of like a freeway in the middle. I mean there’s like a lot of cars, it’s not like very slow 29 moving traffic, it’s a fairly wide boulevard and so I was thinking at least car wise it’s not that different 30 from El Camino except that El Camino’s a lot shabbier, not nearly as exciting, some serious 31 redevelopment probably should happen. I also don’t have many fond memories walking along El Camino. 32 But I for one would love to see something grand like that. A true Grand Boulevard. Something that 33 people would walk down and go “Wow.” I don’t know if it’s possible and we’re pretty far from that right 34 now, but I think having things that help facilitate that is actually a good thing. 35 36 Because I’ve been thinking also like when I drive down El Camino and it’s kind of surprising there’s still 37 like vacant lots or there’s still places where there’s incredible underutilization of actual land and so I think 38 Commissioner Alcheck is right that we do need to encourage or have things to encourage redevelopment. 39 I think that’s probably one of the biggest issues on El Camino, but I think generally I still like what this, 40 direction where this, you know trying to have wider sidewalks, trying to make it more walkable, but I do 41 think we should, you know we are a fairly high end city and I think we should have higher sights and I 42 don’t think it’s unreasonable for us to try to shoot for Champs-Élysées. I think that’s something that we 43 should try to do. Thanks. 44 45 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m just going to encourage the ARB to think about this issue and weigh 46 in at your next meeting and see which way makes sense and whether an approach like this would 47 increase your flexibility or cause more problems than would otherwise be. This is separate from the issue 48 of setbacks and I am, I would actually at least for El Camino like to be a little bit more directive and 49 suggest something along the lines of a minimum setback from the curb of being 12 feet, arcades being 50 allowed within that setback, and an average setback from the curb being in a range 15 feet to something 51 maybe a little more than that depending on the nature of that. And obviously the average setback only 52 counts where you have building. If you have a driveway the average setback is not to the rear, that 53 space doesn’t count. And so I’m wondering if Board Member Popp would like to weigh in on that notion? 54 We’re trying to make it worth your while to actually have come to the meeting. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Popp: No, it’s good. I’m glad I showed up. So specifically you’re looking for some 1 feedback about the idea of average setback? 2 3 Acting Chair Keller: The idea of a minimum setback at an average that’s somewhat greater than that and 4 realize that that could be modified by virtue of the arcade. 5 6 Board Member Popp: So I would say squarely minimum setback, yes. Right, important to say we need at 7 least X square feet in some cases, might go up to 15 feet is what we’re suggesting, maybe even more. I 8 think again the issue here is that there are so many different types of sites along El Camino. Staff was 9 great, they produced all these maps for us and we were able to look at all these things. We each took 10 different sections and studied. There’s no one size fits all certainly and I really I don’t think even 11 establishing an average setback would be beneficial. I think that’s too restrictive. I think what we need 12 to do is really take this side by side, state some goals, identify some concepts, and say tell us what is 13 right for this site and we provide feedback as the ARB to help assess whether or not it’s appropriate in its 14 context. 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: If you had the tool of being able to deal with minimum setback and a minimum 17 average setback and in terms of flexibility on that as an alternative to a fixed build to line, would that be 18 helpful? 19 20 Board Member Popp: Yes, I think it would. 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: So maybe that’s something to consider in the mix? 23 24 Board Member Popp: Yeah, absolutely. And I’ll give as an example we were just presented with one of 25 the sites along Alma where currently there’s a special setback along Alma. There’s these garages that 26 are in the front setback right now. Really the very first building has come forward. Say we want to 27 knock down that old decrepit thing and build a new building that was completely within the envelope of 28 what’s allowed in zoning, but the ARB pushed back on the applicant and said it’s about the context and 29 although by right you should be allowed to have this height and this certain setback and build it the way 30 you described it, it’s just not right because you’re the first one out of the gate. And if there were others 31 around