Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-04-18 City Council Agenda Packet
City Council 1 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. April 18, 2016 Special Meeting Council Chambers 5:00 PM Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are available in the Council Chambers on the Thursday 10 days 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 5:00-6:15 PM Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker. 1.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Authority: Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: ITT Transmitter Site, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 008-05-001 and 008-05-005, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Agency Negotiators: James Keene, Lalo Perez, Hamid Ghaemmaghami Negotiating Parties: Globe Wireless and City of Palo Alto Under Negotiation: Acquisition of Easement: Price and Terms of Payment Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 6:15-6:25 PM REVISED CONFERENCE WITH CITY ATTORNEY—POTENTIAL LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Under Section 54956.9(d)(2) (One Potential Case, as Defendant) – Phase 2, Downtown Residential Preferential Parking District 1A. 2 April 18, 2016 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. Oral Communications 6:25-6:40 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. Minutes Approval 6:40-6:45 PM 2.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 4, 2016 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 6:45-6:50 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 3.Approval of the Concept Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road 4.Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $1,557,662 for the Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022), Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 5.Approval of Amendment No. One to Contract Number S15159331 With DocuSign to Increase the Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $279,000 (from $225,000) Over Three Years by Adding $36,000 to Year One and $18,000 to Year Two for Additional Training and Support Services 6.Approval of Contract Amendment No. Two to Contract Number C15154454 With Integrated Design 360 for Residential Landscape Plan Review and Landscape Permitting Consultancy Services and Term Extension of One Year Adding $365,535 for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $878,261 7.Approval of a Four Year Contract Number C16162436 With TJKM in the Amount of $800,000 and a Four Year Contract Number C16163381 With Fehr and Peers in the Amount of $800,000 for Transportation Engineering Project Support Services, Transportation Engineering Resources, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Support 8.Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Winter Closure for 2016 and Setting the Annual Council Reorganization Meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9.Approval of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund Contract WC-14001 With Ranger Pipelines, Inc. in the Amount of $3,386,018 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 in the Downtown North, Crescent Park, 3 April 18, 2016 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. Community Center and Leland Manor Neighborhoods, and Approval of a Budget Amendment Increasing the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 Budget (WC-14001) in the Amount of $700,000 Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:50-8:50 PM 10.Review Annual Earth Day Report and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), Including Feedback Regarding 80 Percent by 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Guiding Principles and Decision Criteria, Implementation Priorities, and Next Steps 8:50-10:15 PM 11.PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 202 Homes Within the Royal Manor Tract Number 1556 by Amending the Zoning Map to Re-Zone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R- 1(7000)(S) Single Family Residential With Single Story Overlay. The Proposed Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Rezoning Boundary Includes 202 Properties Addressed as Follows: Even Numbered Addresses on Loma Verde Avenue, Addresses 984-1058; Even and Odd-Numbered Greer Road Addresses, 3341-3499; Even and Odd- Numbered Kenneth Drive Addresses, 3301-3493; Even and Odd- Numbered Janice Way Addresses, 3407 to 3498; Even and Odd- Numbered Thomas Drive Addresses, 3303-3491; Odd-Numbered Addresses on Stockton Place, 3315-3395; and Odd-Numbered Louis Road Addresses, 3385 to 3465. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act Per Section 15305. The Planning and Transportation Commission Recommends Approval of a Single Story Overlay for Royal Manor Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Members of the public may not speak to the item(s) Adjournment AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA): Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. 4 April 18, 2016 MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS. Additional Information Standing Committee Meetings Finance Committee Meeting April 19, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report Informational Report on the City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2015 Informational Report Regarding Business Registry Including Preliminary Analysis for 2015 Data Set Public Letters to Council Set 1 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 18, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the April 4, 2016 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 04-04-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 4 Regular Meeting April 4, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:07 P.M. Present: Berman, Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Scharff, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Special Orders of the Day 1. Selection of Applicants to Interview on April 28, 2016 for the Human Relations Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, and the Utilities Advisory Commission. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to interview all applicants on April 28, 2016. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 2. Acknowledgement of Recipients of Mayor's “Green Business Leader Award." Study Session 3. Open Data Presentation. 4. Prescreening of a Proposed Hotel Development at 3200 El Camino Real That Requires a Variance or Ordinance Amendment to Modify or Eliminate the 50'-0" Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/4/16 Minutes Approval 5. Approval of Action Minutes for the March 21, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to approve the Action Minutes for the March 21, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 6-7, 9-11. 6. Approval of Change Order Number 9 in the Amount of $267,607 to Contract Number C15156474 With MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. for Additional Trenching and Installation Work on Utilities Underground District Number 47; and Approval of a Budget Amendment in the Electric Fund in Fiscal Year 2016, Offset by a Reduction of $96,000 From the Electric Fund Distribution Reserve to Complete the Installation of Underground Substructures for Underground Utility District Number 47. 7. Approval of a Wastewater Treatment Fund Contract With PSC Industrial Outsourcing, Inc. in a Total Amount Not-to-Exceed $483,703 for a Three-Year Term to Transport and Dispose of Ash and Sludge for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. 8. Approval of an Amendment (Addendum No. 1) to the First Amended and Restated Contract Number C059999 Between the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View for Recycled Water Supplies STAFF REQUESTS THIS ITEM BE MOVED TO ACTION. 9. Approval of the Stanford University Medical Center Annual Report and Compliance With the Development Agreement. 10. Approval of a Contract With Macias Gini & O'Connell LLP (MGO) in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $875,569 (Including 10 Percent Contingency Fee) for External Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2016 Through June 30, 2020. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/4/16 11. Policy and Services Committee Recommendation to Accept the Auditor's Office Quarterly Report as of December 31, 2015. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Action Items 11A. (Former Agenda Item Number 8) Discussion of the City of Palo Alto's Recycled Water Programs and Approval of an Amendment (Addendum No. 1) to the First Amended and Restated Contract Number C059999 Between the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View for Recycled Water Supplies. MOTION: Vice Mayor Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to direct Staff to review Council comments, review the language of the Agreement and return to Council with updated Agreement language. MOTION PASSED: 8-1 Kniss no 12. Fiscal Years 2017 to 2026 General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast (Continued From March 14, 2016). MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to accept the Fiscal Year 2017 to 2026 General Fund Long Range Financial Forecast. MOTION PASSED: 9-0 Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Berman reported his attendance, along with that of Council Member Wolbach at the Human Relations Commission Community Forum: Being Different Together. He felt the event brought together a diverse group of community members. Council Member Schmid requested an Agenda Item be brought before the Council allowing for additional Council input regarding the “Fifth Scenario” to DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 4 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/4/16 accompany the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). He expressed concern regarding the timeline of the Fifth Scenario in relation to the public comment period for the DEIR and the Comprehensive Plan Update Citizens Advisory Committee’s (CAC) review of the Land Use Element. Council Member Kniss reported her attendance at the WaterNow Alliance Conference in Arizona last week. She is working with other Bay Area representatives to plan a summit regarding water in the Bay Area. Mayor Burt reported his attendance at a meeting of cities and transportation representatives from major corporations in north and west Santa Clara County. The meeting was organized by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Following the meeting, the Leadership Group announced plans to bring modifications to their proposals for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) tax recommendations to increase funding amounts for Caltrain along with the north and west county corridors. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6647) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 Summary Title: Bicycle Boulevard Concept Plan - Amarillo Ave-Moreno Ave, Bryant St, Louis Rd-Montrose Ave and Ross Title: Concept Plan Approval of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Along Amarillo Avenue, Bryant Street, East Meadow Drive, Montrose Avenue, Moreno Avenue, Louis Road, Palo Alto Avenue, and Ross Road From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council: adopt a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects; approve the attached concept plans for these four bicycle boulevard projects; and direct staff to move forward with the Final Design phase for these four bicycle boulevards projects. Executive Summary The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (hereinafter “Plan”), adopted by Council in 2012, identifies a network of bicycle boulevards throughout the city. This network includes the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects. As currently proposed, these four projects will: Enhance the existing Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard from Palo Alto Avenue to East Meadow Drive, where it connects to the proposed Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard extension. This corridor provides a continuous bicycle route from Menlo Park to Mountain View. Construct the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard from Garland Drive, which is just north of Oregon Expressway, to Louis Road, where it will connect to the proposed Louis Road- Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard. The Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard provides a second north-south on-street bikeway for Palo Alto residents. Construct the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 Overcrossing. A portion of this route was identified in the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, but was expanded with additional funding from Google. This route connects the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Overcrossing to the proposed Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard, providing a system of connections within Palo Alto and, once the overcrossing is complete, to the San Francisco Bay Trail and employment centers in the City of Mountain View. Construct the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard from Middlefield Road to West Bayshore Road. This route provides and east-west connection across Palo Alto and enhances the system by connecting to the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard. This set of bicycle boulevards provides a significant step to advancing Palo Alto’s vision to provide a system of neighborhood bicycle routes that provide continuous, low-stress on-street bikeways with travel time and safety improvements to support healthy transportation. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as intersection modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The proposed improvements incorporate focused bicycle and pedestrian enhancements and traffic calming measures to reduce motor vehicle speeds, as well as stop sign modifications, repaving, and improvements to arterial crossings to better serve a diversity of ages and abilities. The projects, as currently proposed, also incorporate many of the Safe Routes to Schools improvements recently identified by Staff. Funding currently exists for the Concept Plan Line and Environmental Assessment phases of these projects. The approved Concept Plan Line will serve as the basis for establishing a contract for the Final Design Phase, helping to determine the level of effort for a contract to construct these routes. Detailed cost estimates for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards Bicycle + Pedestrian Plan implementation. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. is the lead consultant for this project. Background Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 The Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Council in July 2012. The Plan includes a proposed bikeway network of off-street multi-use paths, bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, and enhanced bikeway facilities. The plan has stated goals of increasing bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020 by providing improved facilities along the proposed bicycle network, which facilitates both north-south and east-west connectivity throughout Palo Alto. A copy of the Proposed Bikeway Network is provided in Attachment A. Implementation of the Plan started in 2013 with City Council authorization of up to $1.2M per year over five years as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). With this commitment of funds, 18 projects are currently being studied and designed for implementation. Since award of City of Palo Alto Page 2 consultant contracts in April 2014, bicycle network implementation has focused primarily on bicycle boulevards and enhanced bikeways, although transportation staff has also been coordinating with Public Works and Community Services staff to deliver transportation projects through public works and parks contracts for street resurfacing and park improvements. Staff has also been working to implement data-driven spot improvements in response to customer requests, and seeks to ensure provide ongoing rehabilitation and maintenance of the bicycle and pedestrian network and incorporation of green infrastructure and storm water treatment where feasible. City staff recently provided City Council with an update on the bicycle and pedestrian program at a Study Session on October 26, 2015. Concept planning was initiated for these four corridors in 2014. Funding for concept plans was provided by both the City of Palo Alto and Google, Inc., which requested that the City consider bicycle boulevards in the southern part of Palo Alto where connections could be made to Mountain View. Bicycle Boulevard Purpose and Benefits The City pioneered the creation of the first “bicycle boulevard” – turning Bryant Street north of East Meadow Drive, a residential street, into a street that prioritized bicycle safety and circulation in 1982. The Comprehensive Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a “low volume through-street where bicycles have priority over automobiles, conflicts between bicycles and automobiles are minimized, and bicycle travel time is reduced by the removal of stop signs and other impediments to bicycle travel. The removal of stop signs is especially important in Palo Alto, due to the large number of stop signs on local and collector streets.” Key characteristics that make bicycle boulevards attractive and safer for people who bicycle are: • Low traffic volumes • Low vehicle speeds • Discouragement of non-local motor vehicle traffic • Free-flow travel for people on bicycles by assigning the right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard at intersections wherever possible • Traffic control to help bicycles cross major streets One important feature of bicycle boulevards that greatly improves cycling efficiency is reduction in the number of stop signs; this measure improves travel time and reduces fatigue. Reducing cyclist fatigue increases the feasible length of a trip by bicycle, and is especially important to people who are hauling trailers, carrying children, groceries, and so forth, thereby encouraging more trips by bicycle. Discussion Approval of Concept Plan Lines is the first step in the design process for a project. A Concept Plan Line identifies the type and approximate location of improvements but excludes focused design details such as hardscape and landscape measures. The Concept Plan Line identifies the City of Palo Alto Page 3 locations of civil improvements that influence the amount of review required for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. Development of a Concept Plan Line normally takes three to four community meetings to help shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Due to the challenges along the corridor, the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project was discussed at seven public meetings throughout 2014 and 2015. Focused traffic data collection is also included as part of the Concept Plan Line development and the results are shared with the community as part of the community outreach process. Following approval of the Concept Plan Line by the City Council, staff will utilize a civil design team to complete the environmental assessment and more detailed design. An implementation plan will be developed as part of the design phase. Community Outreach Community outreach and participation has been instrumental to concept plan development since the initiation of the bicycle boulevard projects. The development of the Concept Plan Lines included community meetings and other events that helped shape the location and types of improvements that each plan recommends. Specific meetings included (a) four community bike-alongs in April and May 2014, (b) farmers’ market outreach on California Avenue in April and May 2014, (c) four rounds of community meetings in May-June 2014, October-November-December 2014, April-May 2015, and March 2016 and (d) presentations to the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) in September 2014, April 2015 and April 2016. The meetings were advertised through the mailing of notification cards to all property owners and residents within one block of the corridors, postings on the city website, e-mail notifications to the neighborhood leaders and bicycle boulevard program e-mail list, and posts to social media. Sample outreach materials and key comments received are enclosed as Attachment B. A public meeting was held on March 29, 2016 at the Ohlone Elementary School to review the final drafts of the Concept Plan Lines for these four corridors. Sixty-one citizens attended the meeting and provided written comments, which are summarized and scanned in Attachment G. The Concept Plan Lines for these four corridors were presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and comment on April 13, 2016. This staff report was prepared before that meeting. Traffic Analysis Traffic data collection for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects occurred in May 2014, using video cameras to track bicycle and pedestrian demand and mechanical tube counters to collect automobile speed and volume data. Highlights of the traffic counts and speed data are shown in Table 1 below. The optimal conditions for a successful bicycle boulevard are <30 MPH or <3,000 ADT (average daily traffic). All of the corridors meet the criteria for a successful bicycle boulevard. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Table 1 Corridor (segment) 85th -percentile Speed Motor Vehicle ADT Bicycle ADT Amarillo Ave (Tanland -Greer) 30.2 MPH 1,261 82 Amarillo Ave (Greer -Louis) 27.7 MPH 1,412 73 Moreno Ave (Rosewood -Middlefield) 22.6 MPH 1,179 30 Ross Rd (Clara -Wintergreen) 25.5 MPH 2,063 121 Ross Rd (Ames -Stone) 28.2 MPH 2,703 116 Bryant St (Downtown North) 24.6 MPH 1,313 479 Bryant St (Downtown South) 26.2 MPH 1,565 643 Bryant St (Embarcadero -Oregon) 19.7 MPH 525 1,146 Montrose Ave (Seminole -Sutherland) N/A 141 46 Source: City of Palo Alto, May 2014 In February 2016, additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the traffic impacts of changing intersection controls, where proposed by this project. As currently proposed, a total of 16 intersections will have their intersection control changed. Nine intersections will be changed from an all-way stop to a roundabout, two from an all-way stop to a two-way stop; two from a two-way stop to an all-way stop, and one each from a two-way stop to a roundabout, from a three-way stop to one-way stop, and from traffic circle to a roundabout. Intersections were analyzed using the Synchro software to determine intersection, motor vehicle level of service (LOS). While an LOS analysis will no longer be required as part CEQA, it does provide a metric to understand if the extent of any impact on motor vehicle movements in these corridors. The results of the LOS calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from all-way stop to two-way stop: Ross Road and Clara Drive - all-way stop to two-way stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – all-way stop to two-way stop Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - three-way stop to one-way stop Future condition LOS results show that all the study intersections, except one, would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS B or better with future traffic volumes. Only one intersection operates at LOS C: Ross Road and Ames Avenue in the PM peak. The complete traffic analysis report is provided as Attachment C. Parking The Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects were planned to optimize right-of-way for all roadway users and minimize the impact on available on-street parking. To evaluate the potential impact City of Palo Alto Page 5 of parking removal on local residents, following the implementation of the proposed projects, a parking occupancy study was conducted. Although implementation of the projects will remove 266 on-street parking spaces (14 percent of the total 1,865 parking spaces along the project corridors), the study found that on average only 570 (31% of available parking spaces) of these parking spaces are typically used at any given time. Table 2 summarizes current parking utilization and the proposed changes to parking. Table 2 Corridor Existing Spaces Spaces to be Removed Current Utilization Future Utilization Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue 224 65 31% 44% Bryant Street Update 690 95 40% 47% Louis Road-Montrose Avenue 370 22 27% 28% Ross Road 580 85 21% 25% Total 1,865 266 31% 36% Reallocating a portion of these unused parking spaces for improved bicycle boulevard infrastructure will support the City’s goals of reducing motor vehicle speeds in residential areas, improving bicyclist safety, and encouraging more residents to bicycle. At the corridor level, there is sufficient capacity to absorb these changes and the vast majority of residents and visitors will not recognize a parking impact. A few specific blocks, however, may not have availability to meet current parking demand, requiring residents and visitors to seek parking one block from their desired destination. These impacted blocks are discussed below. Bryant Street and Everett Avenue: Removing eight parking spaces at this intersection means demand will surpass availability by three spaces, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Bryant Street east side (Poe Street to Hawthorne Avenue): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Eleven spaces will be available across the street and 13 available one block away on Poe Street. Bryant Street (Channing Avenue to Addison Avenue): Removing four spaces along this block means parking need will be nearing capacity, however eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Ross Road west side (Stern Avenue to Allen Court - south side): Removing six spaces along this block means parking need will slightly surpass capacity by one space, however 43 spaces should typically be available one block away. East Meadow Drive north side (Fabian Way to Paloma Street): Parking availability will not change, however parking utilization is already high on this block. Twenty-one spaces will typically be available one block away. Amarillo Avenue south side (Louis Road to Ohlone Elementary driveway): Removing nine spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Twenty-eight spaces will typically be available one block away. Amarillo Avenue north side (West Bayshore Road and North Tanland Drive): Removing City of Palo Alto Page 6 five spaces along this block means demand will surpass availability by three cars. Five spaces will typically be available one block away. Detailed information about parking changes by street segment are provided in Attachment D. Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Moreno Avenue from Middlefield Road to Louis Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Moreno Avenue and will enhance pedestrian connectivity. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. Existing speed humps near Middlefield Road and Coastland Drive will be replaced with a slotted speed hump to reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Crosswalk markings, stop signs, and advance stop bars at side streets will enhance walking and assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard. Side streets will also have “cross traffic does not stop” signs added. A mini roundabout at Ross Road will improve traffic flow, reduce motorist speeds, and improve the corridor aesthetic by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walkability and raised diverter medians will improve roundabout operations and create pedestrian refuges. A slotted speed hump near Fielding Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. Louis Road from Moreno Avenue to Amarillo Avenue Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. The two offset intersections at Moreno Avenue and at Fielding Drive/Amarillo Avenue will become raised intersections to reduce vehicle speeds and increase visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists. Stop controls will be provided on all approaches of each raised intersection to reduce conflicts between motorists and bicyclists. A five foot wide cycle track will be installed on each side of Louis Road between the two offset intersections, raised to sidewalk level. This will allow bicyclists to maintain level while traveling along the bicycle boulevard. Driveway access will be maintained. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Amarillo Avenue from Louis Avenue to Ohlone Elementary School A new curb extension with landscaping, trees, and a Class IV separated bikeway that maintains City of Palo Alto Page 7 the existing sidewalk would be installed to accommodate two-way bicycle travel on the school side of the street to minimize conflicts between motorists and children bicycling to school. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend would also be continued through this segment, to accommodate bicyclists who prefer not to use a separated facility. New curb extensions with trees or bioretention would be added in the vicinity of Ohlone Elementary School to reduce vehicle speeds and improve aesthetics. New covered bicycle parking would be added at the school. Amarillo Avenue from Ohlone Elementary School to Bayshore Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will be installed to help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route. Bicycle boulevard gateway signage alerts motorists and bicyclists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. The existing midblock crosswalk near Ohlone Elementary School will be relocated to the south side of the driveway, and replaced with a raised crosswalk. This will reduce conflicts between pedestrians and motorists by placing the crosswalk in a location that does not require students to cross the driveway entrance, and will increase visibility of pedestrian (especially elementary school students) by raising them into view of motorists. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Greer Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Greer Road will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Curb extensions with landscaping and trees at both Tanland Drive intersections will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. High visibility crosswalk markings at both Tanland Drive intersections will increase visibility of pedestrians, and additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Landscaped medians and planters near Bayshore Road will reduce vehicle speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Bryant Street Update Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Palo Alto Avenue to Everett Avenue Bryant Street is an existing bicycle boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard City of Palo Alto Page 8 route to all roadway users. The intersection of Bryant Street and Poe will include a landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron. At Everett Avenue, curb extensions with landscaping will be added to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians. Everett Avenue to Hamilton Avenue Enhanced shared roadway bicycle markings and door zone markings will be added along this corridor and within the intersections of University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue to alert drivers of the possible presence of persons on a bicycle as they travel through the intersections. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. Forest Avenue to Embarcadero Road New raised intersections will be constructed at Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue to help improve the safety of pedestrian crossings in the downtown area. This area will be further examined as part of the Downtown Mobility + Safety Strategies Project. The intersection with Addison Avenue will be reconstructed and a new mountable apron will be added to the traffic circle to allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles. High visibility crosswalks and splitter medians will be added on either side of the intersection ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The intersection at Kingsley Avenue will include a new landscaped traffic circle with a mountable apron, splitter medians and high visibility crosswalks. The intersection of Embarcadero Road will include reconstruction of the center curbs into mountable concrete median islands to create a bicycle pocket for bicyclists traveling straight through the intersection and provide protection from vehicles turning right. Mountable curbs allow for ease of access for emergency vehicles and an increase in bicycle safety. Embarcadero Road to Oregon Expressway New signs will be added to all side streets to indicate that all cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. A new landscaped traffic circle and mountable apron and splitter medians will be added to the intersection with North California Avenue with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. Oregon Expressway to East Meadow Drive New signs will be added to Colorado Avenue, El Dorado Avenue, Campesino Avenue, and El Verano Avenue to indicate that cross traffic does not stop on Bryant Street. Bryant Street crossing over Matadero Creek will be enhanced with striping for increased visibility. The existing bollards will be replaced with mountable monolithic concrete islands with flexible post channelizers for improved bicyclist safety. Optional short rubberized medians can be added to the center of the Bryant Street approaches to El Carmelo Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron and painted diverters will be added to the Loma Verde Avenue intersection. A new landscaped traffic circle with mountable apron will be added to the Campesino Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks added on either side to slow vehicles as they enter the intersection and to ensure better visibility of pedestrians as they cross Bryant Street. The existing bollard and raised planters to act as vehicle closures at El City of Palo Alto Page 9 Verano Avenue will remain. Between El Verano Avenue and E Meadow Drive, two slotted speed humps will be added to slow vehicles while allowing for persons on bicycles to travel along the street without needing to slow down or stop. Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Louis Road-Montrose Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Montrose Avenue from Middlefield Road to Charleston Road Yellow high visibility crosswalk markings at Middlefield Road and Montrose Avenue will enhance walking and increase visibility for pedestrians. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Middlefield Road will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Montrose Avenue. Bicycle boulevard markings along Montrose Avenue alert motorists that bicyclists may be present. Crosswalk markings at Sutherland Drive and Seminole Way will enhance walking. Improvements to Charleston Road are being made in conjunction with the Charleston- Arastradero Complete Streets Project by the City of Palo Alto. These include diversion of motorized traffic, green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings, and more. Louis Road from Charleston Road to East Meadow Drive bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Green bicycle lane and conflict zone markings from Bibbits Drive to Charleston Road will highlight potential conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and increase visibility of bicyclists. Bicycle lanes on Louis Road will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. Crosswalk markings at Bibbits Drive, Gailen Avenue, and Corina Way will enhance walking. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Drive will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. East Meadow Drive from Louis Road to East Meadow Circle Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at East Meadow Circle will improve traffic slow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. City of Palo Alto Page 10 East Meadow Drive from Meadow Circle to Fabian Way Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Bicycle lanes on East Meadow Drive will provide dedicated space for bicyclists on the road, reducing conflicts with motorists. Green-backed bicycle lane markings will increase visibility of bicyclists and discourage motorists from encroaching into the bicycle lane. A future connection will be made at Adobe Creek, proposed site for the connection to the US 101 overcrossing. Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage at Fabian Way will assist bicyclists in navigating to destinations and to other bicycle friendly routes. Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project by Segment: The following is a summary of the Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project. This narrative is supported by the project Concept Plan Lines, enclosed as Attachment E. Garland Drive to Colorado Avenue A new crosswalk and bicycle boulevard wayfinding signage near Garland Drive will direct bicyclists to the new bicycle boulevard on Ross Road. A County project is currently improving the intersection of Oregon Expressway and Ross Road. A bicycle boulevard gateway marking near Oregon Expressway will alert bicyclists and motorists that they are entering the enhanced bikeway. These gateway markings are repeated along the corridor at all side street entrances to the boulevard. A bicycle boulevard pavement legend will be added near every intersection along this corridor (applies to all segments). Bicycle boulevard wayfinding signs will help bicyclists navigate to destinations and identify the bicycle boulevard route to all roadway users. A new mountable traffic circle at Moreno Avenue will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Moreno Avenue is also being developed as a bicycle boulevard (additional description below). Additional street lighting at Moreno Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. At Colorado Avenue, landscaped raised medians on Ross Road and Colorado Avenue will reduce motorist speeds. Additional street lighting at Colorado Avenue will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. Colorado Avenue to Loma Verde Avenue A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Clara Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard, while high visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians to motorists and bicyclists. A new slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Stern Avenue will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions with trees near Stern Avenue and Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway physically and visually, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. A slotted speed hump with landscaped planters near Allen Court will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists and fire trucks. City of Palo Alto Page 11 At Loma Verde Avenue, additional street lighting at will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night, while new crosswalk markings and stop bars will enhance walking. Landscaped raised medians will reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway and enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Loma Verde Avenue to Meadow Drive Two new slotted speed humps and landscaped planters between Richardson Court and Talisman Drive will reduce motorist speeds while maintaining a level path of travel for bicyclists, and will enhance the corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. Landscaped curb extensions at Talisman Drive will enhance walking by reducing crossing distances and reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway. Additional street lighting will increase visibility for bicyclists and motorists at night. New high visibility crosswalk markings will enhance walking by increasing pedestrian visibility. East Meadow Drive has existing bicycle lanes. A new traffic circle with mountable apron will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. Removing the stop control on Ross Road will assign priority to the bicycle boulevard. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. On the north- and southbound approaches to the traffic circle, a bicycle ramp to the sidewalk will provide bicyclists with the option of navigating the circle via the sidewalks and crosswalks if they prefer not to merge into the vehicle lane. The bicycle lane marking on the southbound approach will be removed to clarify bicyclists should either merge into the vehicle lane or move onto the sidewalk. Meadow Drive to Louis Avenue At Mayview Avenue, a raised intersection will enhance walking by reducing motorist and bicyclist speeds, and by increasing visibility of pedestrians. A new stop sign for bicyclists at the Ramos Park access point will assign right-of-way to the bicycle boulevard. Crosswalk markings and landscaped raised medians at both sides of the intersections with Corina Way will enhance walking, reduce motorist speeds by narrowing the roadway, and improve corridor aesthetics by providing additional landscaping. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. A new traffic circle with mountable apron at Louis Road will improve traffic flow while reducing motorist speeds. High visibility crosswalk markings will increase visibility of pedestrians. Additional street lighting will improve visibility for motorists and bicyclists at night. This bicycle boulevard segment connects directly to the Meadow-Louis-Montrose bicycle Boulevard, described below, and via that route to the proposed Adobe Creek US 101 overcrossing. Policy Implications City of Palo Alto Page 12 The Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan identifies and prioritizes the development of the bicycle boulevard network. The Plan objectives that are addressed by the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects are: Objective 1: Double the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes by 2020 (to 15% and 5%, respectively). Objective 2: Convert discretionary vehicle trips into walking and bicycling trips in order to reduce City transportation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% by 2020. Objective 3: Develop a core network of shared paths, bikeways, and traffic-calmed streets that connects business and residential districts, schools, parks, and open spaces to promote healthy, active living. Objective 4: Plan, construct, and maintain ‘Complete Streets’ that are safe and accessible to all modes and people of all ages and abilities. Objective 5: Promote efficient, sustainable, and creative use of limited public resources through integrated design and planning. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs that support the development of the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road- Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects include: Goal T-1: Less Reliance on Single-Occupant Vehicles Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs the Encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling Program T-19: Develop, periodically update, and implement a bicycle facilities improvement program and a pedestrian facilities improvement program that identify and prioritize critical pedestrian and bicycle links to parks, schools, retail centers, and civic facilities. Program T-22: Implement a network of bike boulevards. Policy T-25: When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for usage of the roadway space by all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Policy T-34: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestion management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. City of Palo Alto Page 13 While it is difficult to estimate the impacts of individual bicycle boulevard projects, the City of Portland, Oregon has recently completed and assessment of its bicycle boulevard program and recorded counts of between 1,000 and 4,000 cyclists per day on its busiest corridors. Increasing the number of cyclists using the bicycle boulevard network within Palo Alto to these levels would meet many of the objectives and goals listed above and also help the City increase bicycle traffic for local and work commute trips by 100% by 2020. Resource Impact Detailed cost estimates for the bicycle boulevard projects will be developed as part of the Final Design phase of work. As part of the approval of the City’s Infrastructure Plan, the City Council allocated $20.0 million towards bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. For Fiscal Years 2014 through FY 2020 $12.4 million has been budgeted in the CIP for the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project (PL-04010). Of that amount, $.9 million has been spent to date and an additional $1.9M has been encumbered. Staff actively seeks regional, state and federal grant funding to offset resources identified for bicycle and pedestrian plan implementation. As grant funds are secured or low-cost project improvements identified, Transportation Division staff will coordinate with the Public Works Department for implementation as part of the street resurfacing program. Minor elements of the Concept Plan Lines may be implemented opportunistically through the Transportation Division’s other CUPs for pavement markings, signs and traffic signals. Timeline Upon approval of the Concept Plan Lines, Final Design for the Amarillo Avenue-Moreno Avenue, Bryant Street Update, Louis Road-Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Projects will begin immediately and should be completed at the end of 2016. Staff anticipates that construction will begin in the spring of 2017 and last for one year. Environmental Review A Negative Declaration for the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan was adopted on September 4, 2012. Each individual project is subject to environmental assessment after there is agreement on a Concept Plan Line for further study. As part of the current phase of work, an assessment was made of the potential environmental impacts of this work and a Categorical Exemption is recommended under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 for minor alternation of existing facilities. This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb- outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. City of Palo Alto Page 14 The draft CEQA Notice of Exemption is attached as Attachment F. This exemption will be filed upon approval by City Council. Attachments: Attachment A - Maps of Proposed Bicycle Blvds from the BPT Plan and the Four Projects Identified (PDF) Attachment B - Outreach Materials from Public Meetings (PDF) Attachment C - Traffic Analysis (PDF) Attachment D - Parking Occupancy Study (PDF) Attachment E - Concept Plans (11X17 reduced) (PDF) Attachment F - CEQA Categorically Exempt Filing (PDF) Attachment G - March 29 Public Meeting (PDF) City of Palo Alto Page 15 Attachment A - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment A – Maps Map 1 – Palo Alto Proposed Bikeway Network Map 2 – Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Attachment B - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment B – Public Meeting Advertising Attachment C - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment C – Traffic Analysis DRAFT Memorandum Date: February 26, 2016 To: Hugh Louch, Alta Planning + Design, Inc. From: Gary Black Ling Jin Subject: Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a traffic analysis for the proposed bicycle boulevards along Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose, and Moreno-Amarillo in Palo Alto, California. Bicycle Boulevard projects are on streets where bicycling is already appealing for many riders due to low traffic volumes and speeds, and good access to key destinations such as schools, parks, and connections across key barriers. The City has identified potential improvements on these routes including revised traffic controls to promote cycling convenience, custom signage and wayfinding, additional traffic calming, and other measures. The purpose of the project is to enhance bikeway facilities across the Palo Alto communities. This memo documents the results of the traffic analysis to identify potential operational issues that could occur as a result of the proposed changes along the bicycle boulevards. The following intersections would be affected by changes in traffic control (see Figure 1): Bryant Street and Palo Alto/Poe – 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Addison Avenue - Traffic circle to Roundabout Bryant Street and N California Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Loma Verde Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Bryant Street and Kingsley Avenue - 2-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Moreno Avenue - 4-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop Ross Road and East Meadow Drive – 4-way stop to Roundabout Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to one-side stop Ross Road and Louis Road – 4-way stop to Roundabout Louie Road and E Meadow Drive - 4-way stop to Roundabout E Meadow Drive and E Meadow Circle - 4-way stop to Roundabout Moreno Avenue and Louis Road - 2-way stop to 4-way stop Louis Road and Fielding Drive - 2-way stop to 4-way stop Amarillo Avenue and Greer Road - 4-way to Roundabout Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: Existing Conditions. Existing traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 manual turning- movement counts. The new intersection count data are included in Appendix A. Existing with Project Conditions. Existing with project conditions were evaluated using existing traffic volumes and proposed changes for the intersection control type. The results were compared to existing conditions in order to determine the effects the project would have on traffic operations. Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 2 Roundabout Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Delay and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Level of Service by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio * Control Delay (sec/veh) v/c< 1.0 v/c>1.0 0-10 A F >10-15 B F >15-25 C F >25-30 D F >35-50 E F >50 F F * For approaches and intersection-wide assessment, LOS is defined by control delay. Source: NCHRP Report 672, Roundabouts, An Information Guide, Second Edition, Washington, D. C., Transportation Research Board, (2010). Existing Intersection Levels of Service The existing lane configurations at the study intersections were obtained from field observations. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from new 2016 turning-movement counts. The new traffic count data are included in Appendix A. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that all of the study intersections are currently operating with delays corresponding to level of service A or B during both AM and PM peak hours. Page | 4 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Table 3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Study Number Intersection Peak Count Average Delay Hour Date (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 13.0 PM 02/09/16 12.4 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 02/09/16 11.8 PM 02/09/16 9.9 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 02/09/16 9.4 PM 02/09/16 8.1 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 02/09/16 8.6 PM 02/09/16 8.8 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 02/09/16 11.0 PM 02/09/16 11.3 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 02/09/16 12.2 PM 02/09/16 10.5 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.9 PM 02/09/16 7.8 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 02/09/16 9.0 PM 02/09/16 7.7 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.4 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 02/09/16 8.5 PM 02/09/16 8.3 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.6 PM 02/09/16 9.1 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 02/09/16 7.7 PM 02/09/16 7.6 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 02/09/16 8.4 PM 02/09/16 8.3 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 02/09/16 9.3 PM 02/09/16 8.7 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 02/09/16 8.1 PM 02/09/16 7.7 B B B A A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Existing with Project Conditions The intersection levels of service were recalculated with the proposed changes to traffic control. The results of the intersection level of service analysis with the project are summarized in Table 4. The results of the level of service calculations show that under project conditions, all of the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed changes in traffic controls, most of the study intersection would experience less delay than existing conditions. The delays at the following three intersections would be increased slightly with the traffic control converted from 4-way stop to 2-way stop. Page | 5 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Ross Road and Clara Drive - 4-way Stop to 2-way Stop Ross Road and Ames Avenue – 4-way stop to 2-way stop Ross Road and Mayview Avenue - 3-way stop to on-side stop However, even at these three intersections, the delays would be relatively short and would correspond with LOS B. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 4 Existing with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS Existing Existing + Project 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 13.0 B 9.1 A PM 12.4 B 8.9 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 11.8 B 8.7 A PM 9.9 A 8.7 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 9.4 A 5.6 A PM 8.1 A 4.6 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 8.6 A 3.3 A PM 8.8 A 3.4 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 11.0 B 4.3 A PM 11.3 B 4.1 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 12.2 B 4.8 A PM 10.5 B 4.3 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 7.9 A 4.4 A PM 7.8 A 4.3 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 9.0 A 5.5 A PM 7.7 A 4.4 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 7.7 A 4.1 A PM 7.4 A 4.0 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 7.7 A 10.4 B PM 7.6 A 10.2 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 8.5 A 14.1 B PM 8.3 A 12.3 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.6 A 5.6 A PM 9.1 A 5.3 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 7.7 A 10.1 B PM 7.6 A 9.9 A 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 8.4 A 4.9 A PM 8.3 A 4.8 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 9.3 A 5.5 A PM 8.7 A 5.0 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 8.1 A 4.7 A PM 7.7 A 4.3 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Future (Year 2040) with Project Conditions Future (Year 2040) conditions reflect traffic growth in the study area. The expected future traffic growth was estimated by applying a yearly growth factor to the existing AM and PM peak-hour volumes traffic for 34 Page | 6 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 years. The growth factors of 0.44% per year for the AM peak hour and 0.48% per year for the PM peak hour were developed by Hexagon based on the Palo Alto Travel Demand Model. Future with project condition level of service results are shown in Table 5. The results show that all the study intersections would still operate with delays corresponding to LOS C or better with future traffic volumes. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Table 5 Future (Year 2040) with Project Intersection Levels of Service Study Peak Average Delay Average Delay Existing with Project Future (2040) with Project Number Intersection Hour (sec) LOS (sec) LOS 1 Moreno Avenue / Louis Road AM 9.1 A 9.7 A PM 8.9 A 9.5 A 2 Louis Road / Fielding Drive AM 8.7 A 9.2 A PM 8.7 A 9.1 A 3 Amarillo Avenue / Greer Road AM 5.6 A 6.1 A PM 4.6 A 4.8 A 4 Bryant Street / Palo Alto Avenue/Poe Street AM 3.3 A 3.4 A PM 3.4 A 3.5 A 5 Bryant Street / Addison Avenue AM 4.3 A 4.6 A PM 4.1 A 4.3 A 6 Bryant Street / Kinsley Avenue AM 4.8 A 5.1 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 7 Bryant Street / N California Avenue AM 4.4 A 4.6 A PM 4.3 A 4.6 A 8 Bryant Street / Loma Verde Avenue AM 5.5 A 5.9 A PM 4.4 A 4.6 A 9 Ross Road / Moreno Avenue AM 4.1 A 4.3 A PM 4.0 A 4.1 A 10 Ross Road / Clara Drive AM 10.4 B 10.9 B PM 10.2 B 10.5 B 11 Ross Road / Ames Avenue AM 14.1 B 16.3 C PM 12.3 B 13.5 B 12 Ross Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.6 A 6.3 A PM 5.3 A 5.8 A 13 Ross Road / Mayview Avenue AM 10.1 B 10.5 B PM 9.9 A 10.3 B 14 Ross Road / Louis Road AM 4.9 A 5.2 A PM 4.8 A 5.1 A 15 Louis Road / E Meadow Drive AM 5.5 A 6.0 A PM 5.0 A 5.5 A 16 E Meadow Drive / E Meadow Circle AM 4.7 A 5.0 A PM 4.3 A 4.5 A Note: For two-way stop controlled intersection, the average delay reflects the worst movement delay. Page | 7 Traffic Analysis for the Bicycle Boulevards Project in City of Palo Alto February 26, 2016 Conclusions Based on the intersection level of service calculation results, all the study intersections are currently experiencing minor delays corresponding to LOS A or B. With the proposed traffic control changes, most of the study intersections would experience less delay than existing conditions except for three intersections along Ross Road, which would experience increases in delay, but would still operate at LOS B. In the future year 2040 with expected traffic growth, all the study intersection would operate at acceptable level of service C or better with the proposed traffic control changes. Page | 8 Appendix A Traffic Counts Appendix B Level of Service Calculations HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 10 Future Volume (Veh/h) 10 EBT 208 208 Free EBR WBL 21 34 21 34 WBT WBR 165 8 165 8 Free NBL 12 12 NBT 10 10 Stop NBR 15 15 SBL 8 8 SBT 11 11 Stop SBR 16 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 11 0.92 226 0% 0.92 23 0.92 37 0.92 179 0% 0.92 9 0.92 13 0.92 11 0% 0.92 16 0.92 9 0.92 12 0% 0.92 17 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 203 203 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 264 264 4.1 2.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 472 570 552 264 566 558 214 264 566 558 214 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1349 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 225 NB 1 SB 1 40 38 1281 97 382 570 7.1 3.5 97 414 552 6.5 4.0 97 754 3.3 98 387 3.5 98 410 4.0 97 803 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 23 260 11 9 37 16 13 17 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1349 1 0.4 0.03 1281 2 1.5 0.08 489 516 7 6 12.5 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.4 A 1.5 A 13.0 13.0 B 12.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.6 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 226 Future Volume (Veh/h) 226 EBR 5 5 WBL WBT 2 199 2 199 NBL NBR 4 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 246 Free 0% 0.92 5 0.92 2 0.92 216 Free 0% 0.92 4 4 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 12.0 50 3.5 5 None 171 301 12.0 50 3.5 5 568 348 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 251 WB 1 NB 1 218 11 1200 301 4.1 2.2 100 438 568 348 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 99 99 630 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 0 0 2 7 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1200 0 0.1 0.02 544 2 11.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 11.8 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 101 EBR WBL 48 15 WBT WBR Stop 123 7 NBL 98 NBT Stop 31 NBR 50 SBL 15 SBT Stop 40 SBR 59 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 35 32 32 0.92 110 101 0.92 52 48 0.92 16 15 0.92 134 123 0.92 8 7 0.92 107 98 0.92 34 31 0.92 54 50 0.92 16 15 0.92 43 40 0.92 64 59 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 197 EB 1 35 52 -0.09 4.8 0.26 158 WB 1 16 8 0.02 5.0 0.22 195 NB 1 107 54 -0.02 4.9 0.27 123 SB 1 16 64 -0.25 4.8 0.16 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 690 9.6 9.6 A 663 9.4 9.4 A 677 9.7 9.7 A 677 8.8 8.8 Delay Level of Service 9.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.0% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 17 2 17 2 NBL NBR 2 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 18 0.92 2 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 10 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 19 66 30 66 30 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 7 WB 1 NB 1 20 12 1579 19 4.1 2.2 99 908 3.5 3.3 100 99 1021 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 18 10 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1579 1 6.6 0.01 1001 1 8.6 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.6 A 8.6 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.0 21.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 26 26 Free EBR WBL 15 13 15 13 WBT WBR 102 11 102 11 Free NBL 5 5 NBT 52 52 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 9 9 SBT 48 48 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 28 0% 0.92 16 0.92 14 0.92 111 0% 0.92 12 0.92 5 0.92 57 0% 0.92 7 0.92 10 0.92 52 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 134 134 4.1 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 54 54 4.1 2.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 255 222 59 254 224 139 59 254 224 139 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 11 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1435 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 137 NB 1 SB 1 69 75 10 1537 99 617 255 7.1 3.5 99 654 222 6.5 4.0 91 985 3.3 99 617 3.5 98 652 4.0 92 890 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 16 51 7 12 14 7 5 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1435 0 1.1 0.01 1537 1 0.8 0.10 674 679 9 9 11.0 0.11 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.1 A 0.8 A 10.9 10.9 B 11.0 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.3 24.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 41 41 Free EBR WBL 1 6 1 6 WBT WBR 147 23 147 23 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 11 11 Stop NBR 2 2 SBL 71 71 SBT 12 12 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 45 0% 0.92 1 0.92 7 0.92 160 0% 0.92 25 0.92 1 0.92 12 0% 0.92 2 0.92 77 0.92 13 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 208 208 4.1 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 64 64 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 23 3.5 2 None 310 310 86 310 298 212 86 310 298 212 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 18 3.5 2 12.0 23 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1333 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 192 NB 1 SB 1 15 103 77 1512 578 310 7.1 3.5 100 574 310 6.5 4.0 98 935 3.3 100 580 3.5 87 583 4.0 98 798 3.3 98 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 58 12 25 7 2 1 13 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1333 1 1.7 0.00 1512 0 0.3 0.02 605 601 2 15 12.2 0.17 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.7 A 0.3 A 11.1 11.1 B 12.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 4.3 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 78 EBR WBL 4 2 WBT WBR Stop 27 24 NBL 0 NBT Stop 59 NBR 17 SBL 49 SBT Stop 40 SBR 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 14 13 13 0.92 85 78 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 29 27 0.92 26 24 0.92 0 0 0.92 64 59 0.92 18 17 0.92 53 49 0.92 43 40 0.92 8 7 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 103 EB 1 14 4 0.04 4.4 0.13 57 WB 1 2 26 -0.23 4.2 0.07 82 NB 1 0 18 -0.10 4.3 0.10 104 SB 1 53 8 0.09 4.4 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 777 8.1 8.1 A 801 7.5 7.5 A 798 7.8 7.8 A 768 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 7.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 EBR WBL 12 9 WBT WBR Stop 1 5 NBL 7 NBT Stop 168 NBR 5 SBL 5 SBT Stop 240 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 29 27 27 0.92 3 3 0.92 13 12 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 5 5 0.92 8 7 0.92 183 168 0.92 5 5 0.92 5 5 0.92 261 240 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 45 EB 1 29 13 -0.01 5.0 0.06 16 WB 1 10 5 -0.03 5.0 0.02 196 NB 1 8 5 0.03 4.4 0.24 281 SB 1 5 15 0.01 4.3 0.33 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 654 8.3 8.3 A 643 8.1 8.1 A 798 8.7 8.7 A 818 9.4 9.4 Delay Level of Service 9.0 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 35.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 42 EBR WBL 3 15 WBT WBR Stop 39 11 NBL 12 NBT Stop 35 NBR 17 SBL 26 SBT Stop 54 SBR 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 46 42 0.92 3 3 0.92 16 15 0.92 42 39 0.92 12 11 0.92 13 12 0.92 38 35 0.92 18 17 0.92 28 26 0.92 59 54 0.92 7 6 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 52 EB 1 3 3 0.01 4.4 0.06 70 WB 1 16 12 -0.02 4.3 0.08 69 NB 1 13 18 -0.08 4.2 0.08 94 SB 1 28 7 0.05 4.3 0.11 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 790 7.6 7.6 A 802 7.7 7.7 A 822 7.6 7.6 A 811 7.8 7.8 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 23.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 102 EBR WBL 1 2 WBT WBR Stop 96 9 NBL 1 NBT Stop 0 NBR 5 SBL 22 SBT Stop 2 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 111 102 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 104 96 0.92 10 9 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 2 2 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 116 EB 1 4 1 0.04 4.1 0.13 116 WB 1 2 10 -0.01 4.1 0.13 6 NB 1 1 5 -0.43 4.0 0.01 35 SB 1 24 9 0.02 4.4 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 7.8 7.8 A 863 7.7 7.7 A 838 7.0 7.0 A 760 7.6 7.6 Delay Intersection Summary 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 135 EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR Stop 94 36 NBL 2 NBT Stop 21 NBR 12 SBL 33 SBT Stop 13 SBR 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 38 35 35 0.92 147 135 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 94 0.92 39 36 0.92 2 2 0.92 23 21 0.92 13 12 0.92 36 33 0.92 14 13 0.92 51 47 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 190 EB 1 38 5 0.06 4.5 0.24 164 WB 1 23 39 -0.08 4.4 0.20 38 NB 1 2 13 -0.16 4.7 0.05 101 SB 1 36 51 -0.20 4.6 0.13 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 775 8.9 8.9 A 783 8.5 8.5 A 703 7.9 7.9 A 725 8.2 8.2 Delay Intersection Summary 8.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 88 EBR WBL 35 28 WBT WBR Stop 51 9 NBL 73 NBT Stop 115 NBR 19 SBL 12 SBT Stop 160 SBR 14 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 96 88 0.92 38 35 0.92 30 28 0.92 55 51 0.92 10 9 0.92 79 73 0.92 125 115 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 174 160 0.92 15 14 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 146 EB 1 12 38 -0.11 5.0 0.20 95 WB 1 30 10 0.03 5.2 0.14 225 NB 1 79 21 0.05 4.8 0.30 202 SB 1 13 15 0.00 4.8 0.27 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 655 9.3 9.3 A 622 9.0 9.0 A 703 9.9 9.9 A 699 9.6 9.6 Delay Level of Service 9.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 45.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 39 WBL WBT Stop 28 44 NBL NBR 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 95 87 87 0.92 42 39 0.92 30 28 0.92 48 44 0.92 47 Stop 43 43 0.92 0.92 28 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 137 EB 1 0 42 -0.15 4.0 0.15 78 WB 1 30 0 0.11 4.3 0.09 75 NB 1 47 28 -0.06 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 876 7.7 7.7 A 812 7.8 7.8 A 793 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 2 2 EBR WBL 119 12 WBT WBR Stop 4 2 NBL 47 NBT Stop 89 NBR 2 SBL 0 SBT Stop 156 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 2 2 0.92 2 2 0.92 129 119 0.92 13 12 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 51 47 0.92 97 89 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 170 156 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 133 EB 1 2 129 -0.54 4.1 0.15 19 WB 1 13 2 0.11 4.9 0.03 150 NB 1 51 2 0.09 4.5 0.19 171 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.4 0.21 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.9 7.9 A 669 8.0 8.0 A 760 8.6 8.6 A 772 8.6 8.6 Delay Level of Service 8.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 39.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 126 EBR WBL 64 21 WBT WBR Stop 63 22 NBL 41 NBT Stop 89 NBR 15 SBL 9 SBT Stop 93 SBR 17 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 137 126 0.92 70 64 0.92 23 21 0.92 68 63 0.92 24 22 0.92 45 41 0.92 97 89 0.92 16 15 0.92 10 9 0.92 101 93 0.92 18 17 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 229 EB 1 22 70 -0.13 4.7 0.30 115 WB 1 23 24 -0.05 4.9 0.16 158 NB 1 45 16 0.03 5.0 0.22 129 SB 1 10 18 -0.03 4.9 0.18 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 723 9.6 9.6 A 677 8.8 8.8 A 674 9.3 9.3 A 669 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 10 EBR WBL 8 73 WBT WBR Stop 48 64 NBL 13 NBT Stop 19 NBR 85 SBL 20 SBT Stop 10 SBR 0 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 11 10 0.92 9 8 0.92 79 73 0.92 52 48 0.92 70 64 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 92 85 0.92 22 20 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 20 EB 1 0 9 -0.24 4.2 0.02 201 WB 1 79 70 -0.10 4.2 0.23 127 NB 1 14 92 -0.38 4.1 0.14 33 SB 1 22 0 0.17 4.7 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 805 7.3 7.3 A 823 8.4 8.4 A 839 7.7 7.7 A 716 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 34.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing AM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 EBT 204 204 Free EBR WBL 16 10 16 10 WBT WBR 178 6 178 6 Free NBL 27 27 NBT 5 5 Stop NBR 22 22 SBL 8 8 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 7 0.92 222 0% 0.92 17 0.92 11 0.92 193 0% 0.92 7 0.92 29 0.92 5 0% 0.92 24 0.92 9 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 210 210 4.1 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 249 249 4.1 2.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 472 488 486 250 508 492 216 250 508 492 216 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 12.0 10 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1348 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 211 NB 1 SB 1 58 15 1304 99 465 488 7.1 3.5 94 466 486 6.5 4.0 99 775 3.3 97 437 3.5 98 463 4.0 100 808 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 17 246 7 7 11 24 29 4 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1348 0 0.3 0.01 1304 1 0.5 0.10 557 502 9 2 12.4 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.5 A 12.2 12.2 B 12.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.0 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 233 Future Volume (Veh/h) 233 EBR 3 3 WBL WBT 2 181 2 181 NBL NBR 0 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 253 Free 0% 0.92 3 0.92 2 0.92 197 Free 0% 0.92 0 0 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 4 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 11 3.5 1 None 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 171 270 12.0 14 3.5 1 480 282 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 256 WB 1 NB 1 199 4 1276 270 4.1 2.2 100 531 480 282 6.4 6.2 3.5 3.3 100 99 736 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 0 0 2 4 0 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.15 1700 0 0.0 0.00 1276 0 0.1 0.01 736 0 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 0.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 0.1 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 13 3 WBT WBR Stop 108 11 NBL 8 NBT Stop 21 NBR 2 SBL 5 SBT Stop 25 SBR 39 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 41 38 38 0.92 97 89 0.92 14 13 0.92 3 3 0.92 117 108 0.92 12 11 0.92 9 8 0.92 23 21 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 27 25 0.92 42 39 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 152 EB 1 41 14 0.03 4.3 0.18 132 WB 1 3 12 -0.02 4.3 0.16 34 NB 1 9 2 0.05 4.7 0.04 74 SB 1 5 42 -0.29 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 806 8.3 8.3 A 800 8.1 8.1 A 715 7.9 7.9 A 776 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1 Future Volume (Veh/h) 1 EBR 4 4 WBL WBT 22 4 22 4 NBL NBR 2 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 1 Free 0% 0.92 4 0.92 24 0.92 4 Free 0% 0.92 2 2 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 7 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 26 92 45 92 45 6.4 6.2 12.0 21 3.5 2 None 12.0 21 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 5 WB 1 NB 1 28 9 1556 26 4.1 2.2 98 863 3.5 3.3 100 99 984 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 0 0 24 7 2 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1556 1 6.3 0.01 954 1 8.8 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 6.3 A 8.8 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 6.1 23.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 34 34 Free EBR WBL 8 18 8 18 WBT WBR 71 10 71 10 Free NBL 8 8 NBT 51 51 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 4 4 SBT 28 28 Stop SBR 12 12 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 37 0% 0.92 9 0.92 20 0.92 77 0% 0.92 11 0.92 9 0.92 55 0% 0.92 8 0.92 4 0.92 30 0% 0.92 13 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 107 107 4.1 12.0 26 3.5 2 None 77 77 4.1 2.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 None 257 228 104 258 226 128 104 258 226 128 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 31 3.5 3 12.0 19 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1457 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 108 NB 1 SB 1 72 47 1477 99 596 257 7.1 3.5 98 630 228 6.5 4.0 91 896 3.3 99 584 3.5 99 631 4.0 95 883 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 9 50 4 11 20 8 9 13 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1457 0 0.6 0.01 1477 1 1.5 0.11 647 680 9 6 10.7 0.07 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.6 A 1.5 A 11.3 11.3 B 10.7 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.4 28.4% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 15 Future Volume (Veh/h) 15 EBT 23 23 Free EBR WBL 1 3 1 3 WBT WBR 128 17 128 17 Free NBL 0 0 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 6 6 SBT 3 3 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 16 0.92 25 0% 0.92 1 0.92 3 0.92 139 0% 0.92 18 0.92 0 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 7 0.92 3 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 61 61 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 35 3.5 3 None 285 284 96 278 275 203 96 278 275 203 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 28 3.5 3 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1353 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 160 NB 1 SB 1 5 20 1491 584 285 7.1 3.5 100 580 284 6.5 4.0 100 898 3.3 100 595 3.5 99 587 4.0 99 794 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 42 16 18 3 3 0 10 7 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1353 1 3.0 0.00 1491 0 0.2 0.01 737 679 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 3.0 A 0.2 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 29.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 45 EBR WBL 3 10 WBT WBR Stop 31 43 NBL 2 NBT Stop 80 NBR 19 SBL 39 SBT Stop 24 SBR 10 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 49 45 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 34 31 0.92 47 43 0.92 2 2 0.92 87 80 0.92 21 19 0.92 42 39 0.92 26 24 0.92 11 10 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 65 EB 1 13 3 0.05 4.5 0.08 92 WB 1 11 47 -0.25 4.2 0.11 110 NB 1 2 21 -0.08 4.3 0.13 79 SB 1 42 11 0.06 4.4 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 765 7.9 7.9 A 814 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.9 7.9 A 769 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 7.8 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 1 EBR WBL 3 2 WBT WBR Stop 0 0 NBL 2 NBT Stop 28 NBR 8 SBL 6 SBT Stop 145 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 1 1 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 0 0 0.92 0 0 0.92 2 2 0.92 30 28 0.92 9 8 0.92 7 6 0.92 158 145 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 8 EB 1 4 3 -0.09 4.3 0.01 2 WB 1 2 0 0.23 4.6 0.00 41 NB 1 2 9 -0.09 4.0 0.05 168 SB 1 7 3 0.03 4.0 0.19 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 802 7.3 7.3 A 746 7.6 7.6 A 881 7.2 7.2 A 894 7.9 7.9 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 25.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 4 27 EBR WBL 7 6 WBT WBR Stop 22 6 NBL 7 NBT Stop 55 NBR 33 SBL 6 SBT Stop 23 SBR 2 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 4 4 0.92 29 27 0.92 8 7 0.92 7 6 0.92 24 22 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 60 55 0.92 36 33 0.92 7 6 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 41 EB 1 4 8 -0.06 4.2 0.05 38 WB 1 7 7 -0.04 4.2 0.04 104 NB 1 8 36 -0.16 3.9 0.11 34 SB 1 7 2 0.04 4.2 0.04 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 831 7.4 7.4 A 825 7.4 7.4 A 883 7.5 7.5 A 831 7.4 7.4 Delay Level of Service 7.4 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 21.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 3 3 WBT WBR Stop 69 10 NBL 1 NBT Stop 2 NBR 3 SBL 10 SBT Stop 2 SBR 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 12 11 11 0.92 97 89 0.92 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 75 69 0.92 11 10 0.92 1 1 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 11 10 0.92 2 2 0.92 3 3 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 112 EB 1 12 3 0.04 4.1 0.13 89 WB 1 3 11 -0.03 4.0 0.10 6 NB 1 1 3 -0.23 4.1 0.01 16 SB 1 11 3 0.06 4.4 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 870 7.7 7.7 A 882 7.5 7.5 A 824 7.1 7.1 A 779 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 145 EBR WBL 9 5 WBT WBR Stop 133 23 NBL 2 NBT Stop 6 NBR 7 SBL 26 SBT Stop 4 SBR 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 18 17 17 0.92 158 145 0.92 10 9 0.92 5 5 0.92 145 133 0.92 25 23 0.92 2 2 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 28 26 0.92 4 4 0.92 9 8 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 186 EB 1 18 10 0.02 4.2 0.22 175 WB 1 5 25 -0.05 4.2 0.20 17 NB 1 2 8 -0.22 4.5 0.02 41 SB 1 28 9 0.04 4.7 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 830 8.4 8.4 A 841 8.3 8.3 A 729 7.6 7.6 A 695 8.0 8.0 Delay Intersection Summary 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 50 EBR WBL 63 19 WBT WBR Stop 81 17 NBL 53 NBT Stop 119 NBR 18 SBL 10 SBT Stop 114 SBR 11 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 54 50 0.92 68 63 0.92 21 19 0.92 88 81 0.92 18 17 0.92 58 53 0.92 129 119 0.92 20 18 0.92 11 10 0.92 124 114 0.92 12 11 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 130 EB 1 8 68 -0.27 4.7 0.17 127 WB 1 21 18 -0.02 4.9 0.17 207 NB 1 58 20 0.03 4.8 0.27 147 SB 1 11 12 0.00 4.8 0.20 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 703 8.6 8.6 A 671 9.0 9.0 A 714 9.6 9.6 A 697 9.0 9.0 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 43.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 12 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 29 WBL WBT Stop 10 65 NBL NBR 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 52 48 48 0.92 32 29 0.92 11 10 0.92 71 65 0.92 55 Stop 51 51 0.92 0.92 20 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 84 EB 1 0 32 -0.19 4.0 0.09 82 WB 1 11 0 0.06 4.2 0.10 75 NB 1 55 20 0.02 4.3 0.09 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 884 7.4 7.4 A 833 7.7 7.7 A 805 7.7 7.7 Delay Level of Service 7.6 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 13 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 3 3 EBR WBL 52 5 WBT WBR Stop 1 0 NBL 78 NBT Stop 114 NBR 10 SBL 0 SBT Stop 111 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 3 3 0.92 3 3 0.92 57 52 0.92 5 5 0.92 1 1 0.92 0 0 0.92 85 78 0.92 124 114 0.92 11 10 0.92 0 0 0.92 121 111 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 63 EB 1 3 57 -0.50 4.2 0.07 6 WB 1 5 0 0.20 4.9 0.01 220 NB 1 85 11 0.08 4.3 0.26 122 SB 1 0 1 0.03 4.3 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 790 7.5 7.5 A 667 8.0 8.0 A 823 8.8 8.8 A 804 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 8.3 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 14 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 89 EBR WBL 46 10 WBT WBR Stop 101 10 NBL 45 NBT Stop 51 NBR 28 SBL 10 SBT Stop 71 SBR 22 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 22 20 20 0.92 97 89 0.92 50 46 0.92 11 10 0.92 110 101 0.92 11 10 0.92 49 45 0.92 55 51 0.92 30 28 0.92 11 10 0.92 77 71 0.92 24 22 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 169 EB 1 22 50 -0.12 4.6 0.21 132 WB 1 11 11 0.00 4.7 0.17 134 NB 1 49 30 -0.03 4.7 0.18 112 SB 1 11 24 -0.07 4.7 0.15 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 738 8.8 8.8 A 712 8.7 8.7 A 708 8.8 8.8 A 704 8.5 8.5 Delay Level of Service 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 33.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 15 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 0 60 EBR WBL 20 50 WBT WBR Stop 6 12 NBL 6 NBT Stop 7 NBR 57 SBL 57 SBT Stop 18 SBR 1 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 0 0 0.92 65 60 0.92 22 20 0.92 54 50 0.92 7 6 0.92 13 12 0.92 7 6 0.92 8 7 0.92 62 57 0.92 62 57 0.92 20 18 0.92 1 1 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 87 EB 1 0 22 -0.12 4.2 0.10 74 WB 1 54 13 0.07 4.4 0.09 77 NB 1 7 62 -0.43 3.9 0.08 83 SB 1 62 1 0.18 4.5 0.10 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 816 7.7 7.7 A 770 7.9 7.9 A 868 7.3 7.3 A 755 8.0 8.0 Delay Level of Service 7.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 30.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing PM Synchro 9 Report Page 16 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 208 EBR WBL 21 34 WBT WBR Stop 165 8 NBL 12 NBT Stop 10 NBR 15 SBL 8 SBT Stop 11 SBR 16 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 11 10 10 0.92 226 208 0.92 23 21 0.92 37 34 0.92 179 165 0.92 9 8 0.92 13 12 0.92 11 10 0.92 16 15 0.92 9 8 0.92 12 11 0.92 17 16 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 260 EB 1 11 23 -0.01 4.3 0.31 225 WB 1 37 9 0.04 4.4 0.28 40 NB 1 13 16 -0.14 4.9 0.05 38 SB 1 9 17 -0.19 4.9 0.05 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary A 810 9.3 9.3 A 785 9.1 9.1 A 661 8.2 8.2 A 662 8.1 8.1 Delay Level of Service 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 37.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 5 WBL WBT Stop 2 199 NBL NBR 6 6 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 246 226 226 0.92 5 5 0.92 2 2 0.92 216 199 0.92 4 Stop 4 4 0.92 0.92 7 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 251 EB 1 0 5 0.02 4.2 0.29 218 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.25 11 NB 1 4 7 -0.28 4.6 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 852 8.9 8.9 A 844 8.6 8.6 A 703 7.7 7.7 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 4 Future Volume (Veh/h) 4 EBT 102 102 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 96 9 96 9 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 5 5 SBL 22 22 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 4 0.92 111 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 104 0% 0.92 10 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 5 0.92 24 0.92 2 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 128 128 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 120 120 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 14 3.5 1 None 264 260 134 266 255 136 134 266 255 136 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1438 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 116 NB 1 SB 1 6 35 24 1457 654 264 7.1 3.5 100 629 260 6.5 4.0 100 896 3.3 99 653 3.5 96 633 4.0 100 889 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 116 4 10 2 5 1 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1438 0 0.3 0.00 1457 0 0.1 0.01 844 699 1 4 10.4 0.05 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.3 9.3 A 10.4 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.7 24.3% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 Future Volume (Veh/h) 35 EBT 135 135 Free EBR WBL 5 21 5 21 WBT WBR 94 36 94 36 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 21 21 Stop NBR 12 12 SBL 33 33 SBT 13 13 Stop SBR 47 47 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 38 0.92 147 0% 0.92 5 0.92 23 0.92 102 0% 0.92 39 0.92 2 0.92 23 0% 0.92 13 0.92 36 0.92 14 0% 0.92 51 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 194 194 4.1 12.0 53 3.5 5 None 187 187 4.1 2.2 12.0 52 3.5 5 None 539 500 236 522 484 228 236 522 484 228 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 35 3.5 3 12.0 53 3.5 5 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1310 2.2 97 EB 1 WB 1 164 NB 1 SB 1 38 101 36 1341 98 342 539 7.1 3.5 99 414 500 6.5 4.0 94 737 3.3 98 357 3.5 90 423 4.0 97 732 3.3 93 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 5 190 38 39 23 13 2 51 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.03 1310 2 1.8 0.02 1341 1 1.2 0.08 481 496 6 19 14.1 0.20 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.8 A 1.2 A 13.1 13.1 B 14.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.0 35.1% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 Future Volume (Veh/h) 87 EBR 39 39 WBL WBT 28 44 28 44 NBL NBR 43 26 26 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 95 Free 0% 0.92 42 0.92 30 0.92 48 Free 0% 0.92 47 43 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 28 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 145 240 131 240 131 6.4 6.2 12.0 7 3.5 1 None 12.0 8 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 137 WB 1 NB 1 78 75 1426 145 4.1 2.2 98 721 3.5 3.3 93 97 905 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 42 0 0 30 28 47 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.08 1700 0 0.0 0.02 1426 2 3.0 0.10 781 8 10.1 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.0 A 10.1 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.4 28.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 197 201 76 311 3.186 40 0.995 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 158 161 180 183 3.186 23 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 195 199 164 113 3.186 40 0.995 5.9 A Left 1 1 123 125 262 79 3.186 31 0.996 5.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 201 161 199 125 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1047 944 959 870 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.983 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 197 158 195 123 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 925 936 853 V/C Ratio 0.193 0.171 0.209 0.144 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 5.5 5.9 5.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.3 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 7 7 18 4 3.186 11 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 20 20 2 14 3.186 12 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 12 12 4 21 3.186 12 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1110 1128 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 7 20 12 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1124 1124 V/C Ratio 0.006 0.018 0.011 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 51 52 77 131 3.186 11 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 137 139 70 46 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 69 70 46 83 3.186 10 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 75 76 132 77 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 52 139 70 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1046 1054 1079 990 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 51 137 69 75 Cap Entry, veh/h 1033 1035 1060 975 V/C Ratio 0.050 0.132 0.065 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 4.7 4.0 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 99 177 3.186 16 0.998 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 192 196 25 127 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 15 15 137 21 3.186 18 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 103 105 171 49 3.186 23 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 196 15 105 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1023 1102 985 952 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 192 15 103 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 1075 967 929 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.178 0.015 0.111 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 5.0 3.9 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 105 100 38 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 57 59 79 159 3.186 9 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 82 83 155 50 3.186 13 0.998 4.6 A Left 1 1 104 106 32 106 3.186 13 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 105 59 83 106 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1022 1044 968 1094 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.973 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 57 82 104 Cap Entry, veh/h 1004 1015 951 1073 V/C Ratio 0.103 0.057 0.086 0.097 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.0 4.6 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 45 46 281 24 3.186 114 0.982 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 16 16 225 13 3.186 48 0.993 4.2 A Left 1 1 196 200 38 289 3.186 114 0.979 5.2 A Left 1 1 281 286 19 222 3.186 84 0.988 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 46 16 200 286 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 853 902 1088 1109 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 45 16 196 281 Cap Entry, veh/h 818 895 1046 1076 V/C Ratio 0.055 0.018 0.188 0.261 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.2 5.2 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 105 63 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 70 71 55 94 3.186 4 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 69 70 79 79 3.186 3 1.000 4.1 A Left 1 1 94 96 72 54 3.186 4 0.999 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 71 70 96 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1017 1069 1044 1051 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.988 0.989 0.977 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 70 69 94 Cap Entry, veh/h 999 1056 1032 1027 V/C Ratio 0.052 0.066 0.067 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 146 149 221 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 95 97 220 132 3.186 13 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 225 230 123 247 3.186 12 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 202 205 168 149 3.186 15 0.998 6.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 149 97 230 205 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 906 907 999 955 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.978 0.980 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 146 95 225 202 Cap Entry, veh/h 886 886 978 937 V/C Ratio 0.165 0.107 0.231 0.215 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 5.1 5.9 6.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 133 136 186 57 3.186 16 0.998 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 153 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 150 153 4 318 3.186 11 0.998 4.5 A Left 1 1 171 174 69 103 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 136 19 153 174 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 970 1125 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.978 0.996 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 133 19 150 171 Cap Entry, veh/h 915 964 1102 1032 V/C Ratio 0.145 0.020 0.136 0.165 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 3.9 4.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 229 233 136 133 3.186 19 0.997 6.1 A EB Left 1 1 115 116 167 166 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Left 1 1 158 161 172 197 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 129 131 138 145 3.186 23 0.997 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 116 161 131 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 986 956 951 984 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.988 0.982 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 229 115 158 129 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 942 932 966 V/C Ratio 0.237 0.122 0.170 0.134 Control Delay, s/veh 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.7 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 20 20 114 67 3.186 20 0.997 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 201 205 35 127 3.186 17 0.998 5.1 A Left 1 1 127 129 33 101 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 33 33 148 92 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 20 205 129 33 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1008 1091 1093 974 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.980 0.981 0.993 Flow Entry, veh/h 20 201 127 33 Cap Entry, veh/h 995 1067 1070 965 V/C Ratio 0.020 0.188 0.118 0.034 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 5.1 4.4 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 6 204 EBR WBL 16 10 WBT WBR Stop 178 6 NBL 27 NBT Stop 5 NBR 22 SBL 8 SBT Stop 2 SBR 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 7 6 0.92 222 204 0.92 17 16 0.92 11 10 0.92 193 178 0.92 7 6 0.92 29 27 0.92 5 5 0.92 24 22 0.92 9 8 0.92 2 2 0.92 4 4 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 246 EB 1 7 17 0.00 4.3 0.29 211 WB 1 11 7 0.02 4.4 0.26 58 NB 1 29 24 -0.11 4.8 0.08 15 SB 1 9 4 -0.01 5.0 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 815 9.1 9.1 A 794 8.9 8.9 A 679 8.2 8.2 A 644 8.1 8.1 Delay Intersection Summary 8.9 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 27.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 3 WBL WBT Stop 2 181 NBL NBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 253 233 233 0.92 3 3 0.92 2 2 0.92 197 181 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 4 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 256 EB 1 0 3 0.03 4.1 0.29 199 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.23 4 NB 1 0 4 -0.57 4.3 0.00 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 861 8.8 8.8 A 848 8.4 8.4 A 753 7.3 7.3 Delay Intersection Summary 8.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 26.5% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 11 Future Volume (Veh/h) 11 EBT 89 89 Free EBR WBL 3 3 3 3 WBT WBR 69 10 69 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 3 3 SBL 10 10 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 3 3 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 12 0.92 97 0% 0.92 3 0.92 3 0.92 75 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 11 0.92 2 0% 0.92 3 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 98 98 4.1 12.0 13 3.5 1 None 113 113 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 239 240 122 235 236 106 122 235 236 106 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 13 3.5 1 12.0 12 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1478 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 89 NB 1 SB 1 6 16 11 1458 676 239 7.1 3.5 100 639 240 6.5 4.0 100 909 3.3 100 683 3.5 98 643 4.0 100 926 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 3 112 12 11 3 3 1 3 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1478 1 0.9 0.00 1458 0 0.3 0.01 759 712 1 2 10.2 0.02 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.8 9.8 A 10.2 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.5 24.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/19/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 17 Future Volume (Veh/h) 17 EBT 145 145 Free EBR WBL 9 5 9 5 WBT WBR 133 23 133 23 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 6 6 Stop NBR 7 7 SBL 26 26 SBT 4 4 Stop SBR 8 8 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 18 0.92 158 0% 0.92 10 0.92 5 0.92 145 0% 0.92 25 0.92 2 0.92 7 0% 0.92 8 0.92 28 0.92 4 0% 0.92 9 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 185 185 4.1 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 195 195 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 27 3.5 3 None 432 421 217 420 414 200 217 420 414 200 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 27 3.5 3 12.0 15 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1370 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 175 NB 1 SB 1 17 41 28 1343 477 432 7.1 3.5 100 495 421 6.5 4.0 99 781 3.3 99 489 3.5 94 499 4.0 99 808 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 10 186 18 25 5 8 2 9 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1370 1 0.8 0.00 1343 0 0.3 0.03 595 537 2 6 12.3 0.08 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.8 A 0.3 A 11.2 11.2 B 12.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.1 32.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/19/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 Future Volume (Veh/h) 48 EBR 29 29 WBL WBT 10 65 10 65 NBL NBR 51 18 18 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 52 Free 0% 0.92 32 0.92 11 0.92 71 Free 0% 0.92 55 51 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 20 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 17 3.5 2 None 101 195 95 195 95 6.4 6.2 12.0 10 3.5 1 None 12.0 17 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 84 WB 1 NB 1 82 75 1467 101 4.1 2.2 99 763 3.5 3.3 93 98 937 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 32 0 0 11 20 55 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.05 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1467 1 1.1 0.09 802 8 9.9 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 9.9 A Approach LOS Intersection Summary A A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.5 24.1% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 152 155 36 171 3.186 20 0.997 4.6 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 74 106 3.186 25 0.997 4.7 A Left 1 1 34 34 146 45 3.186 25 0.997 4.1 A Left 1 1 74 76 131 77 3.186 22 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 155 134 34 76 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1090 1049 976 991 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.983 0.987 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 152 132 34 74 Cap Entry, veh/h 1066 1028 960 968 V/C Ratio 0.143 0.128 0.035 0.077 Control Delay, s/veh 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 5 5 24 6 3.186 16 0.998 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 28 28 2 8 3.186 21 0.997 3.4 A Left 1 1 9 9 1 28 3.186 21 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1103 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.996 0.997 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 5 28 9 Cap Entry, veh/h 1096 1121 1126 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.025 0.008 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 55 101 3.186 26 0.996 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 108 110 69 50 3.186 31 0.996 4.4 A Left 1 1 72 73 46 60 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A Left 1 1 47 48 108 71 3.186 19 0.997 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 110 73 48 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1069 1055 1079 1014 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 108 72 47 Cap Entry, veh/h 1050 1035 1058 999 V/C Ratio 0.048 0.105 0.068 0.047 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 4.4 4.0 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 42 43 13 152 3.186 27 0.996 3.6 A EB Left 1 1 160 163 18 35 3.186 35 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 5 5 48 7 3.186 35 0.995 3.4 A Left 1 1 20 20 145 36 3.186 28 0.996 3.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 43 163 5 20 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1115 1110 1077 977 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.992 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 42 160 5 20 Cap Entry, veh/h 1098 1086 1063 971 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.148 0.005 0.021 Control Delay, s/veh 3.6 4.6 3.4 3.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 65 66 81 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A EB Left 1 1 92 94 104 114 3.186 23 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 110 112 106 41 3.186 34 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 79 81 48 150 3.186 40 0.995 4.1 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 66 94 112 81 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1042 1018 1016 1077 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.982 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 65 92 110 79 Cap Entry, veh/h 1021 997 996 1051 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.093 0.111 0.076 Control Delay, s/veh 4.1 4.4 4.6 4.1 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.4 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 170 5 3.186 17 0.998 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 37 17 3.186 7 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 41 42 12 166 3.186 17 0.998 3.6 A Left 1 1 168 171 4 35 3.186 17 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 2 42 171 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 953 1089 1116 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 2 41 168 Cap Entry, veh/h 949 1088 1098 1102 V/C Ratio 0.008 0.002 0.038 0.152 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 3.3 3.6 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 41 42 39 34 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 38 38 73 74 3.186 11 0.998 3.8 A Left 1 1 104 106 41 40 3.186 11 0.998 4.3 A Left 1 1 34 35 39 72 3.186 9 0.999 3.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 42 38 106 35 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1087 1050 1085 1087 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.988 0.979 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 41 38 104 34 Cap Entry, veh/h 1070 1036 1060 1070 V/C Ratio 0.039 0.036 0.098 0.032 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 3.8 4.3 3.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 130 132 158 161 3.186 11 0.998 5.1 A EB Left 1 1 127 129 199 86 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 207 211 74 216 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 147 149 170 158 3.186 18 0.998 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 132 129 211 149 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 965 926 1049 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.986 0.983 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 130 127 207 147 Cap Entry, veh/h 948 911 1029 935 V/C Ratio 0.137 0.140 0.202 0.157 Control Delay, s/veh 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 63 64 128 89 3.186 8 0.999 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 6 6 216 14 3.186 5 0.999 4.0 A Left 1 1 220 224 6 186 3.186 8 0.999 5.1 A Left 1 1 122 124 93 129 3.186 7 0.999 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 64 6 224 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 994 910 1123 1030 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.997 0.980 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 63 6 220 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 977 907 1100 1009 V/C Ratio 0.064 0.007 0.200 0.121 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.0 5.1 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 169 172 101 186 3.186 10 0.999 5.2 A EB Left 1 1 132 134 128 141 3.186 18 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 134 137 132 141 3.186 18 0.998 5.0 A Left 1 1 112 114 173 89 3.186 16 0.998 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 172 134 137 114 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1021 994 990 950 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.983 0.984 0.977 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 169 132 134 112 Cap Entry, veh/h 1003 975 965 935 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.135 0.139 0.120 Control Delay, s/veh 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 87 88 138 15 3.186 13 0.998 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 74 75 15 192 3.186 19 0.997 3.9 A Left 1 1 77 78 129 97 3.186 19 0.997 4.4 A Left 1 1 83 84 69 21 3.186 17 0.998 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 88 75 78 84 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 984 1113 993 1055 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.985 0.985 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 87 74 77 83 Cap Entry, veh/h 968 1093 976 1035 V/C Ratio 0.090 0.068 0.079 0.080 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 3.9 4.4 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 Existing with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 242 EBR WBL 24 40 WBT WBR Stop 192 9 NBL 14 NBT Stop 12 NBR 17 SBL 9 SBT Stop 13 SBR 19 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 13 12 12 0.92 263 242 0.92 26 24 0.92 43 40 0.92 209 192 0.92 10 9 0.92 15 14 0.92 13 12 0.92 18 17 0.92 10 9 0.92 14 13 0.92 21 19 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 13 26 -0.01 4.4 0.37 262 WB 1 43 10 0.04 4.5 0.33 46 NB 1 15 18 -0.14 5.1 0.07 45 SB 1 10 21 -0.20 5.0 0.06 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) Intersection Summary B 791 10.0 10.0 A 768 9.7 9.7 A 626 8.5 8.5 A 630 8.4 8.4 Delay Level of Service 9.7 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 41.6% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 6 WBL WBT Stop 2 231 NBL NBR 7 7 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 286 263 263 0.92 7 6 0.92 2 2 0.92 251 231 0.92 5 Stop 5 5 0.92 0.92 8 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 293 EB 1 0 7 0.02 4.2 0.34 253 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.3 0.30 13 NB 1 5 8 -0.26 4.8 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 844 9.4 9.4 A 825 9.1 9.1 A 670 7.9 7.9 Delay Intersection Summary 9.2 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 32.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 Future Volume (Veh/h) 5 EBT 119 119 Free EBR WBL 1 2 1 2 WBT WBR 112 10 112 10 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 0 0 Stop NBR 6 6 SBL 26 26 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 5 0.92 129 0% 0.92 1 0.92 2 0.92 122 0% 0.92 11 0.92 1 0.92 0 0% 0.92 7 0.92 28 0.92 2 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 149 149 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 139 139 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 16 3.5 2 None 306 302 154 310 296 158 154 310 296 158 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 9 3.5 1 12.0 16 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1411 2.2 100 EB 1 WB 1 135 NB 1 SB 1 8 40 28 1432 609 306 7.1 3.5 100 594 302 6.5 4.0 100 870 3.3 99 605 3.5 95 598 4.0 100 861 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 1 135 5 11 2 7 1 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.00 1411 0 0.3 0.00 1432 0 0.1 0.01 826 653 1 5 10.9 0.06 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.3 A 0.1 A 9.4 9.4 A 10.9 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.8 26.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 Future Volume (Veh/h) 41 EBT 157 157 Free EBR WBL 6 24 6 24 WBT WBR 109 42 109 42 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 24 24 Stop NBR 14 14 SBL 38 38 SBT 15 15 Stop SBR 55 55 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 45 0.92 171 0% 0.92 7 0.92 26 0.92 118 0% 0.92 46 0.92 2 0.92 26 0% 0.92 15 0.92 41 0.92 16 0% 0.92 60 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 226 226 4.1 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 219 219 4.1 2.2 12.0 62 3.5 6 None 628 584 278 610 564 265 278 610 564 265 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 41 3.5 4 12.0 62 3.5 6 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1263 2.2 96 EB 1 WB 1 190 NB 1 SB 1 43 117 41 1298 98 280 628 7.1 3.5 99 362 584 6.5 4.0 93 688 3.3 98 296 3.5 86 371 4.0 96 685 3.3 91 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 7 223 45 46 26 15 2 60 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.04 1263 3 1.9 0.02 1298 2 1.2 0.10 427 435 8 27 16.3 0.27 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 1.9 A 1.2 A 14.4 14.4 B C 16.3 Approach LOS Intersection Summary B C Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 5.5 38.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/26/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 101 Future Volume (Veh/h) 101 EBR 45 45 WBL WBT 33 51 33 51 NBL NBR 50 30 30 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 110 Free 0% 0.92 49 0.92 36 0.92 55 Free 0% 0.92 54 50 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 33 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 9 3.5 1 None 168 280 152 280 152 6.4 6.2 12.0 8 3.5 1 None 12.0 9 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 159 WB 1 NB 1 91 87 1398 168 4.1 2.2 97 680 3.5 3.3 92 96 880 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 49 0 0 36 33 54 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.09 1700 0 0.0 0.03 1398 2 3.1 0.12 744 10 10.5 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 3.1 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 31.0% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 228 233 88 360 3.186 48 0.993 5.7 A EB Left 1 1 182 185 207 212 3.186 28 0.996 6.0 A Left 1 1 226 230 189 132 3.186 48 0.993 6.5 A Left 1 1 144 146 302 90 3.186 36 0.995 6.2 A Designated Moves LT TR LTR LR Assumed Moves LT TR LTR LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 233 185 230 146 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1035 919 935 835 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.983 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 228 182 226 144 Cap Entry, veh/h 1008 900 914 820 V/C Ratio 0.227 0.202 0.248 0.176 Control Delay, s/veh 5.7 6.0 6.5 6.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.4 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 8 8 22 4 3.186 13 0.998 3.4 A EB Left 1 1 24 24 2 16 3.186 14 0.998 3.4 A Left 1 1 13 13 5 25 3.186 14 0.998 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1105 1128 1124 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.998 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 8 24 13 Cap Entry, veh/h 1090 1124 1122 V/C Ratio 0.007 0.021 0.012 Control Delay, s/veh 3.4 3.4 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 89 154 3.186 13 0.998 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 159 162 81 53 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 80 81 53 96 3.186 12 0.998 4.1 A Left 1 1 87 88 155 88 3.186 15 0.998 4.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 162 81 88 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1034 1042 1072 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.984 0.984 0.986 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 159 80 87 Cap Entry, veh/h 1020 1023 1053 952 V/C Ratio 0.058 0.156 0.076 0.091 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.9 4.1 4.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20166: Bryant St & Kingsley Ave Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 67 68 115 206 3.186 19 0.997 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 223 228 29 147 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Left 1 1 17 17 159 24 3.186 21 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 120 122 199 58 3.186 27 0.996 5.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 68 228 17 122 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1007 1098 964 926 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.979 0.984 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 67 223 17 120 Cap Entry, veh/h 989 1071 946 905 V/C Ratio 0.068 0.208 0.018 0.132 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 5.3 4.0 5.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 120 122 117 44 3.186 15 0.998 4.8 A EB Left 1 1 66 68 92 186 3.186 10 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 97 98 180 59 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 37 123 3.186 15 0.998 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 122 68 98 124 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1005 1031 944 1089 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.984 0.975 0.985 0.984 Flow Entry, veh/h 120 66 97 122 Cap Entry, veh/h 987 1004 928 1069 V/C Ratio 0.122 0.066 0.104 0.114 Control Delay, s/veh 4.8 4.2 4.9 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.9 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 52 53 327 27 3.186 133 0.973 5.3 A EB Left 1 1 19 19 260 17 3.186 59 0.992 4.4 A Left 1 1 228 232 45 335 3.186 133 0.968 5.6 A Left 1 1 327 333 21 258 3.186 98 0.987 6.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 53 19 232 333 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 815 871 1080 1106 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.999 0.982 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 52 19 228 327 Cap Entry, veh/h 777 863 1027 1072 V/C Ratio 0.067 0.022 0.222 0.305 Control Delay, s/veh 5.3 4.4 5.6 6.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 59 60 121 73 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A EB Left 1 1 81 82 64 110 3.186 5 0.999 4.1 A Left 1 1 82 83 91 90 3.186 4 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 109 111 83 63 3.186 5 0.999 4.5 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 60 82 83 111 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1001 1060 1032 1040 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.988 0.989 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 59 81 82 109 Cap Entry, veh/h 983 1047 1020 1017 V/C Ratio 0.060 0.077 0.080 0.107 Control Delay, s/veh 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 170 173 258 176 3.186 17 0.998 6.2 A EB Left 1 1 111 113 257 152 3.186 15 0.998 5.5 A Left 1 1 262 267 142 289 3.186 14 0.998 6.5 A Left 1 1 234 238 196 174 3.186 17 0.998 6.6 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 173 113 267 238 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 873 874 980 929 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.980 0.982 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 170 111 262 234 Cap Entry, veh/h 855 855 960 911 V/C Ratio 0.199 0.130 0.273 0.257 Control Delay, s/veh 6.2 5.5 6.5 6.6 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/26/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.2 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 154 157 216 67 3.186 19 0.997 5.8 A EB Left 1 1 22 22 177 4 3.186 15 0.998 4.0 A Left 1 1 174 177 4 369 3.186 13 0.998 4.7 A Left 1 1 198 202 81 118 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 157 22 177 202 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 910 947 1125 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.996 0.982 0.980 Flow Entry, veh/h 154 22 174 198 Cap Entry, veh/h 890 940 1103 1019 V/C Ratio 0.173 0.023 0.158 0.194 Control Delay, s/veh 5.8 4.0 4.7 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 0 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 6.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 264 270 157 156 3.186 22 0.997 6.7 A EB Left 1 1 133 137 192 191 3.186 27 0.996 5.4 A Left 1 1 182 185 198 228 3.186 15 0.998 5.9 A Left 1 1 150 152 161 168 3.186 27 0.996 5.3 A Designated Moves LTR LR TR LT Assumed Moves LTR LR TR LT RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 270 137 185 152 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 966 933 927 962 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.977 0.974 0.983 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 264 133 182 150 Cap Entry, veh/h 941 905 909 944 V/C Ratio 0.280 0.147 0.200 0.159 Control Delay, s/veh 6.7 5.4 5.9 5.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/26/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.0 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 23 23 132 78 3.186 23 0.997 3.9 A EB Left 1 1 233 238 40 148 3.186 20 0.997 5.5 A Left 1 1 148 150 38 117 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 38 39 172 106 3.186 23 0.997 4.3 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 23 238 150 39 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 990 1086 1088 951 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.989 0.978 0.984 0.968 Flow Entry, veh/h 23 233 148 38 Cap Entry, veh/h 976 1059 1067 918 V/C Ratio 0.023 0.220 0.138 0.041 Control Delay, s/veh 3.9 5.5 4.6 4.3 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj AM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Moreno Ave & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Sign Control EBT Stop 7 240 EBR WBL 19 12 WBT WBR Stop 209 7 NBL 32 NBT Stop 6 NBR 26 SBL 9 SBT Stop 2 SBR 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 8 7 0.92 261 240 0.92 21 19 0.92 13 12 0.92 227 209 0.92 8 7 0.92 35 32 0.92 7 6 0.92 28 26 0.92 10 9 0.92 2 2 0.92 5 5 0.92 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 290 EB 1 8 21 0.00 4.4 0.35 248 WB 1 13 8 0.03 4.5 0.31 70 NB 1 35 28 -0.11 5.0 0.10 17 SB 1 10 5 -0.02 5.2 0.02 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 796 9.8 9.8 A 776 9.4 9.4 A 645 8.6 8.6 A 610 8.3 8.3 Delay Intersection Summary 9.5 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 31.2% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Fielding Dr & Louis Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBT Sign Control Stop EBR 4 WBL WBT Stop 2 213 NBL NBR 5 5 Hourly flow rate (vph) Traffic Volume (vph) Future Volume (vph) Peak Hour Factor 298 274 274 0.92 4 4 0.92 2 2 0.92 232 213 0.92 0 Stop 0 0 0.92 0.92 5 Volume Total (vph) Direction, Lane # Volume Left (vph) Volume Right (vph) Hadj (s) Departure Headway (s) Degree Utilization, x 302 EB 1 0 4 0.03 4.2 0.35 234 WB 1 2 0 0.04 4.2 0.28 5 NB 1 0 5 -0.57 4.5 0.01 Approach LOS Capacity (veh/h) Control Delay (s) Approach Delay (s) A 853 9.4 9.4 A 829 8.8 8.8 A 716 7.5 7.5 Delay Intersection Summary 9.1 A Intersection Capacity Utilization Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 28.8% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Clara Dr & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 13 Future Volume (Veh/h) 13 EBT 105 105 Free EBR WBL 4 4 4 4 WBT WBR 81 12 81 12 Free NBL 1 1 NBT 2 2 Stop NBR 4 4 SBL 12 12 SBT 2 2 Stop SBR 4 4 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 14 0.92 114 0% 0.92 4 0.92 4 0.92 88 0% 0.92 13 0.92 1 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 13 0.92 2 0% 0.92 4 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 115 115 4.1 12.0 15 3.5 1 None 133 133 4.1 2.2 100 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 282 282 143 278 278 124 143 278 278 124 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 15 3.5 1 12.0 14 3.5 1 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1454 2.2 99 EB 1 WB 1 105 NB 1 SB 1 7 19 13 1431 628 282 7.1 3.5 100 602 282 6.5 4.0 100 881 3.3 100 634 3.5 98 605 4.0 100 902 3.3 100 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 4 132 14 13 4 4 1 4 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.01 1454 1 0.9 0.00 1431 0 0.3 0.01 740 673 1 2 10.5 0.03 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 9.9 9.9 A 10.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary A B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 1.6 25.9% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Ames Ave & Ross Rd 2/23/2016 Lane Configurations Movement EBL Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 Future Volume (Veh/h) 20 EBT 170 170 Free EBR WBL 11 6 11 6 WBT WBR 156 27 156 27 Free NBL 2 2 NBT 7 7 Stop NBR 8 8 SBL 31 31 SBT 5 5 Stop SBR 9 9 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 22 0.92 185 0% 0.92 12 0.92 7 0.92 170 0% 0.92 29 0.92 2 0.92 8 0% 0.92 9 0.92 34 0.92 5 0% 0.92 10 0.92 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 217 217 4.1 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 229 229 4.1 2.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 None 510 498 255 496 490 234 255 496 490 234 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 12.0 32 3.5 3 12.0 18 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % 1329 2.2 98 EB 1 WB 1 206 NB 1 SB 1 19 49 34 1298 99 413 510 7.1 3.5 100 442 498 6.5 4.0 98 737 3.3 99 426 3.5 92 447 4.0 99 767 3.3 99 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 12 219 22 29 7 9 2 10 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.02 1329 1 0.9 0.01 1298 0 0.3 0.04 540 471 3 9 13.5 0.10 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.9 A 0.3 A 11.9 11.9 B 13.5 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B B Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 2.3 36.7% 15 ICU Level of Service A Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2/23/201613: Mayview Ave & Ross Rd Lane Configurations Movement EBT Traffic Volume (veh/h) 56 Future Volume (Veh/h) 56 EBR 34 34 WBL WBT 12 76 12 76 NBL NBR 60 21 21 Hourly flow rate (vph) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor 61 Free 0% 0.92 37 0.92 13 0.92 83 Free 0% 0.92 65 60 Stop 0% 0.92 0.92 23 Lane Width (ft) Pedestrians Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol 12.0 20 3.5 2 None 118 228 112 228 112 6.4 6.2 12.0 12 3.5 1 None 12.0 20 3.5 2 cM capacity (veh/h) vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) p0 queue free % EB 1 98 WB 1 NB 1 96 88 1442 118 4.1 2.2 99 724 3.5 3.3 91 97 913 Volume Right Direction, Lane # Volume Total Volume Left 37 0 0 13 23 65 Volume to Capacity cSH Queue Length 95th (ft) 0.06 1700 0 0.0 0.01 1442 1 1.1 0.11 766 10 10.3 Approach Delay (s) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS 0.0 1.1 A 10.3 B Approach LOS Intersection Summary B A Average Delay Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis Period (min) 3.6 25.7% 15 ICU Level of Service Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 3: Amarillo Ave & Greer Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 179 182 44 202 3.186 24 0.997 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 156 159 88 125 3.186 29 0.996 5.0 A Left 1 1 39 40 173 53 3.186 29 0.996 4.2 A Left 1 1 89 91 155 92 3.186 26 0.996 4.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 182 159 40 91 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1081 1035 950 968 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.982 0.983 0.986 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 179 156 39 89 Cap Entry, veh/h 1058 1013 934 947 V/C Ratio 0.169 0.154 0.042 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 5.0 4.2 4.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20164: Palo Alto Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 3.5 A WB NB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 6 6 29 7 3.186 19 0.997 3.3 A EB Left 1 1 33 34 2 9 3.186 25 0.997 3.6 A Left 1 1 10 10 1 34 3.186 25 0.997 3.3 A Designated Moves TR LT LR Assumed Moves TR LT LR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 6 34 10 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1098 1128 1129 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.997 0.968 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 6 33 10 Cap Entry, veh/h 1091 1088 1125 V/C Ratio 0.005 0.030 0.009 Control Delay, s/veh 3.3 3.6 3.3 LOS A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 2 HCM 2010 Roundabout 5: Addison Ave & Bryant St 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.3 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 58 59 65 117 3.186 31 0.996 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 126 128 81 58 3.186 36 0.995 4.6 A Left 1 1 84 85 54 70 3.186 36 0.995 4.1 A Left 1 1 56 57 125 84 3.186 22 0.997 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 59 128 85 57 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1059 1042 1071 997 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.986 0.985 0.987 Flow Entry, veh/h 58 126 84 56 Cap Entry, veh/h 1039 1022 1049 982 V/C Ratio 0.056 0.123 0.080 0.057 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20166: Kingsley Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 50 51 16 178 3.186 32 0.996 3.7 A EB Left 1 1 189 192 22 42 3.186 41 0.994 4.9 A Left 1 1 6 6 58 9 3.186 41 0.994 3.5 A Left 1 1 24 24 170 44 3.186 33 0.995 4.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 51 192 6 24 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1112 1105 1066 953 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.988 0.983 0.993 0.997 Flow Entry, veh/h 50 189 6 24 Cap Entry, veh/h 1094 1081 1053 946 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.175 0.006 0.025 Control Delay, s/veh 3.7 4.9 3.5 4.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 1 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20167: N California Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 77 78 95 55 3.186 47 0.994 4.3 A EB Left 1 1 107 109 121 134 3.186 27 0.996 4.7 A Left 1 1 128 130 125 48 3.186 40 0.995 4.9 A Left 1 1 93 95 55 175 3.186 47 0.994 4.2 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 78 109 130 95 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1028 1001 997 1069 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.985 0.984 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 77 107 128 93 Cap Entry, veh/h 1006 981 976 1045 V/C Ratio 0.076 0.109 0.131 0.089 Control Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.2 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 5 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/20168: Loma Verde Ave & Bryant St Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.6 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 10 10 199 6 3.186 20 0.997 4.0 A EB Left 1 1 2 2 44 19 3.186 8 0.999 3.3 A Left 1 1 48 49 14 195 3.186 20 0.997 3.7 A Left 1 1 197 201 4 42 3.186 20 0.997 4.9 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 10 2 49 201 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 926 1081 1114 1125 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.998 1.000 0.985 0.982 Flow Entry, veh/h 10 2 48 197 Cap Entry, veh/h 922 1080 1095 1102 V/C Ratio 0.011 0.002 0.044 0.179 Control Delay, s/veh 4.0 3.3 3.7 4.9 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 6 HCM 2010 Roundabout 9: Moreno Ave & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 49 50 46 40 3.186 13 0.998 3.8 A EB Left 1 1 44 45 86 87 3.186 13 0.998 3.9 A Left 1 1 122 124 49 47 3.186 13 0.998 4.4 A Left 1 1 39 40 46 85 3.186 11 0.998 3.7 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 50 45 124 40 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1079 1037 1076 1079 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.987 0.981 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 49 44 122 39 Cap Entry, veh/h 1062 1022 1053 1062 V/C Ratio 0.046 0.043 0.115 0.037 Control Delay, s/veh 3.8 3.9 4.4 3.7 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 7 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201612: E Meadow Dr & Ross Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.8 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 153 156 186 187 3.186 13 0.998 5.5 A EB Left 1 1 149 151 232 101 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 242 246 87 255 3.186 25 0.997 5.8 A Left 1 1 173 176 197 186 3.186 21 0.997 5.8 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 156 151 246 176 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 938 896 1036 928 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.986 0.984 0.983 Flow Entry, veh/h 153 149 242 173 Cap Entry, veh/h 917 881 1015 910 V/C Ratio 0.167 0.169 0.238 0.190 Control Delay, s/veh 5.5 5.8 5.8 5.8 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 8 HCM 2010 Roundabout 14: Louis Rd & Ross Rd 2/24/2016 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.1 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 74 75 151 104 3.186 9 0.999 4.5 A EB Left 1 1 8 8 255 17 3.186 6 0.999 4.2 A Left 1 1 259 264 8 218 3.186 9 0.999 5.5 A Left 1 1 142 145 110 153 3.186 8 0.999 5.0 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 75 8 264 145 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 972 876 1121 1012 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.986 0.998 0.981 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 74 8 259 142 Cap Entry, veh/h 956 873 1099 991 V/C Ratio 0.077 0.009 0.236 0.143 Control Delay, s/veh 4.5 4.2 5.5 5.0 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 1 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 9 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201615: E Meadow Dr & Louis Rd Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 5.