you this would be a perfectly compatible and appropriate solution, but because there aren’t 32 others that are developed yet it’s challenging for us to move it forward. And I think that’s exactly the 33 case here as well where there, the hope is that these unpleasant structures that are along El Camino 34 come down and we get buildings that are farther back and we get sidewalks that are pleasant. It 35 becomes this really nice space and all of a sudden it becomes some place that you would want to go for 36 a walk or you’d feel safe parking your car and getting out, but until we get a momentum about this I 37 think we’re going to need some flexibility in order to incorporate these projects in and around other 38 things that are there. We’re not going to just start out with the accelerator at 100 miles an hour. We 39 need to ramp up into this a little bit. 40 41 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I hope we don’t accelerate to 100 miles an hour on a 35 mile an hour 42 street limit street, sorry. 43 44 Board Member Popp: Point taken. 45 46 Acting Chair Keller: Anybody else want to weigh in on anything else? Yes. 47 48 Ms. French: Could I just because if I might you did say minimum setback of 12 feet. In our Tables 3 and 49 4 there is a minimum setback and the way it’s phrased is zero to ten feet. If you put it at zero that’s 50 when you’re trying to, you’re right at the, you’re doing the eight foot right at the property line. If you’re 51 doing the 10 feet that’s going to be 18 feet, ok, really. So if you’re looking at a 12 foot effective sidewalk 52 requirement, which is currently what we have on El Camino, that’s really a four foot setback from the 53 front property line to the building rather than a 12 foot setback. You know its terminology. 54 55 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’m really referring to a 12 foot effective sidewalk width and a setback 1 appropriately related to that. Thanks for the correction. Anybody else on the Commission wish to weigh 2 in before? Yes, Commissioner Alcheck. 3 4 Commissioner Alcheck: Do we, I’m just curious do we know what the Champs-Élysées setback is? Just 5 out of curiosity? Because I was in Paris like maybe a year and a half ago and I thought it felt like 50 6 feet. 7 8 Ms. French: You know I think this is kind of funny I guess. I heard at the July 31st meeting I thought I 9 heard Eduardo say he was going to do his research on the Champs-Élysées. I don’t know if that 10 happened. Does anyone know if he went and did the research? Because he’s not here. Yeah, we can 11 look that up and be ready at the next meeting. 12 13 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m, I’m looking at pictures from my trip so you know, but I mean I, we’re far 14 away from (interrupted) 15 16 Ms. French: Must be a dimension. 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: I feel like the size of El Camino is the setback on the Champs-Élysées it was, you 19 could literally have a marching band stand next to each other and still be on the sidewalk, but it would be 20 interesting in my opinion and I think we said this last time. I think I said this last time, but I’m not 100 21 percent sure to see what other cities are doing and what they’re in this context especially since this 22 Grand Boulevard is actually not just our idea. I think there are other cities on the El Camino that are 23 contemplating this. So I’m almost positive I made this point last time, I’ll have to go through the notes, 24 but I feel like it would be very informative to sort of see what are they doing in Redwood City about this, 25 in Mountain View, and then what do others, what’s happening in Brooklyn and in Tel Aviv and how do 26 they compare to this idea? 27 28 Acting Chair Keller: Commissioner King. 29 30 Commissioner King: Thank you. Yes, so I did have a question of staff and Board Member Popp. What 31 input have the local practicing design development professionals had into these changes? Have you 32 spoken to them, do they feel this would make things easier, better, harder, more expensive? 33 34 Ms. French: Randy Popp’s here representing the ARB and certainly this conversation has been going on 35 for a while in retreats and such and Randy’s connected with other architects and as are the ARB so I’m 36 sure there’s been some informal conversations, but we have not had any formal outreach outside of the 37 retreats and public hearings that we’ve had to date. 38 39 Mr. Aknin: The one thing I would add is that regionally there have been a lot of architects and developers 40 engaged in the Grand Boulevard principles not necessarily in Palo Alto, but throughout the peninsula. 41 And I think what developers want more than anything is certainty. So to the extent that we can provide 42 certainly through this ordinance because there isn’t much certainty right now in Palo Alto given the 43 current dynamic, as much as we could work through these issues and provide some certainty in our code 44 I think it would be looked upon favorably. 