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 199 203 118 220 3.186 12 0.998 5.6 A EB Left 1 1 155 158 152 166 3.186 21 0.997 5.3 A Left 1 1 159 162 156 165 3.186 21 0.997 5.4 A Left 1 1 131 134 204 106 3.186 19 0.997 5.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 203 158 162 134 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1004 971 967 921 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.979 0.984 0.980 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 199 155 159 131 Cap Entry, veh/h 981 952 944 900 V/C Ratio 0.202 0.163 0.168 0.146 Control Delay, s/veh 5.6 5.3 5.4 5.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 1 1 1 1 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 10 HCM 2010 Roundabout 2/24/201616: E Meadow Dr & E Meadow Cir Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Approach 4.5 A WB NB SB Entry Lanes Conflicting Circle Lanes Adj Approach Flow, veh/h Demand Flow Rate, veh/h Vehicles Circulating, veh/h Vehicles Exiting, veh/h Follow-Up Headway, s Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h Ped Cap Adj Approach Delay, s/veh Approach LOS Lane Left 1 1 103 106 162 17 3.186 15 0.998 4.9 A EB Left 1 1 87 88 17 227 3.186 22 0.997 4.0 A Left 1 1 90 91 153 115 3.186 22 0.997 4.6 A Left 1 1 97 98 81 24 3.186 20 0.997 4.4 A Designated Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LTR LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 106 88 91 98 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 961 1111 970 1042 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.976 0.987 0.987 0.985 Flow Entry, veh/h 103 87 90 97 Cap Entry, veh/h 936 1093 954 1024 V/C Ratio 0.111 0.079 0.094 0.094 Control Delay, s/veh 4.9 4.0 4.6 4.4 LOS A A A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 0 0 0 0 Palo Alto Bicycle Boulevard Study 5:00 pm 2/11/2016 2040 with Proj PM Synchro 9 Report Page 11 Attachment D - Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment D – Parking Occupancy Study 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Table 1: Bryant Street Bike Boulevard # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Palo Alto Ave (southside) Bryant St Palo Alto Ave to Hawthorne Ave (southside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Everett Ave (southside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Everett Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Everett Ave to 335 driveway (southside) Bryant St Channing Ave to Addison Ave (southside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Addison Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Lincoln Ave (southside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Kingsley Ave (southside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) Kingsley Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Embarcadero Rd (southside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kellogg Ave (southside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Emerson St (westside) Lowell Ave Emerson St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St Santa Rita Ave to Washington Ave (southside) Bryant St Washington Ave to California Ave (southside) California Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) California Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) Bryant St California Ave to Oregon Expy (southside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to Ramona St (westside) El Verano Ave Ramona St to Bryant St (eastside) El Verano Ave Bryant St to South Ct (eastside) El Verano Ave South Ct to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Oregon Expy to California Ave (northside) Bryant St California Ave to Santa Rita Ave (northside) California Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) 88.00 4 0 0.0% 2 2 0% 487.00 22 9.25 41.8% 20 2 46% 274.00 12 8.25 66.2% 11 1 72% 112.00 5 5 98.2% 4 1 122% 139.00 6 6.25 98.9% 5 1 118% 196.00 9 7.5 84.2% 8 1 95% 256.00 12 9.75 83.8% 10 2 101% 157.00 7 3 42.0% 5 2 58% 181.00 8 3.5 42.5% 6 2 56% 335.00 15 5.75 37.8% 13 2 43% 387.00 18 7.25 41.2% 15 3 50% 207.00 9 3 31.9% 6 3 47% 165.00 8 0.75 10.0% 5 3 17% 253.00 12 3.25 28.3% 7 5 50% 264.00 12 5.5 45.8% 12 0 46% 424.00 19 8.5 44.1% 17 2 49% 370.00 17 10 59.5% 15 2 67% 362.00 16 5.5 33.4% 16 0 33% 105.00 5 1.5 31.4% 3 2 54% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 6 2 8% 206.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 432.00 20 5.75 29.3% 18 2 33% 215.00 10 1.25 12.8% 8 2 16% 192.00 9 1 11.5% 7 2 15% 211.00 10 2.25 23.5% 8 2 30% 204.00 9 0.5 5.4% 7 2 7% 513.00 23 6.25 26.8% 21 2 29% 1600.00 73 12.5 17.2% 71 2 18% 300.00 14 0.7 4.9% 12 2 6% 17 # of Average ProposedFeet of Available Percentage Spaces ExpectedCars ParkingParking Space Parking of Use Lost UtilizationObserved SpacesSpacesBlock Segment California Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Lowell Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside) Lowell Ave Waverley St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kellogg Ave to Embarcadero Rd (northside) Bryant St Embarcadero Rd to Kingsley Ave (northside) Kingsley Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Kinglsey Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Kingsley Ave to Lincoln Ave (northside) Bryant St Lincoln Ave to Addison Ave (northside) Addison Ave Bryant St to Waverly St (eastside) Addison Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Addison Ave to Channing Ave (northside) Bryant St mixed use building to Everett Ave (northside) Everett Ave Bryant St to Waverley St (eastside)* Everett Ave Waverly St to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Everett Ave to Hawthorn Ave (northside) Bryant St Hawthorne Ave to Poe St (northside) Poe St Bryant St to Palo Alto Ave (eastside) Poe St Palo Alto Ave to Bryant St (westside) Bryant St Poe St to Palo Alto Ave (northside) 387.00 18 8.3 47.4% 16 2 53% 421.00 19 4.3 22.6% 17 2 25% 415.00 19 3.3 17.7% 17 2 20% 255.00 12 1.75 15.1% 10 2 18% 237.00 11 2.5 23.2% 5 6 52% 425.00 19 15.25 78.9% 16 3 93% 410.00 19 13.25 71.1% 16 3 85% 332.00 15 5.25 34.8% 12 3 43% 313.00 14 6.75 47.4% 12 2 55% 400.00 18 7.5 41.3% 16 2 46% 334.00 15 7.5 49.4% 13 2 57% 340.00 15 12.25 79.3% 13 2 91% 166.00 8 5.75 76.2% 7 1 88% 177.00 8 12.5 155.4% 7 1 177% 346.00 16 11.75 74.7% 15 1 80% 250.00 11 9 79.2% 10 1 87% 371.00 17 14.5 86.0% 17 0 86% 388.00 18 4.75 26.9% 18 0 27% 281.00 13 2.25 17.6% 13 0 18% 131 6 0.5 8.4% 2 4 26% TOTAL 15,190.00 690.5 279 40.4% 595 95 47% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 24, 2016 at 12:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Daytime #1 for select locations were surveyed on March 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM (California btwn Bryant and Waverely; Lowell Ave btwn Bryant and Waverley) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) California Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) *A high number of compact cars were observed on Everett Street (Bryant Street to Waverley Street - east side) which culminated in more parkings spaces observed than typically available when estimated at 22 feet per space. 18 Table 2: Ross Road Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Ross Rd Oregon Expy to Moreno Ave (southside) Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Rosewood Dr (southside) Ross Rd Rosewood Dr to Colorado Ave (southside) Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Randers Ct (westside) Colorado Ave Randers Ct to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Sutter Ave (southside) Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Clara Dr (southside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Stern Ave (southside) Ross Rd Stern Ave to Allen Ct (southside) Ross Rd Allen Ct to Loma Verde Ave (southside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Loma Verde Pl (westside) Loma Verde Ave Loma Verde Pl to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Ames Ave (southside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Stone Ln (southside) Ross Rd Stone Ln to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross Rd to bend in road (westside) Talisman Dr bend in road to Ross Rd (eastside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Christine Dr (southside) Ross Rd Christine Dr to Meadow Dr (southside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Mayview Ave (southside) Ross Rd Mayview Ave to Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd W Corina Wy to E Corina Wy (southside) Ross Rd E Corina Wy to Louis Rd (southside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Nathan Wy (southside) Ross Rd Nathan Wy to Louis Rd (northside) Ross Rd Louis Rd to Corina Wy (northside) Ross Rd Corina Wy to Ramos Park Path (northside) Ross Rd Ramos Park Path to Meadow Dr (northside) Ross Rd Meadow Dr to Talisman Dr (northside) Talisman Dr Ross to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Talisman Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Talisman Dr to Ames Ave (northside) Ross Rd Ames Ave to Richardson Ct (northside) Ross Rd Richardson Ct to Ross Ct (northside) Ross Rd Ross Ct to Loma Verde Ave (northside) Loma Verde Ave Ross Rd to Manchester Ct (eastside) Loma Verde Ave Manchester Ct to Ross Rd (westside) Ross Rd Loma Verde Ave to Wintergreen Wy (northside) Ross Rd Wintergreen Wy to Clara Dr (northside) Ross Rd Clara Dr to Sutter Ave (northside) 402.00 18 4.75 26.0% 16 2 29% 176.00 8 0.5 6.3% 5 3 10% 548.00 25 7 28.1% 23 2 31% 138.00 6 0.25 4.0% 5 1 5% 68.00 3 0 0.0% 1 2 0% 155.00 7 1.5 21.3% 5 2 30% 151.00 7 0.75 10.9% 5 2 15% 354.00 16 2.75 17.1% 14 2 20% 180.00 8 2.25 27.5% 2 6 103% 386.00 18 5.5 31.3% 15 3 38% 225.00 10 2.25 22.0% 8 2 27% 201.00 9 0 0.0% 7 2 0% 488.00 22 4 18.0% 19 3 21% 405.00 18 7.5 40.7% 13 5 56% 227.00 10 1.75 17.0% 9 1 19% 255.00 12 2.5 21.6% 11 1 24% 282.00 13 2 15.6% 11 2 18% 183.00 8 0.5 6.0% 7 1 7% 275.00 13 4.5 36.0% 12 1 39% 284.00 13 3.25 25.2% 13 0 25% 102.00 5 1.25 27.0% 5 0 27% 317.00 14 1.75 12.1% 13 1 13% 148.00 7 0.25 3.7% 4 3 7% 129.00 6 0.5 8.5% 6 0 9% 125.00 6 0.25 4.4% 5 1 5% 141.00 6 0.75 11.7% 3 3 22% 453.00 21 5.25 25.5% 20 1 27% 332.00 15 5.5 36.4% 14 1 39% 445.00 20 4 19.8% 19 1 21% 190.00 9 3.25 37.6% 8 1 43% 172.00 8 1.5 19.2% 7 1 22% 779.00 35 10.5 29.7% 32 3 32% 95.00 4 1 23.2% 3 1 30% 145.00 7 0 0.0% 7 0 0% 184.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 122.00 6 2 36.1% 4 2 56% 793.00 36 6.5 18.0% 30 6 22% 173.00 8 0.75 9.5% 8 0 10% 220.00 10 0.25 2.5% 8 2 3% 19 Block Segment Feet of Parking Space # of Available Parking Spaces Average Cars Observed Percentage of Use Proposed Parking Spaces Spaces Lost Expected Utilization Ross Rd Sutter Ave to Colorado Ave (northside) 177.00 8 0 0.0% 6 2 0% Colorado Ave Ross Rd to Sevyson Ct (eastside) 432.00 20 0 0.0% 18 2 0% Colorado Ave Sevyson Ct to Ross Rd (westside) 492.00 22 7.5 33.5% 20 2 37% Ross Rd Colorado Ave to Marshall Dr (northside) 381.00 17 4.75 27.4% 16 1 29% Ross Rd Marshall Dr to Moreno Ave (northside) 274.00 12 3.75 30.1% 10 2 36% Ross Rd Moreno Ave to Oregon Expy (northside) 447.00 20 6.75 33.2% 18 2 37% TOTAL 12,757.00 579.9 121.5 21.0% 495 85 25% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 23, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 28, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 25, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Road is no parking on the north side of street from 7 am - 7 pm. 5) Colorado Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 6) Loma Verde Ave is no parking on the east side of the street from 7 am - 7 pm. 20 Table 3: Moreno-Amarillo Avenues Bike Boulevard # ofFeet of Average ProposedAvailable Percentage Spaces ExpectedParking Cars ParkingParking of Use Lost UtilizationSpace Observed SpacesBlock Segment Spaces Moreno Ave Rosewood Dr to Ross Rd (eastside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Marshall Dr (eastside) Moreno Ave Marshall Dr to Ross Rd (westside) Moreno Ave Ross Rd to Coastland Dr (westside) Moreno Ave Coastland Dr to Rosewood Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave Louis Rd to Ohlone Elem driveway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Ohlone Elem driveway to Greer Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Greer Park Pathway (eastside) Amarillo Ave Greer Park Pathway to W Bayshore Rd (eastside) Amarillo Ave W Bayshore Rd to N Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave N Tanland Dr to S Tanland Dr (westside) Amarillo Ave S Tanland Dr to Greer Rd (westside) Amarillo Ave Greer Rd to Louis Rd (westside) Louis Rd Moreno Ave to Fielding Dr (southside) Louis Rd Fielding Dr to Bruce Dr (southside) Louis Rd Bruce Dr to Amarillo Ave (northside) Louis Rd Amarillo Ave to Moreno Ave (northside) 357.00 16 1.25 7.7% 14 2 9% 172.00 8 0.75 9.6% 6 2 13% 162.00 7 0.5 6.8% 5 2 9% 217.00 10 2.25 22.8% 8 2 29% 113.00 5 0.75 14.6% 5 0 15% 206.00 9 2.75 29.4% 0 9 #DIV/0! 311.00 14 4.25 30.1% 13 1 33% 559.00 25 4.5 17.7% 24 1 19% 640.00 29 14.5 49.8% 18 11 81% 223.00 10 8 78.9% 5 5 160% 197.00 9 5.25 58.6% 7 2 75% 473.00 22 10.75 50.0% 20 2 54% 702.00 32 10.25 32.1% 16 16 64% 200.00 9 0 0.0% 0 9 0% 206.00 9 4.75 50.7% 9 0 51% 67.00 3 0 0.0% 3 0 0% 124.00 6 0 0.0% 6 0 0% TOTAL 4,929.00 224 70.5 31.5% 160 65 44% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 5) Amarillo from Louis next to Ohlone has one no parking space from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. A maintenance truck was parked in that spot Daytime #1 6) Amarillo north of Ohlone, the first house has a no parking sign from 7 am to 4 pm M-F. 21 Table 4: Meadow-Louis-Montrose Bike Boulevard Feet of # of Available Average ProposedPercentage Spaces ExpectedParking Parking Cars Parkingof Use Lost UtilizationSpace Spaces Observed SpacesBlock Segment Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Arbutus Ave (eastside) Meadow Dr Ortega Ct to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Meadow Cir (eastside) Meadow Cir Meadow Dr to Paloma St (eastside) Meadow Cir Paloma St to Meadow Cir (westside) Meadow Cir Meadow Cir to Loral Space Systems (1085) (northside) Meadow Cir Loral Space Systems to Meadow Dr (southside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Fabian Wy (southside) Meadow Dr Fabian Wy to Meadow Cir (northside) Meadow Dr Meadow Cir to Louis Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Louis Rd to Ortega Ct (eastside) Meadow Dr Arbutus Ave to Ross Rd (westside) Meadow Dr Ross Rd to Grove Ave (westside) Meadow Dr Grove Ave to Ross Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Middlefield Rd to Sutherland Dr (westside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Seminole Wy (westside) Montrose Ave Seminole Wy to Charleston Rd (westside) Louis Rd Charleston Rd to Bibbits Dr (westside) Louis Rd Bibbits Dr to Charleston Rd (eastside) Montrose Ave Charleston Rd to Sutherland Dr (eastside) Montrose Ave Sutherland Dr to Middlefield Rd (eastside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Corina Wy (southside) Louis Rd Corina Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Aspen Wy to Meadow Dr (northside) Louis Rd Meadow Dr to Aspen Wy (southside) 106.00 5 1.75 36.3% 4 1 46% 143.00 7 0.75 11.5% 6 1 14% 867.00 39 9.25 23.5% 38 1 24% 282.00 13 8.5 66.3% 13 0 66% 293.00 13 7 52.6% 12 1 57% 342.00 16 2.75 17.7% 16 0 18% 355.00 16 3.25 20.1% 15 1 21% 381.00 17 0.25 1.4% 17 0 1% 342.00 16 14.75 94.9% 16 0 95% 445.00 20 9 44.5% 19 1 47% 148.00 7 1.75 26.0% 6 1 31% 112.00 5 0 0.0% 3 2 0% 386.00 18 4 22.8% 17 1 24% 365.00 17 0.75 4.5% 15 2 5% 170.00 8 1.25 16.2% 8 0 16% 700.00 32 10.75 33.8% 32 0 34% 158.00 7 0.75 10.4% 7 0 11% 101.00 5 1.5 32.7% 4 1 38% 116.00 5 0 0.0% 0 5 #DIV/0! 736.00 33 11.25 33.6% 31 2 36% 170.00 8 2.75 35.6% 8 0 34% 106.00 5 0 0.0% 5 0 0% 139.00 6 0 0.0% 5 1 0% 584.00 27 0.25 0.9% 27 0 1% 596.00 27 6.5 24.0% 26 1 25% TOTAL 8,143.00 370.1 98.75 26.7% 348 22 28% Survey Times Daytime #1 was surveyed on February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Daytime #2 was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 10:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Weekend as surveyed on February 13, 2016 at 11:00 am (between 8am and 5pm) Evening was surveyed on February 11, 2016 at 8 pm (between 7pm and 6am) Notes 1) Survey on-street parking by block segment and side of street. See Move Atlanta Design Manual for instruction on how to count spaces. 2) Parking Availability must exclude driveways, fire hydrants, the visibility triangle at intersections, and other no parking areas. 3) For survey times, see Chapter 2 of the Move Atlanta Manual. Survey times are based on land use and street functional classification. 4) Louis Rd from Charleston to Bibbits is no parking (bike lane only) from 7 am to 7 pm 22 Bryant Street, Ross Road, Meadow-Louis-Montrose and Moreno-Amarillo Bike Boulevards Staff Report Attachment E – Concept Plans C E Q A N O T I C E O F E X E M P T I O N To: Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder 70 West Hedding Street, First Floor San Jose, CA 95110 From: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project Title: Bicycle Boulevards – Bryant Street, Moreno-Amarillo Avenues, and Ross Road Project Location: Several streets throughout the City of Palo Alto, including Bryant Street (Palo Alto to East Meadow), Moreno Avenue (Middlefield to Louis), Louis Road (Moreno to Amarillo), Amarillo Avenue (Louis to West Bayshore), and Ross Road (Garland to East Meadow) Project Location – City: Palo Alto Project Location – County: Santa Clara Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Description of Project: This project will make bicycle and pedestrian improvements to multiple existing roadways. Improvements include new bicycle boulevard striping, wayfinding and safety signs, crosswalks, median and landscape islands, bulb-outs, stop control modification, traffic circles within existing rights-of-way, new tree plantings, speed humps, and raised intersections. No trees will be removed and all work will occur within the existing public right-of-way. Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Palo Alto Exempt Status: Class 1, Section 15301, Existing Facilities: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency’s determination. Reasons why Project is Exempt: The project is limited to minor alteration of existing roadways. The work will facilitate bicycle and pedestrian use and will not increase the roadway capacities. Per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that the project is not located on a hazardous waste site, would not result in a significant impact due to unusual circumstances, damage scenic resources, affect a historic resource, or result in a cumulative impact. For these reasons and those stated above, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Lead Agency Contact Person: Josh Mello Phone Number: Signature: John Hesler Date: Title: Senior Environmental Specialist Attachment F Bryant Street, Ross Road, Louis-Montrose and Amarillo- Moreno Bicycle Boulevards Staff Report Attachment G – March 29, 2016 Public Meeting Summary Attachment G On March 29, 2016, The City of Palo Alto staff with help from Alta Planning + Design (Alta), the consultant team, held a public meeting to present the concept plans for four bicycle boulevards: Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues, Bryant Street, Louis Road & Montrose Avenue, and Ross Road. The meeting was held at Ohlone Elementary School from 6:30-8:30 PM. 61 people were recorded in attendance. The meeting began with a presentation by the City of Palo Alto and Alta staff. The presentation focused on why these projects are important to the city, previous meetings held for this project, how the concept plans have changed based on public feedback at previous meetings, some technical aspects of bicycle boulevard treatments, and the comment cards available to record comments. Participants were invited to ask clarifying and process questions, but save corridor specific questions and comments for the individual discussions. Several questions were raised, many regarding the proposed mini-roundabouts and their efficacy. City staff directed attendees to the Federal Highway Administration’s website on proven safety countermeasures (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/) for data and research to support the use of roundabouts in Palo Alto. After the presentation, attendees were directed to the back of the room where the concept plans were presented on tables by corridor. Comment cards and pens were available at each table for attendees to provide feedback. The comments provided by participants were scanned as written and are attached to this document. Several emails and a flyer that was distributed before the event are also attached. Common themes expressed on the comment cards are below. General comments are presented first, followed by corridor-specific comments. General Comments The proposed designs are great and thank you for listening to us (9) The proposed roundabouts are welcome (10) The proposed removal of stop signs in favor of roundabouts does not seem safe for pedestrians (2) Palo Alto should be more bold with these designs (2) More education should be done for all roadway users on these treatments (3) The proposed raised intersections are welcome and should be implemented elsewhere (3) When implementing these plans, do not add too many signs. Signs are an urban blight and can distract from the roadway (3) The proposed slotted speed bumps are welcome (2) Amarillo Avenue & Moreno Avenues The increase in landscaping along Amarillo is welcome (4) The removal of parking on Amarillo near Greer Park should be mitigated by adding more parking to the parking lot nearby (2) Two attendees mentioned the proposed mini-roundabout at Ross at Moreno. One was in favor and one was opposed. Bryant Street The proposed roundabout at Bryant at California was a major topic for discussion. Some attendees commented that a roundabout at this intersection is a safety concern and will not work as intended (6). Other attendees were in favor of the design and noted that it will go a long way to make all roadway users feel safe (5). The proposed parking removal near the First Baptist Church is worrisome due to the large number of Sunday and nighttime events (4) Louis Road & Montrose Avenue The proposed roundabouts are welcome (1) Although not technically part of this project, the concept plans note to consider relocating the existing crossing and bus stop from the driveway into Walgreens to Moreno as a potential future project. One person was in favor of this and two were against Ross Road The proposed landscaping on Ross in front of the YMCA parking lot should be kept short for maximum visibility (2) The existing traffic signal at Ross and Oregon Expressway is not timed for bicyclists even though bicyclists are the only ones that use the signal. This light should either be removed or retimed (2) Keep the stop signs on Ross at Ames (2) In addition to the comments received about the project corridors, there were two comments made about other projects or policy issues. Specifically: Charleston Road. Although not a part of this project, two comments were made about the markings along Charleston Road needing to be reworked. Trash Pickup Policy. The new policy regarding leaving trash cans in bike lanes is hazardous for all roadway users as bicyclists must swerve out of the bike lane into the vehicle lane to not run into them (2) Event Photos RE: Bryant street blvd Mello, Joshuah to me, jonathanschuppert@altaplanning.com 4:19 PM FYI From: Annette Glanckopf [mailto:] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 4:16 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd Thanks again White is better than green. The green marking are distasteful and and distracting. Why do we need any markings at all? Drivers ignore signage. Bikers already know the street, All of this signage gets ignored very quickly (almost immediately after it is installed) and is just - IMHO - urban blight. The visual effect is unpleasant and it changes the character of suburban to urban Annette On 3/28/2016 3:48 PM, Mello, Joshuah wrote: Ms. Glanckopf: Those markings are white. … Regards, JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP Chief Transportation Official PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Transportation office: 650.329.2136 fax: 650.329.2154 Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the or click to make a service request. From: Annette Glanckopf [] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 3:28 PM To: Mello, Joshuah Subject: Re: Bryant street blvd Thank you for your reply That is not what I see on plans. annetteglanckopf@att.net Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org app here mailto:annetteglanckopf@att.net No biker has difficulty knowing this is a bike path. From the plans it looks to me like the green "gateway markings" will be at the intersection of Colorado and Bryant as well as the intersection of El Dorado and Bryant. The only problem I witness on a daily basis is the bike speeders who consider Bryant their own personal street. They are extremely rude and just this weekend one came within inches of hitting me as I was trimming my bushes, I oppose the green markings. They are urban blight and do not belong on a residential street. Several of my neighbors agree with me. If I am looking at the plans incorrectly, please let me know. Annette … FW: Bryant Street emails me to me 9:50 AM … ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Brunicardi <> To: Transportation <> Cc: Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:59:28 +0000 Subject: Bryant/N. California Street(s) roundabout Dear Mr. Mello, I realize this is coming to you on the eve of a community meeting about changes to the Bryant Street Bike Blvd, but I wanted to get in touch with you about the proposal for the Bryant/ N . California intersection. Let me say up front that my family enjoys the "bikability" of Palo Alto and we bike to school and work every day. But we also live within 150' of the above mentioned intersection and have some serious concerns about the proposed changes. My wife and I, as well as every neighbor in the vicinity, feel that the roundabout idea is a poor one at best. From what I've seen at previous meetings, and from the current drawing, it appears to merge bicycles and vehicular traffic into one lane, leaving very little room for error. Remember this intersection is heavily used by young teens coming and going to Jordan Middle School and Palo Alto High School. If the city is expecting them to abide by the rules of a roundabout 100% of the time they are deluding themselves. My wife and I have said separately that the most dangerous section of Bryant street for a cyclist is the roundabout at Addison. Cars fly into it without looking, or completely do not understand the right of way. I've had to lock up my brakes and veer out of the way several times. This would be worse and Bryant and N. California because there is more traffic of every type. The second issue regarding a roundabout at N. California and Bryant streets is the parking problem that will arise from the removal of parking spaces at each corner of the intersection. If you take into consideration the size of the chicanes it seems feasible that we'd lose sixteen in total. This is unacceptable because the First Baptist Church at that corner has become less of a church and more of a community center. Without exaggeration, well over a hundred people come and go every afternoon. There is a large music school comprising the entire top floor of the former church rectory. There are other businesses on site as well and they all need to park somewhere. My family is rarely afforded the luxury of parking in from of our own home. Same is true for our neighbors. The loss of any parking spaces would be detrimental to the flow of everyday life for the neighborhood. In short this is a reckless proposal that has not been studied properly and it should not be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your time. All best, David Brunicardi 2183 Bryant Street ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Miriam W Palm <> To: Transportation <> Cc: Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:58:30 +0000 Subject: Traffic circles I don’t have an objection to circles per se, I actually like them. But I urge you to build and implement them as they are intended to be, and as Stanford has done on campus: they should be a four way YIELD , and not have stop signs on two sides, as the one at Bryant and Addison does. This defeats the purpose of the circle. If you construct more in Palo Alto, please keep this in mind. And get rid of the stop signs on Addison. Miram Palm 2185 Waverley St. Miriam Palm Librarian Emerita, Stanford University Phone & Fax (650) 327-8989 david.brunicardi@gmail.com Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org mwpalm@stanford.edu Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto (ID # 6707) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Contract for Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022) Title: Approval of a Contract With O'Grady Paving, Inc. in the Amount of $1,557,662 for the Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022), Capital Improvement Program Project PE-86070 From: City Manager Lead Department: Public Works Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute the attached contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. (Attachment A) in an amount not to exceed $1,557,662 for the Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100 (022) (Capital Improvement Program projects PE-86070 and PL-04010); and 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. for related, additional but unforeseen work that may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $155,766. Background Public Works Engineering Services Division manages construction contracts for concrete repair, preventive maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction of various City streets on an annual basis. The candidate streets are surveyed biannually by Public Works Engineering staff and then rated by a computerized pavement maintenance management system (PMMS) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) pavement analysis program. Since 2009, the average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score has increased from 72 to 82 due to City of Palo Alto Page 2 additional project budget and staff aggressively seeking grant funding. Staff expects to achieve a citywide average PCI of 85 by 2019. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) released a call-for-projects for the One Bay Area Grant Program (OBAG) in November 2012 with project proposals due in March 2013. The OBAG program has two elements, a Countywide Guaranteed Fund element and a Competitive Complete Streets element. The Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project was submitted in response to the Countywide Guaranteed Fund in March 2013. Palo Alto’s share in the Countywide Fund is $956,000. All streets have been coordinated with the City’s Utilities Department and the Transportation Division of the Planning and Community Environment Department to minimize the cutting of newly resurfaced streets. Extensive public outreach will be conducted before and during the construction phase to keep the community informed throughout the process, including flyers sent to adjacent residences and businesses and notices posted on Nextdoor and the City’s website. Discussion Project Description Staff recommends approval of this street resurfacing contract and implementation this fiscal year as part of an enhanced program to improve the condition of Palo Alto’s streets. This project is the result of an OBAG Guaranteed Funding received in 2013 in the amount of $956,000 combined with $601,662 in City funds. The $1,557,662 expenditure for this contract will be used to repave 4.9 lane miles of arterial and collector streets with new asphalt concrete. This work will continue moving the City’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) toward the goal of a citywide average PCI of 85, with no street below 60, by the end of 2019. The portions of Laguna Avenue, Hillview Avenue and Arastradero Road being resurfaced in this contract are shown in Attachment C. Additional maps of the FY 2016 Street Maintenance Program and current 5-year plan for street repaving are available on the Street Maintenance Program homepage located at www.cityofpaloalto.org/streets. Laguna Avenue will receive new valley gutters on both sides of most sections of the road prior to street repaving. City staff hosted a community meeting on City of Palo Alto Page 3 February 24, 2016 for residents living on or near Laguna Avenue to present the improvement plans for the road. The design presented was well received and the residents approved adding new valley gutters to Laguna Avenue to improve drainage. Resurfacing work on Hillview Avenue and Arastradero Road includes the replacement of broken curb and gutter, sidewalk and curb ramps prior to grinding out the old asphalt and repaving the road. The plan also includes upgrading the existing bus stops and waiting areas along Arastradero Road with new concrete pads. Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements As part of continuing efforts to create complete streets and implement the Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the City of Palo Alto seeks to improve accommodations for active transportation users when resurfacing city streets, systematically improving roadways by leveraging regularly programmed maintenance activities. This project provides an opportunity to improve bicycle safety approaching Foothill Expressway while travelling eastbound on Arastradero Road. The new road configuration will remove an existing concrete island and add new green bike lanes through the intersection of Manuela Avenue to Foothill Expressway. Bid Process On February 16, 2016 a notice inviting formal bids (IFB) for the Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022) was posted online. During the 28 calendar-day bidding period the electronic bid package was downloaded by seven builder’s exchanges and fifteen contractors. Bids were received from two contractors on March 15, 2016. The bid results are presented in the Bid Summary (Attachment B). Staff was told the low number of bids is due to contractors being busy with other work. Summary of Bid Process Bid Name/Number Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022) Proposed Length of Project 120 calendar days City of Palo Alto Page 4 Number of Bid Packages downloaded by Builder’s Exchanges 7 Number of Bid Packages downloaded by Contractors 15 Total Days to Respond to Bid 28 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes Number of Bids Received: 2 Bid Price Range $1,557,662 to $1,600,576 Bids ranged from $1,557,662 to $1,600,576 and from 12% to 15% above the engineer’s estimate of $1,391,628. Staff has reviewed all bids submitted and recommends the base bid totaling $1,557,662, submitted by O’Grady Paving Inc. be accepted and O’Grady Paving Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The change order amount of $155,766, ten percent of the total contract amount, is requested for related, additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project. Staff reviewed other similar projects performed by the lowest responsible bidder, O’Grady Paving Inc., including projects performed for the City. There were no significant complaints with their previous work. Staff also checked with the Contractor's State License Board and found the contractor to have an active license on file. Resource Impact Funding for the Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100(022) is available in Capital Improvement Program project PE-86070 Street Resurfacing Program and CIP project PL-04010 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Project. The funding allocation is as follows: Funding Source Contract Contingency Total Encumbrance 1 PE-86070 $ 1,536,537 $ 153,654 $ 1,690,191 1 PL-04010 $21,125 $ 2,112 $ 23,237 Totals $ 1,557,662 $ 155,766 $ 1,713,428 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Policy Implications This project is in conformance with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and does not represent any changes to existing City policies. Environmental Review Street resurfacing projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15301c of the CEQA Guidelines as repair, maintenance and/or minor alteration of the existing facilities and no further environmental review is necessary. Attachments: A - Contract (PDF) B - Bid Summary (PDF) C - Project Map (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C16163028 City of Palo Alto STPL 5100(022) PALO ALTO VARIOUS STREETS REPAVING Project Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co‐operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON‐DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS…………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON‐APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on April 18, 2016 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and O'GRADY PAVING INC. ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a General Contractor duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 201696 and DIR Registration number 1000003381. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On February 16, 2016, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Palo Alto Various Streets Repaving Project Stpl 5100(022) (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the STPL 5100(022) PALO ALTO VARIOUS STREET REPAVING Project, located at VARIOUS STREETS, Palo Alto, CA.("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1)Change Orders 2)Field Orders 3)Contract 4)Bidding Addenda 5)Special Provisions 6)General Conditions 7)Project Plans and Drawings 8)Technical Specifications 9)Instructions to Bidders 10)Invitation for Bids 11)Contractor's Bid/Non‐Collusion Affidavit 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14)Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15)City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16)City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17)Notice Inviting Pre‐Qualification Statements, Pre‐Qualification Statement, and Pre‐ Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18)Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co‐operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed not later than . within One Hundred Twenty calendar days (120) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of One Million Five Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($1,557,662). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates .] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well‐supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third‐party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON‐DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co‐tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Holly Boyd AND [Include Construction Manager, If Applicable.] Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: O'grady Paving Attn: Craig E. Young 2513 Wyandotte Street Mountain View, Ca 94043 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty‐five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close‐out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close‐out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as‐built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non‐Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take‐offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non‐City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 26 NON‐APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. 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. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self‐insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854‐compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10‐day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ Purchasing Manager City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney APPROVED: ____________________________ Public Works Director CONTRACTOR By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ IFB 163028 Palo Alto Various Streets Resurfacing Project STPL 5100 (022) Bid Summary Attachment B UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Asphalt Overlay: 4,887 TONS $ 104.00 508,248.00$ $ 111.00 542,457.00$ $ 111.11 542,994.57$ 2 Bus Pad Repair: 1,000 SF $ 15.00 15,000.00$ $ 31.50 31,500.00$ $ 32.00 32,000.00$ 3 AC Milling: 300,000 SF $ 0.52 156,000.00$ $ 0.50 150,000.00$ $ 0.41 123,000.00$ 4 6" Deep Lift Base Repairs: 250 TONS $ 175.00 43,750.00$ $ 170.00 42,500.00$ $ 211.00 52,750.00$ 5 Wedge Cut: 4,500 LF $ 3.00 13,500.00$ $ 2.25 10,125.00$ $ 2.81 12,645.00$ 6 AC Berm: 1,000 LF $ 10.00 10,000.00$ $ 17.00 17,000.00$ $ 15.00 15,000.00$ 7 Type A Vertical Curb, 1' Exposed Pan: 350 LF $ 48.00 16,800.00$ $ 59.00 20,650.00$ $ 77.00 26,950.00$ 8 Type A Vertical Curb, 2' Exposed Pan: 350 LF $ 60.00 21,000.00$ $ 80.00 28,000.00$ $ 85.00 29,750.00$ 9 Type B Rolled Curb 3' Exposed Pan: 20 LF $ 75.00 1,500.00$ $ 95.00 1,900.00$ $ 111.00 2,220.00$ 10 Concrete Driveway: 1,000 SF $ 12.00 12,000.00$ $ 20.00 20,000.00$ $ 20.00 20,000.00$ 11 Concrete Sidewalk: 1,000 SF $ 10.00 10,000.00$ $ 14.00 14,000.00$ $ 17.00 17,000.00$ 12 Concrete Valley Gutter 3': 2,700 LF $ 84.00 226,800.00$ $ 100.00 270,000.00$ $ 143.00 386,100.00$ 13 AC 2" Driveway: 6,500 SF $ 3.00 19,500.00$ $ 4.60 29,900.00$ $ 5.00 32,500.00$ 14 Demo Concrete/AC: 2,000 SF $ 4.00 8,000.00$ $ 11.00 22,000.00$ $ 5.00 10,000.00$ 15 New ADA Curb Ramps: 9 EA $ 1,900.00 17,100.00$ $ 4,400.00 39,600.00$ $ 3,500.00 31,500.00$ 16 Traffic Loops: 12 EA $ 1,000.00 12,000.00$ $ 340.00 4,080.00$ $ 525.00 6,300.00$ 17 Reset Catch Basin Hood Frame & Grate: 3 EA $ 2,500.00 7,500.00$ $ 2,100.00 6,300.00$ $ 2,500.00 7,500.00$ 18 Inert Recycling: 6,000 TONS $ 3.00 18,000.00$ $ 8.00 48,000.00$ $ 3.00 18,000.00$ 19 Blue Markers: 10 EA $ 50.00 500.00$ $ 16.00 160.00$ $ 16.00 160.00$ 20 Curb Paint: 500 LF $ 4.00 2,000.00$ $ 2.00 1,000.00$ $ 3.00 1,500.00$ 21 Detail 22: 4,300 LF $ 2.00 8,600.00$ $ 1.50 6,450.00$ $ 1.50 6,450.00$ 22 Detail 8: 1,300 LF $ 2.00 2,600.00$ $ 0.90 1,170.00$ $ 1.00 1,300.00$ 23 Detail 4: 3,000 LF $ 2.00 6,000.00$ $ 0.90 2,700.00$ $ 1.00 3,000.00$ 24 Detail 1: 700 LF $ 2.00 1,400.00$ $ 0.90 630.00$ $ 1.00 700.00$ 25 Detail 38/38C: 600 LF $ 2.00 1,200.00$ $ 1.00 600.00$ $ 1.00 600.00$ 26 Detail 39/39A:12,200 LF $ 1.50 18,300.00$ $ 0.65 7,930.00$ $ 0.65 7,930.00$ 27 12" Yellow:500 LF $ 4.00 2,000.00$ $ 3.25 1,625.00$ $ 4.00 2,000.00$ 28 12" White:3,260 LF $ 4.00 13,040.00$ $ 3.50 11,410.00$ $ 3.47 11,312.20$ 29 Thermo Legend 170 EA $ 55.00 9,350.00$ $ 55.00 9,350.00$ $ 55.00 9,350.00$ 30 Traffic Control:1 LS $ 100,000.00 100,000.00$ $ 76,000.00 76,000.00$ $ 77,000.00 77,000.00$ 31 Conform on Laguna beyond 3' :2,000 SF $ 2.00 4,000.00$ $ 2.50 5,000.00$ $ 12.00 24,000.00$ 32 Notifications:1 LS $ 15,000.00 15,000.00$ $ 65,000.00 65,000.00$ $ 7,000.00 7,000.00$ 33 Lower/raise Utility Valves:10 EA $ 500.00 5,000.00$ $ 650.00 6,500.00$ $ 639.00 6,390.00$ 34 Lower/raise Sewer Manhole:10 EA $ 800.00 8,000.00$ $ 850.00 8,500.00$ $ 639.00 6,390.00$ 35 Inert Recycling that contains Petromat Fabric:3,000 TONS $ 5.00 15,000.00$ $ 1.00 3,000.00$ $ 7.00 21,000.00$ 36 Tree Trimming:50 CREW HOURS $ 300.00 15,000.00$ $ 230.00 11,500.00$ $ 100.00 5,000.00$ 37 Adjust to Grade Valves With Bolt on Rings:10 EA $ 250.00 2,500.00$ $ 250.00 2,500.00$ $ 339.00 3,390.00$ 38 Adjust to Grade Manholes With Riser Rings:10 EA $ 250.00 2,500.00$ $ 350.00 3,500.00$ $ 439.00 4,390.00$ 39 Miscellaneous Transportation Improvements:1 LUMP SUM $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ $ 25,000.00 25,000.00$ 40 Green Thermoplastic Pre-Formed Panels:800 SF $ 20.00 16,000.00$ $ 9.50 7,600.00$ $ 10.00 8,000.00$ 41 8" Traffic Buttons:24 EA $ 10.00 240.00$ $ 25.00 600.00$ $ 27.00 648.00$ 42 Thermoplastic 4" White Striping:500 LF $ 1.00 500.00$ $ 1.05 525.00$ $ 1.00 500.00$ 43 Procure and Install New Regulatory Signs:4 EA $ 300.00 1,200.00$ $ 350.00 1,400.00$ $ 339.00 1,356.00$ 1,391,628.00$ 1,557,662.00$ 1,600,575.77$ ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE O'GRADY PAVING INC G. BORTOLOTTO Base Bid Total (Items 001 through 043) BID ITEM DESCRIPTION APPROX. QTY UNIT 142-17-033 137-18-015 137-18-012 137-18-013 137-18-014 137-18-052 137-18-055 137-18-078137-18-079137-18-080 137-18-076 137-18-077 137-18-058137-18-059137-18-060 137-18-063 137-18-065 137-18-064137-18-062 137-18-056137-18-054137-18-053 137-18-069 137-18-068 137-18-066 137-18-061 137-19-023 137-19-024 137-19-018 137-19-019 137-19-020 137-19-022137-18-057 137-19-021 137-17-026137-17-009 137-17-022 137-18-067 137-19-017 137-18-096 137-18-024 137-18-023 137-18-022 137-18-021 137-18-020 137-18-019 137-18-018 137-18-017 137-18-016 137-18-075 137-18-071 137-18-074137-18-073 137-18-072 137-18-090 137-18-093 137-18-095 137-18-002 137-18-003 137-18-004 137-18-007 137-18-005 137-18-008 137-18-009 137-18-010 137-18-011 137-18-100 137-18-070 137-18-101 137-18-037 137-17-005 137-17-011 137-18-099 137-18-098 137-18-097 137-17-006 137-17-025 137-17-018 137-18-026 137-18-006 137-19-065 137-19-064 137-19-075 137-19-052 137-19-053 137-19-054 137-19-015 137-19-002 137-19-003 137-19-014 137-19-004 137-19-080 137-19-010 137-19-081 137-19-013 137-19-005 137-19-007 137-19-008 137-19-009 137-19-035137-19-030 137-19-031 137-19-033 137-19-034 137-19-032 137-19-026137-19-025 137-18-044 137-18-045 137-19-066 137-20-004137-20-003137-20-002137-20-001 137-19-027 137-19-051 137-19-006 137-19-039 137-19-048 137-19-047 137-19-049 137-19-050 137-19-076 137-19-077 137-18-051 137-18-082 137-18-083 137-18-050 137-18-042 137-18-085 137-18-086 137-18-049 137-18-048 137-18-047 137-18-046 137-14-039 137-20-022 137-20-021 137-20-026 137-20-024 137-20-023 137-20-025 137-20-020137-14-016 137-14-015 137-14-014 137-14-017 137-14-018 137-14-011 137-14-010 137-14-012 137-14-009 137-14-008 137-20-046 137-14-038 137-14-037 137-17-007 137-14-167 137-14-166 137-17-015 137-17-002 137-14-173 137-17-016 137-17-017 137-17-027 137-17-019 137-18-025 137-18-001 137-14-069 137-14-055 137-14-054 137-14-053137-14-068 137-14-067 137-14-056 137-17-013 137-17-014 137-17-001 137-16-015 137-17-012 137-14-078 137-15-020 137-15-019 137-15-017 137-15-016 137-15-015 137-15-014 137-15-013 137-15-009 137-15-002 137-15-003 137-15-004 137-15-006 137-15-007 137-15-008 137-15-012 137-15-011 137-15-010 137-14-081 137-14-079137-14-080 137-14-077 137-14-076137-14-075137-14-074137-14-073 137-14-179 137-14-071 137-14-070 137-14-066 137-14-065 137-14-064 137-14-063 137-14-062 137-14-061 137-14-057 137-14-098 137-14-099 137-14-100 137-14-101137-14-085 137-14-082 137-14-083 137-14-084 137-14-086 137-14-088 137-15-018 137-14-058 137-14-036 137-14-040 137-14-041 137-14-042 137-14-043 137-14-044 137-14-045 137-14-035 137-14-034 137-14-033 137-14-032 137-14-031 137-14-030137-14-046 137-14-143 137-14-152 137-14-153 137-14-172 137-14-156 137-14-157137-14-020 137-14-007137-14-021 137-14-006137-14-022 137-14-127 137-14-128 137-14-151137-14-150 137-14-168 137-14-004137-14-169 137-14-003137-14-025 137-14-060 137-14-059 137-14-165 137-14-164 137-14-162 137-14-163 137-14-109137-14-108 137-14-107 137-14-106 137-14-105 137-14-104 137-14-103 137-14-102 137-14-129 137-14-155 137-14-142 137-14-136 137-14-176 137-14-141137-14-132 137-14-140137-14-133 137-14-134 137-14-177137-14-135 137-13-074 137-14-048 137-14-026 137-14-027137-14-160 137-14-161 137-14-112 137-13-073 137-14-170 137-13-072 137-13-070 137-14-171 137-13-071 137-14-154 137-14-139 137-19-055 137-19-056 137-19-059137-19-060137-19-062 137-19-061 137-20-010 137-20-009137-20-006 137-20-007 137-20-008137-20-005 137-20-011 137-20-012137-20-013137-20-014137-20-015137-20-016137-20-017137-20-018137-20-019 137-20-027 137-20-028 137-20-029 137-20-030 137-20-031 137-20-035137-20-034137-20-033 137-20-039137-20-040 137-20-038 137-20-061 137-27-056 137-27-057 137-27-058 137-27-059 137-27-060 137-27-065 137-27-064 137-27-063 137-27-062 137-27-061 137-27-067 137-27-066 137-27-046 137-27-038137-27-039137-27-040 137-27-044 137-27-042 137-27-041 137-27-043 137-26-013 137-26-012 137-26-011137-26-010 137-26-038 137-26-113 137-26-115137-26-116 137-26-032 137-20-032 137-20-036 137-19-057 137-19-046 137-20-057 137-19-058 137-19-045 137-21-034 137-21-033 137-21-004 137-21-003 137-21-002 137-21-001 137-20-045 137-20-042137-20-043137-20-044137-20-047 137-20-050 137-20-062137-20-049 137-20-048 137-14-124137-14-123 137-14-122 137-14-146 137-14-145 137-14-144137-14-028 137-13-088 137-13-114 137-13-113 137-13-090 137-13-091 137-13-092137-13-093 137-13-068 137-13-069 137-13-115 137-13-116 137-13-112 137-13-111 137-13-155 137-21-064 137-21-062 137-21-063 137-21-065 137-21-066 137-21-067 137-21-068 137-21-069 137-21-070 137-21-083 137-21-084 137-21-085 137-21-086 137-21-087 137-21-088 137-21-041 137-21-042 137-21-054 137-21-061137-21-035 137-21-036 137-21-059 137-21-060 137-21-058 137-21-040 137-21-039 137-21-038 137-21-037 137-21-057 137-21-056 137-21-055 137-21-046 137-21-045 137-21-044 137-21-043 137-21-053 137-21-052 137-21-051 137-21-050137-21-023 137-21-022 137-21-010 137-21-011 137-21-009 137-21-027 137-21-007 137-21-028 137-21-008 137-21-024 137-21-025 137-21-026 137-21-006 137-21-029 137-21-032 137-21-031 137-21-030137-21-005 137-20-041 137-22-001 137-22-002 137-20-052 137-20-053 137-20-054 137-20-055 137-20-056 137-13-109 137-21-048137-21-047 137-13-154 137-27-075 137-27-082 137-27-074 137-27-073 137-28-037 137-27-114 137-27-071 137-28-036 137-28-001 137-28-028137-28-029 137-28-030137-28-031137-28-032137-28-033137-28-034 137-28-035 137-28-049 137-28-048 137-28-047137-28-046137-28-045 137-28-044 137-28-043 137-28-042 137-28-041 137-28-040 137-28-039 137-28-038 137-29-022137-29-021137-29-020 137-29-023 137-29-019 142-17-035 142-17-032 137-27-070 137-27-069 137-27-068 137-27-076 137-27-077 137-19-037137-19-036 137-19-044 137-19-072 137-19-069 137-19-043 137-19-071 137-19-029137-19-028 137-29-001 137-28-027 137-28-026 137-28-025 137-28-024 137-28-023 137-28-022 137-28-021 137-28-020 137-28-014 137-28-013 137-28-012 137-28-011 137-28-010 137-28-009 137-28-008137-28-007 137-28-004 137-28-003 137-27-094 137-27-093 137-27-092 137-27-107 137-27-106 137-27-105 137-27-104137-27-091 137-27-111 137-27-110 137-27-109 137-27-108 137-27-090 137-29-002 137-29-003 137-29-004 137-29-005 137-29-006 137-29-007 137-29-008 137-29-009 137-29-010 137-29-051 137-29-053 137-29-028 137-29-027 137-29-047 137-29-046 137-29-045 137-29-044 137-29-043 137-29-042 137-29-036 137-29-037 137-29-035 137-29-034 137-29-033137-29-032137-29-031 137-29-030 137-29-029 137-29-041 137-29-040 137-29-039 137-29-038 137-28-050 137-28-002 137-27-133 137-27-087 137-27-084 137-27-132 137-27-126 137-27-027 137-27-026 137-27-025 137-27-112 137-27-113 137-27-083 137-27-089 137-27-081 137-27-078 137-27-049 137-27-050137-27-051 137-27-055 137-27-054 137-27-085 137-27-086 137-27-115 137-27-079 137-27-080 137-27-103 137-27-102 137-27-101 137-27-100 137-27-099 137-27-097 137-27-096 137-27-095 137-27-098 137-27-021 137-27-022 137-27-020 137-27-019 137-28-015 137-28-016 137-28-017 137-28-018137-28-019 167-05-021 167-05-022 167-05-025 167-05-026 167-04-014 167-04-013 167-05-020 137-27-053 137-27-052 137-27-047 137-27-117 137-27-037 137-27-024 137-27-023 137-27-130 137-27-016137-27-015 137-27-014 137-27-013 137-27-127 137-27-033 137-27-034 137-27-120 137-27-036 137-27-121 137-26-045 137-26-096 137-26-044 137-26-111 137-26-110 137-26-082 137-26-083 137-26-040137-26-039 137-26-035 137-26-034 137-27-032 137-27-116 137-27-031 137-27-012 137-27-011 137-27-045 137-27-088 137-27-017 137-27-010 137-26-043 137-27-009 167-05-024 167-05-023 167-05-031 167-05-028 167-05-003 167-05-030 167-05-007 167-05-008 167-05-009 167-05-010 167-05-006 167-05-011 167-05-012 167-05-013 167-05-014 167-05-015 167-05-016 167-05-018 167-05-017 167-06-008 167-06-007 167-06-006 167-06-005 167-06-004 167-06-003 167-06-002 167-06-001 167-06-049167-06-038 167-06-039 167-06-040 167-06-044 167-06-045 167-06-048 167-06-047167-06-046 167-06-062 167-06-052 167-06-053 167-06-054 167-06-055 167-06-057 167-06-056 167-05-005 167-06-059 167-06-058 137-27-131 137-27-004 137-27-008 137-27-007 137-27-006 137-27-005 137-26-069 137-26-066 137-26-068 137-26-065 137-26-063 137-26-062 137-26-061 137-26-059137-26-060 137-26-064 137-26-049 137-26-050 137-26-051 137-26-052 137-26-053 137-26-048137-26-046 137-26-090137-26-103 137-26-106 137-26-107 137-26-108 137-26-109 137-26-104 167-06-026 167-06-027 167-06-012 167-06-013 167-06-060 167-06-061 167-06-009167-06-010167-06-011 167-06-016 137-27-118 137-27-003 137-27-119 137-26-097137-26-102 137-26-091 137-26-105 167-06-041 167-06-042 167-06-043 167-06-037 167-06-028 167-06-029 167-06-030 167-06-031 167-06-025 167-06-024 167-06-035167-06-034167-06-033167-06-032 167-07-029 167-07-030 167-07-031 167-07-008 167-07-007 167-07-006 167-07-005 167-07-004 167-07-003 167-07-002 167-07-001 167-06-036 167-06-020 167-06-019 167-06-018 167-06-017 167-06-022 167-06-023 167-06-021 167-07-064 167-07-065 167-07-066 167-07-067 167-07-068 167-07-069 167-07-039 167-07-038 167-07-040167-07-041167-07-042167-07-043167-07-044167-07-045167-07-046167-07-047167-07-061 167-07-015 167-07-016 167-07-018 167-07-019 167-07-020 167-07-021 167-07-022 167-07-023 167-07-024 167-07-025 167-07-026 167-07-027 167-07-028 167-07-017 167-07-032 167-07-033 167-07-034 167-07-035 167-07-092 167-07-085167-07-084 167-07-087 167-07-086 167-07-073167-07-074167-07-075 167-07-093 167-07-094 167-07-095 167-07-097 167-07-096 167-07-098 167-07-099167-07-072 167-07-014 167-07-012 167-07-011 167-07-010 167-07-009 167-08-001 167-07-013 137-26-018 137-26-020 137-26-019 137-26-017 137-26-016 137-26-015 137-26-014 137-26-022 137-26-023 137-26-024 137-26-028 137-26-027137-26-026 137-26-025 137-26-029 137-26-030 137-26-001137-26-002137-26-003137-26-004 137-26-008 137-26-007 137-26-006 137-26-005 137-26-009 137-26-036 137-25-088 137-25-063 137-25-065 137-25-066 137-25-067 137-26-033 137-26-031 137-26-080 137-26-021 137-25-068 137-21-071 137-21-072 137-21-080 137-21-081 137-21-082 137-22-005 137-22-004 137-22-003 137-25-062 137-22-049 137-21-073 137-21-078 137-21-079 137-22-048 137-22-047 137-22-046 137-22-061137-22-060137-22-059137-22-058137-22-057 137-22-051 137-22-050 137-22-030 137-22-018 137-22-017 137-22-016 137-22-015 137-22-014 137-22-013 137-22-012 137-22-011 137-22-010 137-22-009 137-22-008 137-22-007 137-22-006 137-25-064 137-25-072137-25-073137-25-074137-25-075 137-25-076 137-25-077 137-25-046 137-25-048 137-25-047 137-25-049 137-25-050 137-25-056 137-25-061 137-25-060 137-25-059 137-25-058 137-25-057 137-25-055 137-25-053 137-25-052 137-25-051 137-25-054 137-21-074 137-21-077 137-21-075 137-21-076 167-07-063 167-07-048 167-07-060 167-07-049 167-07-050 167-07-051 167-07-059 167-07-058167-07-091 167-07-057 167-07-056 167-07-055 167-07-054167-07-089 167-07-082167-07-081167-07-080 167-07-079 167-07-083167-07-078 167-07-076167-07-077 167-08-030 167-08-036 167-08-032 167-08-031167-08-038 167-08-007 167-08-006 167-08-005 167-08-004 167-08-003 167-08-002 137-25-106 137-25-109 167-07-062 137-22-022 137-22-021 137-22-020 137-22-019 137-25-085 137-25-086 137-25-087 137-25-084137-25-069 137-25-078 137-25-079 137-25-080 137-25-081 137-25-082 137-25-083 137-25-044 137-25-043 137-25-042 137-25-041 137-25-040 137-25-039 137-25-038 137-25-125137-25-124137-25-123137-25-122 137-25-120 137-25-119 137-25-118 137-25-117 137-25-090 137-25-045 137-25-029 137-25-030 137-25-031 137-25-108 137-25-070137-25-071 137-25-110 137-25-112 137-25-098 137-25-099137-25-018 137-25-017 137-25-100 137-25-096 137-25-095137-25-094137-25-008 137-25-007 137-25-006 137-25-005137-25-034 137-25-033 137-25-032 137-25-010 137-25-011 137-25-012 137-25-013 137-25-014 137-25-015 137-25-016 137-25-114137-25-113 167-08-011 167-08-028167-08-035 167-08-039 167-08-040 167-08-037 167-08-010 137-25-093 137-25-127 137-25-126 137-24-015 137-24-029 137-24-019 137-24-022 137-24-035137-24-036137-24-037 137-24-038 137-24-039137-24-040137-24-041137-24-042 132-46-068 132-46-069 132-46-070 132-46-072 132-46-065 132-46-066 132-46-022 132-46-021132-46-020 148-01-001 132-62-051 132-46-119132-46-120 132-61-001132-61-002 132-61-003132-61-004132-61-005 132-61-006132-61-007132-61-008 137-14-118 137-16-031 137-14-091 137-14-093 137-14-090 137-15-022 137-15-025 137-15-029 137-15-028 137-15-027 137-15-026 137-15-021 137-14-094 137-14-095 137-14-096 137-14-097 137-14-087 137-14-089137-15-001 137-15-005 137-14-175137-14-174 137-15-066 137-15-065137-15-064137-15-063 137-15-045 137-15-067 137-13-132 137-13-131 137-15-035 137-13-118 137-13-117 137-13-020 137-13-019 137-15-023 137-15-024 137-15-034 137-15-033 137-15-032 137-15-031 137-15-030 137-13-022 137-13-023 137-13-024 137-13-026 137-10-036137-10-033 137-10-034 137-10-035 137-13-025 137-13-078 137-13-075 137-13-017 137-13-016 137-13-015 137-13-014 137-13-013 137-13-012 137-13-011 137-13-010137-13-032 137-13-029 137-13-030 137-13-031 137-13-028137-13-027 137-13-076 137-13-077 137-13-137 137-13-138 137-09-029 137-09-032 137-09-062 137-09-061137-09-033 137-09-034 137-09-060137-09-035 137-09-059 137-09-036 137-09-058 137-09-057 137-09-056 137-10-029 137-10-007 137-10-006 137-10-005 137-09-030 137-09-031 137-09-028 137-15-053 137-15-054 137-15-055 137-15-056 137-15-057 137-15-058 137-15-052 137-15-075 137-15-051 137-15-040 137-15-050 137-15-041 137-15-049 137-15-042 137-15-069 137-15-070137-15-072 137-10-002 137-15-068 137-15-073 137-15-074 137-15-044137-15-047 137-15-046 137-15-059 137-15-060 137-15-061 137-15-062 137-10-120 137-10-121 137-10-003 137-10-073 137-10-072 137-10-037 137-10-038 137-10-039 137-10-040 137-10-032137-10-031137-10-030 137-10-028 137-10-027 137-10-026 137-10-025 137-10-024 137-10-023 137-10-022 137-10-010 137-10-009 137-10-008 137-10-125 137-10-011 137-10-013 137-09-017 137-09-016 137-10-019 137-10-020 137-10-021 137-09-018 137-09-019 137-09-020 137-09-021 137-09-022 137-09-024 137-09-023 137-09-069 137-09-071 137-09-068 137-09-063 137-09-064 137-09-053 137-09-054 137-09-055137-09-039 137-09-038 137-09-037137-09-073 137-09-074 137-09-027 137-10-015 137-10-016 137-09-044 137-09-043 137-09-042 137-09-065 137-09-041 137-09-040 137-09-048 137-09-049 137-09-050 137-10-014 137-10-128 137-13-038 137-13-037 137-10-041 137-10-042 137-10-067 137-10-068 137-10-069 137-10-070 137-10-071 137-10-081 137-10-080 137-10-079 137-10-078 137-10-077 137-10-076 137-10-075 137-10-074 137-10-093 137-10-092 137-10-091 137-10-090 137-10-089 137-10-088 137-10-087 137-13-130 137-12-022 137-13-129 137-13-128 137-13-001 137-13-042 137-13-143137-13-142 137-13-040137-13-039 137-13-151137-13-150 137-13-141 137-13-140 137-13-033137-13-034137-13-035137-13-036 137-13-007 137-13-008 137-13-009 137-10-086 137-10-085 137-10-059 137-10-122 137-10-058 137-10-051 137-10-052 137-10-054 137-10-130 137-10-113137-09-004 137-10-062 137-10-114 137-10-126 137-10-048 137-10-047 137-10-045 137-10-046 137-10-063 137-10-064 137-10-065 137-10-044 137-10-043 137-10-066 137-10-094 137-10-129 137-10-127 137-10-123 137-10-124 137-08-101137-08-049137-08-050 137-12-024 137-12-025 137-10-083 137-10-082 137-12-029 137-12-028 137-12-027 137-12-026 137-12-023 137-12-032 137-08-074 137-08-044 137-08-045 137-08-073 137-10-100 137-10-099 137-10-098 137-10-097 137-10-096 137-10-133 137-10-112 137-10-110 137-10-108 137-10-107 137-10-134 137-10-101 137-10-102 137-10-103 137-10-104 137-10-105 137-10-084 137-08-076 137-10-109 137-13-006 137-13-080 137-13-079 137-13-052 137-13-053 137-13-054 137-13-055 137-13-056 137-13-082 137-13-084 137-13-083 137-13-051 137-13-050 137-13-049 137-13-086 137-13-085 137-13-048 137-13-047 137-13-157 137-13-063137-13-147 137-13-149137-13-148 137-13-065 137-13-044 137-13-045 137-13-046 137-13-081 137-13-066 137-13-067 137-21-012 137-21-013 137-21-014 137-21-021 137-21-020 137-21-019 137-21-018137-21-017 137-21-016 137-21-015 137-22-053 137-22-073 137-22-074 137-22-075 137-13-095 137-13-096 137-13-106 137-13-105 137-13-097 137-13-098137-13-061 137-13-060 137-13-059 137-12-010 137-12-074 137-12-073 137-12-008 137-12-006 137-12-068 137-12-003 137-12-004 137-12-002 137-13-058 137-13-144137-13-135 137-13-133137-13-099 137-13-103137-13-102 137-12-001 137-13-094 137-13-153 137-13-152 137-13-107 137-12-069 137-13-057 137-12-036 137-12-037 137-12-038 137-12-039 137-12-040 137-12-033 137-12-035137-12-034 137-11-025 137-11-024 137-11-023 137-11-022 137-11-021 137-11-026 137-13-005 137-12-021137-12-020 137-12-019 137-12-018 137-12-017 137-12-016 137-12-015 137-12-014 137-12-011137-12-012137-12-013 137-13-003 137-13-004 137-13-087 137-12-030 137-12-031 137-11-030137-11-031 137-11-020137-11-029 137-11-027 137-08-042 137-08-043 137-11-049 137-11-048 137-11-014137-11-008137-11-007 137-11-009 137-11-010137-11-011 137-11-012 137-11-013 137-11-005 137-11-004 137-11-003 137-11-002 137-11-001 137-11-032 137-11-033 137-11-034 137-11-006 137-11-028 137-11-084137-11-087137-11-083137-11-082137-11-081137-11-077 137-11-095137-11-094 137-11-089137-11-075 137-11-016 137-11-042 137-11-039 137-11-044137-11-046 137-11-045137-11-047 137-11-019 137-12-061 137-12-062 137-12-063 137-12-064 137-12-065 137-12-066 137-12-067 137-11-040 137-12-076 137-12-055 137-12-056 137-12-057 137-12-058 137-12-059137-12-060 137-12-041 137-12-051 137-12-050 137-12-049 137-12-048 137-12-077 137-12-052137-12-075 137-11-043 137-11-097 137-11-096 137-12-044 137-11-038 137-11-099 137-11-100 137-12-071 137-12-042 137-12-043 137-12-072142-20-098 137-09-015 137-09-014 137-09-013 137-09-012 137-09-011 137-09-067 137-09-066 137-09-001137-09-002137-09-009 137-09-008 137-09-007 137-09-006 