45 46 Commissioner King: And so you’re saying that this provides more certainty then currently exists. Is that 47 correct? 48 49 Mr. Aknin: Correct, yes because right now we have the Council direction that has gone forward and 50 hasn’t reached a conclusion yet. 51 52 Commissioner King: I understand. So it may be, ok. So it may be more uncertain than existing 53 ordinance, but it’s more certain than what the, the fact that there’s in play right now so they don’t like 54 the fact that it’s in play (interrupted) 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Aknin: Correct. 1 2 Commissioner King: They want a faster resolution, but it may end up providing less flexibility to them. 3 4 Mr. Aknin: Yeah, even if I think even something that provides a little less flexibility in the end but certain 5 is better than something that’s uncertain. 6 7 Commissioner King: Got it. Ok, thank you. 8 9 Board Member Popp: The fact that we’re presented with the choice to evaluate a DEE time and time and 10 time again is very challenging. As an architect who has done projects like this I can tell you that when 11 you are not clear you get to, it’s a gating item in your project and you cannot move forward until you get 12 the yes that you need to get or the no so you know which way to go and it can come at enormous cost 13 just enormous cost to have to wait like that on a project. So anything we can do to streamline the 14 process and to remove unknowns and barriers in the approvals is helpful not just to applicants, but also 15 to those of us who are tasked with reviewing the projects. 16 17 Commissioner King: And then I’ll ask a general question. When you described the situation which the 18 applicant came to you with a project which was on paper met all of our criteria and yet they, the ARB 19 said, “Well yeah it does, but we don’t want to approve that.” I assume you have the power to actually 20 tell them they can’t build that building even though it fits our criteria? Is that correct? 21 22 Board Member Popp: And I’m going to ask staff to clarify this for me, but my understanding is that we 23 make a recommendation to the Planning Director and the Director issues direction to the applicant in 24 regard to approval or not. 25 26 Ms. French: I think in this case they’re and I don’t want to get too far into it because if for instance they 27 ask for a variance to allow something in the special setback because the context is that way, that could 28 potentially come to the Planning Commission. So you could end up getting involved with that one, so 29 (interrupted) 30 31 Commissioner King: Ok, yeah let’s just we’ll cancel that. 32 33 Ms. French: Yeah. 34 35 Commissioner King: Cara will smile when I cancel that I’m sure. Ok, great. Thank you. That’s all, the 36 only questions I had. 37 38 Acting Chair Keller: Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka do you want to add anything? So I’m going to close by 39 basically suggesting something to think about. And so firstly what’s interesting about this is that we were 40 specifically directed by the City Council to make El Camino wider and a greater effective sidewalk. And 41 I’m not convinced that the ordinance as presented to us does that because it could be a 12 foot sidewalk, 42 effective sidewalk and it appears that that could satisfy the ordinance. And so effectively I’m not sure I 43 see an actual change in what is required, per se. Because it does give a range of 12 to 18 foot and 12 44 foot is within that range and 12 foot is what we require now. So it doesn’t necessarily create that. 45 46 So what I would suggest that we consider as an alternative and I’m not here to make this a Motion, but 47 I’d like the ARB to consider it is first of all a minimum setback from the curb of 12 feet. Secondly, an 48 average, a minimum average setback from the curb of 15 feet, sorry, an average setback from the curb 49 of a range of 15 to 18 feet, no build to line requirement and no parking in front of the building. So that’s 50 something to play with. And by having an average setback in the range of 15 to 18 feet, that basically 51 does provide the effectiveness of something close enough to the sidewalk to be usable. It also gives a 52 minimum of; since the minimum of the average is 15 feet it means that you do effectively have the 53 buildings further back by at least 3 feet on the average. I would exclude from that calculation places 54 where there is no building, so for example a driveway or whatever to the back doesn’t count. So an 55 average setback from the curb, an average setback from the curb, average effective sidewalk width of 56 City of Palo Alto Page 24 being at least 15, between 15 and 18 feet. I’m just suggesting that as a way of dealing with the issue. 1 And if there’s no, are there any other comments about that? Commissioner King. 2 3 Commissioner King: Are you asking for comments on your specific comment or? Oh, no I do not. 4 5 Acting Vice-Chair Keller: Any other comments people wish to add before I guess we’ll need a Motion. But 6 is there any other comments before we make a Motion? 7 8 Commissioner King: Well that’s sort of my question, the Motion. So in staff’s goal if we were to say we 9 move to recommend to Council Items 1 through 4, is that the direction you’re hoping for? 10 11 Ms. French: Well it’s certainly a direction. I think again we’ve identified that we are going back to ARB on 12 the 20th. We heard Acting Chair Keller’s request and that’s what the ARB was requesting to get some 13 guidance, some alternatives perhaps to the ordinance and then the next meeting that we see you for we 14 would; we could capture this in a revised draft ordinance as an alternative. Yeah, certainly if you wanted 15 to do a straw poll on what you wanted to see with respect to this ordinance you could do that. 16 17 Commissioner King: Ok. So what I’m hearing is it’s not really that helpful. You’re certainly not going to 18 go home mad if we don’t refer this, these items as written here to Council? 19 20 Mr. Aknin: No, we wouldn’t go home mad. What we were hoping for… yes, we have thick skin. I think in 21 general what we were looking for coming into here was some type of Motion related to Numbers 1 22 through 4 that’s specifically about El Camino Real. So we would say move forward, you know, the 23 Motion, move forward as staff’s recommended for Motions 1 through 4 as they relate to El Camino Real 24 because we had a broader scope initially. Now if there is something, for instance Acting Chair Keller’s 25 recommendations that could slightly modify these, that would be fine as well too. But we would like 1 26 through 4 moved forward as specifically and specifically focused on El Camino. There’s no huge 27 heartbreak if it doesn’t happen, we could have another follow-up meeting, but that’s what we would like 28 to see. 29 30 Commissioner King: Ok. Well I will so move that we move, recommend to Council and we’re not actually 31 asking for action because we don’t have an ordinance, correct? So we’re just review or… 32 33 Mr. Aknin: There is an ordinance. 34 35 Ms. French: Attachment A, but it needs some cleaning that ordinance that’s there. So it’s as to be 36 modified, but the concept of going wider than 12 feet, perhaps the 15 feet as a target if that’s what I’m 37 hearing. We’d like to have ARB look at one more time. 38 39 Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: If I could clarify? The ordinance is there for guidance in case 40 you wanted to get into more detail. I think at this point it’s more helpful for staff to just have the guiding 41 principles and then we will go back to the ordinance to incorporate your guiding principles and move it on 42 to the Council. 43 44 MOTION 45 46 Commissioner King: Ok so a Motion could be to support staff in further advancement of these items as 47 they relate as Items 1 through 4 as they relate to, specifically to the El Camino Real corridor. Ok. And 48 then I would add for discussion that I would ask relative to Item 4 that we ask staff for further study as 49 to whether the additional sidewalk width provided by applicants shall be dedicated for public use or 50 whether applicant may retain for private or restricted use that sidewalk area. 51 52 Acting Chair Keller: So is that your Motion? Or? 53 54 Commissioner King: That is my Motion. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Acting Chair Keller: So can you get, I have to write it down so you’re basically moving staff 1 recommendation? Your microphone. 2 3 Commissioner King: Supporting staff’s further study of Items 1 through 4 specific to their application in 4 the El Camino Real corridor. And then I’m adding that we ask staff for the rider on there that I 5 mentioned. 6 7 Acting Chair Keller: And could you give me the wording of that? 8 9 Commissioner King: Yep. That we ask staff for further study as to whether the additional sidewalk width 10 provided by applicants shall be dedicated for public use or whether it may be retained for private or 11 restricted use by the applicant. 12 13 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. If you could say it a little slower, I’ve got to write this down because I’ve got to 14 give it to the staff tomorrow morning. So ask staff for further study of? 15 16 Commissioner King: As to whether the additional sidewalk. 17 18 Acting Chair Keller: As to whether the additional… 19 20 Commissioner King: Sidewalk width provided. 21 22 Acting Chair Keller: Sidewalk width provided. 23 24 Commissioner King: By applicants shall be dedicated for public use or may be retained for private or 25 restricted use by the applicant. 