137-10-053 137-08-085 137-08-053 137-08-054 137-09-003 137-08-095137-08-096 137-09-072 137-09-005 137-10-018 137-08-014 137-08-013 137-08-064 137-08-010 137-08-052 137-08-089 137-08-029 137-08-077 137-08-070 137-08-069 137-08-081 137-08-090 132-38-042 132-38-067 132-38-047 132-38-017 132-38-018 132-38-022 132-38-019132-38-020132-38-021 132-39-090 132-39-059 132-39-074 132-39-005 132-39-071 132-39-088 137-08-058 137-08-059 137-08-060 137-08-055 137-08-062 142-20-055 142-20-054 142-20-046 137-08-057 137-08-086 137-08-061 132-39-017 132-39-018 132-38-056 142-20-035142-20-079 132-39-087 142-20-037 132-39-080 137-08-084 137-08-006 132-40-019 132-40-056 132-40-060 132-40-063132-39-078132-39-077132-39-079 137-08-007 137-08-080137-08-079 137-08-016 137-08-092 137-08-091 132-39-055 137-08-083 132-40-061 137-08-072 137-08-088 132-33-038 132-33-037 132-33-056132-33-039 132-33-051 132-33-052 132-33-031 132-33-034 132-39-083 132-39-049 132-39-048 132-39-047 132-39-043 132-39-042 132-39-041 132-39-040 132-39-039 132-39-038 132-39-037 132-39-035 132-39-036 132-39-050 132-39-051 132-39-052 132-39-053132-39-034 132-39-033 132-39-031 132-39-024 132-39-025 132-39-026 132-39-081132-39-082 132-39-084 132-39-030 132-33-055132-33-057 132-33-032 132-39-054 132-39-065 132-33-033 132-39-075 132-39-032 137-08-078 137-08-031 137-08-030 137-08-033 137-08-032 137-11-078 137-11-051137-11-052137-11-053 137-08-041 137-08-040 137-08-039 137-08-038 137-08-037 137-08-097 132-41-089 132-41-072 132-41-027 132-41-091132-41-025 132-41-096 132-41-048 132-41-028 132-35-045 132-41-020 132-41-083 137-11-074137-11-098137-11-079137-11-093 137-11-050 132-41-088132-41-085 132-41-084 137-11-015 137-11-041 132-40-046 132-40-047 132-40-048 132-40-049 132-40-005 132-40-006 132-40-007 132-40-008 132-40-009 132-40-010 132-40-011 132-40-012 132-40-023 132-40-058 132-40-045 132-40-044 132-40-038 132-40-039 132-40-022 132-40-021 132-40-020 132-40-062132-40-059 132-40-037132-40-036 132-40-035 132-40-050 132-40-051 132-40-052 132-40-028 132-40-001 132-40-002 132-40-003 132-40-004 132-40-024 132-40-025 132-40-026 132-34-032 132-34-036 132-34-035 132-34-034 132-34-033132-34-010 132-34-009 132-34-008 132-34-007132-34-006132-34-005132-34-004 132-34-016 132-34-015 132-34-014 132-34-013 132-34-012 132-34-011 132-39-046 132-39-044 132-39-045 132-40-027 132-40-029132-40-055 132-35-019 132-41-019132-35-026 132-35-025 132-35-024 132-41-016 132-41-097 132-41-029132-41-078 132-41-011 132-41-010 132-41-009 132-41-070 132-35-027 132-35-028 132-35-029 132-35-030 132-35-031 132-35-032 132-35-033 132-35-048 132-35-049132-35-035 132-35-036 132-35-037 132-40-034 132-40-033 132-40-032 132-40-031 132-40-030 132-40-053 132-40-054 132-34-047132-34-048132-34-049132-34-050132-34-051 132-34-023 132-34-024 132-34-031 132-34-030 132-34-029 132-34-028 132-34-027 132-34-026 132-34-025 132-34-022132-34-021 132-34-040 132-34-039 132-34-038 132-34-037 132-34-046 132-34-045 132-34-044 132-34-043 132-34-042 132-34-041 132-35-008 132-35-012 132-35-013 132-35-014 132-35-015 132-35-016 132-35-017 132-35-007 132-35-006 132-35-005 132-35-004 132-35-003 132-35-002 132-35-018 132-35-020 132-35-001 132-35-009 132-35-043 132-35-038 132-35-039132-35-040 132-35-041 132-35-042 132-35-010 132-35-011 132-41-007 137-22-056137-22-055137-22-054 137-22-052 137-22-037137-22-072 137-22-071 137-22-069 137-22-070 137-21-049 137-22-023 137-22-045 137-22-032 137-22-031 137-32-011137-32-010 137-32-009 137-32-008137-32-007 137-32-006137-32-005137-32-004137-32-003137-32-002137-32-001 137-32-022 137-32-021 137-32-020137-32-019 137-32-018137-32-017137-32-016 137-32-015137-32-014137-32-013 137-32-012 137-32-033137-32-032137-32-031 137-32-030 137-32-029 137-32-028137-32-027137-32-026137-32-025137-32-024 137-32-023 137-32-065137-32-064137-32-063137-32-062137-32-061137-32-060 137-32-059137-32-058137-32-057 137-32-055137-32-054 137-32-053137-32-052 137-32-051137-32-050137-32-049137-32-048 137-32-047137-32-046137-32-045137-32-044137-32-043137-32-042137-32-041137-32-040 137-32-039 137-32-038137-32-037137-32-036 137-32-035137-32-034 137-32-056 137-31-004137-31-005 137-31-017137-31-016 137-31-015137-31-014 137-31-006137-31-007 137-31-009137-31-010137-31-011137-31-018 137-31-019 137-22-033137-22-034137-22-035137-22-036 137-22-044137-22-043137-22-042137-22-041137-22-040137-22-039137-22-038 137-22-062137-22-064137-22-065137-22-067 137-22-066 137-22-063 137-22-028137-22-029 137-31-026137-31-025 137-31-013137-31-012 137-31-001137-31-002137-31-008 137-31-024137-31-023137-31-022137-31-021 137-31-020 137-22-027 137-22-026 137-22-025 137-22-024 137-23-066137-23-067 137-23-065137-23-064 137-23-063 137-23-056 137-23-057 137-23-058137-23-059137-23-060137-23-061 137-23-062 137-23-049 137-23-050137-23-051 137-23-052137-23-053137-23-055 137-23-054 137-23-048 137-22-068137-22-078 137-22-077 137-22-076 132-42-069 137-11-091 137-23-073 137-11-071 137-11-080137-11-085 137-23-047 137-23-042137-23-043137-23-044137-23-045137-23-046 132-42-074 132-42-067132-42-070132-42-068 137-23-068 137-23-072 137-23-039 137-23-035137-23-036137-23-037137-23-038 137-23-071137-23-069137-23-070137-23-040137-23-041 132-43-164 132-43-163 132-43-162132-43-161 132-43-160 132-43-159132-43-158 132-43-157132-43-156 132-43-120 132-43-149 132-46-107 137-23-022 137-23-025 132-43-177 132-43-052 132-43-051 132-43-165132-43-166 132-43-167132-43-168132-43-169132-43-170 132-43-171132-43-172 132-43-173132-43-174 132-46-109 137-24-034 132-46-102 132-46-063 132-46-025 132-46-024 132-46-015 132-46-018 132-46-016132-46-011 132-46-013 132-46-014 132-46-077 132-46-019 132-46-010 132-46-009 132-46-006 132-46-007 132-46-008 132-46-005 132-46-004 132-46-079 132-46-078 132-46-026 132-45-049 132-60-027132-60-026132-60-025132-60-024132-60-023132-60-022 132-60-021132-60-020132-60-019132-60-018 132-60-017132-60-016132-60-015132-60-014132-60-013132-60-012132-60-011132-60-010132-60-009132-60-008132-60-007132-60-006132-60-005132-60-004132-60-003132-60-002132-60-001 132-60-028132-60-029 132-60-030132-60-031 132-60-032132-60-033 132-60-034132-60-035 132-60-036132-60-037132-60-038132-60-039132-60-040132-60-041132-60-042132-60-043132-60-044132-60-045132-60-046132-60-047132-60-048 132-60-049132-60-050132-60-051132-60-052132-60-053132-60-054 132-62-001132-62-002132-62-003132-62-004132-62-005132-62-006132-62-007132-62-009132-62-010 132-62-020 132-62-050132-62-049132-62-048 132-62-047132-62-046132-62-045 132-62-044132-62-043132-62-042 132-62-041 132-62-040132-62-039 132-62-038132-62-037132-62-036132-62-035132-62-034132-62-033 132-62-032132-62-031132-62-030132-62-029 132-62-028132-62-027 132-62-026132-62-025 132-62-024132-62-023132-62-022132-62-021 132-62-019 132-62-018132-62-017132-62-016132-62-015 132-62-008 132-62-014132-62-013 132-62-012132-62-011 132-46-115 132-46-116 132-46-100 132-44-100 132-46-105 132-46-090 132-46-103 132-44-010132-44-012 132-44-022132-43-153 132-46-104 132-46-106 132-44-090 132-53-011132-53-010132-53-009132-53-008132-53-007 132-53-006132-53-005132-53-004132-53-003132-53-002132-53-001 132-43-062 132-43-121 132-43-175 132-43-176 132-43-146 132-43-103 132-43-102 132-43-114132-43-101 132-43-100 132-43-061 132-43-105 132-43-104132-43-106 132-43-143 132-43-111132-43-110132-43-116132-43-109132-43-108132-43-115 132-43-118 132-43-112 132-43-117 132-43-060 132-43-054 132-43-055 132-43-056132-43-057 132-43-058 132-43-059 132-43-050 132-43-041 132-43-039132-43-040 132-43-063 132-43-064132-43-065 132-43-066 132-43-142 132-44-096 132-44-099 132-44-061 132-44-060 132-44-059 132-44-093 132-46-082 132-46-081 132-46-080 132-44-109132-44-108 132-44-081 132-44-083 132-44-082132-44-088 132-46-012 132-46-003 132-46-002132-46-001 132-44-084 132-44-076 132-44-077132-44-078132-44-079 132-44-075 132-44-080 132-45-029 132-45-028 132-45-027 132-45-026 132-45-045 132-45-044 132-45-046132-45-047132-45-048132-45-025 132-45-022 132-45-021 132-45-020 132-45-019 132-45-018 132-45-017 132-45-016 132-45-023132-45-024 132-44-073 132-44-072 132-44-071 132-44-070 132-44-069 132-44-086132-44-066 132-44-065 132-44-064 132-44-087 132-44-043 132-44-044 132-44-047 132-44-048 132-44-046 132-44-045 132-44-049 132-44-057 132-44-058 132-44-052 132-44-053 132-44-054 132-44-056 132-44-055 132-44-029132-44-030132-44-031132-44-041 132-44-032132-44-033132-44-034132-44-035132-44-036132-44-037132-44-038132-44-039132-44-040 132-43-038 132-43-032 132-43-033 132-43-037 132-43-036 132-43-035 132-43-034 132-44-068132-44-074 132-44-085 132-43-125 132-44-050 132-44-051 132-44-067 132-42-011132-42-010132-42-009 132-42-006 132-42-073 132-42-072 132-42-082 132-41-042 132-41-043 132-41-067 132-41-058132-41-060 132-41-061 132-41-059 132-41-086 132-41-031 132-41-030 132-41-047 132-52-016132-52-015 132-52-014132-52-013132-52-012132-52-011 132-52-010132-52-009 132-52-001132-52-002132-52-003132-52-004132-52-005132-52-006132-52-007132-52-008 132-41-069 132-59-002132-59-001132-59-005132-59-003132-59-004 132-41-005 132-41-073 132-41-092132-41-093132-41-003132-41-002 132-41-036 132-41-076132-41-001 132-41-032 132-41-074 132-41-064 132-41-068 132-42-032 132-42-020 132-42-018132-42-019 132-42-017 132-42-016 132-42-015 132-42-013132-42-012 132-43-022 132-43-021132-43-020 132-43-019 132-43-018 132-43-048 132-43-049 132-43-047 132-42-058 132-43-016132-42-080 132-42-051 132-42-052 132-42-081 132-43-017 132-43-123 132-43-124 132-43-042132-43-043 132-43-031132-43-030 132-43-001 132-43-024 132-43-023 132-43-044132-43-045 132-43-029132-43-028132-43-027132-43-026132-43-025 132-43-130 132-43-128 132-43-012 132-43-002132-43-003132-43-004132-43-005132-43-006132-43-007132-43-008132-43-009132-43-010132-43-011 132-42-021 132-42-079132-42-040 132-42-039 132-42-038132-42-049132-42-048132-42-050132-42-057132-42-065 132-42-031132-42-030132-42-029132-42-028132-42-025 132-42-024 132-42-027132-42-026 132-41-077 132-42-054 132-43-131 132-37-024 132-37-072 132-37-049 132-37-048 132-37-046 132-37-045 132-37-044 132-37-053 132-37-042 132-38-069 132-38-065 132-38-062 132-38-068 132-38-045 132-38-046 132-32-047 132-32-026 132-32-027 132-32-037132-32-025 132-32-024 132-32-043 132-37-055 132-37-057132-37-054132-37-047 132-38-059 132-38-055 132-38-011 132-33-050 132-33-028 132-33-030 132-33-041 132-33-029 132-34-017 132-34-018 132-34-019 132-38-040 132-33-042 132-38-058 132-38-041 132-38-013 132-38-057 132-38-048 132-38-043 132-38-060 132-38-061 132-26-073132-26-074 132-33-008 132-33-007 132-33-006 132-33-005132-33-004 132-33-003 132-33-002132-33-001132-33-024 132-33-023 132-33-022 132-33-021 132-33-020 132-33-019 132-33-018 132-33-017 132-33-059 132-33-026 132-33-027 132-33-044 132-33-045 132-33-046132-33-047 132-33-048 132-33-049 132-34-064132-26-064132-26-065132-26-072132-26-075132-26-052 132-33-043 132-26-071 132-37-064 132-32-054 132-32-034 132-32-033 132-32-032 132-32-031 132-32-035 132-32-029 132-32-030 132-32-028 132-32-036 132-31-078 132-32-042 132-32-053 132-26-076 132-26-079 132-26-078 132-34-020 132-34-001 132-34-002 132-34-003 132-34-062 132-34-061 132-34-059132-34-060 132-34-058 132-34-057 132-34-055132-34-056 132-34-054 132-34-053 132-34-052132-34-063 132-31-071 132-31-042 142-20-008 142-20-009 142-20-010 142-20-057 124-33-066 142-20-011 142-20-048142-20-100 132-36-068 132-36-077 124-33-056 124-33-047 124-33-046 124-33-065 124-33-043 124-33-035 124-33-036124-33-042 124-33-037 124-33-067 124-33-005 124-33-007 124-33-008 124-33-006-025 132-50-012132-50-011132-50-010 132-50-009 132-50-008 132-50-007 132-50-006132-50-005 132-50-004 132-50-003132-50-002 132-50-001132-51-001 132-51-013132-51-014132-51-015 132-51-016 132-51-017132-51-018 132-51-019132-51-020 132-51-021132-51-022 132-51-023 132-51-024 132-51-012132-51-011 132-51-010 132-51-009132-51-008 132-51-007132-51-006132-51-005 132-51-004 132-51-003132-51-002 132-37-019 132-37-018 132-37-017 132-37-016 132-37-004 132-37-003 132-37-005 132-37-006 132-37-007 132-37-008 132-37-015 132-37-067 132-37-009 132-37-041 132-37-040 132-37-039 132-37-038 132-37-034 132-37-029 132-37-028 132-37-027 132-37-026132-37-037 132-37-036 132-37-035 132-37-025 132-37-030132-37-052132-37-033132-36-087 132-36-084132-36-031 132-37-056 142-20-080 132-37-063132-37-062132-37-061132-37-060 132-37-059132-37-058 132-36-081 132-36-092 132-36-024 124-33-064 132-54-015 132-54-016132-54-017132-54-018132-54-019132-54-020 132-54-021132-54-022132-54-023132-54-024132-54-025132-54-026132-54-027 132-54-028132-54-029 132-54-030132-54-031132-54-032132-54-033 132-54-014 132-54-013132-54-012132-54-011132-54-010 132-54-009132-54-008132-54-007 132-54-006132-54-005 132-54-001 132-54-002 132-54-003132-54-004132-54-034 132-54-035132-54-036132-54-037132-54-038132-54-039 132-54-040132-54-041 132-54-042132-54-043 132-54-044 132-54-045132-54-046132-54-047132-54-048 132-54-049132-54-050132-54-051132-54-052132-54-053 132-54-054132-54-055 132-36-075 132-36-094 132-36-093 132-36-015 132-36-131 132-36-025 124-33-059 124-33-055 124-36-036 124-36-037124-36-038 124-36-039124-36-040 124-36-017 124-36-018124-36-019124-36-020124-36-021124-36-022 124-29-008 124-29-017 132-31-072 132-31-081 132-31-065 132-31-074 124-36-035124-36-034124-36-033 124-36-032 124-36-031124-36-030124-36-029124-36-028 124-36-027124-36-026 124-36-025124-36-024124-36-023 124-36-016 124-36-015124-36-014124-36-013124-36-012124-36-001 124-36-002124-36-003124-36-004 124-36-005 124-36-011124-36-010124-36-009124-36-008 124-36-007 124-36-006 15-37-016 124-29-013 124-29-012 124-29-011 124-29-020 132-31-005 124-29-023 124-29-025 132-31-079 148-10-022 148-10-021 148-10-020148-10-019148-10-018 148-09-019 148-09-020 148-09-021148-09-022 148-09-023 148-09-027 148-09-010 148-09-011 148-08-042148-08-041148-08-040148-08-039148-08-038 148-08-037148-08-036148-08-035148-08-034 148-08-033 148-08-032148-08-031148-08-030148-08-029148-08-028148-08-027148-08-026148-08-025148-08-024148-08-023148-08-022148-08-021148-08-020148-08-019 148-08-018 148-08-017148-08-016148-08-015148-08-014148-08-013148-08-012148-08-011148-08-010148-08-009148-08-008148-08-007148-08-006148-08-005148-08-004 148-08-003148-08-002148-08-001 148-01-016 148-01-006 167-08-042 167-08-043 148-05-001 148-05-014 148-05-042 148-05-032 148-05-033 148-05-034 148-05-035 148-05-036 148-05-024 148-09-016 148-05-037 148-05-025 148-05-015148-05-016 148-05-017 148-05-018148-05-019 148-05-002 148-05-003 148-05-004 148-05-005 148-05-007 148-05-006 148-05-028 148-05-027 148-05-026 148-09-014 148-10-015 148-05-039 148-05-038 148-10-017148-10-016 148-09-017 148-09-018 148-06-035 148-06-020 148-06-021 148-06-023 148-06-019 148-02-057 148-01-015 148-01-010 148-01-011 148-01-012 148-01-014 148-01-013 148-05-009 148-05-023 148-05-020 148-05-021 148-05-022 148-05-008 148-05-010 148-05-011 148-05-013 148-05-012 148-05-029 148-06-039148-06-038 148-06-037 148-06-040 148-06-036 148-06-024 148-12-023 148-12-024 148-12-026 148-12-025 148-12-027 148-10-001148-10-002148-10-003148-10-004148-10-005148-10-006 148-10-026 148-10-024 148-10-025148-05-041 148-05-040 148-10-008 148-10-009 148-10-010 148-10-011 148-10-012 148-10-013148-10-014 148-12-022148-12-021 148-10-023 148-10-007 148-12-029 148-06-002 148-06-004 148-06-003 148-06-005 148-06-008 148-06-007 148-06-006 148-06-009 148-06-010 148-06-011 148-06-012 148-06-013 148-06-014 148-06-015 148-12-015 148-12-014148-12-012 148-12-013 148-12-017 148-12-016148-12-018 148-12-020 148-12-019 148-12-005 148-12-004 148-12-003 148-06-016 148-06-017 148-06-018 148-06-001 148-12-028 148-02-099 148-02-098 148-02-001 148-02-100 148-02-101 148-02-071 148-02-092 148-02-096 132-45-083 132-45-082 132-45-081 132-45-084 132-45-080 132-45-079 132-45-078 132-45-077 132-45-076 132-45-055 132-45-054 132-45-053 132-45-052 132-45-051 132-45-050 132-46-023 132-46-064 148-01-005 148-02-097 132-46-067 132-46-017 148-02-095 132-45-059 132-45-058 132-45-057 132-45-056 132-45-038 132-45-039 132-45-040 132-45-041 132-45-037132-45-036132-45-035 132-45-033 132-45-032 132-45-031 132-45-030 132-45-043 132-45-042 148-02-062 148-02-063 148-02-066 148-02-061 148-02-060 148-02-059 148-06-025148-06-032 148-06-031 148-06-030 148-06-029 148-01-009 148-02-102 148-02-067 148-06-041 148-06-033 148-06-034 148-06-022 148-02-069 148-02-068 148-02-056 148-02-051 148-02-050 148-02-049148-02-038 148-02-040 148-02-039 148-02-048 148-02-047 148-02-046 148-02-029 148-02-030 148-02-087 148-02-085 148-02-084 148-02-025 148-02-026 148-02-027 148-02-028 148-02-055 148-02-054 148-02-053 148-02-052148-02-035 148-02-036 148-02-031 148-02-033 148-02-034 148-02-064 148-02-065 148-02-072 148-02-073 148-02-074 148-02-075 148-02-076 148-02-077 148-02-083 148-02-082 148-02-081 148-02-079 148-02-078 148-02-070 148-02-086 148-02-037 148-02-032 148-02-080 148-06-027 148-06-026 148-06-028 148-12-011 148-12-009 148-12-008 148-12-007 148-12-006 148-12-010 148-03-021 148-03-020 148-02-088148-02-089 148-02-091 148-02-090 148-02-094 148-02-093 148-02-002 148-02-003 148-02-004 148-02-005 148-02-006 148-02-007 148-02-008 148-02-009 148-02-024 148-02-023 148-02-021 148-02-022148-02-020148-02-019148-02-018148-02-017148-02-016148-02-015148-02-014148-02-013 148-03-049 148-03-050 148-03-051 148-02-044 148-03-022 148-03-012148-03-011 148-03-023 148-03-024 148-03-025 148-03-026 148-03-027 148-03-028 148-03-029 148-03-030 148-03-031 148-03-032 148-03-052 148-03-053 148-03-059 148-03-058 148-03-057 148-03-056 148-03-055 148-02-045 148-02-041 148-02-042 148-02-043 132-45-087 132-45-088 132-45-086 132-45-074 132-45-075 148-02-012148-02-011148-02-010 148-03-060 148-03-003148-03-002148-03-001148-03-061 148-03-036 148-03-035 148-03-034 148-03-033 148-03-040 148-03-041 148-03-042 148-03-037 148-03-038 148-03-039 148-03-043 148-03-044 148-03-045 148-03-046 148-03-047 148-03-048 132-45-005 132-45-004 132-45-003 132-45-002 132-45-072 148-03-010148-03-009148-03-008148-03-007148-03-006148-03-005148-03-004 148-03-054 148-03-013 148-03-148-03-015 148-03-016 148-03-017 148-03-018 148-03-019132-45-034 132-45-015 132-45-014132-45-013 132-45-006132-45-007132-45-008132-45-009132-45-010132-45-011132-44-028 132-44-027 132-45-012132-44-026 132-44-014 137-07-072 137-07-073 137-07-015 137-07-014 137-07-013137-07-012 137-07-011 137-05-066 142-19-005 137-05-065 137-05-064 137-05-083 137-05-033 142-19-009 142-19-018 142-20-094 142-20-056 142-20-002 142-20-001 142-20-050 142-20-067 142-19-011 142-19-014 142-19-019 142-19-020 142-19-012 142-20-095 137-16-004 137-16-034 142-19-010 142-19-008 142-20-071 142-20-007 142-20-021 142-20-072 142-20-023 142-20-024 142-20-078 142-20-040 142-20-073 142-20-086 142-20-087 137-16-029 137-16-030 137-16-028 137-16-032 142-20-084 142-20-081 142-20-097 142-20-096 167-01-008 167-01-040 167-01-011 167-01-009 167-01-019 167-01-012 167-01-013 167-01-014 167-01-015 167-01-016 167-01-017 167-01-018 167-01-020 167-01-022167-01-023167-01-041 167-49-006 167-49-008 167-49-009 167-49-004167-49-003 167-49-030 167-49-007 167-01-033 167-49-011 167-49-010 167-49-015 167-49-016 167-49-014 167-49-017 167-49-018 167-04-011 167-04-012 167-04-015 167-03-019 167-04-002 167-04-001 142-16-075 142-16-078 142-16-079 142-16-052 142-16-060 142-16-063 142-16-064142-16-065 142-16-058 142-16-061 142-16-059 142-16-066 142-16-054 142-16-053 142-16-057 142-16-062 142-16-087 142-18-042 142-18-029 142-18-030 142-16-069 142-18-034 142-18-032 142-18-009 142-18-022 142-18-033 142-18-035 142-16-047 142-18-044 137-17-004 142-18-041 142-18-027 142-18-026 142-18-040 142-17-016 142-17-020 142-18-038142-18-037 142-18-036 142-18-023 142-18-011 142-18-013 142-18-043 142-18-016 142-18-046 142-17-036 142-17-037 142-17-027 142-18-014 142-17-011 137-17-003 142-18-039 142-17-017 137-16-017 137-16-021 137-16-026 137-16-025 137-16-022 137-16-023 137-16-009 137-16-016 137-16-018 137-16-013 137-16-012 137-16-005 137-16-008 137-16-020 142-18-007 175-20-060 175-20-072 175-20-108 175-20-090 175-20-104 175-20-101 175-20-089 175-20-098 175-02-016 175-02-015 175-02-014175-02-055 175-02-054 175-02-053 175-02-052 175-02-038 175-02-040 175-20-051175-20-095 175-20-105 175-20-106 175-20-107 175-20-069 175-20-053 175-20-031 175-20-054 175-20-092 175-20-097 175-20-096 175-21-077 175-32-009 175-20-052 175-20-063 175-20-103 175-20-059 175-20-091 175-20-010 175-20-078 175-20-077 175-20-076 175-20-081 175-20-082 175-20-083 175-20-045 175-20-080 175-20-087 175-20-042 175-20-061 175-20-085 175-20-084 175-20-075 175-20-074 175-20-073 175-01-004 175-01-005 175-01-082 175-01-003175-20-079 175-01-051 175-01-035 175-20-047 175-20-046 142-17-007 142-17-021 142-17-029 142-17-034 175-20-086 175-01-101 142-16-084 142-16-046 175-02-024 175-02-022 175-02-021 175-02-020 175-02-018 175-02-023 175-02-013 175-02-012 175-02-011 175-02-032 175-01-068 175-01-075 175-01-073 175-01-081175-01-010 175-01-036 175-01-096 175-01-074 175-01-099 175-02-044 175-02-045175-02-046 175-02-047 167-01-042 175-01-009 175-01-085 175-02-048 175-02-043 175-02-034 175-02-037 175-02-041 175-02-039175-02-039 175-02-035 167-01-025 167-01-024 167-01-021 167-49-029 167-49-005 175-02-036 175-02-049 167-01-010 167-03-021 167-49-024 167-49-025 167-49-026 167-49-027 167-49-020 167-49-019 167-49-012 167-49-013 175-02-051 175-02-050 167-49-023 175-01-089 175-01-088 175-01-087 175-01-086 175-01-061 175-01-091 175-01-092 175-01-093 175-01-065 175-01-078 175-01-079 175-01-080175-01-024 175-01-077 175-01-037 175-01-025 175-01-076 175-01-083 175-01-094 175-01-026 175-01-053 175-01-066 137-29-055 167-03-025 167-03-015 167-03-022 167-03-020 167-03-024 137-29-017 137-29-024 175-01-090 137-29-016 124-37-088124-37-089124-37-090124-37-0917-092 124-37-094124-37-096124-37-097124-37-098124-37-099124-37-100 124-37-101124-37-102 124-37-103124-37-104 124-37-105124-37-106124-37-107124-37-108124-37-109124-37-110124-37-111124-37-112124-37-113124-37-114124-37-115 124-37-116124-37-117 124-37-118124-37-119124-37-120 124-37-121124-37-122124-37-123124-37-124124-37-125 124-37-126124-37-127124-37-128124-37-129124-37-130124-37-131124-37-132 124-37-133124-37-134124-37-135124-37-136124-37-137 124-37-138124-37-139124-37-140 124-37-141124-37-142124-37-143124-37-144124-37-145124-37-146 124-37-147 124-37-148 124-37-149124-37-150124-37-151 124-37-152 124-37-153124-37-154124-37-155124-37-156124-37-157124-37-158124-37-159124-37-160124-37-161 132-39-089 132-59-006132-59-008132-59-009132-59-007 137-37-003 137-37-001 137-37-004 137-37-022137-37-021137-37-020137-37-018137-37-017 137-37-019 137-37-023137-37-024137-37-025137-37-026 137-37-007137-37-006137-37-005 137-37-027137-37-028 137-37-030137-37-029 137-37-016137-37-015137-37-014137-37-013137-37-012137-37-011137-37-010 137-37-009137-37-008 142-20-089 142-20-099 142- 2 0 - 0 9 0 142- 2 0 - 0 9 1 142- 2 0 - 0 9 2 142- 2 0 - 0 9 3 142- 1 8 - 0 4 8 148-02-058 148- 0 9 - 0 1 5 167- 0 9 - 0 1 8 167- 0 9 - 0 1 7 167- 0 9 - 0 1 4 167- 0 9 - 0 1 5 167- 0 9 - 0 1 6 167-09-005 167-09-006 167-09-007 167-09-008 167-09-013 167-09-012 167-09-011 167-09-010 167-09-009 167-09-019 137-27-136 137-27-135 137-27-134 137-19-078 137-19-079 137-14-013 175-01-100 167-04-010 137-08-098 137-08-100 137-37-031137-37-032137-37-033137-37-034137-37-035137-37-036137-37-037 137-37-038137-37-039137-37-040137-37-041137-37-042 137-25-128 137-25-129137-25-130 137-25-131 137-24-045 137-24-046 137-24-044 148-07-042 175-01-102 148-01-007 132-43-096 132-31-080 132-36-096 132-36-097 132-36-098 132-36-099132-36-100132-36-101 132-36-102 132-36-103132-36-104 132-36-105132-36-106 132-36-107 132-36-108 132-36-109 132-36-110132-36-111 132-36-112 132-36-113132-36-114132-36-115 132-36-116132-36-117 132-36-118 132-36-119 132-36-120132-36-121 132-36-122132-36-123 132-36-124 132-36-125 132-36-126132-36-127 132-36-128132-36-129 132-36-130 167-09-003 167-55-020167-55-059167-55-021167-55-060167-55-098167-55-022167-55-061167-55-099 167-55-023167-55-062167-55-100167-55-026167-55-065167-55-103 167-55-027167-55-066167-55-104 167-55-024167-55-063167-55-101167-55-025167-55-064167-55-102 167-55-050167-55-089 167-55-012167-55-051 167-55-090167-55-013167-55-052167-55-091167-55-114 167-55-014 167-55-053 167-55-092 167-55-115 167-55-015167-55-054167-55-093167-55-116 167-55-017167-55-056167-55-095167-55-018167-55-057167-55-096167-55-019167-55-058167-55-097 167-55-016167-55-055167-55-094167-55-117 167-55-029167-55-068167-55-106167-55-028167-55-067167-55-105 167-55-038167-55-077167-55-113167-55-037167-55-076167-55-112 167-55-069 167-55-036167-55-075167-55-111167-55-031167-55-070167-55-032167-55-071167-55-107167-55-033167-55-072167-55-108167-55-034167-55-073 167-55-109167-55-035167-55-074167-55-110 137-11-102 137-11-101 175-01-067 000-00-000 167-55-011 167-55-030 167-04-008 167-05-029 167-55-079167-55-041167-55-080 167-55-001167-55-039167-55-078167-55-002167-55-040167-55-003167-55-042167-55-081 167-55-004167-55-043167-55-082167-55-005167-55-044167-55-083 167-55-006167-55-045167-55-084 167-55-007167-55-046167-55-085167-55-008167-55-047167-55-086 167-55-009167-55-048167-55-087 167-55-010167-55-049167-55-088 137-25-133 000-00-000 142-18-018 142-18-047 175-20-014 175-01-059 132-60-059132-60-060132-60-061 132-60-068 137-18-081 137-26-112 137-25-132 147-47-999 132-39-069 132-33-058 137-15-076 175-20-109 142-16-083 142-16-085 142-16-086 148-01-028 148-01-019148-01-020148-01-021148-01-022148-01-023148-01-024148-01-025148-01-026148-01-027 148-01-018 148-01-030 148-01-031 148-01-032 148-42-136148-42-135148-42-134148-42-133148-42-132148-42-142148-42-141148-42-140 148-42-139148-42-138148-42-137148-42-148148-42-147148-42-146148-42-145148-42-144148-42-143 148-42-150148-42-149148-42-151148-42-152148-42-153148-42-154148-42-001 148-42-002 148-42-003148-42-004 148-42-006 148-42-012148-42-011148-42-010148-42-009148-42-008148-42-007 148-42-013148-42-014148-42-015148-42-016148-42-017148-42-018 148-42-024 148-42-036 148-42-022148-42-021 148-42-035148-42-037 148-42-020 148-42-038 148-42-039148-42-040 148-42-019 148-42-044148-42-043148-42-042148-42-041 148-42-045148-42-046148-42-047148-42-048148-42-049148-42-050148-42-051148-42-052148-42-053 148-42-054148-42-055148-42-056148-42-057148-42-058148-42-059148-42-060 148-42-023 148-42-070148-42-071148-42-072148-42-073148-42-074148-42-075148-42-076 148-42-077148-42-078148-42-079148-42-080148-42-081148-42-082148-42-083 148-42-090148-42-091148-42-092148-42-093148-42-094148-42-095148-42-096 148-42-097148-42-098148-42-099148-42-100148-42-101148-42-102148-42-103148-42-104 148-42-025148-42-026148-42-027148-42-028148-42-029 148-42-030148-42-031148-42-032148-42-033148-42-034 148-42-061148-42-062 148-42-063148-42-064148-42-065 148-42-066148-42-084148-42-085148-42-086148-42-087 148-42-088 148-42-089 148-42-067148-42-068148-42-069 148-42-118 148-42-119 148-42-117148-42-116148-42-115 148-42-114 148-42-113 148-42-126 148-42-125 148-42-123 148-42-122 148-42-121148-42-120 148-42-124 148-42-112 148-42-111148-42-110 148-42-109148-42-108148-42-107148-42-106148-42-105 148-42-130148-42-129148-42-128148-42-127 148-42-156 148-42-172 148-42-157 148-42-171148-42-170148-42-169148-42-168148-42-167148-42-166148-42-165148-42-164 148-42-158148-42-159148-42-160148-42-161148-42-162148-42-163 148-42-005 148-12-030 132-60-066132-60-067132-60-069 132-60-065132-60-064132-60-063132-60-062 132-60-055132-60-056132-60-057132-60-058 137-29-054 148-01-034 148-01-035 137-38-001 137-38-002 137-38-003137-38-004 148-43-001148-43-002 148-43-003 148-43-004148-43-005148-43-006 148-43-007148-43-008148-43-009 148-43-010148-43-011148-43-012148-43-013148-43-014148-43-015148-43-016 148-43-017 148-43-018148-43-019 148-43-020 148-43-021148-43-022 148-43-023148-43-024 148-43-025148-43-026148-43-027148-43-028148-43-029148-43-030148-43-031148-43-032148-43-033148-43-034148-43-042 148-43-035 148-43-043 148-43-036148-43-037148-43-038148-43-039148-43-040148-43-041 148-43-044148-43-045 132-64-001 132-64-002 132-64-006 132-64-005132-64-004 132-64-003 000-00-000 137-13-156 000-00-000 137-31-003 137-16-033 137-14-178 132-37-068132-37-069132-37-070 132-37-071 142-18-020 148-09-026 000-00-000 148-01-037 148-01-037137-12-077 132-38-035 132-38-032132-38-066 4000 600 4000 700 600 3700 3800 3900 3800 300 4000 600 500 500 4200 4200 200 500 4100 41004100 4000 400 4100 4100 4300 400 4200 300 200 4100 3400 3400 3000 1600 3300 1800 1200 1600 1400 1500 2600 900 600 900 900 4200 700 4100 3700800 700 1000 800 600 3500 3800 3600 600 800 4000 4000 39003800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 600 600 4100 7003800 3900 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 25000 2700 500 200 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2600 2700 100 500 500 600 4100 3900 3200 1700 3300 2800 3100 3200 200 400 600 800 1200 2400 3100 800 900 700 3000 1000 900 1000 800 800 1000 0 1000 600 800 700 3100 700 100 700 900 400 4200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 4200 14300 14400 14500 14600 14600 14700 14400 14700 14800 14200 25800 25800 26000 25900 25900 26000 26100 26000 26100 26200 26200 26300 26500 26600 26600 26600 26400 26300 26400 26500 26700 26700 26200 26300 26400 26500 266002670026800 26900 27000 27100 27200 2710027200 26800 12800 26300 13300 13400 26500 26500 26600 26500 26400 2650026600 26700 26800 26900 2680026900 26800 26900 27000 13400 13400 26200 100200 100 200 1000 200 200300 300 1000 300 1000 300 400 300 400 300 400 1100 1100 1000 1100 Carmel Court 900 800 700 800 500 800 900 1000 1100 Cavalier4 600 600 700 400 500 2700 4400 4300 4300 2700 Montelena Court 100 100 100 200 300 400 400 500 200 300 27200 27100 26700 26800 26900 27000 13400 200 4300 400 400 400 700 2400 2500 2600 2400 2500 2600 2400 2500 2600 1500 1400 1400 4000 600 4000 700 600 3700 3800 3900 3800 300 4000 600 500 500 4200 4200 200 500 4100 41004100 4000 400 4100 4100 4300 400 4200 300 200 4100 3400 3400 3000 1600 3300 1800 1200 1600 1400 1500 2600 900 600 900 900 4200 700 4100 3700800 700 1000 800 600 3500 3800 3600 600 800 4000 4000 39003800 700 700 800 900 4000 1000 600 600 4100 7003800 3900 3200 3300 3600 3700 200 3400 25000 2700 500 200 3400 3500 300 400 2900 3000 200 3300 3000 400 300 2600 2700 100 500 500 600 4100 3900 3200 1700 3300 2800 3100 3200 200 400 600 800 1200 2400 3100 800 900 700 3000 1000 900 1000 800 800 1000 0 1000 600 800 700 3100 700 100 700 900 400 4200 400 400 400 400 4200 4200 4200 14300 14400 14500 14600 14600 14700 14400 14700 14800 14200 25800 25800 26000 25900 25900 26000 26100 26000 26100 26200 26200 26300 26500 26600 26600 26600 26400 26300 26400 26500 26700 26700 26200 26300 26400 26500 266002670026800 26900 27000 27100 27200 2710027200 26800 12800 26300 13300 13400 26500 26500 26600 26500 26400 2650026600 26700 26800 26900 2680026900 26800 26900 27000 13400 13400 26200 100200 100 200 1000 200 200300 300 1000 300 1000 300 400 300 400 300 400 1100 1100 1000 1100 Carmel Court 900 800 700 800 500 800 900 1000 1100 Cavalier4 600 600 700 400 500 2700 4400 4300 4300 2700 Monte l e n a C o u r t 100 100 100 200 300 400 400 500 200 300 27200 27100 26700 26800 26900 27000 13400 200 4300 400 400 400 700 2400 2500 2600 2400 2500 2600 2400 2500 2600 1500 1400 1400 ArastraderoRoad HillviewAvenue Laguna Avenue Lo s R ob l e s A venu e Matade ro Avenu e Hanover Stre et D eer Creek Road El Camino Real Pa g e M il l R oad Foothill EXPY This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc OBAG Work Limits 0'1540' Project Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto mnicols, 2016-02-08 12:31:27 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Pavement.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6656) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment One to Contract S15159331 with DocuSign for Additional Training and Technical support Title: Approval of Amendment No. One to Contract Number S15159331 With DocuSign to Increase the Total Amount Not to Exceed $279,000 (from $225,000) Over Three Years by Adding $36,000 to Year One and $18,000 to Year Two for Additional Training and Support Services From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. S15159331 with DocuSign (Contract) by increasing the total compensation by $54,000 from $225,000 ($75,000/year) to $279,000 ($111,000 year one; $93,000 year two; $75,000 year three) for additional DocuSign training, implementation and technical support. (Attachment A.) Background On April 30, 2015, the City of Palo Alto and DocuSign, Inc. entered into a contract to provide DocuSign digital signature, electronic forms and electronic workflow services. The DocuSign service is free to individual end users that receive documents to sign, but enterprises must pay to send unlimited documents for signature and approval inside and outside the organization. Palo Alto has an unlimited enterprise agreement. The DocuSign solution helps city departments move paper-based manual documents and forms, including those that require signature, and processes into an electronic web-based environment. Documents, forms and processes are digitized and made available to anyone on any device along with workflow tracking. By making these processes electronic, the City saves staff time in handling and processing documents. Since the implementation of DocuSign in the city a number of key processes have been moved to DocuSign. These include the signing of: contracts, Council resolutions, and ordinances – all resulting in time savings. Use of DocuSign has reduced turn-around time for executing contracts from an average of seven days to three days or less. A number of departments are currently using DocuSign including: Administrative Services, City Clerk, Human Resources, Utilities, City Attorney, and City Manager. In addition, DocuSign has City of Palo Alto Page 2 been implemented in the Utilities Department to facilitate inventory tracking. More departments are attempting to apply DocuSign to their business processes to digitize their communications and filings. This contract amendment adds funds to expand DocuSign support to departments via the company’s support team and Customer Success Architect (CSA). Discussion The addition of the DocuSign CSA will assist City of Palo Alto in accelerating implementation of department use cases and with the transfer of expert knowledge for managing the use cases after implementation. The DocuSign CSA will work with the City of Palo Alto resources to: 1. Assist in implementation of identified use cases as required using best practices. 2. Identify business use cases across the City of Palo Alto enterprise. 3. Provide insights into common use cases deployed for other enterprise customers. 4. Develop a Roadmap document that documents each identified use case. 5. Apply CSA prioritization methodology. 6. Provide an escalation point and interface to DocuSign support and executives. 7. Provide resources within DocuSign to give guidance on legal, security and other general topics impacting identified use cases. Below is a list of some of the use cases that are in deployment or in preparation for deployment. Personnel Action Form (Human Resources) Professional Development Reimbursement Form (Administrative Services) Direct Deposit Form (Administrative Services) City Council ordinances and resolution signature process (City Clerk) City Staff Parking Permit Request Form (Administrative Services) Utility new customer process (Utilities) Pre-travel Authorization Form (Administrative Services) Ad-hoc document and letter signature (various departments) Attorney contracts (City Attorney) Inventory management (Utilities) The additional CSA hours will help implement the remaining use cases and transition the knowledge to City staff for their ongoing maintenance as well as development of new implementations. The implementation of DocuSign has enabled staff to review and approve documents from any device. This capability significantly improves turn around times for completing work. In addition, with DocuSign’s tracking capabilities staff is able to quickly see where a work item is in the review and approval process, which cuts down on staff time associated with manually checking on the status of work items by telephone or other means. Overall, DocuSign is a tool City of Palo Alto Page 3 that helps staff complete work items faster, which allows staff to work more efficiently and shift hours to more important tasks. Resource Impact This amendment will increase the DocuSign annual cost for years one and two by $36,000 and $18,000, respectively. These amounts, added to the standard $75,000 annual charge, will bring the total annual charge for DocuSign to $111,000 in year one; $93,000 in year two and $75,000 in year three. This totals $279,000 over the three year period of the contract. Funds for this contract are available in the existing Information Technology Department budget. Environmental Review These services do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachments: Attachment A: DocuSign contract form (PDF) Attachment B: DocuSign CSA contract form (PDF) DocuSign, Inc. 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Order Form Prepared by:Matt Dean Date:Apr 30, 2015 Phone number:206.876.6733 Quote valid until:Apr 30, 2015 Email address:matt.dean@docusign.com Opp ID:120380 Prepared for:City of Palo Alto John Montenero, Chief Procurement Officer john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Bill to:dl.account.billingcontact dl.account.name dl.account.billingstreet dl.account.billingcity , dl.account.billingstate dl.account.billingzip dl.account.billingphone Product Code Product Name - Description Unit Price Qty Totals ($) 12000112E $18,333.33 1 $18,333.33 13000023 $1,666.67 1 $1,666.67 Order Terms Grand Total:$20,000.00 Order Start Date: Mar 18, 2015 Order End Date: Jul 18, 2015 Billing Frequency: Annually Payment Method: Check Payment Terms: Net 30 Currency= USD Site ID=5807663-na2 Special Terms Envelope Allowance: Unlimited DocuSign System Automated Premium Edition - Envelope Allowance Support - Premier Support Page 1 of 2 250 Hamilton Ave. . Palo Alto City of Palo Alto John Montenero CA 94301 Attachment A DocuSign, Inc. 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Order Form Purchase Order Information: Is a Purchase Order required for the purchase or payment of the product on this order form? dl.YesRadioPO.2Yes If yes, please enter PO number:dl.PONumber.2 dl.NoRadioPO.2No Tax Information: Is your company exempt from sales tax? dl.YesRadioTax.2Yes If yes, please send exemption certificate to billing@docusign.com. dl.NoRadioTax.2No Terms and Conditions DocuSign, Inc.Subscriber Signature dl.signhere.1 Signature Name dl.fullname.1 Name Title dl.title.1 Title Date dl.datesign.1 Date dl.initialhere.3 dl.initialhere.4 dl.initialhere.5 dl.title.2 dl.datesign.2 Prices shown above do not include any state and local taxes that may apply. Any such taxes are the responsibility of the Customer and will appear on the final Invoice. This is not an invoice. This Order Form covers the products and services described herein and is governed by the attached terms and conditions. dl.account.name dl.signhere.2 dl.fullname.2 Page 2 of 2 April 30, 2015 Vice President - Commercial Sales Loren Alhadeff S15159331 April 30, 2015 X City of Palo Alto Chief Procurement Officer X John Montenero DocuSign, Inc. 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Order Form Prepared by:Matt Dean Date:Apr 30, 2015 Phone number:206.876.6733 Quote valid until:Apr 30, 2015 Email address:matt.dean@docusign.com Opp ID:177944 Prepared for:City of Palo Alto John Montenero, Chief Procurement Officer john.montenero@cityofpaloalto.org Bill to:dl.account.billingcontact dl.account.name dl.account.billingstreet dl.account.billingcity , dl.account.billingstate dl.account.billingzip dl.account.billingphone Product Code Product Name - Description Unit Price Qty Totals ($) 12000112E $163,200.00 1 $163,200.00 13000023 $16,800.00 1 $16,800.00 500120 $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00 500021 $0.00 1 $0.00 Order Terms Grand Total:$195,000.00 Order Start Date: Jul 18, 2015 Order End Date: Jul 18, 2018 Billing Frequency: See Invoice Schedule Payment Method: Check Payment Terms: Net 30 Currency= USD Special Terms Invoice Schedule Envelope Allowance: Unlimited For clarification, the Professional Services - Customer Success Architect will be paid in the first two quarterly invoices and is available only for use during the first six months of this Order Form. Quarterly Invoices according to the following schedule: Year 1: 7/18/2015: $20,000.00, 10/18/2015: $20,000.00, 1/18/2016: $12,500.00, 4/18/2016: $12,500.00. Year 2: 7/18/2016: $16,250.00, 10/18/2016: $16,250.00, 1/18/2017: $16,250.00, 4/18/2017: $16,250.00. Year 3: 7/18/2017: $16,250.00, 10/18/2017: $16,250.00, 1/18/2018: $16,250.00, 4/18/2018: $16,250.00. DocuSign System Automated Premium Edition - Envelope Allowance Support - Premier Support Professional Services - Customer Success Architect Professional Services - Single Sign On Page 1 of 2 City of Palo Alto CA 94301 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto . John Montenero DocuSign, Inc. 1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Order Form Purchase Order Information: Is a Purchase Order required for the purchase or payment of the product on this order form? dl.YesRadioPO.2Yes If yes, please enter PO number:dl.PONumber.2 dl.NoRadioPO.2No Tax Information: Is your company exempt from sales tax? dl.YesRadioTax.2Yes If yes, please send exemption certificate to billing@docusign.com. dl.NoRadioTax.2No Terms and Conditions DocuSign, Inc.Subscriber Signature dl.signhere.1 Signature Name dl.fullname.1 Name Title dl.title.1 Title Date dl.datesign.1 Date dl.initialhere.3 dl.initialhere.4 dl.initialhere.5 dl.title.2 dl.datesign.2 Prices shown above do not include any state and local taxes that may apply. Any such taxes are the responsibility of the Customer and will appear on the final Invoice. This is not an invoice. This Order Form covers the products and services described herein and is governed by the attached terms and conditions. dl.account.name dl.signhere.2 dl.fullname.2 Page 2 of 2 Loren Alhadeff April 30, 2015 Vice President - Commercial Sales S15159331 Chief Procurement Officer City of Palo Alto April 30, 2015 X John Montenero X v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 1 of 9 DOCUSIGN, INC. CORPORATE SUBSCRIBER TERMS AND CONDITIONS v131104 These Terms and Conditions govern each Order Form (collectively, the “Agreement”) entered into by DocuSign, Inc. and the Subscriber identified in the Order Form. By signing the Order Form, each party agrees as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS “Account” means a unique account established by Subscriber to enable its Authorized Users to access and use the Subscription Service and, where applicable, other DocuSign Products. “Authorized User” means any employee or agent of Subscriber, identified by a unique email address and user name, who is registered under the Account, provided that no two persons may register or use the Subscription Service as the same Authorized User. “DocuSign API” means the application programming interface that supports interoperation of applications with the Subscription Service. “DocuSign Product(s)” means the products and services identified on an Order Form, such as the Subscription Service, the Professional Services, and other DocuSign offerings. “eContract” refers to a contract, notice, disclosure, or other record or document deposited into the System by Subscriber for processing using the Subscription Service. “Envelope” means an electronic record containing one or more eContracts consisting of a single page or a group of pages of data uploaded to the System. “Indemnified Parties” means, as the case may be, the party (whether DocuSign or Subscriber) being indemnified under Section 10 from a third party claim, including its employees, directors, agents, and representatives. “Indemnifying Party(ies)” means the party that is providing indemnification under Section 10. “Order Form” means the schedule that sets forth the pricing, features and options of the DocuSign Products selected by Subscriber. An Order Form is not binding until it is duly executed by both DocuSign and Subscriber, at which point it becomes incorporated into and part of the Agreement. “Professional Services” means any integration consulting or assistance, custom development, training, transition and similar ancillary services that are set forth in an Order Form or Work Order as described in Section 15. “Specifications” means the technical specifications set forth in the “Subscription Service Specifications” available at http://www.docusign.com/company/specifications. “Subscription Service” means DocuSign’s on-demand electronic signature service, which provides online display, certified delivery, acknowledgement, electronic signature, and storage services for eContracts via the Internet. “System” refers to the software systems and programs, the communication and network facilities, and the hardware and equipment used by DocuSign or its agents to provide the Subscription Service. “Transaction Data” means the metadata associated with an Envelope (such as transaction history, image hash value, method and time of Envelope deletion, sender and recipient names, email addresses and signature IDs) and maintained by DocuSign in order to establish the digital audit trail required by the Subscription Service. 2. THE SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE 2.1 During the Term and subject to these Terms and Conditions, Subscriber will have the right to obtain an Account and register its Authorized Users, who may access and use the Subscription Service, and DocuSign will provide the Subscription Service in accordance with the Specifications. The right to use the Subscription Service is limited to the Authorized Users, and Subscriber may not resell or otherwise provide or assist with the provision of the Subscription Service to any third party. 2.2 In addition, DocuSign’s provision of the Subscription Service is conditioned on Subscriber’s acknowledgement of and agreement to the following: (i) The Subscription Service facilitates the execution of eContracts between the parties to those eContracts. Nothing in this Agreement may be construed to make DocuSign a party to any eContract processed through the Subscription Service, and DocuSign makes no representation or warranty regarding the transactions sought to be effected by any eContract; v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 2 of 9 (ii) Between DocuSign and Subscriber, Subscriber has exclusive control over and responsibility for the content, quality, and format of any eContract. All eContracts stored by DocuSign are maintained in an encrypted form, and DocuSign has no control of or access to their contents; (iii) If Subscriber elects to use one or more of the optional features designed to verify the identity of the intended recipient of an eContract that DocuSign makes available to its subscribers (“Authentication Measures”), DocuSign will apply only those Authentication Measures selected by the Subscriber, but makes no representations or warranties about the appropriateness of any Authentication Measure. Further, DocuSign assumes no liability for: (A) the inability or failure by the intended recipient or other party to satisfy the Authentication Measure; or (B) the circumvention by any person (other than DocuSign) of any Authentication Measure; (iv) Certain types of agreements and documents may be excepted from electronic signature laws (e.g. wills and agreements pertaining to family law), or may be subject to specific regulations promulgated by various government agencies regarding electronic signatures and electronic records. DocuSign is not responsible or liable to determine whether any particular eContract is subject to an exception to applicable electronic signature laws, or whether it is subject to any particular agency promulgations, or whether it can be legally formed by electronic signatures; (v) DocuSign is not responsible for determining how long any contracts, documents, and other records are required to be retained or stored under any applicable laws, regulations, or legal or administrative agency processes. Further, DocuSign is not responsible for or liable to produce any of Subscriber’s eContracts or other documents to any third parties; (vi) Certain consumer protection or similar laws or regulations may impose special requirements with respect to electronic transactions involving one or more “consumers,” such as (among others) requirements that the consumer consent to the method of contracting and/or that the consumer be provided with a copy, or access to a copy, of a paper or other non- electronic, written record of the transaction. DocuSign does not and is not responsible to: (A) determine whether any particular transaction involves a “consumer;” (B) furnish or obtain any such consents or determine if any such consents have been withdrawn; (C) provide any information or disclosures in connection with any attempt to obtain any such consents; (D) provide legal review of, or update or correct any information or disclosures currently or previously given; (E) provide any such copies or access, except as expressly provided in the Specifications for all transactions, consumer or otherwise; or (F) otherwise to comply with any such special requirements; and (vii) Subscriber undertakes to determine whether any “consumer” is involved in any eContract presented by its Authorized Users for processing, and, if so, to comply with all requirements imposed by law on such eContracts or their formation. 2.3 DocuSign will provide customer support to Subscriber in accordance with the package that is identified on the Order Form, as further detailed at http://www.docusign.com/products/support-plans. 3. SUBSCRIPTION PLANS AND USAGE PRICING 3.1 The Subscription Service is sold on the basis of an annual prepaid subscription, and may be limited by usage (“Envelope Allowance”), or by the number of Authorized Users (“Seats”), or both. Optional features, such as Authentication Measures or fax-back services, may be purchased on a subscription or per-use basis, as set out in the Order Form. 3.2 Under an Envelope Allowance Subscription, Subscriber is allowed to send the number of Envelopes specified in the Order Form during the Term. The total number of Envelopes used is the sum of all Envelopes that have been sent for signature or for certified delivery from the Account. An Envelope will be deemed consumed at the time it is sent by an Authorized User, whether or not it has been received by any recipients or any recipients have performed any actions upon any eContract in the Envelope. Powerforms are considered Envelopes within an Envelope Allowance Subscription, and will be deemed consumed at the time they are “clicked” by any end user regardless of whether or not any actions are subsequently performed upon such Envelope. All Envelopes used in excess of the Envelope Allowance during the Term will incur a per- Envelope charge that will be invoiced on a monthly basis. 3.3 Under a Seat Subscription, Subscriber is allowed to manually send Envelopes from the number of Seats specified in the Order Form during the Term. A Seat is defined as a natural person manually preparing and sending Envelopes. Seats may not be used for automated batch or bulk sending of Envelopes, including through the DocuSign API. The number of Seats is determined by the total number of active Authorized Users listed in the membership of an Account at any one time. No two individuals may log onto or use the Subscription Service as the same Authorized User, but Subscriber may unregister or deactivate Authorized Users and replace them with other Authorized Users without penalty, so long as the number of active Authorized Users registered at any one time does not exceed the number of Seats purchased. If Subscriber adds more Authorized Users than the number of Seats purchased in an Order Form, then additional charges of one Seat per additional Authorized User for the remainder of the Term will become immediately due and payable. v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 3 of 9 3.4 Under a Platform Subscription, Subscriber is provided a hybrid solution that includes access for its entire enterprise to the Subscription Service platform, as well as either an Envelope Allowance Subscription or a Seat Subscription to cover the transactions processed through the platform. Terms for the Envelope Allowance Subscription or Seat Subscriptions included in the Platform Subscription are the same as in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 above, respectively. 4. ADDITIONAL SUBSCRIBER RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 As between Subscriber and DocuSign, Subscriber is solely responsible for the nature and content of all materials, works, data, statements, and other visual, graphical, video, and written or audible communications submitted by any Authorized User or otherwise processed through its Account, the Subscription Service, or under any Order Form. Accordingly: (i) Subscriber will not use or permit the use of the Subscription Service to send unsolicited mass mailings outside its organization. The term “unsolicited mass mailings” includes all statutory or common definitions or understanding of those terms in the applicable jurisdiction, such as those set forth for “Commercial Electronic Mail Messages” under the U.S. CAN- SPAM Act, as an example only; and (ii) Subscriber will not use or permit the use of the Subscription Service: (a) to communicate any message or material that is defamatory, harassing, libelous, threatening, or obscene; (b) in a way that violates or infringes upon the intellectual property rights or the privacy or publicity rights of any person or entity or that may otherwise be unlawful or give rise to civil or criminal liability (other than contractual liability of the parties under eContracts processed through the Subscription Service); (c) in any manner that is likely to damage, disable, overburden, or impair the System or the Subscription Service or interfere with the use or enjoyment of the Subscription Service by others; or (d) in any way that constitutes or encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense. 4.2 DocuSign does not monitor the content processed through the Subscription Service, but in accordance with DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) safe harbors, it may suspend any use of the Subscription Service, or remove or disable any content that DocuSign reasonably and in good faith believes violates this Agreement or applicable laws or regulations. DocuSign will use commercially reasonable efforts to notify Subscriber prior to any such suspension or disablement, unless DocuSign reasonably believes that: (i) it is prohibited from doing so under applicable law or under legal process, such as court or government administrative agency processes, orders, mandates, and the like; or (ii) it is necessary to delay notice in order to prevent imminent harm to the System, Subscription Service, or a third party. Under circumstances where notice is delayed, DocuSign will provide the notice if and when the related restrictions in the previous sentence no longer apply. 5. OWNERSHIP 5.1 DocuSign owns various intellectual property and technology rights associated with the Subscription Service, its document management, digital signature and notary system. Subscriber’s rights with respect to the foregoing are limited to the rights to use the DocuSign Products that are granted under this Agreement or the applicable Order Form for the purposes contemplated by this Agreement, and no other. DocuSign does not license or transfer to Subscriber, or any Authorized User or other third party, any of DocuSign’s technology or other intellectual property rights. All right, title, and interest in and to DocuSign’s technology and intellectual property, whether patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, service mark or moral rights, remain solely with DocuSign at all times. Subscriber will not, directly or indirectly, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to derive source code or other trade secrets from or about any of the DocuSign Products or technologies. 5.2 DocuSign hereby grants to users and licensees of its products and services a limited, revocable, nonexclusive and nontransferable right to use DocuSign’s regular trade names, trademarks, titles and logos (“Licensed Marks”) solely for purposes of identifying DocuSign’s products and services, as long as the Licensed Marks are used strictly in compliance with DocuSign’s trademark license terms and conditions, available at: http://www.docusign.com/IP. 5.3 Data and information owned by Subscriber that is processed using the Subscription Service is and will remain, as between Subscriber and DocuSign, owned by Subscriber. 6. eCONTRACT STORAGE AND DELETION 6.1 Subscriber may retrieve copies of its stored eContracts at any time while this Agreement is in effect. DocuSign will store all completed eContracts sent by Subscriber during the Term, by default. However, Subscriber has the option to change its Account settings to direct the deletion of all or certain designated eContracts at an earlier date or periodic interval. If Subscriber fails to retrieve its eContracts prior to the expiration or termination of the Agreement, Subscriber may request, within 90 days after such expiration or termination, that DocuSign provide Professional Services to assist in retrieving completed eContracts still remaining on the System, the details of which Professional Services will be set out in a Work Order. After such 90 day period, the eContracts may be deleted from storage and DocuSign is not obligated to retrieve any further eContracts for Subscriber. v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 4 of 9 6.2 Prior to the end of the Term, if Subscriber wishes to extend the period of time DocuSign stores Subscriber’s eContracts after the end of the Term, it may elect to purchase post-expiration or post-termination storage services for its completed eContracts. 6.3 DocuSign may retain the Transaction Data for as long as it has a business purpose to do so, provided that any Transaction Data that constitutes Confidential Information of Subscriber will at all times maintain that status, and DocuSign will comply with its confidentiality obligations as provided in Section 12. 7. FEES AND PAYMENT TERMS 7.1 Subscriber will be invoiced as set forth in the Order Form. Unless otherwise specified in an applicable Order Form, the first invoice will coincide with the Order Start Date and, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all amounts will be denominated in U.S. dollars. DocuSign may assess finance charges equal to the lesser of 1.5% of the unpaid balance per month or the highest rate permitted by applicable usury law. Subscriber will be responsible for any reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred by DocuSign to collect any amounts that are not paid when due. 7.2 DocuSign may accept any partial payment, regardless of any language that would purport to limit DocuSign’s rights to collect further amounts, and without prejudice to DocuSign’s right to recover the balance of the amount due or to pursue any other right or remedy. Amounts due to DocuSign may not be withheld or offset by Subscriber for any reason against amounts due or asserted to be due to Subscriber from DocuSign. If Subscriber fails to timely pay any undisputed amounts due under this Agreement, then without limitation of any of its other rights or remedies, DocuSign may suspend performance of those services until DocuSign receives all past due amounts from Subscriber. 7.3 Other than income taxes imposed on DocuSign, Subscriber will bear all taxes, duties, VAT and all other governmental charges (collectively, “taxes”) resulting from this Agreement or transactions conducted in relation to this Agreement or the DocuSign Products. If Subscriber is exempt from any applicable taxes, it will provide evidence reasonably satisfactory to DocuSign of its tax exempt status, and DocuSign will not include such taxes in its invoices to Subscriber. 8. TERM AND TERMINATION 8.1 The term of this Agreement will begin on the Order Start Date and, unless terminated sooner as provided herein, will continue until the Order End Date specified on the Order Form (the “Term”). Prior to the Order Start Date, DocuSign may, in its sole discretion, start providing Professional Services and/or access to the Subscription Service to Subscriber, which will be governed by these Terms and Conditions. If either party commits a material breach or default in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement, then the other party may terminate this Agreement by giving the defaulting party written notice of termination, unless the material breach or default in performance is cured within 30 days after the defaulting party receives notice thereof. 8.2 Post-Termination Obligations. If this Agreement expires or is terminated for any reason: (a) Subscriber will pay to DocuSign any amounts that have accrued before, and remain unpaid as of, the date of the termination or expiration; (b) any and all liabilities of Subscriber to DocuSign that have accrued before the effective date of the termination will survive; (c) licenses and use rights granted to Subscriber with respect to DocuSign Products and intellectual property will immediately terminate; (d) DocuSign’s obligation to provide any further services to Subscriber under this Agreement will immediately terminate; and (e) the parties’ rights and obligations under Sections 6.1, 6.3, 8.2, 9.3, and 10 through 14 will survive. For clarification, if Subscriber terminates any Order Form pursuant to section 14.5 of this Agreement, Subscriber will pay any outstanding invoices, and any fees for services that have been provided prior to the date of termination, and no refund will be due for any fees already paid 9. WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMERS 9.1 DocuSign Warranties. DocuSign represents and warrants that: (a) the Subscription Service as delivered to Subscriber and used in accordance with the Specifications will not infringe on any United States patent, copyright or trade secret; (b) the Subscription Service will be performed in accordance with the Specifications in their then-current form at the time of the provision of such Subscription Service; (c) any DocuSign Products that are software will be free of harmful or illicit code, trapdoors, viruses, or other harmful features; (d) the proper use of the Subscription Service by Subscriber in accordance with the Specifications and applicable law in the formation of an eContract not involving any consumer will be sufficient under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7001 et seq. (the “ESIGN Act”) to support the validity of such formation, to the extent provided in the ESIGN Act; (e) the proper use of the Subscription Service by Subscriber in accordance with the Specifications and applicable law in the formation of an eContract involving a consumer will be sufficient under the ESIGN Act to support the validity of such formation, to the extent provided in the ESIGN Act, provided that Subscriber complies with all special requirements for consumer eContracts, including and subject to those referenced in Section 2.2(vi) and (vii) above; and (f) DocuSign has implemented information security policies and safeguards to preserve the security, integrity, v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 5 of 9 and confidentiality of eContracts and to protect against unauthorized access and anticipated threats or hazards thereto, that meet the objectives of the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information as set forth in Section 501(b) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 9.2 Mutual Warranties. Each party represents and warrants to the other that: (a) this Agreement has been duly executed and delivered and constitutes a valid and binding agreement enforceable against it in accordance with its terms; (b) no authorization or approval from any third party is required in connection with its execution, delivery, or performance of this Agreement; and (c) the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement does not violate the laws of any jurisdiction or the terms or conditions of any other agreement to which it is a party or by which it is otherwise bound. 