26 27 Acting Chair Keller: Or can be retained for private use by applicant? 28 29 Commissioner King: May be, yeah, may be retained for private or restricted use by the applicant. 30 31 SECOND 32 33 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, I’ll second that. Ok. Do you want to speak to your Motion? 34 35 Commissioner King: No. 36 37 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 38 39 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. Hold on a second. I’d like to make a friendly amendment if I may? And the 40 friendly amendment is to add to this to ask the staff and ARB to consider the potential for a combination 41 of minimum setback and average setback so that’s the first amendment. 42 43 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 ACCEPTED 44 45 Commissioner King: I accept that. 46 47 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 48 49 Acting Chair Keller: And the second friendly amendment I have to offer is that the ARB consider whether 50 in conjunction with that consideration there’s a potential for eliminating the build to requirement provided 51 that there’s no parking in front of the building. 52 53 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 ACCEPTED 54 55 Commissioner King: I accept that. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. So I think we’ve beat this to death enough. Are there any other amendments? 1 Commissioner Alcheck. 2 3 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 4 5 Commissioner Alcheck: I think it wasn’t really present in our discussion here today, but I don’t think you 6 can have a conversation about setback for many of the parcels on El Camino without having a discussion 7 about height and I think my friendly amendment would be to suggest that staff also add a concept 8 related to increasing height in conjunction, increasing the flexibility with respect to height in conjunction 9 with these “range” of setbacks. I know we talked a little bit about floor area and sort of reallocating that, 10 but I think it would also make sense to talk about height and so that’s my friendly amendment. 11 12 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 FAILED 13 14 Commissioner King: I’m going to reject that, not because I think it’s necessarily a bad idea, but because I 15 would like to use this opportunity as a straw poll to see if we want to incorporate that. 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: Sure. 18 19 Commissioner King: Ok. So let’s consider it an unfriendly amendment. 20 21 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1, SECOND 22 23 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, that’s considered an unfriendly amendment. Does anybody with to second that 24 unfriendly amendment? So we have an amendment by Commissioner Alcheck, second by Commissioner, 25 by Acting Vice-Chair Tanaka. And could you give me the wording of your? 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, I mean this is all sort of loose. We’re just suggesting the further study of 28 concepts. So it would be adding the concept of increasing height to the suggested… look, they’re going 29 to build an ordinance out of these idea concepts. So one of the concepts is the setback. The second 30 concept would be increased height as a result of increased setback. 31 32 Acting Chair Keller: So let me ask a clarifying question to your motion? 33 34 Commissioner Alcheck: I think any specificity that you’re looking for here is going to be lost on me 35 because the whole point is, is that what we’re really asking them to do is spend some more time thinking 36 about something? 37 38 Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask my question and then you can figure out whether it will be lost on 39 you. I don’t think so. My question is whether your intention is to initiate a study of height that will take 40 place in the next month before this new ordinance comes back to us or whether your idea of initiating a 41 study on height is of longer term and not as part of this rush ordinance that we were asked to for this 42 Council? 43 44 Commissioner Alcheck: So let me put it to you this way. If I asked the staff to look into the setbacks that 45 other cities along El Camino are considering with respect to the Grand Boulevard and what other Grand 46 Boulevard locales are considering would you feel uninformed if you didn’t also know what the height 47 limits were in those areas? Wouldn’t you feel like you were literally looking at just one half of an 48 equation? So my point is, is that this is such an integral part of the discussion, the height, that to not 49 have a bullet, to not have one of our approaches to this Grand Boulevard include flexibility with respect 50 to height needs to be addressed. 51 52 Acting Chair Keller: So you’re suggesting that a consideration of height be made within this ordinance in 53 this cycle? 54 55 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m saying (interrupted) 56 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Acting Chair Keller: That’s what I’m trying to clarify. 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: Absolutely. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: I think the staff wants to under, I think the staff needs to know whether your 5 intention is to consider height with respect to the cycle we’re going to have this come back to us in a 6 month or so or whether your initiating a long (interrupted) 7 8 Commissioner Alcheck: No. I’m… look, I’m perfectly… I think we’ve had a number of discussions about 9 the Grand Boulevard that if City Council reviewed our minutes they would be very well informed about 10 what we think. So I’m not suggesting they come back to us. I’m suggesting that they add that concept 11 to the discussion and take it to the, I’m very comfortable sending this right back up. We were asked to 12 sort of increase the sidewalk. These are some ways to accomplish that and I think the discussion that 13 we’ve had has been informed. And so (interrupted) 14 15 Acting Chair Keller: Can I ask (interrupted) 16 17 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m going to support the Motion, but I would have been more supportive of a 18 Motion that just sort of pushed this process along. They are going to go back to the ARB for sort of a 19 consult, but I don’t think they need to come back to us, but (interrupted) 20 21 Acting Chair Keller: Well let me ask this of staff. Is it the expectation, your expectation that after the 22 ordinance is drafted, after the ARB that this does come back to the Commission? 23 24 Ms. French: Yes, I think we, you know, certainly what’s in front of us today has some additional changes 25 so ideally we get the final product that we think is going to Council to you so for your full vote. And it 26 would be nice to have the rest of the Commission (interrupted) 27 28 Mr. Aknin: Well, actually I’ll add one correction to that. We, what we’re asking for now is we would clean 29 up as directed by you and we would bring the ordinance to the Council without checking back to the 30 Planning Commission. However, there’s these greater issues, which I definitely think we need to address 31 like height, like a number of other urban design type issues that we need to work through thru our entire 32 code, actually not our entire code, but specifically focused portions of our code that we do need to come 33 back to the Commission as well as the ARB with other the next few months. But for this one specific 34 ordinance we weren’t intending to come back to you. 35 36 Commissioner Alcheck: Just to clarify my position I would’ve supported a Motion more sincerely that 37 moved this process along, but since we’re sort of asking for a lot more study I’m tacking on this notion 38 that height be considered. But if there was a way for me to propose a Motion that moved this process to 39 the ARB for their tweaking of this, the issue that’s in front of us and then to the City Council for sort of a 40 discussion of how they want to make this a reality and then in theory a second Motion that brought these 41 topics up to us for further study session I would support that more than, but I don’t want to fight this the 42 majority here. So. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: So, what I’m trying, ok, what I understand that you’re saying is that, correct me if I’m 45 wrong, I think you’re saying the height should be considered by the ARB in their review process? Or 46 what are you suggesting? What is the text of your amendment? 47 48 Commissioner Alcheck: I would suggest that concepts be developed related to increasing height as a 49 result of increasing setbacks. 50 51 Acting Chair Keller: And is there a timeframe? I mean is this something that you’re expecting to be in the 52 ordinance in a month from now? 53 54 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not amending a Motion. 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Acting Chair Keller: No, I don’t (interrupted) 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: I don’t know. 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: I think it’s interesting to say are you expecting this to come back when this goes 5 before us and goes to Council? 6 7 Commissioner Alcheck: I didn’t, I was hopeful that we would be able to have a Motion that went 8 straight… I was hopeful that we would be able to move this process along, but since my sense is that the 9 mover has suggested that he would like to hear more on the topics that he requested further study, 10 which I think was the way he started his Motion I am suggesting that we add this topic for further study 11 to the topics he’s asking for further study on. So the assumption here is that the mover and seconder 12 have, would like this to come before us at least one more time before the ordinance is designed. My 13 personal opinion is the ordinance just be moved along, but since we’re going it looks like the route of 14 further study the timeframe is the same timeframe that our mover and our seconder need for further 15 study of all these topics. 