9.3 Disclaimer. Except for the express representations and warranties stated in this Section 9, DocuSign: (a) makes no additional representation or warranty of any kind -- whether express, implied in fact or by operation of law, or statutory -- as to any matter whatsoever; (b) disclaims all implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and the like; and (c) does not warrant that the DocuSign Products are or will be error-free or meet Subscriber’s requirements. Subscriber has no right to make or pass on any representation or warranty on behalf of DocuSign to any third party. 10. THIRD PARTY CLAIMS 10.1 By DocuSign. DocuSign will indemnify Subscriber, and its employees, directors, agents, and representatives from, and defend the Indemnified Parties against, any actual or threatened third party claim or legal or administrative agency action or proceeding (“Claim”) to the extent arising from or related to: (a) any breach by DocuSign of its confidentiality obligations in Section 12; and (b) any alleged infringement by DocuSign of any third party intellectual property rights. 10.2 By Subscriber. Subscriber will indemnify DocuSign, and its employees, directors, agents, and representatives from, and defend the Indemnified Parties against, any Claim to the extent arising from or related to: (a) any breach by Subscriber of its confidentiality obligations in Section 12; (b) the content submitted by any Authorized User or otherwise processed through Subscriber’s Account, including the Envelope content or any custom branding applied by Subscriber. 10.3 Procedures. The parties’ respective indemnification obligations above are conditioned on: (a) the Indemnified Parties giving the Indemnifying Party prompt written notice of the Claim, except that the failure to provide prompt notice will only limit the indemnification obligations to the extent the Indemnifying Party is prejudiced by the delay or failure; (b) the Indemnifying Party has full and complete control over the defense and settlement of the Claim; (c) the relevant Indemnified Parties providing assistance in connection with the defense and settlement of the Claim (as long as the settlement does not include any payment of any amounts by or any admissions of liability, whether civil or criminal, on the part of any of the Indemnified Parties), as the Indemnifying Party may reasonably request; and (d) the Indemnified Parties’ compliance with any settlement or court order made in connection with the Claim. The Indemnifying Party will indemnify the Indemnified Parties against: (i) all damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees finally awarded against any of them with respect to any Claim; (ii) all out-of-pocket costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) reasonably incurred by any of them in connection with the defense of the Claim (other than attorneys’ fees and costs incurred without the Indemnifying Party’s consent after it has accepted defense of such Claim); and (iii) all amounts that the Indemnifying Party agreed to pay to any third party in settlement of any Claims arising under this Section 10 and settled by the Indemnifying Party or with its approval. 10.4 Infringement Remedy. If Subscriber is enjoined or otherwise prohibited from using any of the Subscription Service or a portion thereof based on a Claim covered by DocuSign’s indemnification obligations under Section 10.1 above, then DocuSign will, at its sole expense and option, either: (a) obtain for Subscriber the right to use the allegedly infringing portions of the Subscription Service; (b) modify the allegedly infringing portions of the Subscription Service so as to render them non- infringing without substantially diminishing or impairing their functionality; or (c) replace the allegedly infringing portions of the Subscription Service with non-infringing items of substantially similar functionality. If DocuSign determines that the foregoing remedies are not commercially reasonable, then DocuSign will promptly provide a prorated refund to Subscriber for any prepaid fees received by DocuSign under this Agreement that correspond to the unused portion of the Term. Without limiting DocuSign’s obligation to indemnify Subscriber as set forth above, the remedy set out in this Section 10.4 is Subscriber’s sole and exclusive remedy for any actual or alleged infringement by DocuSign of any third party intellectual property rights in the event that Subscriber is enjoined or otherwise prohibited from using any of the Subscription Service or a portion thereof based on a Claim covered by DocuSign’s indemnification obligations under Section 10.1. 11. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY 11.1 Disclaimer of Consequential Damages; Cap on Damages. Excluding each party’s third party indemnification and confidentiality obligations under Sections 10 and 12: v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 6 of 9 (i) neither party will be liable to the other party for consequential, incidental, special, or exemplary damages arising out of or related to the transactions contemplated under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, lost profits or loss of business, even if apprised of the likelihood of such losses; and (ii) neither party’s total aggregate liability of any kind arising out of or relating to this Agreement, regardless of the forum and basis of action or claim (contract, tort, or otherwise), will exceed the total amount payable by Subscriber to DocuSign under the Order Form and/or Work Order to which the liability relates. 11.2 Independent Allocations of Risk. Each provision of this Agreement that provides for a limitation of liability, disclaimer of warranties, or exclusion of damages represents an agreed allocation of the risks of this Agreement between the parties. This allocation is reflected in the pricing offered by DocuSign to Subscriber and is an essential element of the basis of the bargain between the parties. Each of these provisions is severable and independent of all other provisions of this Agreement, and each of these provisions will apply even if the warranties in this Agreement have failed of their essential purpose. 12. CONFIDENTIALITY 12.1 “Confidential Information” means any trade secrets or other information of DocuSign or Subscriber, whether of a technical, business, or other nature (such as DocuSign's software or Subscriber’s eContracts), that is disclosed to the other party (the “Recipient”) and that is marked “confidential,” or, whether or not marked, that a reasonable person would understand to be confidential given the circumstances of the disclosure. Confidential Information does not include any information that: (a) was known to Recipient before receiving it from the disclosing party; (b) is independently developed by Recipient without use of or reference to any Confidential Information of the other party; (c) is acquired by Recipient from another source that did not receive it in confidence from the other party to this Agreement; or (d) is or becomes part of the public domain through no fault or action of Recipient. 12.2 Restricted Use and Nondisclosure. During and after the Term, Recipient will: (a) use the Confidential Information of the other party solely for the purpose for which it is provided; (b) not disclose such Confidential Information to a third party, except on a need-to-know basis to its attorneys, auditors and consultants who are under confidentiality obligations at least as restrictive as contained herein; and (c) protect such Confidential Information from unauthorized use and disclosure to the same extent (but using no less than a reasonable degree of care) that it protects its own Confidential Information of a similar nature. 12.3 Required Disclosure. If Recipient is required by law to disclose Confidential Information of the other party or the terms of this Agreement, Recipient will give prompt written notice to the other party before making the disclosure, unless prohibited from doing so by the legal or administrative process, and assist the disclosing party to obtain where reasonably available an order protecting the Confidential Information from public disclosure. 12.4 Ownership. Recipient acknowledges that, as between the parties, all Confidential Information it receives from the disclosing party, including all copies thereof in Recipient’s possession or control, in any media, is proprietary to and exclusively owned by the disclosing party. Nothing in this Agreement grants Recipient any right, title or interest in or to any of the disclosing party’s Confidential Information. Recipient’s incorporation of the disclosing party’s Confidential Information into any of its own materials will not render Confidential Information non-confidential. 12.5 Remedies. Recipient acknowledges that any actual or threatened breach of this Section 12 may cause irreparable, non-monetary injury to the disclosing party, the extent of which may be difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, the disclosing party is entitled to (but not required to) seek injunctive relief in addition to all remedies available to the disclosing party at law and/or in equity, to prevent or mitigate any breaches of this Agreement or damages that may otherwise result from those breaches. Absent written consent of the disclosing party to the disclosure, the Recipient, in the case of a breach of this Section 12, has the burden of proving that the disclosing party’s Confidential Information is not, or is no longer, confidential or a trade secret and that the disclosure does not otherwise violate this Section 12. 12.6 Existing Obligations. The obligations in this Section 12 are in addition to, and supplement, each party’s obligations of confidentiality under applicable law and under any nondisclosure or other agreement between the parties. 13. INFORMATION SECURITY DocuSign is ISO 27001 and TRUSTe certified, SSAE 16 examined and tested, PCI DSS 2.0 compliant as both a service provider and a merchant, and a member of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Safe Harbor (collectively, “Information Security Safeguards”), and during the Term of this Agreement, DocuSign agrees to annually provide evidence of such Information Security Safeguards upon Subscriber’s written request. v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 7 of 9 14. GENERAL 14.1 Relationship. At all times, the parties are independent actors, and are not the agents or representatives of the other. This Agreement is not intended to create a joint venture, partnership, or franchise relationship, or give rise to any third party beneficiary. 14.2 Assignability. Subscriber may not assign its rights or obligations under this Agreement without DocuSign’s prior written consent. If consent is given, this Agreement will bind Subscriber’s successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may assign this Agreement to a purchaser of its business entity or substantially all of its assets without the other party’s consent, as long as the purchaser is not insolvent or otherwise unable to pay its debts as they become due. Other than the foregoing, any attempt by Subscriber to transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement will be void. 14.3 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given in accordance with this Agreement will be effective only if it is in writing and sent using: (a) the Subscription Service; (b) by certified or registered mail; or (c) insured courier, to the appropriate party at the address set forth on the Order Form, with a copy, in the case of DocuSign, to legal@docusign.com. Either party may change its address for receipt of notice by notice to the other party through a notice provided in accordance with this Section. Notices are deemed given upon receipt if delivered using the Subscription Service, two business days following the date of mailing, or one business day following delivery to a courier. 14.4 Force Majeure. Except for any payment obligations, neither party will be liable for failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement to the extent such failure is caused by a force majeure event (including acts of God, natural disasters, war, civil disturbance, action by governmental entity, strike and other causes beyond the party’s reasonable control). The party affected by the force majeure event will provide notice to the other party within a commercially reasonable time and will use commercially reasonable efforts to resume performance as soon as practicable. Obligations not performed due to a force majeure event will be performed as soon as reasonably possible when the force majeure event concludes. 14.5 NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Contract are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Contract. 14.6 Governing Law. This Agreement will be interpreted, construed, and enforced in all respects in accordance with the local laws of the State of California, U.S.A., without reference to its choice of law rules to the contrary. Any legal action arising under this Agreement must be initiated within two years after the cause of action arises. Each party hereby irrevocably waives, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any and all right to trial by jury in any legal proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement. 14.7 Waiver. The waiver by either party of any breach of any provision of this Agreement does not waive any other breach. The failure of any party to insist on strict performance of any covenant or obligation in accordance with this Agreement will not be a waiver of such party’s right to demand strict compliance in the future, nor will the same be construed as a novation of this Agreement. 14.8 Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid, the remaining portions of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect. If any material limitation or restriction on the grant of any license to Subscriber under this Agreement is found to be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid, the license will immediately terminate. 14.9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the final and complete expression of the agreement between these parties regarding the DocuSign Products. This Agreement supersedes, and the terms of this Agreement govern, all previous oral and written communications regarding these matters. This Agreement may be changed only by a written agreement signed by an authorized agent of both parties. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The following additional terms and conditions apply to Professional Services, if any, that are made the subject of an Order Form. v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 8 of 9 15. SERVICES, WORK ORDERS, AND CHANGE ORDERS 15.1 Services. If and as set out in a Work Order, and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, DocuSign will perform certain Professional Services for Subscriber. 15.2 Work Orders. The specific details of the Professional Services to be performed will be determined on a per-project basis, and the details for each project will be described in a Work Order that is executed by both parties (called the “Work Order” for purposes of the Professional Services). To the extent that an Order Form includes a standard training or consulting package, such Order Form will constitute a Work Order. Once executed by both parties, each Work Order will be a unique agreement that incorporates the terms of this Agreement and stands alone with respect to all other Work Orders and Order Forms. If there is a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the terms of a Work Order, the terms of this Agreement will control unless the Work Order states that a specific provision of this Agreement will be superseded by a specific provision of the Work Order. 15.3 Change Orders. Unless otherwise specified in a Work Order, Subscriber may reasonably request in writing that revisions be made with respect to the Professional Services or deliverables set forth in that Work Order (“Change Order”). Within 10 business days after DocuSign’s receipt of the Change Order, DocuSign will deliver to Subscriber a written, revised Work Order reflecting DocuSign’s reasonable determination of the revised Professional Services, deliverables, delivery schedule, payment schedule, and adjusted fees or fee estimates, if any, that will apply to the implementation of the revisions. If Subscriber approves the revised Work Order, then the parties will execute it, and upon execution, the revised Work Order will supersede the then-existing Work Order. If Subscriber does not approve the revised Work Order within 10 business days after its receipt by Subscriber, the then-existing Work Order will remain in full force and effect, and DocuSign will have no further obligation with respect to the applicable Change Order. 16. PERFORMANCE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16.1 Fees; Project Management. Subscriber will pay DocuSign for Professional Services at rates and under payment terms described in the applicable Work Order (“Professional Fees”). Unless otherwise agreed in the applicable Work Order, Professional Fees will be invoiced in total on the Effective Date of the Work Order (or on the Order Start Date in the case of an Order Form). For each project described in a Work Order, each party will designate a single point of contact within its organization to manage the project (“Project Leader”). The Project Leaders will communicate as necessary to manage the Professional Services to be performed under a Work Order. 16.2 Performance Standard. DocuSign warrants to Subscriber that the Professional Services will be performed in accordance with standard industry practice and the applicable Work Order. DocuSign will complete the Professional Services, including the delivery of any deliverables, in accordance with the schedule of times and milestones specified in the Work Order. 17. TERM AND TERMINATION OF WORK ORDERS Each Work Order will commence on the specified effective date and will continue until each party’s obligations under the Work Order have been fulfilled or the Work Order is terminated as provided in the Work Order. If any Work Order is terminated in accordance with terms contained in the applicable Work Order, then Subscriber will pay to DocuSign any Professional Fees and all other payment obligations accrued and payable for the Professional Services performed under the terminated Work Order through the effective date of the termination. If a Work Order is terminated for any reason other than for material breach by DocuSign, Subscriber will pay to DocuSign all Professional Fees due under the Work Order had the Work Order not been terminated and had the Professional Services been fully performed in accordance with the schedule then in effect. 18. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS 18.1 Subscriber Materials. Any materials provided by Subscriber to DocuSign specifically for use by DocuSign in the course of the Professional Services (“Subscriber Materials”) will be used and disclosed solely as required to perform the Professional Services. As between the parties, Subscriber will continue to own the Subscriber Materials. 18.2 Inventions. Except as expressly set forth to the contrary in a Work Order, all works of authorship, inventions, discoveries, improvements, methods, processes, formulas, designs, techniques, and information conceived, discovered, developed or otherwise made by DocuSign, solely or in collaboration with others: (a) in the course of performing the Professional Services; or (b) that form all or part of a deliverable provided as part of the v131104_150428_FINAL_rs Page 9 of 9 Professional Services, whether developed as part of the Professional Services or separately, but excluding Subscriber Materials (as defined in Section 18.1) (collectively, “Inventions”), is and will remain the sole property of DocuSign. 18.3 License Grant. Upon and subject to final payment by Subscriber of all Professional Fees owing to DocuSign, DocuSign hereby grants to Subscriber a nonexclusive, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license to use, copy, modify, and prepare derivative works of the Inventions solely for purposes of Subscriber’s internal business operations only. The rights granted to Subscriber in this Section 18 are not assignable or transferable, by operation of law or otherwise, without the advance written consent of DocuSign. Any assignments or transfers in violation of this Section 18 will be void v. 1.0 Work Order - 1 DOCUSIGN WORK ORDER # 20160205-CSA Customer: City of Palo Alto This Work Order (WO) describes the services DocuSign, Inc. (“DocuSign”) will provide for City of Palo Alto (“Customer”) as part of this project (“Project”). In addition, it describes the time estimates and applicable charges required to complete the Services Work hereunder. This Work Order is governed by the Corporate Subscriber Terms and Conditions between City of Palo Alto (“Client”) and DocuSign, Inc (“Contractor”) (“Terms”) in place between the parties, which is set forth in its entirety in the Order Form dated April 30th, 2015, with a start date of July 18th, 2015. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning as in the Terms. DocuSign and Customer shall each be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties”. When the Parties agree to make a change to this WO, DocuSign will prepare a written Change Order. A Change Order will only become effective upon mutual written agreement. This WO is effective on the date it is signed by both Parties (the “Effective Date”). 1.SERVICE DESCRIPTION AND FEES Name and SKU Description of the Services Service Fees Customer Success Architect Quarter-time – SKU: APT-0147 DocuSign will provide Customer Success Architect (CSA) resources on a Quarter-time-equivalent basis for 6 months, from April1, 2016 to September 30, 2016. The role may be fulfilled by multiple individuals working as a team. $5,000 per month of CSA services, totaling $30,000, plus any applicable taxes. Travel and Expenses will be pre-approved and are reimbursable by the customer. The fees in this Work Order do not include taxes. Customer is responsible for paying any sales tax, use tax, VAT, or similar taxes are due on the services provided herein, without any deduction or set off from DocuSign’s fees. 2.PAYMENT SCHEDULE; PAYMENT TERMS DocuSign shall invoice Customer in full in advance with payment of net 30 days from receipt of invoice. 3.PROJECT SCOPE The DocuSign CSA resources will assist the Customer in: Identifying, prioritizing, developing, and deploying use cases across customer’s organization by: building a "roadmap to success" based on high-level use cases; advising on proof of concepts that showcase new approaches to utilizing DocuSign; determining each use case's requirements for successful implementation, including technical and administrative requirements; collaborating with Customer Project Manager(s) to identify stakeholders and form teams for complete individual site orbusiness unit implementations; and managing and resolving scope expanding topics such as customizations, enhancement requests, and implementation issues. Prescriptive guidance on critical decisions affecting the long-term administration, deployment, acceptance and success of the DocuSign implementation such as: single sign-on (SSO) implementation; account provisioning and de-provisioning; reporting and data architecture; signer authentication standards and options; standards for account-wide settings; the use of "branding"; retention and notification policies; merging certificates of completion; envelope custom fields; and file standards. Establishing a centralized "shared service" to aid enterprise-wide adoption through the creation, standardization and sharing of charter, governance model, and leadership team composition; staffing and role definitions; foundational technical principles; relationships with other groups; shared service marketing; demand planning; delivery execution (program and project management; design, develop, test, deploy); ongoing support (help desk/liaison services); and administration guidance. Measuring, analyzing, and presenting project and program success metrics and ROI analyses to appropriate stakeholders within Customer’s organization. 4.PROJECT TASKS The tasks for this Project are: Creation of roadmap of identified Use Cases with envelope usage Assisting Customer with implementation of identified and prioritized Use Cases DocuSign Envelope ID: 4ED3EF4A-25C0-458F-BB26-06A99439C1FC Attachment B v. 1.0 Work Order - 2 Serving as an escalation point and interface to the DocuSign support and executive leadership teams Others based on customer requests and agreed upon in writing DocuSign and Customer will each designate a point of contact that will be responsible for all communication, delivery, and management for this Project. The following are the points of contact for this Project: DocuSign Customer Name: Robert Desroches Name: David Ramberg Title: VP of Global Consulting Title: Assistant Director | Administrative Services E-mail: Robert.desroches@docusign.com E-mail: david.ramberg@cityofpaloalto.org Phone: 925-895-0486 Phone: 650.329.2634 5. REPORTING DocuSign and Customer will agree on a reasonable communication plan to provide Customer with timely updates to the status of the Project. This communication plan will include “Quarterly Business Review” (QBR) sessions attended by the executive sponsors | Director-level representative from each of the Parties, to include progress reports against key Project goals and initiatives, enumeration and discussion of any critical issues requiring attention or action, and any new (or changes to existing) strategic initiatives on either Party’s behalf that have implications to the existing Project or could alter its scope. 6. PROJECT GUIDELINES In developing this WO and estimating resources several guidelines are assumed and agreed to: 1. All Customer Project team members (as may be agreed by the Parties) will be available within reason to the DocuSign Project team, based on the Project plan that will be developed upon the full execution of this WO. 2. The Customer Project Manager will be fully responsible for allocating and managing Customer resources for the Project on a timely basis. 3. DocuSign will deploy suitable staff to carry out the Project. The number of resources assigned to the Project will vary during the Project life cycle depending upon the requirements of the Project. 4. The fees set forth in this WO do not include any software or licensing costs or any hardware that may be required. 5. Any changes to the scope of the effort defined herein may result in additional time and fees which will be subject to DocuSign’s availability and standard rates. 6. Customer has appropriate documentation available for current business processes and work flow. 7. This WO does not include the cost of travel. Travel expenses will be submitted to Customer for reimbursement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 4ED3EF4A-25C0-458F-BB26-06A99439C1FC v. 1.0 Work Order - 3 The parties have caused their respective duly authorized representatives to execute this WO. DocuSign, Inc. City of Palo Alto By: By: Name: Robert Desroches Name: (Printed) (Printed) Title: VP Global Consulting Title: Date: Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: 4ED3EF4A-25C0-458F-BB26-06A99439C1FC February 25, 2016 February 29, 2016 Assistant Director, ASD David Ramberg Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 4ED3EF4A25C0458FBB2606A99439C1FC Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: City of Palo Alto CSA WO (6 month) Start Date 4.1.2016 EnvelopeType: Source Envelope: Document Pages: 3 Signatures: 2 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 5 Initials: 0 Jennifer Baker AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 1301 2nd Ave Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 jennifer.baker@docusign.com IP Address: 166.176.185.34 Record Tracking Status: Original 2/25/2016 5:59:18 PM Holder: Jennifer Baker jennifer.baker@docusign.com Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp Robert Desroches robert.desroches@docusign.com VP, Global Consulting Docusign Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 70.96.135.254 Signed using mobile Sent: 2/25/2016 6:02:45 PM Viewed: 2/25/2016 6:05:30 PM Signed: 2/25/2016 6:09:21 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 7/13/2015 8:54:28 AM ID: c4e10feb-09cd-4e63-8738-4168e1392b33 David Ramberg David.Ramberg@CityofPaloAlto.org Assistant Director, ASD Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)Using IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Sent: 2/25/2016 6:09:24 PM Viewed: 2/29/2016 8:58:04 AM Signed: 2/29/2016 9:05:52 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Accepted: 9/14/2015 9:35:53 AM ID: d1453a34-9787-48eb-b39e-e8990e4ae25f In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 2/25/2016 6:09:26 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 2/29/2016 8:58:06 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 2/29/2016 9:05:53 AM Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Completed Security Checked 2/29/2016 9:05:53 AM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURE From time to time, DocuSign, Inc. (we, us or Company) may be required by law to provide to you certain written notices or disclosures. Described below are the terms and conditions for providing to you such notices and disclosures electronically through the DocuSign, Inc. (DocuSign) electronic signing system. Please read the information below carefully and thoroughly, and if you can access this information electronically to your satisfaction and agree to these terms and conditions, please confirm your agreement by clicking the ‘I agree’ button at the bottom of this document. Getting paper copies At any time, you may request from us a paper copy of any record provided or made available electronically to you by us. You will have the ability to download and print documents we send to you through the DocuSign system during and immediately after signing session and, if you elect to create a DocuSign signer account, you may access them for a limited period of time (usually 30 days) after such documents are first sent to you. After such time, if you wish for us to send you paper copies of any such documents from our office to you, you will be charged a $0.00 per-page fee. You may request delivery of such paper copies from us by following the procedure described below. Withdrawing your consent If you decide to receive notices and disclosures from us electronically, you may at any time change your mind and tell us that thereafter you want to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format. How you must inform us of your decision to receive future notices and disclosure in paper format and withdraw your consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically is described below. Consequences of changing your mind If you elect to receive required notices and disclosures only in paper format, it will slow the speed at which we can complete certain steps in transactions with you and delivering services to you because we will need first to send the required notices or disclosures to you in paper format, and then wait until we receive back from you your acknowledgment of your receipt of such paper notices or disclosures. To indicate to us that you are changing your mind, you must withdraw your consent using the DocuSign ‘Withdraw Consent’ form on the signing page of a DocuSign envelope instead of signing it. This will indicate to us that you have withdrawn your consent to receive required notices and disclosures electronically from us and you will no longer be able to use the DocuSign system to receive required notices and consents electronically from us or to sign electronically documents from us. All notices and disclosures will be sent to you electronically Unless you tell us otherwise in accordance with the procedures described herein, we will provide electronically to you through the DocuSign system all required notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to you during the course of our relationship with you. To reduce the chance of you inadvertently not receiving any notice or disclosure, we prefer to provide all of the required notices and disclosures to you by the same method and to the same address that you have given us. Thus, you can receive all the disclosures and notices electronically or in paper format through the paper mail delivery system. If you do not agree with this process, please let us know as described below. Please also see the paragraph immediately above that describes the consequences of your electing not to receive delivery of the notices and disclosures Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure created on: 7/8/2015 8:35:30 PM Parties agreed to: Robert Desroches, David Ramberg electronically from us. How to contact DocuSign, Inc.: You may contact us to let us know of your changes as to how we may contact you electronically, to request paper copies of certain information from us, and to withdraw your prior consent to receive notices and disclosures electronically as follows: To contact us by email send messages to: owen.quennell@docusign.com To advise DocuSign, Inc. of your new e-mail address To let us know of a change in your e-mail address where we should send notices and disclosures electronically to you, you must send an email message to us at owen.quennell@docusign.com and in the body of such request you must state: your previous e-mail address, your new e-mail address. We do not require any other information from you to change your email address.. In addition, you must notify DocuSign, Inc. to arrange for your new email address to be reflected in your DocuSign account by following the process for changing e-mail in the DocuSign system. To request paper copies from DocuSign, Inc. To request delivery from us of paper copies of the notices and disclosures previously provided by us to you electronically, you must send us an e-mail to owen.quennell@docusign.com and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail address, full name, US Postal address, and telephone number. We will bill you for any fees at that time, if any. To withdraw your consent with DocuSign, Inc. To inform us that you no longer want to receive future notices and disclosures in electronic format you may: i. decline to sign a document from within your DocuSign session, and on the subsequent page, select the check-box indicating you wish to withdraw your consent, or you may; ii. send us an e-mail to owen.quennell@docusign.com and in the body of such request you must state your e-mail, full name, US Postal Address, and telephone number. We do not need any other information from you to withdraw consent.. The consequences of your withdrawing consent for online documents will be that transactions may take a longer time to process.. Required hardware and software Operating Systems: Windows® 2000, Windows® XP, Windows Vista®; Mac OS® X Browsers: Final release versions of Internet Explorer® 6.0 or above (Windows only); Mozilla Firefox 2.0 or above (Windows and Mac); Safari™ 3.0 or above (Mac only) PDF Reader: Acrobat® or similar software may be required to view and print PDF files Screen Resolution: 800 x 600 minimum Enabled Security Settings: Allow per session cookies ** These minimum requirements are subject to change. If these requirements change, you will be asked to re-accept the disclosure. Pre-release (e.g. beta) versions of operating systems and browsers are not supported. Acknowledging your access and consent to receive materials electronically To confirm to us that you can access this information electronically, which will be similar to other electronic notices and disclosures that we will provide to you, please verify that you were able to read this electronic disclosure and that you also were able to print on paper or electronically save this page for your future reference and access or that you were able to e-mail this disclosure and consent to an address where you will be able to print on paper or save it for your future reference and access. Further, if you consent to receiving notices and disclosures exclusively in electronic format on the terms and conditions described above, please let us know by clicking the ‘I agree’ button below. By checking the ‘I agree’ box, I confirm that: • I can access and read this Electronic CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC RECEIPT OF ELECTRONIC RECORD AND SIGNATURE DISCLOSURES document; and • I can print on paper the disclosure or save or send the disclosure to a place where I can print it, for future reference and access; and • Until or unless I notify DocuSign, Inc. as described above, I consent to receive from exclusively through electronic means all notices, disclosures, authorizations, acknowledgements, and other documents that are required to be provided or made available to me by DocuSign, Inc. during the course of my relationship with you. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6675) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Amendment No. 2 to Integrated Design 360 Title: Approval of Contract Amendment No. 2 to C15154454 with Integrated Design 360 for Residential Landscape Plan Review and Landscape Permitting Consultancy Services and Term Extension of One Year Adding $365,535 for a Not to Exceed Amount of $878,261 From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to approve Amendment No. 2 to contract C15154454 with Integrated Design 360 to extend the term one year through August 31, 2017 and increase the contract limit by $365,535 to an amount not to exceed $878,261. Executive Summary This action is necessary to extend existing Green Building Program and non-residential landscape review consultancy services one year and amend scope to include residential landscape review and landscape permitting services necessary for compliance with the Emergency Building Standards for Outdoor Potable Water Use and Executive Order B- 29-15, relating to the California state drought. The consultant has completed nearly half of the existing two year contract, where experience with non-residential landscape projects uniquely positions the consultant to extend the term and expand the scope of the existing contract to include plan review of residential projects and management of a landscape permitting process. Background Following a competitive solicitation and selection process, Council approved a consulting contract with Integrated Design 360 on September 8th, 2014 (Staff Report 4986) to implement and manage the City’s Green Building Program and provide landscape review services for non-residential projects. In January, 2016, Council approved Amendment No. 1 with Integrated Design 360 to City of Palo Alto Page 2 expand the scope of the contract to include project management and analysis services associated with an Electrification feasibility study to be completed by December 31, 2016 (Staff Report 6297). The proposed amendment extends the existing Green Building services and review of non-residential project plans by one year and expands the scope to include review of residential project plans in accordance with the Emergency Building Standards within the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code for Outdoor Potable Water Use Reduction Section 4.304.1. The total anticipated cost of these extensions and expansions of scope is $365,535: The additional cost to extend Green Building consulting services through August 31, 2017 is $165,741. The additional cost to extend both residential and non-residential plan check reviews, though dependent on actual time and materials, is anticipated to be $134,318. Finally, the proposed amendment further expands the scope of services to include technical coordination and permit facilitation services for all landscape projects in response to Executive Order B-29-15, ensuring that procedures and in place and required data collected and reported to the Department of Water resources. These expanded services, though dependent on actual time and materials, are anticipated to cost $65,476. A more detailed scope of the consultant responsibilities is outlined as follows: A. Landscape Plan Check Review Services for Residential Projects Provide Landscape Plan Review consulting services for new residential construction to support Development Services in enforcing the Emergency Building Standards for Outdoor Potable Water Use set forth by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) department, effective June 1st. Activities 1. Perform Plan Review Services for Residential Projects Review project plans and supplemental documentation in accordance with the Emergency Building Standards within the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code for Outdoor Potable Water Use Reduction Section 4.304.1. The review shall be conducted in accordance with the measures outlined within the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) for water budgeting and irrigation design. Designate each project as “Approved” or “Not Approved” and City of Palo Alto Page 3 update Accela Automation for each permit applications. 2. Issue Correction Comments, Respond to Questions Based on the criteria submitted for review by the project applicant, prepare a formal letter containing a summary of corrections to the project applicant, if applicable. Answer questions via phone and email regarding the criteria for correcting the submittal. 3. Review Revisions and Resubmittals Review revision and resubmittal documents and project plans in accordance with the Emergency Building Standards for Outdoor Potable Water Use Reduction Section 4.304.1 for Outdoor Potable Water Use in Landscape Areas. B. Landscape Permitting to Support Executive Order B-29-15 Provide technical coordination and perform permit facilitation services to Development Services in response to Executive Order B-29-15 regarding the California State Drought. Provide landscape water use technical expertise and strategy consulting to senior management. Activities 1. Create Permit Procedures, Web Content and Forms Strategy and Technical Assistance for Landscape Permit Development Assist Development Services Director, the Chief Building Official, and related leadership to create policies and procedures for a Landscape Permit. Develop Forms, Worksheet and Web Content for Landscape Permit Provide technical writing services to develop web content to support the landscape permit on the Development Services webpage. Develop forms and worksheets to support the landscape permit. Upload the forms and worksheets to the webpage. 2. Provide Permit Technician Services for the Landscape Permit Administer Landscape Permit for Landscape Projects Administer and manage the Landscape Permit process for the City of Palo Alto. Support staff will be available to the public to process necessary landscape permit paperwork and documentation. 3. Metrics Management and Submission to Department of Water Resources City of Palo Alto Page 4 Collect and Submit Necessary Metrics to the Department of Water Resources Collect required data by Executive Order B2915 regarding water use information on landscape projects for each permit. Compile and submit required data to the Department of Water Resources for the initial reporting period of (February 1, 2016 – February 28th, 2016). After the initial reporting period is completed and accepted, submit annual reports at the end of each calendar year to the Department of Water Resources. Resource Impact Sufficient funding is available within the Development Services department’s FY2016 budget to cover the additional consultant costs of $365,535. Salary savings and unencumbered contract dollars will be used to fund the increase to the contract this fiscal year. Future funding needs will be brought forth as part of the annual budget process subject to council approval. In addition, staff will bring forward recommendations to implement Landscape Review fees to achieve cost neutrality as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 annual budget process. Environmental Review The approval of this contract amendment is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore no environmental review is required. Attachments: C15154454 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO 2 (PDF) 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO CONTRACT NO. C15154454 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. This Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C15154454 (“Contract”) is entered into 18th day of April, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. a California limited liability company, located at 727 Industrial Road, Suite 128, San Carlos, California, 94070, Telephone (415) 866-6744 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of assistance to manage the Green Building Program. B. The CITY intends to extend the term and increase the compensation by $365,535.00 from $512,726.00 to $878,261.00 for additional services as specified per Exhibit “A” Scope of Services. 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 Term, is hereby amended to read as follows: “The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through August 31, 2017 unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement.” SECTION 2. Section 4 COMPENSATION, 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 Seven Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($727,139.00). In the event Additional Services are authorized, the total compensation for Services, Additional Services and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed Eight Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand Two Hundred Sixty One Dollars ($878,261.00). 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: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 2 Revision April 28, 2014 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 “A” entitled “SCOPE OF SERVICES”. b. Exhibit “B” entitled “SCHEDULE Of PERFORMANCE”. c. Exhibit “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. d. Exhibit “C1” entitled “HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE”. 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: INTEGRATED DESIGN 360, LLC. Attachments: EXHIBIT "A" :SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT "B" :SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT "C" :COMPENSATION EXHIBIT "C1" :HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C Principal 3 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT shall provide professional services for CITY’s Green Building program. The CONSULTANT shall help manage the City’s Green Building program to help assist CITY with its continued efforts to be a leader in environmental sustainability. CONSULTANT shall integrate and manage sustainable building practices for local municipalities. CONSULTANT shall conduct landscape and irrigation plan reviews in accordance with the City’s landscape water efficiency standards. The CONSULTANT shall assist staff with the implementation and management of the City’s Green Building program. The CONSULTANT shall include a level of quality control of Green Building Program Management coupled with CITY personnel performing Green Building Quality Assurance as a portion of CONSULTANT’s duties. The CONSULTANT shall primarily execute the Green Building program and operations task list which includes: A. Existing Program Implementation Assistance B. Metrics Management and Reporting C. Quality Control Maintenance D. Develop Green Building Program Process Handouts E. Ongoing Training F. Policy Review and Creation G. Graphic Media Support of Program H. Landscape Water Efficiency Plan Review (Additional Service) A. Existing Program Implementation Assistance Provide program implementation assistance tasks for the existing green building program in accordance with CITY staff requirements. Examples of these tasks may include the items listed below: Response to requests to clear for Final Inspection Approval of permit applications (residential and non-residential) Explanation of requirements to applicants Reminders for final GP and LEED certificates, Commissioning reports, receive and enter final certs, administer fines when overdue Program efficiency improvement Integration with entire permitting system and individual staff members, as well as inter-departmental sustainability efforts (i.e.; landscape water efficiency review, C&D, zero waste) Program Development, goals, updates, implementation Data entry and management for statistics and annual report Community Education on sustainability Plan review including but not limited to residential and commercial planning and building permit applications. B. Metrics Management and Reporting Provide detailed quantitative analysis that measures how effective the Green Building program is per the following: Building Performance Database - Develop performance metrics information provided DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 4 Revision April 28, 2014 by applicant at Permit Issuance and Final Inspection stage of building permit. SEA Report – Compile standard report for fiscal year data for Green Building for annual SEA Report. Earth Daye Report – Compile standard report for fiscal year data for green building Annual Earth Day Report. C. Quality Control Maintenance Develop process and best practices for tasks identified at various stages of the development process. The various city departments where these best practices should be implemented include: Planner Quality Control Project Coordinator Quality Control Plan Checker Quality Control Inspector Quality Control Utilities Quality Control D. Develop Green Building Program Process Web Page and Handouts Develop clearly defined paths that are user friendly that guide the applicant through the process from start to finish. These paths will be readily accessible either through access to CITY’s Green Building web page and/or handouts that are available for distribution from CITY’s Development Center. E. Ongoing Training Continue to explore ways to help make Palo Alto a leader in environmental sustainability. This involves a proactive approach with all relevant City Departments including but not limited to, Planning, Building, Utilities, and Public Works. Ongoing training shall also be available to outside stakeholders when the opportunity presents itself. F. Policy Review and Creation Collaborate with stakeholder groups in the review of existing and creation of new green building policies and guidelines that forward the city’s vision to be a leader in sustainable development. CONSULTANT is expected to draw on best in class examples and latest advances in technology to promote this agenda. CONSULTANT shall use exceptional writing and communication skills to craft and articulate these policies and guidelines. G. Graphic Media Support of Program Develop and maintain web content for the Green Building webpage within the Development Services department webpage. Develop tutorial based videos explaining the Green Building process including, requirements, forms, timelines, inspections, etc.. H. Landscape Water Efficiency Plan Review (Additional Service) Review landscape and irrigation plans in accordance with the City’s landscape water efficiency standards to ensure that projects are consistent with the State Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Serve as a source of technical expertise to City staff for questions and/or issues relating to appropriate irrigation design and efficiencies. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 5 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 1: ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES A. GOALS Consultant shall provide technical project management and analysis consulting services to support Development Services in conducting a feasibility study to explore residential and commercial building code changes to assist in expediting electrification for buildings within Palo Alto. The scope of work is identified within Task #4 of the electrification work plan staff report #5961. The “Activities and Deliverables” section of this proposal follows the contents of Task #4. CONSULTANT shall structure the project into three sections: Project Management and Technical Analysis: CONSULTANT will act as the project manager on behalf of Development Services and will facilitate two other firms to complete the work outlined in this proposal. The two other consulting firms shall include the “Outside Consultants” listed below. CONSULTANT shall facilitate these outside consultants to produce the results listed under “Activities and Deliverables”. CONSULTANT will work closely with the Director of Development Services, the Chief Building Official, and the Chief Sustainability Officer on this project. Outside Consultant #1: Electrical Engineering Design Judgment & Cost Estimation: An electrical engineering firm with the capacity to provide engineering judgment analysis and cost estimation. The primary team member from Outside Consultant #1 shall be a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) in the State of California. Outside Consultant #2: Cost-Effectiveness Study Energy Engineering: An energy engineering firm with specialization in performing a cost-effectiveness study in accordance with Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1. B. ACTIVITIES & DELIVERABLES The intent of the study is to provide a high level assessment of the technical feasibility of electrification, and the associated code requirements. The activities and deliverables associated with this Statement of Work focus on researching and identifying technical requirements related to electrification for building types under the jurisdiction of the Building Standards Commission (BSC). CONSULTANT will project manage and coordinate the team from beginning to end and will provide regular updates to City Staff on the progress. CONSULTANT will facilitate the two other firms involved in this study to produce the intended result. ACTIVITIES: 1. Support Staff in the Project Initiation for the Electrification Study: Assist Staff in developing the project plan, schedule, and initiating the consulting project team for the purposing of completing the Electrification Study elements in Task #4. Assist staff to develop a scope of work for the “Outside Consultants”. Assist Staff to identify potential firms to solicit proposals for “Outside Consultant 1” and “Outside Consultant 2”. Act as the project manager to support “Outside Consultant 1” and “Outside Consultant 2” to deliver the study of engineering judgment, hard costs, and cost-effectiveness. 2. Conduct the Electrification Study Elements in Task #4 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 6 Revision April 28, 2014 a. Study the feasibility of including heat pump water heaters (HPWH) installations as part of the Calgreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre-requisite criteria. Project Management and Technical Analysis: Develop key “prototype” project scenarios based on building type data gathered from City resources including GIS, assessor data, and permit data. Report on the feasibility of including HPWH installations for CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria in the areas of policy development, enforcement, and staff training. Manage Outside Consultant #1 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing narrative analysis on the 2016 California Electrical Code engineering design elements and judgment scenarios for the project type scenarios. The study would outline the impact for the case of both a Tier “elective” policy and a Tier “pre-requisite” aka “mandated” policy. Outline cost-estimates for the electrification of key project types. Manage Outside Consultant #2 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing a cost-effective analysis of the “prototype” scenarios in accordance with the California Energy Commission requirements for local energy reach code ordinance development. The study would outline the impact for the case of the mandated “pre-requisite” policy. b. Study the feasibility of including heat pump space heating installations as part of Calgreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 elective or pre-requisite criteria. Project Management and Technical Analysis: Develop key “prototype” project scenarios based on building type data gathered from City resources including GIS, assessor data, and permit data. Report on the feasibility of including heat pump space heating as CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 criteria in the areas of policy development, enforcement, and staff training. Manage Outside Consultant #1 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing engineering design elements and judgment scenarios for the project type scenarios for heat pump space heating installations. The study would outline the impact for the case of Tier elective policy and Tier mandatory policy. Outline cost-estimates for the electrification of key project types. Manage Outside Consultant #2 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing a cost-effective analysis of the “prototype” scenarios for heat pump space heating in accordance with the California Energy Commission requirements for local energy reach code ordinance development. C. Study the feasibility of requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of the house in the future. Project Management and Technical Analysis: Report on the feasibility of including requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of residential structures with regards to identifying code sections to amend for policy development, enforcement, and staff training. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 7 Revision April 28, 2014 Manage Outside Consultant #1 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing engineering design and judgment narratives describing the impact or requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of a typical residential structure. Provide cost estimations for electrical panel capacity for applicable residential prototypes. Provide code sections that needed to be amended to of the California Electrical Code to result in achieving this result. Manage Outside Consultant #2 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing a cost-effective analysis of the residential “prototype” scenarios for requiring sufficient electrical panel capacity and outlets to accommodate the electrification of a residential structure in accordance with the California Energy Commission requirements for local energy reach code ordinance development. d. Study and seek permission from the California Energy Commission (CEC) to remove certain requirements that impeded electrification (such as a case-by-case cost effectiveness analysis) to permit installation of heat-pump based heating appliances. Project Management and Technical Analysis: Participate in the continued correspondence with the California Energy Commission with regards to easing the permit process for installation of heat pump water heaters. Update internal “fuel-switching” inspection checklist. Manage Outside Consultant #2 to identify California Energy Code requirements that impede electrification. Manage Outside Consultant #2 to produce the following: Feasibility study containing a summary of barriers California Energy Commission requirements for local energy reach code ordinance development for the 2016 code cycle. e. Work with other interested parties to lobby CEC to consider carbon content (in addition to energy efficiency) of building energy systems when updating building energy codes for the 2016 code update cycle (effective 2017). Project Management and Technical Analysis: Facilitate the continued correspondence with the California Energy Commission with regards considering carbon content of building energy systems when updating building energy codes for the 2016 code cycle update (effective 2017). f. Research and analyze the necessary components for a permitting process and field inspection protocol to support electrification. Project Management and Technical Analysis: Support upper management in developing proposed personnel modifications and training required for the plan check staff and inspection staff to support the electrification of buildings. g. Explore potential scenarios for an expedited permitting program for projects pursing electrification. Work with staff to identify resources required to administer an expedited permit program for projects pursuing electrification. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 8 Revision April 28, 2014 Project Management and Technical Analysis: Support upper management in exploring opportunities for an expedited permit program to support the electrification of buildings. 3. Assist Development Services in meeting the requirements of the Chief Sustainability Officer. Assist Development Services Staff in supporting the Chief Sustainability Officer in the overall delivery of the Electrification Study to the City Council related to the elements in Task #4. 4. Deliver the Electrification Study Elements in Task #4 Assist Staff in preparing and presenting to the City Council on the findings of Task #4. Prepare a Staff Report, and upload all required supporting documentation to MinuteTraq. Attend and provide technical support to staff during the City Council meeting. DELIVERABLES: Draft RFP language to assist staff in soliciting Consultant #1 and Consultant #2 Prototype scenarios for typical building projects based on past permit data Formal report detailing the results of the Electrification Study Written responses to email inquiries Staff Report AMENDMENT NO. 2: ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF SERVICES EXTENDED SERVICES Extended Green Building and Landscape Review Consulting Services Background CONSULTANT is currently contracted with the City of Palo Alto to perform Green Building Consulting Services and Landscape Plan Review services. Amendment No. 2 acts to extend these services for one additional year. Activities & Deliverables This activities and deliverable remain unchanged from the original scope of work. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services for Landscape Permit Management and Single--Family Water Efficient Landscape Review Background The City of Palo Alto is currently seeking assistance to help with Landscape Plan Reviews to ensure the Emergency Building Standards for Outdoor Potable Water Use set forth by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department, effective June 1st, are enforced for new DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 9 Revision April 28, 2014 residential projects. In addition, the City seeks to develop a Landscape Permit to meet the requirements of Executive Order B--29--15 related to drought response. Goals Single--Family Residential Review: Provide Landscape Plan Review consulting services for new single--family residential construction to support Development Services in enforcing the Emergency Building Standards for Outdoor Potable Water Use effective June 1, 2015. Landscape Permit Coordination: Provide technical coordination and perform permit facilitation services to Development Services in response to Executive Order B--29--15 regarding the California State Drought. Provide landscape water use technical expertise and strategy consulting to senior management. Activities & Deliverables Single--Family Residential Landscape Review ACTIVITIES: Perform Plan Review Services for Single--Family Residential Projects Review project plans and supplemental documentation in accordance with the Emergency Building Standards within the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code for Outdoor Potable Water Use Reduction Section 4.304.1. The review shall be conducted in accordance with the measures outlined within the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) for water budgeting and irrigation design. Designate each project as “Approved” or “Not Approved” and update Accela Automation for each permit application. Issue Correction Comments, Respond to Questions Based on the criteria submitted for review by the project applicant, prepare a formal letter containing a summary of corrections to the project applicant, if applicable. Answer questions via phone and email regarding the criteria for correcting the submittal. Review Revisions and Resubmittals DELIVERABLES: “Approved” or “Not Approved” updates in Accela Automation for each permit application Letter review for each “Not Approved” project containing a clear summary of corrections Written responses to email inquiries DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 10 Revision April 28, 2014 Landscape Permit Coordination to Support Executive Order B--29--15 ACTIVITIES: Support Staff to Create Permit Procedures, Web Content and Forms Strategy and Technical Assistance for Landscape Permit Development Assist Development Services Director, the Chief Building Official, and related leadership to create policies and procedures for a Landscape Permit. Develop Forms, Worksheet and Web Content for Landscape Permit Provide technical writing services to develop web content to support the landscape permit on the Development Services webpage. Develop forms and worksheets to support the landscape permit. Upload the forms and worksheets to the webpage. Provide Permit Technician Services for the Landscape Permit Administer Landscape Permit for Landscape Projects Administer and manage the Landscape Permit process for the City of Palo Alto. Support staff will be available to the public to process necessary landscape permit paperwork and documentation. Metrics Management and Submission to Department of Water Resources Collect and Submit Necessary Metrics to the Department of Water Resources Collect required data by Executive Order B--29--15 regarding water use information on landscape projects for each permit. Compile and submit required data to the Department of Water Resources for the initial reporting period of (February 1, 2016 – February 28, 2016). After the initial reporting period is completed and accepted, submit annual reports at the end of each calendar year to the Department of Water Resources. DELIVERABLES: Landscape Permit Forms, Worksheets, and Web Content Landscape Permit Data for Submission to the Department of Water Resources Landscape Permit Content into Accela Automation Landscape Permit Correspondence with Project Applicants DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 11 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE CONSULTANT shall perform the Services so as to complete each milestone within Quarter/Year as 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. 1. Existing Program Implementation Assistance Development Center Counter Green Building Forms & Handouts (Q1, 2015) Green Building Plan Check Standards (Q1, 2015) Green Building Inspection Checklist (Q1, 2015) Green Building Training Microsoft Powerpoints (Q1, 2015) Staff Reports (As needed) 2. Metric Management and Reporting Report narratives for Earth Day and SEA Report (Q4, 2014, 2015) Annual Database Output Data, Charts, and Graphs for Earth Day Report and SEA Report (Q4, 2014, 2015) Database login access (Q3, 2015) Database information for the Information Technology Department (Q3, 2015) 3. Quality Control Maintenance Development Center Green Building Ordinance Procedures (Q4, 2014) Correspondence with staff and the public via email (On-going) Meeting Notes (As needed) 4. Webpage and Handout Website content (Q4, 2014 and Q4, 2015) Informal Videos to be stored on Vimeo (Q2, 2015 and Q2, 2016) 5. On-Going Training Staff Training PowerPoints (One Per Quarter starting Q1,2015) Informal Training Videos for New Staff (Using Jing or Camtasia Software) - (Q1, 2015 through Q2, 2016 - One Per Quarter) Public Training Powerpoints (One Per Quarter starting Q1, 2015) 6. Policy Review and Creation DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 12 Revision April 28, 2014 New green building ordinance criteria in collaboration with Technical Advisory Group (Q4, 2014) Policy Development Agendas and Meeting Notes (On-going) Technical Analysis and Staff Reports (As needed) AMENDMENT NO. 1 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The schedule for completing the activities presented TBD in EXHIBIT “A” Scope of Services AMENDMENT NO. 2 SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE The schedule for completing the activities presented TBD Exhibit “A” Scope of Services will be developed in cooperation with CITY Staff. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 13 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “C” COMPENSATION The CITY agrees to compensate the CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the budget schedule below. Compensation shall be calculated based on the hourly rate schedule attached as exhibit C-1 up to the not to exceed budget amount for each task set forth below. 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, and the total compensation for Additional Services, do not exceed the amounts set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 $129,006.50 (Existing Program Implementation) Task 2 $36,859.00 (Metric Management & Reporting) Task 3 $55,288.50 (Quality Control Maintenance) Task 4 $36,859.00 (Webpages & Handouts) Task 5 $18,429.50 (On-Going Training) Task 6 $18,429.50 (Policy Review & Creation) Sub-total Basic Services $294,872.00 AMENDMENT NO. 1 Task 1 $16,080.00 (2015 4 Months) Task 1 $50,652.00 ( 2016 12 Months) DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 14 Revision April 28, 2014 Sub-total Amendment No 1 $66,732.00 AMENDMENT NO. 2 Task 1 $70,110.88 (Existing Program Implementation) Task 2 $20,043.80 (Metric Management & Reporting) Task 3 $29,955.00 (Quality Control Maintenance) Task 4 $22,717.76 (Webpages & Handouts) Task 5 $11,457.00 (On-Going Training) Task 6 $11,457.50 (Policy Review & Creation) Task 7 $81,274.00 (Commercial Landscape Review) Task 8 $53,044.00 (Residential Landscape Review) Task 9 $65,476.00 (Landscape Permit Management) Sub-total Amendment No 2 $365,535.00 Additional Services (Not to Exceed) $151,122.00 Maximum Total Compensation $878,261.00 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: None DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 15 Revision April 28, 2014 All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s Project Manager and CONSULTANT prior to commencement of the services. Payment for additional services is subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 16 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Principal/Senior Program Manager (Rates Reflect a 5% Annual Increase) 1st Year (4 months Aug – Dec 2014) $145.00 2nd Year (12 months Jan – Dec 2015) $152.25 3rd Year (8 months Jan – Aug 2016) $159.86 Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours/Mo Hourly Rate*** Extended Rate Totals Task 1 - Existing Program Implementation 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 35 $145.00 $20,300.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 35 $152.25 $63,945.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 35 $159.86 $44,761.50 Total Not to Exceed Task 1 $129,006.50 Task 2 - Metrics Management and Reporting** 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 10 $145.00 $5,800.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 10 $152.25 $18,270.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 10 $159.86 $12,789.00 Total Not to Exceed Task 2 $36,859.00 Task 3 - Quality Control Maintenance 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 15 $145.00 $8,700.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 15 $152.25 $27,405.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 15 $159.86 $19,183.50 Total Not to Exceed Task 3 $55,288.50 Task 4 - Webpages and Handouts* 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 10 $145.00 $5,800.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 10 $152.25 $18,270.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 10 $159.86 $12,789.00 Total Not to Exceed Task 4 $36,859.00 Task 5 - On-Going Training* 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $145.00 $2,900.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $152.25 $9,135.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 5 $159.86 $6,394.50 Total Not to Exceed Task 5 $18,429.50 Task 6 - Policy Review and Creation 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $145.00 $2,900.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $152.25 $9,135.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 5 $159.86 $6,394.50 Total Not to Exceed Task 6 $18,429.50 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 17 Revision April 28, 2014 Summary Totals Total Not To Exceed Amount for 2 Years $294,872.00 * Indicates the projected hours would be increased to complete initial work. Number in table represents an average number of hours over 12 months. **Workload would increase during the months of January and February to prepare for the Earth Day Report and SEA Report. ***Hourly rates are subject to a 5% increase each January ADDITIONAL SERVICES Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours Hourly Rate*** Extended Rate Totals Additional Services - Landscape Review 2014 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 41 $145.00 $23,780.00 2015 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 41 $152.25 $74,907.00 2016 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 41 $159.86 $52,434.90 Total Not to Exceed Additional Services $151,121.90 **Workload would increase during the months of January and February to prepare for the Earth Day Report and SEA Report. ***Hourly rates are subject to a 5% increase each January * Indicates the projected hours would be increased to complete initial work. Number in table represents an average number of hours over 12 months. AMENDMENT No. 1: Hourly Rate Schedule Summary Additional Services Totals Total Not To Exceed Amount for 2 Years $151,121.90 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 18 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT No 2. Hourly Rate Schedule EXTENDED SERVICES GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM CONSULTING SERVICES Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours/Mo Hourly Rate*** Extended Rate Task 1 - Existing Program Implementation 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 20 $159.86 $12,788.80 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 36 $68.25 $9,828.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 20 $167.85 $26,856.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 36 $71.66 $20,638.08 Total Not to Exceed Task 1 $70,110.88 Task 2 - Metrics Management and Reporting** 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 2 $159.86 $1,278.88 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 19 $68.25 $5,187.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 2 $167.85 $2,685.60 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 19 $71.66 $10,892.32 Total Not to Exceed Task 2 $20,043.80 Task 3 - Quality Control Maintenance 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 7 $159.86 $4,476.08 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 19 $68.25 $5,187.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 7 $167.85 $9,399.60 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 19 $71.66 $10,892.32 Total Not to Exceed Task 3 $29,955.00 Task 4 - Webpages and Handouts* 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 10 $159.86 $6,394.40 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 10 $68.25 $2,730.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 5 $167.85 $6,714.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 12 $71.66 $6,879.36 Total Not to Exceed Task 4 $22,717.76 Task 5 - On-Going Training* 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $159.86 $3,197.20 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 5 $68.25 $1,365.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 3 $167.85 $4,028.40 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 5 $71.66 $2,866.40 Total Not to Exceed Task 5 $11,457.00 Task 6 - Policy Review and Creation 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior PM 5 $159.86 $3,197.20 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 19 Revision April 28, 2014 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Program Associate 5 $68.25 $1,365.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior PM 3 $167.85 $4,028.40 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 5 $71.66 $2,866.40 Total Not to Exceed Task 6 $11,457.00 Total Not To Exceed Green Building $165,741.44 EXTENDED SERVICES COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE REVIEW ADDITIONAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE REVIEW – SINGLE--FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours Hourly Rate*** Extended Rate Additional Services - Landscape Review 2016 Rate (4 months Sept-Dec) Principal/Senior Program Manager 41 $159.86 $26,217.04 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior Program Manager 41 $167.85 $55,055.78 Total Not to Exceed Landscape Review $81,272.82 Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours Hourly Rate**Extended Rate Totals Residential Landscape Review (2015)*Landscape Reviewer 26 $152.25 Total Estimate Per Month $3,958.50 Total Estimate 2015 (5 months August-Dec)$19,792.50 Residential Landscape Review (2016)*Landscape Reviewer 26 $159.86 Total Not to Exceed 2015 - Per Month $4,156.43 Total Monthly 2016 (8 months Jan-Aug)$33,251.40 Total Not To Exceed Amount $53,043.90 **Hourly rates are subject to a 5% increase each January * Residential landscape reviews are estimated to take approximatelt 2 hours per project to complete. Estimate is based on 13 new residential projects submitted for permit each month on average. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C 20 Revision April 28, 2014 ADDITIONAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE PERMIT MANAGEMENT Scope Labor Categories Est. Hours Hourly Rate*** Extended Rate Additional Services - Landscape Permit Management 2016 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Principal/Senior Program Manager 3 $159.86 $5,754.96 2016 Rate (12 months Jan-Dec) Program Associate 40 $68.25 $32,760.00 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Principal/Senior Program Manager 3 $167.85 $4,028.40 2017 Rate (8 months Jan-Aug) Program Associate 40 $71.66 $22,931.20 Total Not to Exceed Landscape Permit $65,474.56 * Indicates the projected hours would be increased to complete initial work. Number in table represents an average number of hours over 12 months. **Workload would increase during the months of January and February to prepare for the Earth Day Report and SEA Report. ***Hourly rates are subject to a 5% increase each January DocuSign Envelope ID: 7A7EE23E-2FC8-4697-9824-DEA08E2BF76C Certificate Of Completion Envelope Id: 7A7EE23E2FC846979824DEA08E2BF76C Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign this document: C15154454 CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO 2 ay edit (2).pdf Source Envelope: Document Pages: 20 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator: Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Christopher Anastole AutoNav: Enabled EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto , CA 94301 chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org IP Address: 199.33.32.254 Record Tracking Status: Original 3/23/2016 8:57:12 AM Holder: Christopher Anastole chris.anastole@cityofpaloalto.org Location: DocuSign Signer Events Signature Timestamp melanie jacobson melanie@integrateddesign360.com Principal melanie jacobson Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Using IP Address: 73.158.231.144 Signed using mobile Sent: 3/23/2016 9:01:24 AM Viewed: 3/23/2016 6:17:54 PM Signed: 3/23/2016 6:22:40 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp Jessie Deschamps Jessie.Deschamps@CityofPaloAlto.org City of Palo Alto Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Katie Whitley Katie.Whitley@CityofPaloAlto.org Security Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Sent: 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure: Not Offered via DocuSign ID: Notary Events Timestamp Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM Certified Delivered Security Checked 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM Completed Security Checked 3/23/2016 6:22:41 PM City of Palo Alto (ID # 6322) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Award of Contracts to TJKM and Fehr & Peers for Transportation Engineering and Planning Services Title: Approval of a Four Year Contract Number C16162436 With TJKM in the Amount of $800,000 and a Four Year Contract Number C16163381 With Feh r and Peers in the Amount of $800,000 for Transportation Engineering Project Support Services, Transportation Engineering Resources, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Support From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a four year contract C16162436 with TJKM Transportation Consultants and a four year contract C16163381 with Fehr and Peers (Attachments A and B) in the amount of $800,000 each for Transportation Engineering Project Support Services, Transportation Engineering Staff Resources, and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Staff Resources. Background The City adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan in July 2012 and has made implementation of the Plan a priority. The plan identifies future bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities, including bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeways, off-road trail opportunities, etc. Subsequent to completion of a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the City identified two firms to complete several key projects and to provide Transportation Engineering Project Support Services, Transportation Engineering Staff Resources, and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Staff Resources. This staff report requests approval of contracts with TJKM Transportation Consultants and Fehr and Peers, to provide project support services focused on the implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PL-04010) and engineering support for transportation service requests (PL-12000-Parking & Transportation Improvements, PL-05030 -Traffic Signal and ITS upgrade and PL-00026- Safe Routes to School). City of Palo Alto Page 2 Discussion The Planning and Community Environment Department requested proposals to provide Transportation Engineering Project Support Services, Transportation Engineering Staff Resources, and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Staff Resources. The ideal respondent was identified as an experienced transportation engineering and planning firm or a project team with the ability to provide project support services and support City transportation staff and assist with the implementation of the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The selected consultant team(s) will provide for services including community meeting facilitators, graphic artists (with experience in preparing transportation-focused material for reports and community presentations), grant writers, landscape, roadway design engineers, surveyors, traffic data collection supervisors, transportation engineers, transportation planners, utility coordinators, and other team members who could provide on-site staff resources. The selected consultants will review and analyze transportation service requests, draft signing and marking plans, develop traffic signal timing plans and assist in the implementation of the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan and other transportation capital projects and work requests, as needed. Summary of Solicitation Process: Proposal Description/Number On-Call Transportation Engineering & Planning Proposed Length of Contract: 4 years each Total Days to Respond to RFP: 30 days Pre-proposal Meeting Date: February 2, 2016 via Teleconference Number of Proposals Received: 4 Proposals Received from: Location (City, State) Selected for oral interview? TJKM Pleasanton, CA No Fehr & Peers San Jose, CA No Stantec Walnut Creek, CA No BKF Redwood City, CA No The proposals were judged by the following criteria: Qualifications and experience of the staff assigned to the project; Proposal quality and completeness; Response time and ability to perform the work; and Fee The City released an (RFP) for the design of the On-call Traffic Engineering & Transportation City of Palo Alto Page 3 Planning Project on January 22, 2016. A pre-proposal teleconference was held on February 2, 2016 to help provide background information regarding the projects. Four proposals were received in response to the RFP. Staff from Transportation reviewed the proposals and recommended selection of two of the consultant teams, TJKM and Fehr and Peers, based on proposal content and criteria identified in the RFP and their superior knowledge of traffic engineering and the ability to complete the projects in a timely fashion. Staff feels that both TJKM and Fehr and Peers Consultants demonstrated successful completion of various traffic studies, implementation and development of the City’s bicycles projects. Both TJKM and Fehr and Peers demonstrated strong skills in completing similar traffic engineering projects. The proposed candidates for the Project Support Engineering and Planning Services role demonstrated strong skills in AutoCAD and Microstation for the development of signing and striping plans that would include innovative bicycle and pedestrian facility design. Timeline Immediately upon execution of a contract, staff will meet with each of the Consultant teams to begin work. Resource Impact Funding in the amount of $400,000 is available in the Fiscal Year 2016 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget to cover the first year of this work. Budget for additional years is included in the proposed CIP budget over the next three years through various transportation-focused projects, including PL-00026 (Safe Routes to School), PL-04010 (Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan – Implementation Project), PL-12000 (Parking & Transportation Improvements), and PL- 05030 (Traffic Signal and ITS upgrade). Policy Implications The City’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the City strive to accommodate all modes of travel in its street system. These contracts are consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal T-3: Facilities, Services and Programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. Goal T-4: An efficient Roadway Network is provided for all users, including motor vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians Program T-18: Develop and periodically update a comprehensive bicycle plan. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destination, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping Centers and multi modal transit stations. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Policy T-29: Make effective use of the traffic carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the need of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network. Environmental Review Approval of these contracts is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it can be seen with certainty that the contract approval will not have a significant effect on the environment. Additional environmental review may be required and will be completed as necessary for specific projects utilizing consultant services under these contracts. Attachments: Attachment A: TJKM Contract #C16162436 (PDF) Attachment B: Fehr & Peers Contract #C16163381 (PDF) Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16162436 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 5th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, a California corporation, located at 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA. 94588, Telephone (925) 463- 0611("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to provide on-call transportation engineering services (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described 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. 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 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 ATTACHMENT A Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through April 4, 2020 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 Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000.00). 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 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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: Alta Planning + Design 100 Webster Street, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: 510.788.6881 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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 as the Chris Kinzel as Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Nayan Amin as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY finds do not perform the Services in an acceptable manner, are uncooperative, or present a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project or a threat to the safety of persons or property. CITY’s project manager is Shahla Yazdy, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329- 3151. 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. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents or DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 contractors under this Agreement, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by an Indemnified Party. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days’ notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within two (2) business days of the CONSULTANT’s receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY’s 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, DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: TJKM TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “A-1” ON CALL TASK ORDER EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 President Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT will act as CITY’s technical on-call traffic consultant will be to focus on providing support and coordination to successfully fulfill technical expertise, technical studies, including sound scope development and schedule requirements. CONSULTANT general approach is as follows: Initiation of Work Assignments - CITY will notify CONSULTANT Project Manager of a proposed or possible task assignment. Based on the type of work involved, CONSULTANT will identify one or more choices of team for the assignment, and provide these recommendations to the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT will be available to meet with the CITY Project Manager, to discuss the team for the assignment and make necessary changes based on the input received. Preparation of Work Plans and Initiation of Task Orders - CITY will provide the proposed study objectives and expectations, including any specialized needs and schedule requirements. CONSULTANT will work with CITY Project Manager to confirm the requirements, and refine or clarify assumptions or expectations, including needed information from CITY. CONSULTANT will coordinate with CITY to achieve approval of the task order, and no work will proceed until the task order is signed and a notice to proceed is issued. As appropriate, a work plan will be developed at the initiation of the task order, or the task order itself will function as the work plan. A project schedule will be developed that identifies key milestones, including delivery dates and incorporation of the City of Palo Alto review times, and if applicable other regulatory agency review periods. Monitoring Progress of Assignment - CONSULTANT will provide objective-based performance monitoring on all projects. The budget and schedule for tasks identified in the Work Plan for each task order will be entered into CONSULTANT in-house, accounting system that allows both CONSULTANT and the Task Order Leaders to monitor budget and schedule performance. Coordination may include scheduled technical briefings with CITY staff. Progress reports for each assignment under this contract will be prepared monthly. Deliverables - As assigned deliverables are prepared, CONSULTANT will provide an independent, documented technical and peer review by qualified in-house staff. Following the peer review, documents will be provided to CITY for review. CITY comments will be addressed and incorporated into the draft deliverable(s). CONSULTANT will use comment matrices to list each comment and how and where it is addressed. These comment matrices provide an additional documentation of the QA/QC process. As appropriate, documents will be provided in paper and electronic formats in accordance with the contract/task order. Outlined below are typical processes CONSULTANT will follow for each of the project areas identified by the City of Palo Alto. 1. Staff Augmentation – CONSULTANT will provide staff augmentation services to CITY on as needed basis. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 2. General Transportation and Planning - CONSULTANT will collect existing data, validate future conditions, conduct analyses, develop the infrastructure needs and provide recommendations for General Transportation and Planning projects. 3. Traffic Impact Studies for Environmental Documents – CONSULTANT will adhere to the requirements of City of Palo Alto for conducting traffic impact studies within the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT will first participate in a meeting with the City of Palo Alto to obtain the details of the project being proposed and to work through the specific requirements of the particular traffic study. 4. Traffic Calming Studies and Design – CONSULTANT will investigate the need for neighborhood traffic calming, conduct analysis and recommend a plan for community discussion and potential adoption. 5. Traffic Operations – CONSULTANT will collect existing data, evaluate levels of service at intersections and along roadway sections, prepare detailed traffic simulation analyses of intersections, roundabouts and freeway interchanges, evaluate the need for upgrading geometric design, and examine the need for revised roadway signing, striping and markings. 6. Traffic Signal Design – CONSULTANT will inventory existing conditions, develop base maps and prepare plans, specifications and estimates for traffic signals at 35%, 60%, 90% and Final. 7. Traffic Signal Timing and Review – CONSULTANT will collect existing data, develop a model for existing conditions, evaluate signal timing parameters, optimize signal timings, and implement and fine-tune optimized timing plans. 8. Intelligent Transportation Systems – CONSULTANT will inventory existing conditions, develop base maps and prepare plans, specifications and estimates for traffic signals at 35%, 60%, 90% and Final. CONSULTANT will also conduct feasibility studies for ITS related projects. 9. Multimodal Planning and Design – CONSULTANT will inventory existing bicycle and pedestrian volumes as a part of multimodal planning studies and design projects, analyze impacts, develop recommendations and alternatives, conduct outreach and prepare deliverables. 10. Safe Routes to School – CONSULTANT will conduct meeting with school stakeholders, collect background data, field inventory existing infrastructure, conduct walking/bicycling audits, and identify operational and physical improvement measures. 11. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – CONSULTANT will develop an understanding of the priorities for various potential elements of a TDM program, highlighting measures that best match the City of Palo Alto’s needs or provide early opportunities for measurable success, and noting any measures that appear problematic for the City of Palo Alto. CONSULTANT will also: take stock of any existing TDM programs and services, which may be available through the City of Palo Alto, or large employers; DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 identify key community groups that could help support TDM measures; and investigate opportunities for education and social network marketing to the public. 12. Traffic Forecasting – CONSULTANT will use the latest version of the City’s or County’s Travel Demand model to determine future volumes and to help in determining traffic distribution of proposed projects. If appropriate, CONSULTANT will update the model itself, should that be a potential assignment from the City of Palo Alto. In using the model for traffic impact studies, CONSULTANT might suggest refining either the roadway network or the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure, if appropriate for the project. CONSULTANT will examine the land use in the relevant zone(s) and make adjustments as required based on the proposed project’s land use and its conformance to the land use already contained in the model. 13. Grant Applications – CONSULTANT will meet with CITY staff to gain a thorough understanding of each project for which grant funds are desired, will conduct field investigations, develop design concepts, and prepare drawings and cost estimates for the proposed improvements as needed to support the grant applications. If required for a particular grant application, such as for TDA Article 3 funds, CONSULTANT will prepare detailed plans (e.g. signing and pavement delineation plans to add bike lanes) as appropriate to successfully qualify the project as “construction-ready.” CONSULTANT will be available to complete all of the work on grant applications to meet any tight deadlines set by the funding agency. If the selection process includes oral presentations, CONSULTANT would present the City of Palo Alto’s proposed projects to the selection panel. 14. Public Hearings, Meetings and Workshops – CONSULTANT will attend public hearings as requested by the City of Palo Alto. Project Management Plan CONSULTANT will use project management plan that will be used on these projects is based on proven management and administrative systems developed to enhance communication among the City of Palo Alto, the CONSULTANT Project Manager (Nayan Amin) and team members, and other affected agencies. This management approach has been used successfully on numerous projects throughout California. CONSULTANT project management plan has the following elements: Work Plan CONSULTANT will prepare a Work Plan for all projects, large and small. Upon receipt of a Notice-to-Proceed, CONSULTANT in consultation with the CITY will propose an overall project work plan that includes detailed work elements for each team specialty. CONSULTANT work plan will typically include: definition of the project purpose, task objectives, scope of services, staffing, coordination requirements, deliverables, budget, schedule, and monitoring and reporting procedures. Coordination and Communication Frequent and effective communication among City, other local jurisdictions (as agreed with the City of Palo Alto), and the CONSULTANT will occur to maintain the project schedule and ensure a quality product. The key to the success of on-call tasks is an integrated team approach. CONSULTANT will maintain close communication with CITY’s Project Manager by personal contact, telephone, written communications, and meetings. Consultant will conduct scheduled DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 monthly progress meetings. CONSULTANT Project Manager will meet with CITY’s Project Manager monthly to discuss project issues, status, schedule, budget and invoicing items. CONSULTANT team will maintain regular contact with CITY staff to ensure clear communication on project tasks, products, meetings, and schedule. Specifically, CONSULTANT will: Participate in conference calls and meet with the City of Palo Alto staff, as needed at key stages during the project to review ideas, products, deliverables, project status and overall project direction and budget. Manage all aspects of the project to maintain project schedule and budget, maintain continuous liaison with the City of Palo Alto. Prepare and submit monthly progress status updates to the City of Palo Alto. The reports will include: progress of work, updated project schedule, information/decisions required to maintain schedule and complete deliverables, problems encountered that may affect schedule, budget or work products and anticipated work products for the following month. Cost Control CONSULTANT will control project costs by monitoring on a task level basis. Detailed task level will be rolled up into milestone summaries and a project summary. Cost control reporting to CITY’s Project Manager will be implemented through the invoicing process. Progress reports will also be included to relay information on project progress and critical issues. Schedule Control CONSULTANT will break down the project work scope by function and separated into defined tasks. Tasks will be linked logically and will be sufficiently detailed to allow for realistic representation of the project. Project progress will also be monitored by percent complete for each task. Quality Control QA/QC Procedures – CONSULTANT will utilize Quality Assurance Procedures throughout the life of the Project. Quality Control will start at the proposal and scope definition stage and continue through the completion of all assignments. To assure that errors, omissions and ambiguities in submittals are limited to an absolute minimum, the responsibilities for technical review, peer review/coordination checking, and technical audit functions will be assigned to the appropriate Consultant Team members. Additional Tasks Include: Transportation Engineering Project Support Services - CONSULTANT team to provide for various small spot improvement projects, including, but not limited to: a. bikeway intersection treatment plans b. collision diagrams c. cross-section graphics and photo simulations of project alternatives d. crosswalk signing and striping plans e. parking occupancy surveys DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 f. pavement marking plans g. peer review of transportation impact analyses h. review and preparation of temporary traffic control plans i. stamped and signed plans, specifications and estimates j. traffic sign design services k. traffic signal plans l. traffic signal timing plans m. transportation impact analyses n. other transportation engineering and planning tasks as needed CONSULTANT’s team to provide an Engineer to review, analyze and address work requests submitted through the Palo Alto 311 system and other channels. CONSULTANT should have three to five years of relevant experience, or equivalent education and experience, and will work on-site with City staff for a minimum of one day per week to start; which may lead to half- or full-time staff resource over the course of the current fiscal year. CONSULTANT should be able to create simple graphics on his/her own and develop AutoCAD-based improvement plans without substantial training by CITY or regular use of additional consultant-team resources. CONSULTANT should also have the ability to prepare, stamp and sign plans, specifications and estimates or have access to an Engineer with the ability to prepare, stamp and sign plans, specifications and estimates. Time and expense for travel to and from CITY as part of this task will not be considered reimbursable expenses under this contract. Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Staff Resource – CONSULTANT team to also provide an Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager to assist with implementation of the adopted Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The plan identifies future bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities including bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeways, shared-use paths, and other improvements. The CONSULTANT Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager will provide staff resource to assist in the preparation of bikeway Concept Plans, development of signage and striping plans, community meeting facilitation, construction document preparation, project bidding, and planning and designing other improvements, as required. CONSULTANT Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager should have three to five years of relevant experience, or equivalent education and experience, and will work on-site with City staff for a minimum of one day per week to start; perhaps leading to half- or full-time staff resource over the course of the current fiscal year. Time and expense for travel to and from the City of Palo Alto as part of this task will not be considered reimbursable expenses under this contract. Additional Tasks: Additional Transportation Planning tasks that may be included under this contract include: 1. Assist with public outreach and meeting facilitation 2. Conduct site visits and obtain measurements and photographs 3. Perform transportation modeling DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 4. Perform transportation planning studies 5. Prepare grant funding applications and associated attachments and exhibits 6. Provide other transportation planning related professional services as required Additional Transportation Engineering tasks for various small spot improvement projects that may be included under this contract include: 1. Intelligent transportation systems planning 2. Perform traffic engineering studies and reports 3. Perform traffic signal coordination timing analysis using Syncro, SimTraffic and/or VisSim 4. Prepare traffic signal plans, specifications and estimates 5. Prepare transportation engineering plans, specifications and estimates 6. Provide other transportation engineering related professional services as required Additional Roadway/Highway Engineering tasks for various small spot improvement projects that may be included under this contract include: 1. Perform utility coordination activities 2. Prepare agreements 3. Prepare engineering land surveys 4. Prepare landscaping plans, specifications and estimates 5. Prepare roadway/highway engineering plans, specifications and estimates 6. Right-of-way requirement maps 7. Provide other roadway/highway engineering related professional services as required All plans shall be prepared and submitted using latest AutoCAD software. Preparation of transportation impact analyses for other clients within the City of Palo Alto may disqualify the CONSULTANT from completing transportation impact analyses and conducting peer review of transportation impact analyses under this contract. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A-1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Consultant hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. ISSUE DATE Purchase Requisition No. 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONSULTANT 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 5. BUDGET CODE: _______________ COST CENTER_________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE: WORK TO BE PERFORMED SCHEDULE OF WORK BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE DELIVERABLES REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: __________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ Name ________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title_________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _________________________________ Date ___________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (Not Applicable - On-Call Services) DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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 $800,000.00. 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. 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. Time and expense for travel to and from the City of Palo Alto will not be considered reimbursable expenses under this contract. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense 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: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Labor Categories Skill Set Hourly Rate Principal Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Advisory Expertise $250.00 Director Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Management, Facilitation, Technical Expertise $230.00 Senior Project Manager Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Management, Facilitation, Technical Expertise $210.00 Project Manager Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Management, Facilitation, Technical Expertise, On‐Call Staff Augmentation $180.00 Senior Transportation Engineer Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Management, Facilitation, Technical Expertise, On‐Call Staff Augmentation $165.00 Engineer Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Production, Facilitation, Technical Expertise, On‐Call Staff Augmentation $145.00 Assistant Engineer Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Production, Facilitation, Technical Expertise, On‐Call Staff Augmentation $125.00 Transportation Planner Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Production, Facilitation, Technical Expertise, On‐Call Staff Augmentation $120.00 Graphics Designer Graphics $110.00 Technical Staff Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Production, Facilitation, Technical Expertise $80.00 Technical Staff II Planning/Design/Engineering/Operations ‐ Production, Facilitation, Technical Expertise $80.00 Administrative Staff Project Coordination, Word Processing $80.00 Production Staff Production $55.00 The above rates are fully loaded hourly rates. The above rates are valid through December 31st, 2016. The rates shall be increased on an average by 3 to 4% maximum per year after December 31st, 2016 to reflect adjustment in salaries due to increase in cost of living. CONSULTANT shall not to mark‐up subconsultants invoices. For any data to be collected in the field, CONSULTANT shall bill City of Palo Alto at the following rates: Peak Period Turning Movement Counts (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycles) for 2‐hour peak period ‐ $ 140 per peak period per location. Peak Period Turning Movement Counts (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycles) for 2‐hour peak period with video ‐ $ 200 per peak period per location. Peak Period Freeway Counts ‐ $ 180 per peak period per location. 24‐Hour bi‐directional counts (for seven days) along arterials ‐ $ 250 per location. 24‐Hour bi‐directional counts (for seven days) along ramps ‐ $ 300 per location. DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Labor Category 1a $295 Senior Principal Labor Category 1b $250 Principal Labor Category 1c $225 Principal Labor Category 2 $200 Principal Labor Category 3 $190 Principal, Senior Associate Labor Category 4 $175 Principal, Senior Associate Labor Category 5 $165 Principal, Senior Associate Labor Category 6 $160 Principal, Senior Associate Labor Category 7 $155 Principal, Senior Associate Labor Category 8 $148 Senior Associate, Associate Labor Category 9 $140 Senior Associate, Associate Labor Category 10 $135 Senior Associate, Associate Labor Category 11 $130 Associate, Senior Labor Category 12 $125 Associate, Senior Labor Category 13 $115 Associate, Senior Labor Category 14 $105 Senior, Level I Labor Category 15 $98 Senior, Level I Labor Category 16 $90 Level I, Level II Labor Category 17 $80 Level I, Level II Labor Category 18 $68 Administration Labor Category 19 $62 Intern The charges per hour for Labor Categories 1a through 19, shown above are effective through December 31, 2016 and subject to revision annually thereafter. In-house reproductions will be charged as follows: Color copies $0.50/ page Black and white copies $0.10/page 24" x 36" large format $15.00/sheet 36" x 48" large format $30.00/sheet Labor Category Rate General Classifications DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONTRACTOR’S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. C. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS IN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY’S PRIOR APPROVAL. II. CONTACTOR MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATES(S) OF INSURANCE EVIDENCING REQUIRED COVERAGE. III. ENDORSEMENT PROVISIONS, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSURANCE AFFORDED TO “ADDITIONAL INSUREDS” A. PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE ISSUING COMPANY SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: C9E27BA9-580C-44B9-9E25-2214AFBAAC16 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C16163381 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND FEHR & PEERS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is entered into on this 18th day of April, 2016, (“Agreement”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and FEHR & PEERS, a California corporation, located at 675 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675, San Jose, California, 95136 ("CONSULTANT"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement. A. CITY intends to provide on-call transportation engineering services (“Project”) and desires to engage a consultant to services in connection with the Project (“Services”). B. CONSULTANT has represented that it has the necessary professional expertise, qualifications, and capability, and all required licenses and/or certifications to provide the Services. C. CITY in reliance on these representations desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide the Services as more fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached to and made a part of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the Services described 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 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 ATTACHMENT B Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution through April 17, 2020 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 Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000.00). 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 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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: Mark Thomas & Company 1960 Zanker Road San Jose, CA. 95112 Callander Associates 311 7th Avenue San Mateo, CA. 94401 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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 Matt Haynes as the Principal in Charge to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and Steve Davis as the Project Manager to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day work on the Project. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project director, project coordinator, or any other key personnel for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director and the assignment of any key new or replacement personnel will be subject to the prior written reasonable approval of the CITY’s project manager. CONSULTANT, at CITY’s request, shall promptly remove personnel who CITY reasonably finds does 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 Shahla Yazdy, Planning & Community Environment Department, Transportation Division, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone: (650) 329- 3151. 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. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSULTANT will permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSULTANT’s records pertaining to matters covered by this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each an “Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all demands, claims, or liability of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including attorneys fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements (“Claims”) that arise out of, 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. 16.2. Notwithstanding the above, nothing in this Section 16 shall be construed to require CONSULTANT to indemnify an Indemnified Party from Claims arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of an Indemnified Party. 16.3. The acceptance of CONSULTANT’s services and duties by CITY shall not operate as a waiver of the right of indemnification. The provisions of this Section 16 shall survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. 18.1. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "D". CONSULTANT and its contractors, if any, shall obtain a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any general liability or automobile policy or policies. 18.2. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best’s Key Rating Guide ratings of A-:VII or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. Any and all contractors of CONSULTANT retained to perform Services under this Agreement will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an additional insured under such policies as required above. 18.3. Certificates evidencing such insurance shall be filed with CITY concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The certificates will be subject to the approval of CITY’s Risk Manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled, 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this Agreement, including such damage, injury, or loss arising after the Agreement is terminated or the term has expired. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving ten (10) days prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. Upon receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance of the Services. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance by CITY. 19.3. Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT shall deliver to the City Manager immediately any and all copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations, and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, or given to CONSULTANT or its contractors, if any, in connection with this Agreement. Such materials will become the property of CITY. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 25.8 If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in California Civil Code section 1798.81.5(d) about a California resident (“Personal Information”), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform City immediately upon learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or in the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal Information for direct marketing purposes without City’s express written consent. 25.9 All unchecked boxes do not apply to this agreement. 25.10 The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 25.11 This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO APPROVED AS TO FORM: FEHR & PEERS Attachments: EXHIBIT “A”: SCOPE OF WORK EXHIBIT “A-1” ON CALL TASK ORDER EXHIBIT “B”: SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE EXHIBIT “C”: COMPENSATION EXHIBIT “C-1”: SCHEDULE OF RATES EXHIBIT “D”: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Principal Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES CONSULTANT will provide CITY with on-call services and staff resource support request using a similar approach we have used on other on-call service assignments. CONSULTANT will review requirements of each project or task identified as part of this contract with CITY. CONSULTANT will prepare a scope and not-to-exceed fee for each specific task for review and approval by CITY. CONSULTANT Project Manager and will coordinate the on-call transportation engineering, Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and supplemental support CONSULTANT and SUBCONSULTANT staff resources. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING STAFF RESOURCE CONSULTANT will provide a Transportation Engineering Staff Resource Task Leader who will be available for 40% time (16 hours per week) including up to 16 hours to be spent at CITY. If needed, CONSULTANT will provide supplemental support staff in addition to the Task Leader to increase our commitment to one full-time equivalent (FTE) of staffing on transportation engineering projects for CITY. Supplemental staff resources would primarily work at CONSULTANT offices, but would make use of available technology to maintain close contact with CITY and be available to travel to CITY offices as required for project tasks or coordination. Support staff will provide supplemental services related to transportation engineering, graphics, GIS, CAD, and other tasks identified by CITY. CONSULTANT Engineer tasks will be to review, analyze and address work requests submitted through the Palo Alto 311 system and other channels. CONSULTANT should have three to five years of relevant experience, or equivalent education and experience, and will work on-site with City staff. CONSULTANT will create simple graphics on his/her own and develop AutoCAD- based improvement plans without substantial training by the City or regular use of additional consultant-team resources. CONSULTANT will prepare, stamp and sign plans, specifications and estimates or have access to an Engineer with the ability to prepare, stamp and sign plans, specifications and estimates. Time and expense for travel to and from the City of Palo Alto as part of this task will not be considered reimbursable expenses under this contract. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 BICYCLE + PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN STAFF RESOURCE CONSULTANT will provide a Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Staff Resource Task Leader who will be available for 40% time (16 hours per week) including up to 16 hours per week to be spent at CITY. If needed, CONSULTANT will provide supplemental support staff in addition to the Task Leader to increase our commitment to one full-time equivalent (FTE) of staffing on bicycle and pedestrian planning projects for CITY. Supplemental staff resources would primarily work at CONSULTANT offices, but would make use of available technology to maintain close contact with CITY and be available to travel to CITY offices as required for project tasks or coordination. Support staff will provide supplemental services related to transportation planning, graphics, GIS, CAD, and other tasks identified by CITY. CONSULTANT to provide an Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager to assist with implementation of the adopted Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The plan identifies future bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities including bicycle boulevards, enhanced bikeways, shared-use paths, and other improvements. The CONSULTANT Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager will provide staff resource to assist in the preparation of bikeway Concept Plans, development of signage and striping plans, community meeting facilitation, construction document preparation, project bidding, and planning and designing other improvements, as required. CONSULTANT Engineer, Planner and/or Project Manager should have three to five years of relevant experience, or equivalent education and experience, and will work on-site with City staff for a minimum of one day per week to start; perhaps leading to half- or full-time staff resource over the course of the current fiscal year. Time and expense for travel to and from the City of Palo Alto as part of this task will not be considered reimbursable expenses under this contract. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBCONSULTANT SUPPORT CONSULTANT will coordinate project support in the following areas: Civil/roadway design Surveying Utility coordination. Landscape architecture Community outreach efforts DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Project support will be provided as required by specific tasks or project needs identified by CITY. Scope and not-to-exceed fee for each specific task will be agreed upon by CITY, CONSULTANT, and SUBCONSULTANT prior to start of work. ADDITIONAL PROJECT TASKS CITY may request CONSULTANT perform various transportation engineering and planning tasks in addition to those discussed above as part of this on-call contract. Additional tasks that may be requested under this contract include: Assist with public outreach and meeting facilitation Conduct site visits and obtain measurements and photographs Perform transportation modeling Perform transportation planning studies Prepare grant funding applications and associated attachments and exhibits Provide other transportation planning related professional services as required Intelligent transportation systems planning Perform traffic engineering studies and reports Perform traffic signal coordination timing analysis using Synchro, SimTraffic and/or VISSIM Prepare traffic signal plans, specifications and estimates Prepare transportation engineering plans, specifications and estimates Provide other transportation engineering related professional services as required Perform utility coordination activities Prepare agreements Prepare engineering land surveys Prepare landscaping plans, specifications and estimates Prepare roadway/highway engineering plans, specifications and estimates Right-of-way requirement maps Provide other roadway/highway engineering related professional services as required Scope and fee for additional tasks would be developed by CONSULTANT and coordinated with CITY upon receipt of the request. CONSULTANT will designate appropriate staff resources for each additional task based upon the needs of the project. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “A-1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER Consultant hereby agrees to perform the work detailed below in accordance with all the terms and conditions of the Agreement referenced in Item 1A below. All exhibits referenced in Item 8 are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference. The Consultant shall furnish the necessary facilities, professional, technical and supporting personnel required by this Task Order as described below. CONTRACT NO. ISSUE DATE Purchase Requisition No. 1A. MASTER AGREEMENT NUMBER 1B. TASK ORDER NO. 2. CONSULTANT 3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: START: COMPLETION: 4 TOTAL TASK ORDER PRICE: $__________________ BALANCE REMAINING IN MASTER AGREEMENT $__________________________________ 5. BUDGET CODE: _______________ COST CENTER_________________ COST ELEMENT______________ WBS/CIP___ _______PHASE___ 6. CITY PROJECT MANAGER’S NAME/DEPARTMENT_________________________________________ 7. DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF SERVICES MUST INCLUDE: WORK TO BE PERFORMED SCHEDULE OF WORK BASIS FOR PAYMENT & FEE SCHEDULE DELIVERABLES REIMBURSABLES (with “not to exceed” cost) 8. ATTACHMENTS: A: Scope of Services B: __________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hereby authorize the performance of I hereby acknowledge receipt and acceptance the work described above in this Task Order. of this Task Order and warrant that I have authority to sign on behalf of Consultant. APPROVED: APPROVED: CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPANY NAME: ______________________ BY:__________________________________ BY:____________________________________ Name ________________________________ Name __________________________________ Title_________________________________ Title___________________________________ Date _________________________________ Date ___________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “B” SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE (On-call Services Not Applicable) DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 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. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, after the first year of service, CONSULTANT may increase the rates annually. Increases may not exceed 6% per year. Increases will require prior CITY approval. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $800,000.00. 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. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES The administrative, overhead, secretarial time or secretarial overtime, word processing, photocopying, in-house printing, insurance and other ordinary business expenses are included within the scope of payment for services and are not reimbursable expenses. CITY shall reimburse CONSULTANT for the following reimbursable expenses at cost. Expenses for which CONSULTANT shall be reimbursed are: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $100.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable 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: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “C-1” HOURLY RATE SCHEDULE Staff Project Role / Labor Category Skill Set Hourly Rate Matt Haynes Principal-In-Charge Sustainable transportation, mobility and planning studies $255 Robert Eckols Associate-In-Charge Local expertise, sustainable transportation, planning studies $245 Steve Davis Project Manager / Senior Engineer Transportation and bike/ped design, operations studies $165 Henry Choi Task Leader, Engineering Staff Resource / Engineer Transportation design and planning studies $115 Sarah Peters Task Leader, Bicycle+ Pedestrian Plan Resource / Planner TDM, bike/ped, and multimodal studies, community engagement $140 Ashley Brooks Engineer Transportation design, traffic impact and planning studies $140 David Wasserman Planner Planning studies, GIS analysis, advanced graphics $115 Debbie Doolan CAD Specialist AutoCAD design and drafting, graphics $140 Ryan McClain Pedestrian & Bicycle Expert / Associate Operations, bike/ped planning and Complete Streets design $205 Suzanne Luckjiff Design Expert / Associate Traffic signal, lighting, ITS, and signing & striping design $210 Mark Thomas & Company Staff Admas Zewdie Project Manager, Civil Lead Civil/roadway design, utility design and coordination $252 Matt Stringer Surveying Lead Base map, GPS, and control surveys for design projects $210 Callander Associates Staff Marie Mai Project Manager Landscape architecture, graphic design, community engagement $168 Brian Fletcher Principal Landscape architecture, graphic design, community engagement $190 DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 Classification Hourly Rate Principal $195.00 - $335.00 Senior Associate $200.00 - $320.00 Associate $130.00 - $220.00 Senior Engineer/Planner $140.00 - $200.00 Engineer/Planner $110.00 - $155.00 Senior Technical Support $125.00 - $185.00 Senior Administrative Support $110.00 - $150.00 Administrative Support $100.00 - $135.00 Technician $105.00 - $145.00 Intern $80.00 - $100.00 Other Direct Costs / Reimbursable expenses are invoiced at cost plus 10% for handling. After the first year of service, CONSULTANT may increase the rates annually. Increases may not exceed 6% per year. Increases will require prior CITY approval. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 EXHIBIT “D” INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST’S KEY RATING OF A-:VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY’S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: REQUIRE D TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE YES YES WORKER’S COMPENSATION EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY STATUTORY STATUTORY YES GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED BODILY INJURY - EACH PERSON - EACH OCCURRENCE PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE, COMBINED $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 YES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT PERFORMANCE ALL DAMAGES $1,000,000 YES THE CITY OF PALO ALTO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR, AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHALL OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED, INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR AND ITS SUBCONSULTANTS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER’S LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE, NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A. A PROVISION FOR A WRITTEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CANCELATION OF COVERAGE; AND B. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT FOR THE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 Professional Services Rev. March 31, 2015 B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON- PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, THE CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITTEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. NOTICES SHALL BE EMAILED TO: InsuranceCerts@CityofPaloAlto.org DocuSign Envelope ID: C4B62FC1-521E-4226-A591-C5D2B5203367 CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK April 18, 2016 The Honorable City Council Palo Alto, California Adoption of a Resolution Scheduling the City Council Winter Closure for 2016 and Setting the Annual Council Reorganization Meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 2017 RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution scheduling the City Council 2016 Winter Break from December 19, 2016 to January 2, 2017. Set January 3, 2017 as the date for the annual Council Reorganization meeting. BACKGROUND On Saturday, January 30, 2016 the City Council set its Summer Break from July 2 through August 12, 2016. At that time, Council did not schedule a winter break. In 2015 Council took winter break from Monday, December 21 through January 4, 2016. This year Christmas and New Year’s Day are each on Sundays, making the next day the official holidays. Palo Alto Unified School District is taking winter break from Monday, December 19 through January 2, 2017. The results of the November election must be certified by the Registrar of Voters no later than December 8, 2016. Typically, this occurs by the end of November. If the City receives the results as late as December 8th, the above schedule will allow Council to certify the election results at the meeting on December 12, 2016. Staff proposes holding the annual reorganization meeting (swearing in of new Council Members; election of Mayor and Vice-Mayor; and honoring outgoing officers and any Council Members leaving office) at a Special Meeting on Tuesday, January 3, 2017. If a Special Meeting is not scheduled, the first 2017 regular Council meeting will occur on Monday, January 9. Staff proposes January 3rd in response to concerns stated over the past few years about ensuring new Council Members are sworn and seated promptly, and regular Council business begins as soon thereafter as possible. Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: 0140155 RESO Re Council Winter Vacation (PDF) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 3 NOT YET APPROVED 1 150119 sh 0140150 Resolution No. ______ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Winter Break for Calendar Year 2016 R E C I T A L S A. Under Section 2.04.010 of the Municipal Code, the City Council must schedule its annual vacation for each calendar year no later than the third meeting in February. B. On Saturday, January 30, 2016 the City Council set its Summer Break from July 2 through August 12, 2016. At that time the Council did not set its winter break. C. In 2015 Council took winter break from Monday, December 21 through January 4, 2016. This year Christmas and New Year’s Day are each on Sundays, making the next day official holidays. Palo Alto Unified School District is taking winter break from Monday, December 19 through January 2, 2017. D. The results of the November election must be certified by the Registrar of Voters no later than December 8, 2016. Typically, this occurs by the end of November. If the City receives the results as late as December 8th, the above schedule would allow the Council to certify the election results at the meeting on December 12, 2016. E. The City Council desires to set its annual winter break for 2016 from Monday, December 19, 2016 through January 2, 2017. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council sets its winter break for calendar year 2016 from December 19, 2016 through January 2, 2017. // // // // // // // // NOT YET APPROVED 2 150119 sh 0140150 SECTION 2. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney City Manager City of Palo Alto (ID # 6676) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 Title: Approval of a Wastewater Enterprise Fund Contract WC-14001 With Ranger Pipelines, Inc. in the Amount of $3,386,018 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 in the Downtown North, Crescent Park, Community Center and Leland Manor Neighborhoods, and Approval of a Budget Amendment Increasing the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 Budget (WC-14001) in the Amount of $700,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities Recommendation Staff recommends that Council: 1. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute Contract C16162377 with Ranger Pipelines, Inc. (Attachment A) in a not-to-exceed amount of $3,078,198 for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) WC-14001 (Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation (SSR) Project 27). 2. Approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Ranger Pipelines, Inc. for related additional but unforeseen work, which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $307,820 or 10% of the contract’s not-to-exceed amount, which when combined with the contract’s not-to-exceed amount of $3,078,198 shall not exceed a total in the amount of $3,386,018. 3. Approve a Budget Amendment (Attachment D) in the Wastewater Collection Fund: I. Increasing the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 (WC-14001) budget $700,000 in Fiscal Year 2016 which will increase the total CIP budget from $3,306,417 to $4,006,417, and; II. Decreasing the Wastewater Collection Rate Stabilization Reserve by $700,000. Executive Summary Bid Name/Number Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project, CIP WC-14001, City of Palo Alto Page 2 IFB Number 162377 Proposed Length of Project 200 calendar days Number of Bids Mailed to Contractors 0 (electronic documents were available on Planet Bid) Number of Bids Mailed to Builder’s Exchanges 0 Total Days to Respond to Bid 30 Pre-Bid Meeting? Yes (Mandatory) Number of Company Attendees at Pre-Bid Meeting 10 Number of Bids Received: 3 Bid Price Range $3,078,198 to $3,492,185 *Bid summary provided in Attachment B. Staff has reviewed the submitted bids and recommends that the bid of $3,078,198 submitted by Ranger Pipelines, Inc. be accepted and that Ranger Pipelines, Inc. be declared the lowest responsible bidder. The bid is approximately 4 percent below the staff engineer's estimate of $3,200,419. The change order amount of $307,820, which equals 10 percent of the total contract, is requested for additional unforeseen work that may develop during the project. The bids received are consistent with the current state of the economy. The engineer’s estimated price was very close to the bids received because it was based on recent pricing trends for similar projects. Staff confirmed with the Contractor's State License Board that both the contractor, and its listed subcontractor’s, has an active license on file. Staff checked references supplied by the contractor for previous work performed and found no significant complaints. Staff also confirmed that both the contractor and subcontractor are registered and in good standing with the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). In addition to this, Ranger Pipelines, Inc. has contracted with the City in the past on Utilities Department projects, and has demonstrated the knowledge and ability needed to complete this project on schedule and within budget. Although the lowest bid was 4% lower than the engineer’s estimate for construction, the total funds needed to complete the sewer rehabilitation project are currently not available in WC- 14001. Total budget costs required to see the project through completion include design, construction, construction management and inspection services. In the last couple years, bid prices received for sewer rehabilitation projects have increased approximately 20% due to market demand. As a result, construction costs are consuming a larger portion of the total project budget. Utilities Department is requesting approval of a Budget Amendment in the amount of $700,000 for contract contingency, internal labor and street cut fees. Background This project is part of the Utilities Department plan to address areas that were identified in Wastewater Capital Improvement Project 17 (Cleaning and Video Inspection of the Collection System) as needing rehabilitation. The planned areas were prioritized based on system maintenance needs, the 2004 Wastewater Master Plan, the Public Works street paving City of Palo Alto Page 3 program, and the goals of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. Staff also coordinated this project with other underground work to minimize interference with other contractors and their schedules. Discussion The work to be performed under the contract is for replacement and/or rehabilitation of approximately 15,752 linear feet of sanitary sewer mains of various sizes and installation of 8 sewer manholes. In addition, 257 existing City-owned sewer service laterals and cleanouts will be replaced with new 4” High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) service laterals and cleanouts. All new service laterals will be installed from the new sewer main (usually located in the street) to the new sewer cleanouts (located in the City’s right-of-way, usually in a planting strip or behind the sidewalk). Any landscaping that may be removed as part of the work will be restored in kind when construction is completed. This project includes rehabilitation work within two existing utility easements located on private property near Walter Hays Drive and between Park Boulevard and Alma Street. However, no work will be done on private property under this contract in any other location. The project is primarily located in the Downtown North, Crescent Park, Community Center and Leland Manor areas of the City, along with some additional minor work in non-contiguous areas of the Ventura neighborhood. Project locations are shown on Attachment C. The City will provide written notification to all affected property occupants prior to the start of construction. The Contractor will also provide two written notifications of the work to all abutting property occupants, one at least 7 days prior to the commencement of work at their specific locations, and a second 24 hours prior to mobilization. In order to minimize disruption during the extended period of construction, work will, in general, work will be performed from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday and no construction work will be allowed during the two week period between the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, if applicable. Construction work on Alma Street and Embarcadero Road will only be permitted between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The construction period for each location will vary depending on the extent of work to be done; residents/business can expect construction in their area lasting a minimum of one month. Resource Impact A budget amendment in the Wastewater Collection Fund of $700,000, offset with a reduction to the Wastewater Collection Fund Reserve is recommended to fund the construction contract, staff labor and street cut fees for capital improvement project WC-14001 (Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27). Due to the level of infrastructure coordination required amongst different City departments and impact to rate-setting, Utilities develops the budget a minimum of five years in advance of a major capital replacement project. The original budget numbers for this project were based on construction costs and staff wages in 2011. The additional funding being requested is needed to account for economic fluctuations in construction costs and staff cost increases over City of Palo Alto Page 4 the past five years. Going forward, staff will review and update the total project budget two years prior to the construction phase based on the most recent pricing available. See below for a breakdown of all costs associated with SSR Project 27. Summary of Project Costs for SSR 27 (WC-14001) Pre-Design/Design Costs $80,924 Construction Costs $3,078,198 10% Contingency $307,820 Staff Time (Includes Engineering & Inspection Time) $444,451 Trench Cut Fees $90,000 TOTAL $4,001,404 Current Budget $3,306,417 Funds Needed $694,987 The size of this project significantly exceeds the City’s in-house construction resources making it necessary to contract out the work. Policy Implications The approval of this contract is consistent with existing City policies including the Council approved Utilities Strategic Plan-Strategic Objectives: BP1. Ensure a reliable supply of utility resources, BP2. Operate the utility systems safely, and BP3. Replace infrastructure before the end of its useful life. Environmental Review This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 (repair, maintenance of existing facilities) and 15302 (replacement or reconstruction of existing facilities). Attachments: Attachment A: Contract (PDF) Attachment B: Bid Summary (PDF) Attachment C: Site Location Map (PDF) Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 1 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT Contract No. C16162377 City of Palo Alto “Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27” ATTACHMENT A Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 2 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS…………………………………….…………..6 1.1 Recitals…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 1.2 Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6 SECTION 2 THE PROJECT………………………………………………………………………………………………………...6 SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS………………………………………………………………………………..7 3.1 List of Documents…………………………………………………………………………………………….........7 3.2 Order of Precedence……………………………………………………………………………………………......7 SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY…………………………………………………………………………………………..8 4.1 Contractor's Duties…………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM……………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 5.1 Contractor's Co-operation………………………………………………………………………………………..8 SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION…………………………………………………………………………………….......8 6.1 Time Is of Essence…………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 6.2 Commencement of Work…………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.3 Contract Time…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 6.4 Liquidated Damages…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 6.4.1 Other Remedies……………………………………………………………………………………………………..9 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time………………………………………………………………………………….9 SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR……………………………………………………………………….9 7.1 Contract Sum……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9 7.2 Full Compensation……………………………………………………………………………………………………9 SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE……………………………………………………………………………………………..9 8.1 Standard of Care…………………………………………………………………………………..…………………9 SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION…………………………………………………………………………………………..…10 9.1 Hold Harmless……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10 9.2 Survival…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION……..………………………………………………………………………………10 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement…………….………………………………..……………………………….10 SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS.…………………………………………………………………………………10 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 3 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 11.1 Evidence of Coverage…………………………………………………………………………………………..10 SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST RANSFERS………………………………………………………………….…11 12.1 Assignment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 12.2 Assignment by Law.………………………………………………………………………………………………11 SECTION 13 NOTICES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.1 Method of Notice …………………………………………………………………………………………………11 13.2 Notice Recipents ………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 13.3 Change of Address……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 SECTION 14 DEFAULT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...12 14.1 Notice of Default………………………………………………………………………………………………….12 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default…………………………………………………………………………………12 SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES…………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1 Remedies Upon Default……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services…………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold……………………………………………………………………………………..13 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract…………………………………………………………………13 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default………………………………………………13 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond………………………………………………………………………….13 15.1.6 Additional Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.2 Delays by Sureties……………………………………………………………………………………………….13 15.3 Damages to City…………………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default…………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.4 Suspension by City……………………………………………………………………………………………….14 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience……………………………………………………………………………..14 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause………………………………………………………………………………………..14 15.5 Termination Without Cause…………………………………………………………………………………14 15.5.1 Compensation………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 15.5.2 Subcontractors………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination………………………………………………………………...15 SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES……………………………………………………………16 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies……………………………………..………………………………..………………….16 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 4 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage……………………………………………………………………………………………16 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment…………………………………………………………………………………….16 16.2 Damages to Contractor………………………………………………………………………………………..16 SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS………………………………………………………………………………….…16 17.1 Financial Management and City Access………………………………………………………………..16 17.2 Compliance with City Requests…………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………..17 18.1 Status of Parties……………………………………………………………………………………………………17 SECTION 19 NUISANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…17 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited……………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES…………………………………………………………………………………….17 20.1 Payment of Fees…………………………………………………………………………………………………..17 SECTION 21 WAIVER…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 21.1 Waiver………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….17 SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS……………………………….18 22.1 Governing Law…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 22.2 Compliance with Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT……………………………………………………………………………………18 23.1 Integration………………………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………..18 24.1 Survival of Provisions……………………………………………………………………………………………18 SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES………………………………………………………………………………………….18 SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION……………………………………………………………………………………….19 26.1 Appropriation………………………………………………………………………………………………………19 SECTION 27 AUTHORITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 27.1 Representation of Parties…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS………………………………………………………………………………………………..19 28.1 Multiple Counterparts………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY……………………………………………………………………………………………………19 29.1 Severability………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES …………………………………………………..19 30.1 Amendments of Laws…………………………………………………………………………………………..19 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 5 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION………………………………………………….….19 31.1 Workers Compensation…………………………………………………………………………………….19 SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS………………………………..…20 32.1 General Notice to Contractor…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a)…………………………………………………………………………….20 32.3 DIR Registration Required…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices…………………………………………………………………………………20 32.5 Payroll Records…………………………………………………………………………………………………20 Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 6 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT entered into on 18th day of April 2016 (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("City"), and RANGER PIPELINES INCORPORATED ("Contractor"), is made with reference to the following: R E C I T A L S: A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. Contractor is a corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, Contractor’s License Number 417996 and DIR Number 1000003604. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Construction Contract. C. On January 12, 2016, City issued an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to contractors for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27 (“Project”). In response to the IFB, Contractor submitted a Bid. D. City and Contractor desire to enter into this Construction Contract for the Project, and other services as identified in the Contract Documents for the Project upon the following terms and conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings hereinafter set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: SECTION 1 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND DEFINITIONS. 1.1 Recitals. All of the recitals are incorporated herein by reference. 1.2 Definitions. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth in this Construction Contract and/or in the General Conditions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Construction Contract and in the General Conditions, the definitions in this Construction Contract shall prevail. SECTION 2 THE PROJECT. The Project is the “Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project 27”, located in Palo Alto, CA. ("Project"). Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 7 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 3 THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Purchasing Division and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders 2) Field Orders 3) Contract 4) Bidding Addenda 5) Special Provisions 6) General Conditions 7) Project Plans and Drawings 8) Technical Specifications 9) Instructions to Bidders 10) Invitation for Bids 11) Contractor's Bid/Non-Collusion Affidavit 12) Reports listed in the Contract Documents 13) Public Works Department’s Standard Drawings and Specifications (most current version at time of Bid) 14) Utilities Department’s Water, Gas, Wastewater, Electric Utilities Standards (most current version at time of Bid) 15) City of Palo Alto Traffic Control Requirements 16) City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map and Regulations 17) Notice Inviting Pre-Qualification Statements, Pre-Qualification Statement, and Pre- Qualification Checklist (if applicable) 18) Performance and Payment Bonds 3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 8 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 4 CONTRACTOR’S DUTY. 4.1 Contractor’s Duties Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents, all of which are fully incorporated herein. Contractor shall provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including, but not limited to, provision of all necessary labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor also agrees to use its best efforts to complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents. SECTION 5 PROJECT TEAM. 5.1 Contractor’s Co-operation. In addition to Contractor, City has retained, or may retain, consultants and contractors to provide professional and technical consultation for the design and construction of the Project. The Contract requires that Contractor operate efficiently, effectively and cooperatively with City as well as all other members of the Project Team and other contractors retained by City to construct other portions of the Project. SECTION 6 TIME OF COMPLETION. 6.1 Time Is of Essence. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. 6.2 Commencement of Work. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. 6.3 Contract Time. Work hereunder shall begin on the date specified on the City’s Notice to Proceed and shall be completed within two hundred calendar days (200) after the commencement date specified in City’s Notice to Proceed. By executing this Construction Contract, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion. 6.4 Liquidated Damages. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, if Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time, including any approved extensions thereto, City may assess liquidated damages on a daily basis for each day of Unexcused Delay in achieving Substantial Completion, based on the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) per day, or as otherwise specified in the Special Provisions. Liquidated damages may also be separately assessed for failure to meet milestones specified elsewhere in the Contract Documents, regardless of impact on the time for achieving Substantial Completion. The assessment of liquidated damages is not a penalty but considered to be a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages City will suffer by delay in completion of the Work. The City is entitled to setoff the amount of liquidated damages assessed against any payments otherwise due to Contractor, including, but not limited to, setoff against release of retention. If the total amount of liquidated damages Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 9 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT assessed exceeds the amount of unreleased retention, City is entitled to recover the balance from Contractor or its sureties. Occupancy or use of the Project in whole or in part prior to Substantial Completion, shall not operate as a waiver of City’s right to assess liquidated damages. 6.4.1 Other Remedies. City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within the Contract Time. 6.5 Adjustments to Contract Time. The Contract Time may only be adjusted for time extensions approved by City and memorialized in a Change Order approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 7 COMPENSATION TO CONTRACTOR. 7.1 Contract Sum. Contractor shall be compensated for satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents the Contract Sum of Three Million Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety Eight Dollars ($3,078,198.00). [This amount includes the Base Bid and Additive Alternates 32 - 34.] 7.2 Full Compensation. The Contract Sum shall be full compensation to Contractor for all Work provided by Contractor and, except as otherwise expressly permitted by the terms of the Contract Documents, shall cover all Losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the acts of the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by City, all risks connected with the Work, and any and all expenses incurred due to suspension or discontinuance of the Work, except as expressly provided herein. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted for Change Orders approved in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. SECTION 8 STANDARD OF CARE. 8.1 Standard of Care. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. All services performed in connection with this Construction Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 10 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 9 INDEMNIFICATION. 9.1 Hold Harmless. To the fullest extent allowed by law, Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, employees, representatives and volunteers (hereinafter individually referred to as an “Indemnitee” and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees"), through legal counsel acceptable to City, from and against any and liability, loss, damage, claims, expenses (including, without limitation, attorney fees, expert witness fees, paralegal fees, and fees and costs of litigation or arbitration) (collectively, “Liability”) of every nature arising out of or in connection with the acts or omissions of Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors, representatives, or agents, in performing the Work or its failure to comply with any of its obligations under the Contract, except such Liability caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of an Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs City incurs to enforce this provision. Except as provided in Section 9.2 below, nothing in the Contract Documents shall be construed to give rise to any implied right of indemnity in favor of Contractor against City or any other Indemnitee. Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract. 9.2 Survival. The provisions of Section 9 shall survive the termination of this Construction Contract. SECTION 10 NON-DISCRIMINATION. 10.1 Municipal Code Requirement. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, Contractor certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. Contractor acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and will comply with all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 11 INSURANCE AND BONDS. 11.1 Evidence of coverage. Within ten (10) business days following issuance of the Notice of Award, Contractor shall provide City with evidence that it has obtained insurance and shall submit Performance and Payment Bonds satisfying all requirements in Article 11 of the General Conditions. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 11 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 12 PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS. 12.1 Assignment. City is entering into this Construction Contract in reliance upon the stated experience and qualifications of the Contractor and its Subcontractors set forth in Contractor’s Bid. Accordingly, Contractor shall not assign, hypothecate or transfer this Construction Contract or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise without the prior written consent of City. Any assignment, hypothecation or transfer without said consent shall be null and void, and shall be deemed a substantial breach of contract and grounds for default in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy available to the City. 12.2 Assignment by Law. The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if the Contractor is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity. SECTION 13 NOTICES. 13.1 Method of Notice. All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Construction Contract shall be given in writing and shall be deemed served on the earlier of the following: (i) On the date delivered if delivered personally; (ii) On the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as hereinafter provided; (iii) On the date sent if sent by facsimile transmission; (iv) On the date sent if delivered by electronic mail; or (v) On the date it is accepted or rejected if sent by certified mail. 13.2 Notice to Recipients. All notices, demands or requests (including, without limitation, Change Order Requests and Claims) from Contractor to City shall include the Project name and the number of this Construction Contract and shall be addressed to City at: To City: City of Palo Alto City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Copy to: City of Palo Alto Public Works Administration 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: AND Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 12 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attn: Jennifer Cioffi In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this Construction Contract shall be provided to the following: Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, California 94303 All Claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from City to Contractor shall be addressed to: Ranger Pipelines Incorporated PO Box 24109 San Francisco, CA 94124 13.3 Change of Address. In advance of any change of address, Contractor shall notify City of the change of address in writing. Each party may, by written notice only, add, delete or replace any individuals to whom and addresses to which notice shall be provided. SECTION 14 DEFAULT. 14.1 Notice of Default. In the event that City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract, with a copy to Contractor’s performance bond surety. 14.2 Opportunity to Cure Default. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) Days (or such shorter time as City may reasonably require) and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) Days after receipt of such written notice. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 13 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 15 CITY'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 15.1 Remedies Upon Default. If Contractor fails to cure any default of this Construction Contract within the time period set forth above in Section 14, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: 15.1.1 Delete Certain Services. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.2 Perform and Withhold. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract, engage others to perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been adequately performed by Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto. 15.1.3 Suspend The Construction Contract. City may, without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work. 15.1.4 Terminate the Construction Contract for Default. City shall have the right to terminate this Construction Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default as required by Section 14. City’s election to terminate the Construction Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Construction Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein. 15.1.5 Invoke the Performance Bond. City may, with or without terminating the Construction Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond. 15.1.6 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Construction Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not waive the City’s authority to designate other breaches as material nor limit City’s right to terminate the Construction Contract, or prevent the City from terminating the Agreement for breaches that are not material. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Construction Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Construction Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City. 15.2 Delays by Sureties. Time being of the essence in the performance of the Work, if Contractor’s surety fails to arrange for completion of the Work in accordance with the Performance Bond, within seven (7) calendar days from the date of the notice of termination, Contractor’s surety shall be deemed to have waived its right to complete the Work under the Contract, and City may immediately make arrangements for the completion of the Work through use of its own forces, by hiring a replacement contractor, or by any other means that City determines advisable under the circumstances. Contractor and its surety shall be jointly and severally Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 14 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT liable for any additional cost incurred by City to complete the Work following termination. In addition, City shall have the right to use any materials, supplies, and equipment belonging to Contractor and located at the Worksite for the purposes of completing the remaining Work. 15.3 Damages to City. 15.3.1 For Contractor's Default. City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents. 15.3.2 Compensation for Losses. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to deduct the cost of such Losses from monies otherwise payable to Contractor. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount payable, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City. 15.4 Suspension by City 15.4.1 Suspension for Convenience. City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing, to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time. The order shall be specifically identified as a Suspension Order by City. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the order and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order. During the Suspension or extension of the Suspension, if any, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or, by Change Order, delete the Work covered by the Suspension Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension. A Suspension Order shall not be the exclusive method for City to stop the Work. 15.4.2 Suspension for Cause. In addition to all other remedies available to City, if Contractor fails to perform or correct work in accordance with the Contract Documents, City may immediately order the Work, or any portion thereof, suspended until the cause for the suspension has been eliminated to City’s satisfaction. Contractor shall not be entitled to an increase in Contract Time or Contract Price for a suspension occasioned by Contractor’s failure to comply with the Contract Documents. City’s right to suspend the Work shall not give rise to a duty to suspend the Work, and City’s failure to suspend the Work shall not constitute a defense to Contractor’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Contract Documents. 15.5 Termination Without Cause. City may, at its sole discretion and without cause, terminate this Construction Contract in part or in whole upon written notice to Contractor. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with the notice and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs to close out and demobilize. The compensation allowed under this Paragraph 15.5 shall be the Contractor’s sole and exclusive compensation for such termination and Contractor waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind resulting from termination without cause. Termination pursuant to this provision does not relieve Contractor or its sureties from any of their obligations for Losses arising from or related to the Work performed by Contractor. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 15 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 15.5.1 Compensation. Following such termination and within forty-five (45) Days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Paragraph 15.5.1, City shall pay the following to Contractor as Contractor’s sole compensation for performance of the Work : .1 For Work Performed. The amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor. .2 For Close-out Costs. Reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors: (i) Demobilizing and (ii) Administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) Days after receipt of the notice of termination. .3 For Fabricated Items. Previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work. .4 Profit Allowance. An allowance for profit calculated as four percent (4%) of the sum of the above items, provided Contractor can prove a likelihood that it would have made a profit if the Construction Contract had not been terminated. 15.5.2 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Construction Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor against City under this Section. 15.6 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (i) Immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (ii) Place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work that is not discontinued; (iii) Provide to City a description in writing, no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (iv) Promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (v) Thereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto. Upon termination, whether for cause or for convenience, the provisions of the Contract Documents remain in effect as to any Claim, indemnity obligation, warranties, guarantees, Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 16 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT submittals of as-built drawings, instructions, or manuals, or other such rights and obligations arising prior to the termination date. SECTION 16 CONTRACTOR'S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. 16.1 Contractor’s Remedies. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract only upon the occurrence of one of the following: 16.1.1 For Work Stoppage. The Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive Days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any Subcontractor, or any employee or agent of Contractor or any Subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable. This provision shall not apply to any work stoppage resulting from the City’s issuance of a suspension notice issued either for cause or for convenience. 16.1.2 For City's Non-Payment. If City does not make pay Contractor undisputed sums within ninety (90) Days after receipt of notice from Contractor, Contractor may terminate the Construction Contract (30) days following a second notice to City of Contractor’s intention to terminate the Construction Contract. 16.2 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Paragraph 15.5.1 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind. SECTION 17 ACCOUNTING RECORDS. 17.1 Financial Management and City Access. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Construction Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices. City and City's accountants during normal business hours, may inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project. Contractor shall retain these documents for a period of three (3) years after the later of (i) Final Payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes, or (iii) for such longer period as may be required by law. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 17 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT 17.2 Compliance with City Requests. Contractor's compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section 17 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. City many enforce Contractor’s obligation to provide access to City of its business and other records referred to in Section 17.1 for inspection or copying by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony. SECTION 18 INDEPENDENT PARTIES. 18.1 Status of parties. Each party is acting in its independent capacity and not as agents, employees, partners, or joint ventures’ of the other party. City, its officers or employees shall have no control over the conduct of Contractor or its respective agents, employees, subconsultants, or subcontractors, except as herein set forth. SECTION 19 NUISANCE. 19.1 Nuisance Prohibited. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection in the performance of services under this Construction Contract. SECTION 20 PERMITS AND LICENSES. 20.1 Payment of Fees. Except as otherwise provided in the Special Provisions and Technical Specifications, The Contractor shall provide, procure and pay for all licenses, permits, and fees, required by the City or other government jurisdictions or agencies necessary to carry out and complete the Work. Payment of all costs and expenses for such licenses, permits, and fees shall be included in one or more Bid items. No other compensation shall be paid to the Contractor for these items or for delays caused by non-City inspectors or conditions set forth in the licenses or permits issued by other agencies. SECTION 21 WAIVER. 21.1 Waiver. A waiver by either party of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 18 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 22 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE; COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 22.1 Governing Law. This Construction Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California, and venue shall be in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara, and no other place. 22.2 Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal and California laws and city laws, including, without limitation, ordinances and resolutions, in the performance of work under this Construction Contract. SECTION 23 COMPLETE AGREEMENT. 23.1 Integration. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. SECTION 24 SURVIVAL OF CONTRACT. 24.1 Survival of Provisions. The provisions of the Construction Contract which by their nature survive termination of the Construction Contract or Final Completion, including, without limitation, all warranties, indemnities, payment obligations, and City’s right to audit Contractor’s books and records, shall remain in full force and effect after Final Completion or any termination of the Construction Contract. SECTION 25 PREVAILING WAGES. This Project is not subject to prevailing wages. Contractor is not required to pay prevailing wages in the performance and implementation of the Project in accordance with SB 7, if the public works contract does not include a project of $25,000 or less, when the project is for construction work, or the contract does not include a project of $15,000 or less, when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance (collectively, ‘improvement’) work. Or Contractor is required to pay general prevailing wages as defined in Subchapter 3, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Section 16000 et seq. and Section 1773.1 of the California Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the contract for this Project from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Copies of these rates may be obtained at the Purchasing Division’s office of the City of Palo Alto. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of all sections, including, but not limited to, Sections 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1782, 1810, and 1813, of the Labor Code pertaining to prevailing wages. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 19 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 26 NON-APPROPRIATION. 26.1 Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that the City does not appropriate funds for the following fiscal year for this event, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Construction Contract are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 27 AUTHORITY. 27.1 Representation of Parties. 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. SECTION 28 COUNTERPARTS 28.1 Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties, constitute a single binding agreement. SECTION 29 SEVERABILITY. 29.1 Severability. In case a provision of this Construction Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 30 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REFERENCES. 30.1 Amendments to Laws. With respect to any amendments to any statutes or regulations referenced in these Contract Documents, the reference is deemed to be the version in effect on the date that the Contract was awarded by City, unless otherwise required by law. SECTION 31 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CERTIFICATION. 31.1 Workers Compensation. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.” Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 20 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT SECTION 32 DIR REGISTRATION AND OTHER SB 854 REQUIREMENTS. 32.1 General Notice to Contractor. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of SB 854. 32.2 Labor Code section 1771.1(a) City provides notice to Contractor of the requirements of California Labor Code section 1771.1(a), which reads: “A contractor or subcontractor shall not be qualified to bid on, be listed in a bid proposal, subject to the requirements of Section 4104 of the Public Contract Code, or engage in the performance of any contract for public work, as defined in this chapter, unless currently registered and qualified to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5. It is not a violation of this section for an unregistered contractor to submit a bid that is authorized by Section 7029.1 of the Business and Professions Code or Section 10164 or 20103.5 of the Public Contract Code, provided the contactor is registered to perform public work pursuant to Section 1725.5 at the time the contract is awarded.” 32.3 DIR Registration Required. City will not accept a bid proposal from or enter into this Construction Contract with Contractor without proof that Contractor and its listed subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) to perform public work, subject to limited exceptions. 32.4 Posting of Job Site Notices. City gives notice to Contractor and its listed subcontractors that Contractor is required to post all job site notices prescribed by law or regulation and Contractor is subject to SB 854-compliance monitoring and enforcement by DIR. 32.5 Payroll Records. City requires Contractor and its listed subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Labor Code section 1776, including: (i) Keep accurate payroll records, showing the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by, respectively, Contractor and its listed subcontractors, in connection with the Project. (ii) The payroll records shall be verified as true and correct and shall be certified and made available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of Contractor and its listed subcontractors, respectively. (iii) At the request of City, acting by its project manager, Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall make the certified payroll records available for inspection or furnished upon request to the project manager within ten (10) days of receipt of City’s request. City requests Contractor and its listed subcontractors to submit the certified payroll records at the end of each week during the Project. Invitation for Bid (IFB) Package 21 Rev. April 20, 2015 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (iv) If the certified payroll records are not produced to the project manager within the 10-day period, then Contractor and its listed subcontractors shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, and City shall withhold the sum total of penalties from the progress payment(s) then due and payable to Contractor. This provision supplements the provisions of Section 15 hereof. (v) Inform the project manager of the location of contractor’s and its listed subcontractors’ payroll records (street address, city and county) at the commencement of the Project, and also provide notice to the project manager within five (5) business days of any change of location of those payroll records. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Construction Contract to be executed the date and year first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO ____________________________ City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney RANGER PIPELINES INC. By:___________________________ Name:________________________ Title:__________________________ Date: _________________________ CITY OF PALO ALTO BID SUMMARY Attachment B SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 27 Bid Date: February 11, 2016 Item Quantity Unit Description Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended Unit Extended No.Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($)Price ($) 1 1 LS Design, install and remove sheeting, shoring, bracing & other excavation supports.$284,950 $284,950 $120,000 $120,000 $21,000 $21,000 $490,000 $490,000 2 1 LS Recycle asphalt, concrete and soil.$17,135 $17,135 $4,596 $4,596 $7,000 $7,000 $10,000 $10,000 3 11,299 LF Replace existing 6-inch or 8-inch VCP with 8-Inch HDPE pipe by pipe-bursting method.$97 $1,100,240 $150 $1,694,850 $124 $1,401,076 $115 $1,299,385 4 392 LF Replace existing 8-inch VCP with 10-inch HDPE pipe by pipe-bursting method.$106 $41,385 $180 $70,560 $100 $39,200 $130 $50,960 5 685 LF Replace existing 15-inch VCP with 16-inch HDPE pipe by pipe-bursting method.$349 $238,723 $200 $137,000 $125 $85,625 $300 $205,500 6 1,394 LF Replace existing 15-inch VCP with 18-inch HDPE pipe by pipe-bursting method.$359 $500,098 $220 $306,680 $135 $188,190 $400 $557,600 7 178 LF Replace existing 6-inch or 8-inch VCP with 8-inch HDPE pipe open trench method.$231 $41,051 $350 $62,300 $250 $44,500 $300 $53,400 8 280 LF Replace existing 8-inch VCP with 10-inch HDPE pipe by open trench method.$286 $80,073 $370 $103,600 $260 $72,800 $450 $126,000 9 50 LF Replace existing 15-inch VCP with 18-inch HDPE pipe by open trench method.$215 $10,763 $450 $22,500 $350 $17,500 $550 $27,500 10 211 LF Rehabilitate existing 6-Inch VCP using CIPP method.$38 $8,002 $85 $17,935 $85 $17,935 $85 $17,935 11 861 LF Rehabilitate existing 8-Inch VCP or CIP using CIPP method.$48 $41,479 $49 $42,189 $49 $42,189 $49 $42,189 12 402 LF Rehabilitate existing 18-inch VCP OR DIP using CIPP method.$99 $39,969 $100 $40,200 $100 $40,200 $100 $40,200 13 138 EA Replace existing 4-inch sewer lateral by pipe-bursting method.$1,213 $167,335 $400 $55,200 $2,000 $276,000 $500 $69,000 14 111 EA Replace existing 4-inch sewer lateral by open trench method.$1,966 $218,220 $2,000 $222,000 $2,900 $321,900 $500 $55,500 15 8 EA Replace existing 4-inch ACP sewer lateral by open trench method.$2,171 $17,368 $3,000 $24,000 $2,900 $23,200 $500 $4,000 16 1 EA Replace existing 6-inch ACP sewer lateral by open trench method.$2,636 $2,636 $4,000 $4,000 $2,100 $2,100 $500 $500 17 1 EA Replace existing 8-inch ACP sewer lateral with 6-inch HDPE lateral by open trench method.$2,636 $2,636 $4,500 $4,500 $3,000 $3,000 $500 $500 18 43 EA Reconnect existing 4-inch lateral to new sewer main.$786 $33,806 $500 $21,500 $1,300 $55,900 $100 $4,300 19 8 EA Install new 48-inch manhole.$4,441 $35,531 $6,000 $48,000 $6,000 $48,000 $6,500 $52,000 20 5 EA Remove existing 48-inch or 60-inch manhole.$1,025 $5,125 $2,000 $10,000 $1,200 $6,000 $1,500 $7,500 21 37 EA Remove existing manhole and replace with new 48- inch manhole.$4,441 $164,329 $6,000 $222,000 $6,000 $222,000 $6,500 $240,500 22 1 EA Remove existing lamphole or flush inlet and replace with new 48-inch manhole.$513 $513 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $3,500 $3,500 23 2 EA Remove existing lamphole or flush inlet.$513 $1,025 $1,000 $2,000 $500 $1,000 $500 $1,000 24 9 EA Provide stub-out and connection to existing main.$473 $4,253 $1,500 $13,500 $1,000 $9,000 $100 $900 25 15,752 LF Cleaning and video inspection of mains.$2 $32,292 $3 $47,256 $2 $31,504 $1 $7,876 26 411 LF Slurry fill abandoned mains.$7 $2,949 $10 $4,110 $5 $2,055 $50 $20,550 27 1 EA Spot repair.$5,943 $5,943 $8,000 $8,000 $5,900 $5,900 $5,000 $5,000 28 2 CY ACP storage and disposal.$410 $820 $4,000 $8,000 $200 $400 $50 $100 29 1 LS Remove, replace and reinstate section of storm drain box culvert at Embarcadero & Greer.$20,000 $20,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $5,000 30 1 LS Walter Hays easement between MH 20-2-1 and MH 20-1-11 - replace existing 6" VCP with 8" HDPE by pipe-bursting method. $30,000 $30,000 $55,000 $55,000 $25,000 $25,000 $14,000 $14,000 31 1 LS Perform GPS survey.$30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 $17,000 $17,000 $60,000 $60,000 Total of Base Bid (Items 1 through 31 only, with all applicable taxes included)$3,178,647 $3,402,476 $3,043,174 $3,472,395 B: ADD ALTERNATE BID 32 493 LF Walter Hays easement between MH 20-2-1 and MH 20-1-11 - rehabilitate existing 6-inch pipe using CIPP method.$38 $18,697 $68 $33,524 $68 $33,524 $30 $14,790 33 10 TON Disposal of excavated soils at class 1 landfill.$103 $1,025 $150 $1,500 $100 $1,000 $300 $3,000 34 10 TON Disposal of excavated soils at class 2 landfill.