16 17 Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair? 18 19 Acting Chair Keller: Yeah. 20 21 Mr. Aknin: One question. I did not understand your Motion to say come back to us again before we go to 22 the Council. Is that what you were saying? 23 24 Commissioner King: Well, (interrupted) 25 26 Mr. Aknin: That wasn’t the staff’s recommendation so. 27 28 Commissioner King: Yeah and this is why humans speak to each other because there’s sometimes lack of 29 clarity. So I used the words “further study,” which I fully understand that Commissioner Alcheck took to 30 mean, took the words for what they say. In reality upon reflection I realize what I really meant was for 31 discussion as you move this forward. 32 33 Mr. Aknin: Ok, that’s what I was thinking. 34 35 Commissioner King: That I would not want it to get to Council without having people discuss, “Hey, how 36 are we going to treat this?” because I believe this is an important consideration. I’m not saying I don’t 37 know what the right answers is, but I think it’s important consideration that people think through the 38 topic which I have (interrupted) 39 40 Mr. Aknin: We would put further analysis in for and a recommendation in before we went to Council. 41 42 Acting Chair Keller: So then I take your Motion as that. You’re recommending that this not come back to 43 the PTC, but that perhaps we be told about it at the next meeting as to what the, what was decided for 44 the ARB? 45 46 Commissioner King: Exactly. 47 48 Mr. Aknin: And we’re going to have a joint meeting with the ARB and the PTC coming up and I think 49 these greater issues are something that we have to talk about during that meeting. 50 51 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. So I’m not going to support the unfriendly amendment precisely because 52 I don’t think it should be in this quick process for going to the Council. And I (interrupted) 53 54 Commissioner Alcheck: Are you still seconding the Motion as it is now? Is that how you (interrupted) 55 56 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Acting Chair Keller: I seconded the original Motion. 1 2 Commissioner Alcheck: But are you, as… 3 4 Acting Chair Keller: I’m, there’s an amendment on the floor, it’s an unfriendly amendment (interrupted) 5 6 Commissioner Alcheck: No, I know, but the Motion was sort of re-clarified so are you still in support of 7 that? 8 9 Acting Chair Keller: I’m fine with the Motion as it is stated. That it’s not coming back. Ok, that’s fine. In 10 any event what I’m saying is that I don’t think that the consideration (interrupted) 11 12 UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 WITHDRAWN 13 14 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m withdrawing my amendment though because… 15 16 Acting Chair Keller: Ok, you’re withdrawing your amendment? 17 18 Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, because now the discussion isn’t coming back to us in which case I’m 19 pretty sure they’re going to have that discussion anyway. So I’m withdrawing the amendment because I 20 have full faith that the ARB and the City Council will have a discussion about height when they talk about 21 this so I’m withdrawing that Motion. 22 23 Acting Chair Keller: Ok. I’ll actually (interrupted) 24 25 Commissioner Alcheck: Amendment, sorry. 26 27 Acting Chair Keller: Thank you. I’ll actually indicate that I think that a discussion about increasing heights 28 in this City is a larger discussion that should not be put as part of this ordinance and if there’s a 29 consideration of height it needs to be a broad based discussion not buried in a Motion, not buried in an 30 ordinance that’s really a quick fix. So I would not support that moving forward. So I don’t agree with 31 that and I’m not sure if anybody else wants to weigh in? 32 33 Commissioner Alcheck: It’s withdrawn. 34 35 Acting Chair Keller: I’m just, I understand it’s withdrawn, but since the idea has been presented I’m 36 indicating my disagreement with it. Anybody else wish to weigh in? 37 38 Ms. French: I’m going to weigh in because the ARB has already had a discussion about how height 39 should be a part of it so they would probably have that discussion again on the 20th. You know whether 40 that gets incorporated in this we haven’t put it in here and we probably won’t; however, it’s in the record 41 that will go to the Council in the minutes so they will see that’s it’s a consideration that is related to this. 42 It is just isn’t in the ordinance. 43 44 Acting Chair Keller: Great, thank you. Unless there’s anything else? Any other comments? Anybody? 45 Then I’ll call the question. All in favor of the Motion as amended, which is to move the support staff in 46 further study of the El Camino, the South El Camino Design Guidelines, is that right? What’s 47 (interrupted) 48 49 Ms. French: That’s an adjunct. That’s a related project, but it’s not this. This is the ordinance going 50 forward. 51 52 Acting Chair Keller: So we recommend that the PTC has reviewed and discussed the contents of the draft 53 ordinance and recommends points one through four as decided by, as indicated in the staff report with 54 the additional provisions of 1) ask staff for further study as to whether the addition of sidewalk width 55 provided by the applicant should be dedicated to public use or may be returned for private or restricted 56 City of Palo Alto Page 30 use by the applicant; 2) consider the combination of minimum setback and average setback as a way of 1 accomplishing increased setbacks as desired by the Council; and 3) consider the combination of 2 eliminating build to lines and no parking in the front as a way of accomplishing the goal along with that. 3 Yes? 4 5 Commissioner King: I believe you missed the words specific to El Camino Real, items 1 through 4 specific 6 to El Camino Real. 7 8 Acting Chair Keller: Items 1, 2, and 3 are specific to El Camino Real, yes. 9 10 Commissioner King: Ok. Ok. 11 12 Acting Chair Keller: Alright? 13 14 Commissioner King: Is that accurate for staff? And the word, you said the word “returned” by the 15 applicant relative to my addition, but it should be “retained.” You may have just been misreading it and 16 will correct it, but it is will the sidewalk use be retained by the applicant. 17 18 Acting Chair Keller: Oh right. I wrote down retained. Thank you. Retained by the applicant. Yes? 19 What? Sure, go ahead. Commissioner Alcheck has a question of Cara. 20 21 Commissioner Alcheck: So I am just curious from your perspective is there a component of this setback 22 that’s required? So let’s say we increase the size of the setback. Does that have any effect on the 23 designation of that area of land as public or private? 24 25 Ms. Silver: It depends on how the ordinance is framed. If it’s framed in terms of an effective sidewalk 26 width then it really doesn’t matter if it’s public or private. If we want to encourage an actual public 27 dedication of the private property for exclusive right of way use then of course it becomes public property 28 and there’s some other related issues associated with requiring an additional dedication of sidewalk for 29 properties that already have a sidewalk in front of them. So I think it is, I think it’s an issue. It’s 30 certainly involved in the mix. 31 32 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, I just I’m only asking that question because I think I’m a little bit confused 33 about your first addition to the set. And not, I actually don’t even, I don’t think it’s time well spent to 34 sort of figure it out. I think I’m going to support the Motion, but I think it’s a little, I’m a little unclear 35 what you’re going for with your first addition, but we can talk about that later. 36 37 Acting Chair Keller: Anything else? Ok, all in favor say aye (Aye). All opposed? The Motion carries 38 unanimously. Motion made by Commissioner King and seconded by Acting Vice-Chair, Acting Chair Keller 39 and with amendments. 40 41 MOTION PASSED (4-0-2, Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent) 42 43 Commission Action: Motion by Commissioner King, second by Acting Chair Keller, as amended by Acting Chair 44 Keller with concurrence of Commissioner King to support staff recommendation of the four items in the staff report 45 with the following items relating to El Camino Real, suggested for further study: 46 47 1. Whether the additional sidewalk width provided by the applicants shall be dedicated for public use or may 48 be retained for private or restricted use. 49 2. Consider the combination of minimum effective sidewalk width of 12 feet and a larger average effective 50 width of 15 to 18 feet should be adopted for El Camino Real (not counting driveways, etc., where there is 51 no building). 52 3. Consider the combination of #2 plus eliminating the build-to requirements and adding a no-parking 53 requirement in the front of buildings for El Camino Real. 54 55 Passed unanimously 4-2 with Chair Michael and Commissioner Martinez absent. 56 57 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Minutes Approval: None 1 2 Acting Chair Keller: And I think we have a few other housekeeping things we need to do. We don’t have 3 any minutes to approve. 4 5 Commission/Staff Announcements, Updates, Reports, and Comments: Members of the public 6 may not speak to the item(s). 7 8 Acting Chair Keller: Any other minute, meetings, I mean Commission reports? Ok. In that case the 9 meeting is adjourned at 8:33. Thank you very much. 10 11 Adjournment: 8:33 PM 12