$205 $2,050 $50 $500 $50 $500 $200 $2,000 Total of Add Alternate Bid (Items 32 through 34 only, with all applicable taxes included)$21,772 $35,524 $35,024 $19,790 Grand Total - Base Bid + Add Alternate Bid (items 01 through 34, with taxes included)$3,200,419 $3,438,000 $3,078,198 $3,492,185 BID SUMMARY ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE KJ Woods Construction, Inc.Ranger Pipelines, Inc.Precision Engineering, Inc. P rim ro s e W a y Iris W a y Tulip LaneTulip L a n e G r e er R o a d G r e e r R o a d H a m ilt o n A v e n u e Hil b a r L a n e A l ann ah C t Edge Rho des Dr i ve Elsinore DriveElsinore Court El Cajon Way Greer Road California Avenue St Francis wood D r i v e Edgewood Drive Wildwoo d Lane I v y L a n e East Bayshore Road S t F r a n cis D riv e Wil d w o o d L a n e LauraLane O'Brine Lane(Private) H ar k e r A v e n ueGreenwoodAvenue Louisa Cou r t N e w ell P l E rst wild C o u rt W alt e r H a y s D riv e W aln ut D riv e N e w e ll R o a d Louis Road Barbara Drive P ri m r o s e W a y Iris Way Embarcadero Road Walter Hays Drive Lois Lane J o r d a n Pl L ois L a n e H e a th er L a n e S ta nle y W a y D e S o t o D riv e De Soto Drive Ale ster Aven ue W alte r H a y s D riv eChanning A v e n u e Iris W a yDana A ve nue Ha mi lto n Av enu e Jefferson Drive J ackson Dr i v e P at ri ci a L an e M adi so n W ay Edgewoo d D r i v e ps Roa d Bellview Dr Seale Avenue East Bayshore Road Edgewood Drive S a n d al w o o d Ct Morton Street N e w e ll R o a d De S oto Drive Morton Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc SSR 27 0'500' SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 27 LOCATION MAP 1 OF 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A PR IL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ale, 2016-03-03 11:06:15 SSR 27 CMR MAPS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) ATTACHMENT C B o y c e A v e n u e A d dis o n A v e n u e R e g e n t Pl M elville A v e n u e H a milto n A v e n u e F ore st A v e n u e F o r e st C t S o m e rs et P l P it m a n A v e n u e F ife A v e n u e F o r e st A v e n u e D a n a A v e n u e Lin c ol n A v e n u e Kir b y P l K e nt Pla c e T e vis Pl M artin A v e n ue C e n t e r D riv e H a rr i e t S tr e e t W ils o n S tr e et C e d a r S tr e et H a rk er A v e n ueGreenwood A v e nu e H utc h in s o n A v e C ha n ning A v e n ue H o pkin s A v e nu e A s h b y D r i v e D a n a A v e n u e H a m i l t o n A v e nu e Pi t m a n A v e n u e Southwood Drive West Crescent Driv e C r escent Drive University Avenue Center Drive East Crescen A r c a d i a Pl a c e Lou i sa Co urt N e w e ll P l S h ar o n C t N e w ell R o a d P ar kin s o n A v e n ue Pin e Stre et D e S o to D riv e De Soto Drive tDrive Dan a Av enu e H amilt on Aven ue Newe ll Road Ki n g s L a n e Edgewood D r i v e Islan d Dr i ve Ma dis on Way Edgewo o Addison Avenue C o m m u nity L a n e P hillips Ro ad Lin c o ln A v e n u e Forest Avenue H ut c hin s o n A v e N e w ell R o a d C ha n ning A v e n ue Lincoln Avenue L i n c oln A v e n u e This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc SSR 27 0' 500' SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 27 LOCATION MAP 2 OF 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R PO RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A PR IL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ale, 2016-03-03 11:07:39 SSR 27 CMR MAPS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) Medical Foundation Way Lane 7 West Lane 7 East Wells Avenue Forest Avenue Emerson Street El Camino Real Mitchell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 Gilman Street Hamilton Avenue University Avenue Bryant Court Lane 30 Florence Street Kipling Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Ruthven Avenue Lane 33 Pal o Al t o Ave nue Poe Street Waverley Street Tasso Street Cowper Street Palo Alto Avenue Webster Street Everett Court Byron Street M i d d l e f i eld R o ad Downing Lane Lane 39 Hamilton Avenue Bryant Street Ramona Street Byron Street Middlefield Road Ramona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 WLane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain ROW Emerson Street Waverley Street Kipling Street Sand Hill Road Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Pist ache Place Everett Avenue Alma Street Webster Street Forest Avenue Lytton Avenue University Avenue Hawthorne Avenue Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e Pa l o A l t o A v e n u e This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc SSR 27 0' 500' SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 27 LOCATION MAP 3 OF 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R PO RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A PR IL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ale, 2016-03-03 11:08:50 SSR 27 CMR MAPS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) Waverley Street South Court Bryant Street Alma Street El Carmelo Avenue Dymond Ct Martinsen Ct Fernando Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way Margarita Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave Jacaranda Ln El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash St Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Birch St Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Blvd Park Blvd Colorado AveStreet Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street High Street Emerson Bryant Street South Court Waverley Street Emerson St Ramona St High Street Oregon Expwy Ramona Street Colorado Avenue Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Peral Lane Oregon Expressway O re g o n E x p w y Lane 66 El Dorado Avenue Lambert Avenue Sherman Avenue Grant Avenue Sheridan Ave This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc SSR 27 0' 500' SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 27 LOCATION MAP 4 OF 4 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R PO RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A PR IL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto ale, 2016-03-03 11:10:18 SSR 27 CMR MAPS (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\ale.mdb) City of Palo Alto (ID # 6754) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Sustainability/Climate Action Plan and Annual Earth Day Report Title: Review Annual Earth Day Report and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), Including Feedback Regarding 80 Percent by 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target, Guiding Principles and Decision Criteria, Implementation Priorities, and Next Steps. From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council receive the 2016 Earth Day Report, review the attached Draft Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and provide direction to Staff regarding plan goals, guiding principles and decision criteria, implementation programs, and next steps. Executive Summary The attached 2016 Earth Day Report summarizes the City’s sustainability related initiatives and progress since Earth Day 2015. While staff is prepared to address Council questions regarding that report, the focus of this session is on the Draft S/CAP. The City’s Office of Sustainability, working with other City staff, consulting partner DNV GL, and hundreds of community members, has researched global best practices for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and resource conservation, and evaluated the costs and benefits for a range of carbon reduction strategies. Based on that work, staff is recommending Council review the attached Draft Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), aimed at delivering pace-setting GHG reductions and sustainability strategies in ways that enhance quality of life, prosperity and resilience in Palo Alto. The Draft S/CAP includes potential key elements for Council’s consideration and discussion, with the understanding that the S/CAP is a long-term plan with varying time horizons for potential changes. Background[1] In the face of the global climate challenge: City of Palo Alto Page 2 · The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that “we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts” from climate change, and need “substantial” greenhouse gas emissions reductions (of 40-70% or more) by mid-century. · The international community of 192 nations, meeting at the COP21 conference in Paris in December, agreed to “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels....” and to commit to the “highest possible ambition.” · President Obama’s March 19, 2015 Executive Order requires the federal government to cut GHG emissions by 40% by 2025 from 2008 levels. · The State of California has committed (through Assembly Bill 32—the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), to reduce its GHG emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. Executive Order S-3-05, signed in June 2005, set an aspirational goal to reduce emissions 80% by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 (April 2015) established a California GHG reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 350 (2015) requires increasing California’s renewable energy mix to 50 percent and doubling the efficiency of existing buildings by 2030.9 · Palo Alto has a long history of sustainability initiatives, including adoption of its first Sustainability Plan in 2002; one of the first municipal climate plans in the US in 2007; a history of exceeding energy efficiency standards in every building code cycle since 2007; and many sustainability-related policies and initiatives and provision of carbon neutral electricity in 2013, which have already reduced emissions by an estimated 35% from 1990 levels. Also in 2013, Palo Alto hired its first Chief Sustainability Officer, tasked with helping weave these many initiatives into a focused sustainability strategy. · In 2014, Palo Alto engaged DNV GL to work with staff to develop this Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. After extensive research and analysis, an active community engagement process (including a five hour, 300+ participant community climate summit) and several study sessions with the UAC, CAC and Council, staff has developed the draft plan and recommendations attached here. Discussion At a broad level, in the course of considering and adopting this new S/CAP, Palo Alto must decide: - What it will take to maintain its climate leadership; - Whether to move from carbon neutral electricity to a carbon neutral utility to eventually become a carbon neutral city (which will require major changes in transportation and potentially land use as well as energy use); - Which specific GHG emission reduction strategies and more general sustainability strategies it wishes to embrace; - What level of investment it will make to implement those strategies; - How quickly this could be done. City of Palo Alto Page 3 What the S/CAP is (and is not) The S/CAP is intended as a strategic plan that proposes high-level implementation pathways, but not detailed implementation strategies and work plans; those will be developed, subject to Council guidance, by staff. The S/CAP sets strategic direction and overall goals, and suggests initial priority actions. Because of future uncertainty and changing technology, staff plans to develop more granular five-year work plans and short-term programs, rather than attempt to build a 15-year work plan. The S/CAP presents a portfolio of plausible strategies (that have been analyzed for cost effectiveness, pace of implementation, mitigation cost, etc.) to begin to address a target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (referred to as the 80x30 goal), given both technologies existing today and technology maturation trends underway. A target goal can be a useful tool to identify the efforts and assess the tradeoffs of different actions and timelines. The plan is intended to provide possible pathways that show net positive financial benefit, and an estimate of the upfront investment required to generate those benefits. The City’s Office of Sustainability has identified potential sources of funds, and perhaps another follow-up work plan is to focus on the specific financing/investment pathways that could drive these net benefits to the community. This plan is a scenario, not a prediction. While its directions are very clear—move toward deep de-carbonization through the suggested portfolio of measures—the specific rates and impacts are best estimates based on currently available information in a rapidly changing technology landscape. The S/CAP is based on assumptions—for example, about the rate of decline in electric vehicle pricing and the rate of adoption of efficiency and electrification measures—and the GHG reduction budgets presented here are sensitive to those assumptions.[2] Subject to Council interest and resourcing, staff and consultants can re-run the S/CAP model with different assumptions. Palo Alto’s trajectory Palo Alto’s sustainability and GHG reduction trajectory is summarized in Figure 1. Reducing 1990 emissions of 780,900 metric tons CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) by 80% requires reductions equaling 624,720 tons. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Figure 1 The estimated 36% GHG reductions to date were achieved—largely over the past 10 years— through building efficiency measures and introduction of carbon neutral electricity (as well as societal trends such as more efficient appliances, not shown explicitly here). Over the next 15 years, “business as usual” measures that are underway even if Palo Alto takes no additional steps—including both those dictated by external forces (ranging from state policy to improved federal vehicle fleet efficiency standards, as modeled by the Comprehensive Plan consultants), plus Palo Alto measures already in motion (such as existing CPAU efficiency incentive programs, Palo Alto’s existing Green Building Ordinance and Reach Code, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan)—will bring emissions down to an estimated 52% of 1990 levels, well ahead of California’s 40% by 2030 GHG reduction goal. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Reductions to date BAU & Existing Measures to 2030 SCAP initiatives Total 1990-2015 2015-2030 2015-2030 1990-2030 -36% -16% -28% -80% Efficiency BAU reductions Rethinking Mobility Carbon neutral electricity State EV adoption rates Efficient Electric City Zero Waste programs US fleet efficiency stds Zero Waste / Circular Economy Pavley Bill Getting Smart About Water California Building Code Municipal Operations Existing PA measures Utility of the Future Bike/Ped Master Plan Culture, Behavior, Innovation Zero Waste to 92% diversion Climate Adaptation Palo Alto Reach Code Regeneration & Natural Environment Some EcoPasses/GoPasses Financing, Funding, Investment CPAU efficiency programs Etc. This reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment and initiatives already underway to drive deep carbon reductions ahead of the state or those being pursued by most other cities. Even though many of these Palo Alto measures are both aggressive and innovative, for the purpose of this report we categorize them as “business as usual”—since these staff efforts are already approved, planned or underway—provided Council maintains support for existing programs and approves these programs when they come before them. The additional GHG reduction between those already “in-the-pipeline” reductions and the 80% reduction target for 2030 is about 224,600 MT CO2e[3], and is proposed by the S/CAP as Palo Alto’s target “GHG reduction budget.” The Draft S/CAP projects that 117,900 MT CO2e, or more than half of the needed additional reductions, can come from mobility related measures, 97,200 MT CO2e, or just under half from efficiency and fuel switching measures (largely in buildings), and 9,500 MT CO2e, or 4% from continuation and extension of Palo Alto’s zero waste initiatives. The Draft S/CAP also proposes other sustainability measure that don’t have direct or easy to determine GHG impacts but that are important for other reasons, such as water sustainability, health of the natural environment and community resilience. S/CAP process The S/CAP process investigated three scenarios (with different goals: 80x50, 80x30, 100x25) in considerable detail. For each, we asked: "what combination of strategies and measures might make it possible to meet that specific goal?" The list of potential measures is fairly clear, and City of Palo Alto Page 6 summarized below. (The analysis is summarized in the S/CAP Appendices.) We then filtered for technical feasibility; cost effectiveness (over time, since costs for many relevant technologies has been dropping rapidly); mitigation cost (which may make some measures attractive even if not strictly speaking cost effective, and worth exploring through alternative financing strategies). We considered likely timing, and the entry points afforded by technology life cycles. For existing buildings, we considered leverage points for change: pulling a permit, appliance failure (actual or predicted), time of sale. We assume starting with voluntary programs (like CPAU's Heat Pump Water Heater pilot), and potentially adding mandatory programs (such as the proposed Energy Reach Code proposed by Development Services) as we understand better what’s possible and what’s needed. And we applied informed and wherever possible documented assumptions about costs, availability, rate of adoption, etc. (Where documented data was not available—for example with new initiatives like Mobility as a Service—the assumptions are intentionally conservative, and probably underestimate GHG reduction potential.) The S/CAP team benefited from expert opinion from Rocky Mountain Institute, as well as experts from Stanford University, Goldman Sachs, Carbon Free Palo Alto, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, and other advisors. Community engagement included: a design charrette (40 people), an ideas expo (80 people), two polling cycles (~500 people), a community climate summit (300 people), several study sessions with Council, UAC and CAC, regular meetings with staff through the Sustainability Board and several staff retreats, the S/CAP Advisory Board (27 people), community meetings, newsletters (2500 people), social media (600 people) and individual conversations. Staff will continue to seek community input as the Draft S/CAP provides specific proposals and analysis for consideration by the City Council and the community. Based on these efforts—research, analysis and engagement—and strong recommendations to present Council a single scenario rather than multiple scenarios, staff and consultants then focused on the target goal presented here of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. Climate neutral by 2025 was considered too speculative by many, and the California goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030 was considered too conservative given Palo Alto’s platform of accomplishments to date (though it would qualify Palo Alto to join the Climate Neutral Cities Alliance). S/CAP measures The Draft S/CAP’s main policy recommendations are summarized here, and presented with first level implementation detail in the draft plan. · Mobility: o Make it more convenient not to drive by developing responsive, multimodal, service- focused transportation services o Shift subsidies from free parking to support non-SOV travel o Support land use patterns that reduce both congestion and climate impacts. o Support policy changes that promote EV charging infrastructure in public and private development and that encourage EV use by residents and commuters City of Palo Alto Page 7 · Efficiency & Electrification: o Pursue large gains in energy, water and materials efficiency in buildings and operations, o Pursue the adoption of an Energy Reach Code that drives energy efficiency through our building codes. o Emphasize integrative design and streamlined policy approaches o Explore building stock upgrades toward Zero Net Energy or Net Positive through design, efficiency, renewables and bundled services packages, o Encourage all-electric new construction (if technically and legally feasible, cost-effective and directed by City Council) o Pursue policies that accelerate resource efficiency upgrades of existing building stock (residential and commercial) o Support a systematic shift from natural gas to all-electric systems[4]and/or renewable natural gas (if technically and legally feasible, cost-effective and directed by City Council) · Sustainable Water Management: o Develop an integrated, long-term strategy that mitigates any risks of long-term shift in water supply o Pursue policy changes that promote water efficiency in buildings and landscaping o Balance water importation, rainwater harvesting, groundwater management, recycled water use and onsite treatment options · Municipal Operations: o Embed sustainability in city procurement, operations and management o Set targets and track performance metrics for City sustainability performance o “Walk the talk” by ensuring the City goes first on any sustainability actions requested or required of the community o Include sustainability impacts in staff reports to Council, capital improvement project proposals and management reports. · Resilience, Adaptation and Sea Level Rise: o Build resilience through risk mapping, mitigation, adaptation o Where necessary as a secondary response, consider strategic retreats.[5] · Regeneration and the Natural Environment / Ecosystem and Human Systems Protection: o Provide a healthy, resilient environment where all species can thrive and enjoy life. · Utility of the Future: o Adapt CPAU offerings and business model to potentially disruptive challenges facing the utility industry, including distributed generation & storage, and “grid defection” o Explore micro-grids, nano-grids and other resilience strategies · Community Behavior and Culture Change o Challenge community to consider the impact on future generations of choices in lifestyle, purchases and investment. o Engage and support community through neighborhood initiatives, interactive tools, etc. · Information systems: City of Palo Alto Page 8 o Advance “smart city” platforms for transportation, utilities, buildings, operations, finance, etc. o Provide transparent reporting and open data to track performance, build knowledge and fuel innovation · Financing Strategies: o Finance cost-effective initiatives through local and external investment and new revenues, as well as general fund and enterprise fund expenditures, to the extent permitted by existing legal and regulatory framework applicable to the City. The projected impacts of these measures are summarized in Figure 2.[6] Figure 2 1990 2030 Percent below the 1990 baseline % of SCAP reduction budget Baseline emissions 780,119 GHG reductions achieved through 2014 278,800 36% State measures through 2030 80,800 7% Existing & pending Palo Alto initiatives 48,500 8% S/CAP Mobility - Expand non-auto options 34,000 4% 16% S/CAP Mobility - Shift incentives 26,000 3% 11% S/CAP Mobility - Balanced development 2,900 2% 1% S/CAP Mobility - EV and ZE vehicles 55,000 6% 24% S/CAP Energy Efficiency and electrification in Buildings 97,200 15% 33% S/CAP Solid Waste 9,500 1% 4% Remaining emissions (2030) 155,000 19% Palo Alto’s ability to enact these core moves throughout the community is embedded within a regional, state and global context of regulatory and jurisdictional boundaries. In each of these areas of activity, the City has available four zones of influence: - City government has control over its own operations, including municipal buildings, fleet, procurement and service delivery—for example, environmentally preferable purchasing. - It can establish policies, codes, mandates, regulations and standards that drive the GHG emissions reductions of our residents and workforce—for example, our Building Code requirements for new construction and major renovations. - It can influence community and workforce behavior through education, outreach and City of Palo Alto Page 9 voluntary programs—such as CPAU’s incentive programs and Transportation Management Association (TMA) programs. - And it can work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional authorities to develop collaborative initiatives—such as regional transportation initiatives— and to influence regional, state and national policy. Goals and Assumptions Key assumptions The key assumptions underlying the projections for Mobility initiatives are shown in i the S/CAP draft and associated appendices. Some are controversial, but will hopefully provoke a grounded exploration of options and consequences. Many are ambitious, and will require rapid rates of uptake of new technologies. For example, S/CAP projects that 90% of vehicles owned in Palo Alto will be EVs by 2030. Is that possible? We don’t know, given that the State projects only 30%. More useful questions might be “What measures could we undertake to accelerate that change, or to take advantage of potential market changes that move more quickly than projected (as we have seen for years with PVs, EVs and other technologies)?” and “What policies could we pursue that might eliminate barriers that would otherwise hinder the rapid expansion and proliferation of Electric Vehicles in Palo Alto?” The relative GHG reduction impacts (in metric Tons CO2e) and associated “mitigation costs” (in $/mT) are shown in Figure 3. (The measures further to the right indicate greater impact; the measures higher on the chart indicate more favorable economics.) City of Palo Alto Page 10 Figure 3 The nature of goals, certainty & "failure" The SCAP goals are ambitious, as called for by the Paris COP21 climate agreement. They also may be uniquely achievable by Palo Alto, because of the city’s significant head start, its carbon neutral electricity platform and its control of Palo Alto Utilities. They are in any event not certain to be successfully accomplished, since they depend on many variables, both within our control—such as the desirability of CPAU services and incentives and the effectiveness of City programs—and many factors outside our control—such as the pace of price performance improvement of electric vehicles and the effectiveness of State programs. Despite that uncertainty, stretch goals drive innovation and progress better than safe ones. Setting a big goal and perhaps not fully reaching will likely get us farther than setting a safe goal and reaching it, especially in a time of rapid change. Our key question should not be “Are we confident we can achieve it?” No one knows if ambitious climate goals are achievable, based on today’s know how and experience; Johanna Partin, Director of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, observes that "most of the CNCA cities…have a pretty good sense of how they're going to get to somewhere between 25-70% of their target by 2020/25/30, but no one yet knows exactly how they're going to get to 100% of their goal.” We only know that we must do our best to find ways to achieve them. Better questions might be: Is the goal worthy? Is the strategic direction right? Are the first steps right? Then let's get going, evaluate progress regularly, and revise the S/CAP as needed every City of Palo Alto Page 11 five years; let’s support proposed goals with bottom up analyses, assessing, iteratively, "what combination of measures might make it possible to meet that specific goal?" As General (and later, President) Dwight D. Eisenhower observed, “Plans are useless. Planning is essential;” planning is an ongoing, iterative, adaptive process. Staff therefore recommends that Council consider this S/CAP as a long range plan that sets a strategic framework for achieving its sustainability goals and that provides the basis for more specific action plans. As most other Climate Action Plans recognize, achieving these goals may depend on technology innovations that have not yet come online; also, it may become necessary to modify plans, specific actions or even goals as circumstances change over time. The City can commit to 2030 GHG reduction targets, and recognize that there will be multiple ways to achieve that goal; flexibility in implementation will be necessary to allow the City to evolve its strategies to achieve the most effective path to the desired result. How to proceed Many of the measures in the queue as well as those proposed in the S/CAP and ensuing five- year plan will require further refinement and collaboration with staff of multiple City departments. Although city staff is committed to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are many ways to both interpret and prioritize efforts to achieve the goal. Staff is committed to carefully assessing and prioritizing the actions and alternatives proposed, and recognizes that some priorities will need to change in order to achieve these goals. But without policy direction from the Council at the present juncture, it will be difficult for staff to determine the appropriate pace and prioritization to pursue. For this reason staff is asking for Council input on the 80 by 2030 goal and the strategic direction suggested here. Staff would be happy to provide more, specific information as desired, and to provide periodical updates to Council. Note that the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update is dealing with some of the same issues as the S/CAP. Discussion about how much alignment between the two plans is desirable, and what form that should take, are important questions for the Council to help answer. Council’s direction and community input on the Draft S/CAP will support this process and ultimately lead to both (a) a Comprehensive Plan that sets broad community goals and policies on a wide range of subjects, supported by specific implementation programs; and (b) an S/CAP that establishes climate goals and strategies, and that addresses and supports Comprehensive Plan polices with specific implementation strategies. Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan will need to be a living, learning document, providing what Good to Great author Jim Collins dubbed BHAGs—big, hairy, audacious goals— coupled with sensible starting points and sound initial steps. We face great uncertainty—the pace of climate change, State and Federal policy response and technology, and public behavior change. Moving powerfully in uncertain times requires: § Strong directional goals City of Palo Alto Page 12 § Clear principles & criteria § Flexible platforms § Rapid, agile prototyping § Timely, transparent performance tracking § Willingness to pivot as we learn Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council discuss the attached Draft Sustainability/Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and provide direction to Staff regarding plan goals, guiding principles and decision criteria, implementation programs, and next steps. Resource Impact Climate plan updates are significant undertakings for any jurisdiction. Implementation of the S/CAP will require staff resources, including potential allocation of new staff resources, and investment of public funds in both development of implementations plans and actual implementation of specific measures. Developing the S/CAP has required significant commitment of the CSO and ongoing time commitments by other staff from multiple departments, as well as the DNV consultants. Staff requirements for specific initiatives will be identified as part of work plan development, in response to initiatives approved by Council. According to S/CAP modeling estimates, City financial investment (subject to applicable legal constraints) could be significant. Policy Implications The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan will set forth proposed City policies and actions with regard to the topics addressed, and a framework for future discussions regarding these topics. The S/CAP Plan addresses many issues that are also addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. While staff has attempted to coordinate the two work streams as much as possible, there are inevitable differences, given the nature of each initiative, which will need to be reconciled as the planning processes advance in 2016. The Comprehensive Plan is an update of Palo Alto’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan, and has been underway since 2008; it will build on the existing plan, and incorporate goals, policies, and programs addressing climate change and climate adaption for the first time. The EIR for the Comp Plan Update will take a conservative look at potential GHG emissions through the year 2030. While the S/CAP effort identifies the City’s 2007 Climate Action Plan as its genesis, it is largely a de novo undertaking, which commenced in 2014 to present possible strategies for making Palo Alto more sustainable through 2030 and beyond. As is typical for such planning efforts, near term actions can be specific and quantifiable, while longer term actions are necessarily more aspirational and general, focusing on externally driven goals and attempting to determine whether and how best to meet them. City of Palo Alto Page 13 These two different processes will converge on some matters, and not others; however staff recognizes that the two plans must ultimately not work at cross purposes and work together as much as possible to express the community’s vision for the future, and establish specific policies and strategies to guide future investments and decisions. Staff has not attempted to resolve all these differences at the staff level, since many of them are a matter of political and policy judgment, not professional judgment, and thus within the purview of Council and community, not staff. Environmental Review Adoption of a Climate Plan will require review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While sustainability measures have been included in the Draft EIR that is being developed for the Comprehensive Plan Update, the final S/CAP may include additional strategies that have not been analyzed by the Draft EIR. Thus the final S/CAP will have to be reviewed to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required. Timeline Review and approve S/CAP goals and framework Q2/16 Review and approve 3-5 year Mobility implementation plan Q2-4/16 Review approve other 3-5 year implementation plans Q3/16 Adopt S/CAP Q4/16 Attachments: SCAP draft SCAP Appendices Earth Day Report [1] Additional background and detail in Jan 25, 2016 Staff Report 6566, which is condensed but not repeated here. [2] Note that in all these scenarios, reductions are partially driven by factors outside our control, including Federal and state policy, legal and regulatory constraints, cost-effectiveness of measures and technology, the pace of technology innovation, and behavioral changes by our population. In this way, the S/CAP may be similar to California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) update to the State’s scoping plan, which suggests that near-term actions and targets need to be specific, quantifiable, and within an agency’s control, while longer term actions and targets may require changes in technology and/or actions by others, and could be less precise. It should be noted, however, that the Draft S/CAP in some cases builds on the assumptions in the State’s Scoping Plan, suggesting – for example – that the City seek to achieve a level of Electrical City of Palo Alto Page 14 Vehicle (EV) ownership (for residents and commuters) three times what the CARB is targeting state-wide for 2030. [3] MT CO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalent [4] See analysis of electrification strategies, Staff Report 5971, August 2015 [5] These will be detailed in Sea Level Rise study session with Council in May. [6] Note that all GHG emissions and reductions discussed in the S/CAP are estimates, based on best available data and assumptions. Some numbers (such as electricity, natural gas and water consumption) are based on direct measurement. Other numbers (such as landfill emissions and transportation related emissions) are derived from best available models, and are not precise measures. Staff is assuming an overall precision of +/- 10-20% on these estimates. Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: S/CAP Draft (PDF) ATTACHMENT B: S/CAP Draft Appendices (PDF) ATTACHMENT C: Earth Day Report 2016 (PDF) City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 1 of 63 Draft – April 2016 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 2 of 63 FORWARD ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 ROADMAP TO A CARBON NEUTRAL CITY ..................................................................................................................... 6 Palo Alto’s Greenhouse Gas Baseline and Trends ..................................................................................................... 6 A Roadmap for “80 x 30” ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Guiding Principles .................................................................................................................................................... 17 RETHINKING MOBILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Goal: Expand non‐auto mobility options ................................................................................................................ 19 Goal: Create the right incentives for mobility ......................................................................................................... 23 Goal: Seek balanced development .......................................................................................................................... 24 Strategy: Increase zero‐impact, mixed‐use housing (T‐LU‐1) ...................................................................................... 26 Goal: Reduce the carbon intensity of vehicular travel ............................................................................................ 26 BUILDING AN EFFICIENT ELECTRIC CITY ....................................................................................................................... 29 Goal: Efficiency and electrification .......................................................................................................................... 30 Goal: Reduce natural gas usage in existing businesses ........................................................................................... 31 Goal: Reduce natural gas usage in existing homes ................................................................................................. 33 Goal: Reduce natural gas in new buildings ............................................................................................................. 34 Goal: Reduce the carbon intensity of natural gas ................................................................................................... 35 ZERO WASTE AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ............................................................................................................. 36 Goal: Achieve 95% landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste .............................................................. 36 GETTING SMART ABOUT WATER ................................................................................................................................. 39 Goal: Reduce consumption of potable water ......................................................................................................... 39 Goal: Supplement existing water supplies .............................................................................................................. 40 MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS – LEADING THE WAY .......................................................................................................... 42 Goal: Efficient City Buildings ................................................................................................................................... 42 Goal: Efficient City Fleet .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Goal: Procurement—“Default to Green” ................................................................................................................ 43 Goal: Embed Sustainability in Management Systems and Processes ..................................................................... 43 PALO ALTO’S UTILITY OF THE FUTURE ......................................................................................................................... 45 Goal: Implement innovative efficiency strategies ................................................................................................... 45 Goal: Advance smart grid strategies ....................................................................................................................... 46 Goal: Evaluate and adapt the CPAU business model .............................................................................................. 46 Goal: Continue to advance carbon neutrality ......................................................................................................... 47 COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR, CULTURE & INNOVATION ................................................................................................... 48 Goal: Provide a platform for community change in culture, behavior and innovation .......................................... 48 CLIMATE ADAPTATION: PREPARING FOR CHANGE ..................................................................................................... 50 Guiding Principles for Sea Level Rise Response ...................................................................................................... 53 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 63 Goal: Protect, Adapt, Retreat .................................................................................................................................. 54 REGENERATION AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 56 Goal: Renew, restoration and enhance resilience of our natural environment ..................................................... 56 FINANCING, FUNDING AND INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................. 58 Financing these pathways ....................................................................................................................................... 58 Capital formation .................................................................................................................................................... 58 Goal: Utilize diverse financial pathways to drive S/CAP implementation ............................................................... 59 IMPLEMENTATION: TURNING VISION INTO ACTION ................................................................................................... 60 Monitoring and Tracking Progress .......................................................................................................................... 60 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................... 62 GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................................... 63 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 4 of 63 FORWARD We live in a time of challenge and change. The California economy, powered by the innovation engine of Silicon Valley, anchored in Palo Alto, has transformed the world. Companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have transformed the way we live and work. And now the world threatens to transform California. The drought—or, as some suggest, the “multi‐decadal mega‐drought”1—challenges not just our lawns, agriculture and hydroelectric power supplies, but the premise on which California civilization was built. Climate chaos may not devastate us the way that it threatens to devastate coastal regions from Bangladesh to south Florida, but heat, flooding and super storms will take their toll, and will take hundreds of billions of dollars to adapt to. And yet… this cloud presents a silver lining. Perhaps a golden one. For in the challenge of responding to climate change, we find ourselves facing what Pogo called insurmountable opportunities, what those wild eyed radicals at Goldman Sachs see as the massive economic opportunity of a new energy economy–once again anchored here. We are called upon to lead. Many would say the United States has lagged in response to climate challenge, compared to Europe, or China, though President Obama recent Executive Orders on emissions, energy has called the federal government to the challenge. Many would say that California has led in response to climate challenge– from revolutionizing utility regulation in the 1970s to driving the market for clean energy to our world‐leading climate goals–now ratcheted up again by Governor Brown's recent Executive Orders on emissions, energy and water. Many would say that Palo Alto has been a leader in this process, with our early climate action plan, our carbon neutral electricity, and our actions to support green buildings and electric vehicles. Well, it's time for us to lead again, with a new sustainability and climate action plan that sets a new bar for leadership, that builds quality‐ of‐life, prosperity and resilience for this community, and that sets an example once again for other communities to emulate. We must understand and prepare for the risks ahead: climate change, with hotter and drier weather, combined with sea level rise and flooding; disruptions in resource flows and human migrations; the rise and collapse of companies and even industries; and the challenge of reinventing a way of life that was based on conditions that we may never see again. This plan identifies a pathway to reduce our emissions 80% by 2030. Governor Brown has proposed 40% emissions reductions for California 2030. Palo Alto is already at 36%. But achieving that next 40% will not be easy, since it will require transforming transportation and dramatically reducing the climate impact of our use of natural gas for heating our buildings and water. Because we can do this. Here. 1 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/is‐the‐wests‐dry‐spell‐really‐a‐megadrought‐16824 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 5 of 63 INTRODUCTION As the heart of the region that drives the eighth largest economy in the world, what is created in Palo Alto has influence far beyond its borders. Palo Alto has made impressive—and in some cases remarkable—progress toward reducing its carbon impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource consumption since establishing its first Climate Protection Plan in 2007. While cities around the world ratchet up their own sustainability initiatives, Palo Alto will need to act boldly in order to maintain its legendary leadership position—and to ensure the wellbeing of this community in the face of the challenges ahead. In the nine years since Palo Alto created one of the first climate protection plans in United States, the world has gotten hotter, the west has gotten dryer, and more cities have stepped into the ranks of climate leadership. Palo Alto is poised to take the next step in climate and sustainability leadership. The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) is Palo Alto’s ambitious plan to create a prosperous, resilient city for all residents. To support Palo Alto’s leadership position on climate protection, the S/CAP provides a roadmap for how the City will continue its environmental stewardship, and exceed state requirements for GHG emission reductions. The S/CAP is intended as a strategic plan that sets direction and overall goals, suggests initial priority actions and proposes high‐level implementation pathways to achieve them. The S/CAP presents a scenario, not a prediction. It presents a clear direction—move rapidly toward deep de‐ carbonization through a suggested portfolio of measures that show net positive financial benefit, and an estimate of the upfront investment required to generate those benefits. The specific measures, rates of adoption and impacts presented here are best estimates based on currently available information in a rapidly changing technology landscape; In order to be agile, adaptive and effective in the face of these changes, Palo Alto will update the S/CAP every five years, and develop more granular five‐year work plans and short‐term programs, rather than attempt to build a detailed 14‐year work plan. The time to act is now. In this new climate action plan, we identify a roadmap to move from carbon neutral electricity to a carbon neutral utility—and ultimately towards a carbon neutral city. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 6 of 63 ROADMAP TO A CARBON NEUTRAL CITY Palo Alto’s Greenhouse Gas Baseline and Trends By 2015, Palo Alto had already reduced GHG emissions an estimated 36% since 19902—a remarkable achievement in 24 years, with most of it accomplished in the ten years since 2005—largely as a result of the leadership of Palo Alto Utilities and the City Council’s 2013 commitment to carbon neutral electricity. Palo Alto’s largest remaining sources of greenhouse gas emissions are road transportation (approximately 65%) followed by natural gas use (approximately 26%). Figure 2 illustrates this trend, and Figure 3 provides another view of the relative size of Palo Alto’s emissions sources in 2015. The estimated 36% GHG reductions to date were achieved through building efficiency measures and introduction of carbon neutral electricity (as well as societal trends such as more efficient appliances, not shown explicitly here). Over the next 15 years, a variety of external trends (designated in this Plan as “business as usual 1” or BAU1), including Federal and state policy (such as building efficiency and vehicle efficiency standards) and demographic changes, are expected to reduce Palo Alto emissions to an estimated 45% below 1990 emissions by 20303—in line with the State of California’s interim 2030 reduction target of 40%. Initiatives that the City has already approved or set in motion (such as existing CPAU efficiency incentive programs, Palo Alto’s existing Green Building Ordinance and Reach Code, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan), will bring emissions down to an estimated 52% of 1990 levels—provided Council maintains support for existing programs and approves these programs when they come before them. This reflects Palo Alto’s longstanding commitment and initiatives already underway to drive deep carbon reductions ahead of the state or those being pursued by most other cities. Even though these Palo Alto plans are both aggressive and innovative, for the purpose of this report we categorize them as “business as usual “—since these efforts are already in the queue. The additional GHG reduction between those already “in‐the‐pipeline” reductions and the 80% reduction target for 2030 is about 224,600 MT CO2e4, and is proposed by the S/CAP as Palo Alto’s target “GHG reduction budget.” The Draft S/CAP projects that 117,900 MT CO2e, or more than half of the needed additional reductions, can come from mobility related measures, 97,200 MT CO2e, or just under half from efficiency and fuel switching measures (largely in buildings), and 9,500 MT CO2e, or 4% from continuation and extension of Palo Alto’s zero waste initiatives. The Draft S/CAP also proposes other sustainability measure that don’t have direct or easy to determine GHG impacts but that are important for other reasons, such as water sustainability, health of the natural environment and community resilience. 2 Palo Alto emissions in the 1990 baseline year are estimated at 780,119 MTCO2e, a restatement of prior estimates based on revised analyses using updated emissions models. Most emissions noted in this report as called “estimates,” since only utility consumption (electricity, natural gas and water) are measured. Transportation emissions are modeled every few years; solid waste related emissions are calculated using established EPA protocols. Solid waste related emissions were not included in the CompPlan DEIR. 3 Based on the “business as usual” analysis conducted for the CompPlan DEIR. 4 MT CO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalent City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 7 of 63 Figure 1. Palo Alto Community‐wide GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Figure 2. Palo Alto 2015 Community‐wide GHG Emissions Sectors A detailed emissions analysis can be found in Appendix X. ‐ 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1990 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Landfilling Recyclable Material Lifecycle Emissions From Annual Waste to Landfill Wastewater Process Emissions Landfill Fugivitive Emissions Natural Gas Leakage Electricity Natural Gas Road Travel 65% Natural Gas 27% Natural Gas Leakage 1% Landfill Fugivitive Emissions 2% Wastewater Process Emissions 1% Lifecycle Emissions From Annual Waste to Landfill 1% Landfilling Recyclable Material 3% City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 8 of 63 Figure 3. Overview of Palo Alto GHG Reduction Target relative to Business‐as‐Usual (MT CO2e) City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 9 of 63 A Roadmap for “80 x 30”? Palo Alto has substantially exceeded the 20% reduction goals set by Council in 2007 Climate Protection Plan, and is positioned to establish new goals for Palo Alto to continue its global leadership, commit to a low‐ or zero‐carbon future, and create a roadmap to that future. This plan focuses on pathways to a low‐carbon future, and initiatives addressing water, green infrastructure, adaptation and regeneration as part of a holistic framework for sustainability. Specifically, it explores a possible pathway for reducing Palo Alto’s GHG emissions by 2030 from the current level of 36% below 1990 levels to 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 (“80x30”), 20 years ahead of the State of California 80x50 target. This represents a GHG reduction “budget” of 260,000 tons (as shown in Figure 5 and detailed below), and will be possible only if Palo Alto continues its longstanding commitment to sustainability and if a number of assumptions that are outside the City’s control come to fruition. Figure 4: 80x30 GHG Reduction Budget (MT CO2e) Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change is a key driver for the S/CAP, but it is not the only indicator for sustainability. Therefore, the S/CAP is organized around ten overarching levers for sustainability, including some without direct quantifiable impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, but which are central to a holistic approach for sustainability in Palo Alto that protects and enhances our natural resources for generations to come. These are summarized in Figure 5, below, and described in more detail in the sections that follow. Key Levers for Sustainability and Climate Action S/CAP’s main recommendation measures are summarized here, and presented with first level implementation detail in the draft plan. Mobility: o Make it more convenient not to drive by developing responsive, multimodal, service‐focused transportation services o Shift subsidies from free parking to support non‐SOV travel 153,400 97,200 117,900 48,500 80,800 272,800 780,119 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 1990 2030 Baseline emissions GHG reductions achieved through 2014 BAU1 ‐ State measures through 2030 BAU2 ‐ Existing Palo Alto initiatives S/CAP measures (Mobility) S/CAP measures (Energy in Buildings) S/CAP measures (Waste) Remaining emissions City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 10 of 63 o Shift land use patterns reduce both congestion and climate impacts. o Support policy changes that promote EV charging infrastructure in public and private development and that encourage EV use by residents and commuters Efficiency & Electrification: o Pursue large gains in energy, water and materials efficiency in buildings and operations, o Pursue the adoption of an Energy Reach Code that drives energy efficiency through our building codes. o Emphasize integrative design and streamlined policy approaches o Explore building stock upgrades to Zero Net Energy or Net Positive through design, efficiency, renewables and bundled services packages, o Encourage all‐electric new construction (if technically and legally feasible, cost effective and directed by City Council) o Rapidly upgrade the resource efficiency of existing building stock (residential and commercial) o Support a systematic shift from natural gas to all‐electric systems5 and/or renewable natural gas (if technically and legally feasible, cost‐effective and directed by City Council) Sustainable Water Management: o Develop an integrated, long‐term strategy that mitigates risks of long‐term shift in water supply o Pursue policy changes that promote water efficiency in buildings and landscaping o Balance water importation, rainwater harvesting, groundwater management, recycled water use and onsite treatment options Resilience, Adaptation and Sea Level Rise: o Build resilience through risk mapping, mitigation, adaptation o Where necessary as a secondary response, consider strategic retreats. Municipal Operations: o Embed sustainability in city procurement, operations and management o Set targets and track performance metrics for City sustainability performance o “Walk the talk” by ensuring the City goes first on any sustainability actions requested or required of the community o Include sustainability impacts in staff reports, capital improvement project proposals and management reports. Regeneration and the Natural Environment / Ecosystem and Human Systems Protection: o Provide a healthy, resilient environment where all species can thrive and enjoy life. Utility of the Future: o Adapt CPAU offerings and business model to potentially disruptive challenges facing the utility industry, including distributed generation & storage, and “grid defection” o Explore micro‐grids, nano‐grids and other resilience strategies Community Behavior and Culture Change o Challenge community to consider the impact on future generations of choices in lifestyle, purchases and investment. o Engage and support community through neighborhood initiatives, interactive tools, etc. Information systems: o Advance “smart city” platforms for transportation, utilities, buildings, operations, finance, etc. o Provide transparent reporting and open data to track performance, build knowledge and fuel innovation Financing Strategies: o Finance cost‐effective initiative through multi‐channel, non‐general fund, local and external investment in support of these goals, to the extent permitted by existing legal and regulatory framework applicable to the City. 5 See analysis of electrification strategies, Staff Report 5971, August 2015 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 11 of 63 These measures will require strategies that address three domains of action (shown in Figure 5), all of which are critical to realizing the sustainability vision: institutions that form the structure of policies and programs, behavioral change to modify mindsets and personal actions, and financial considerations that drive markets. Figure 5. S/CAP Three Domains of Action A few core moves Palo Alto’s sustainability strategies ultimately rely on a few “core moves” for reducing impact on the environment and GHG emissions, and doing so in ways that improve the quality of life of our community: Reducing resource use, for example through energy efficiency measures; Shifting resource use impacts, for example by electrification; Transforming systems, for example by outcompeting single occupancy driving with mobility services. REDUCE SHIFT TRANSFORM Energy efficiency Water conservation Walking/biking instead of driving Zero waste Convert to electric vehicles Electrify water and space heating Greywater or rainwater instead of potable water Mobility as a Service instead of individual car ownership Transit‐oriented development Utility of the Future City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 12 of 63 Zones of Control and Influence Palo Alto’s ability to enact these core moves throughout the community is embedded within a regional, state and global context of regulatory and jurisdictional boundaries. Figure 6 illustrates Palo Alto’s levels of control and influence. City government has control over its own operations, including municipal buildings, fleet, procurement and service delivery—for example, environmentally preferable purchasing. It can establish policies, codes, mandates, regulations and standards that drive the GHG emissions reductions of our residents and workforce—for example, our PV readiness requirements for new construction and major renovations. It can influence community behavior through education, outreach and voluntary programs—such as CPAU’s incentive programs. And it can work with neighboring jurisdictions and regional authorities to develop collaborative initiatives—such as regional transportation initiatives— and to influence regional, state and national policy. Figure 6. Palo Alto Jurisdictional Influence and Control City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 13 of 63 Levers, Goals, Strategies and Actions Figure 7 presents the key components of Palo Alto’s path to further GHG reductions: The primary levers with which we can shift emission trends The goals we will establish to activate those levers The strategies and actions by which we will achieve those goals Figure 8 summarizes the emissions reduction potential of the proposed strategies, and the key players responsible for implementation, and Figure 9 shows this summary by goal. For several strategies, Palo Alto will need to work with regional and state entities to advocate for policies and programs to support Palo Alto efforts and initiatives. The levers, goals, strategies and actions are based on Palo Alto’s baseline emissions sources, existing and planned initiatives and a literature review of best practices for city climate action planning for effective new GHG reduction opportunities. (Note: Not all the strategies and actions in this Plan are summarized here, since some don’t have direct GHG reduction impacts, or those impacts are impossible to estimate at this time.) Figure 7. Overview of 3 Key Levers, Goals and Strategies for GHG Reductions City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 14 of 63 Figure 8. S/CAP Strategies to Achieve 80 x 30 Goal Levers Goals Strategy Jurisdiction PA = Palo Alto R = Regional S = State GHG Avoided in 2030 (MT CO2e) Percent of Total S/CAP Emissions Reductions Percent of Reductions from 1990 Baseline Re t h i n k i n g Mo b i l i t y Expand non‐ auto mobility options T‐FAC‐1. Expand bicycle infrastructure PA 8,400 4% 1% T‐FAC‐2. Expand transit options PA, R 19,200 9% 2% T‐FAC‐3. Grow ridesharing services and mobility apps PA 6,400 3% 1% Create right financial incentives T‐INC‐1. Provide universal transit passes PA 7,600 3% 1% T‐INC‐2. Implement parking pricing and feebates PA 18,400 8% 2% Adapt land use patterns T‐LU‐1. Increase zero‐impact, mixed use housing PA 2,900 1% 2% Reduce carbon intensity of vehicles T‐EV‐1. Electrify Palo Alto‐ based vehicles PA 25,200 11% 3% T‐EV‐2. Electrify inbound vehicles PA, R 29,800 13% 3% El e c t r i f y i n g ou r Ci t y Reduce use in existing businesses NG‐COMM‐1. Electrify water heating in businesses PA, S 21,200 9% 5% NG‐COMM‐2. Electrify space heating in businesses PA, S 15,900 7% 3% NG‐COOK‐1. Electrify commercial cooking PA, S 11,300 5% 2% Reduce use in existing homes NG‐RES‐1. Electrify residential water heating PA, S 13,600 6% 2% NG‐RES‐2. Electrify residential space heating PA, S 23,300 10% 3% Reduce use in new buildings NG‐GAS‐1. Encourage all‐ electric new buildings PA, S 11,900 5% 2% Ze r o Wa s t e Enhance programs and infrastructur e SW‐1. Achieve zero waste PA 9,500 4% 1% TOTAL 224,600 100% 33% City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 15 of 63 Figure 9. Summary of S/CAP Emissions Reductions by Goal Key assumptions The key assumptions underlying the projections for the impacts of these initiatives are shown in Table XX. Some are controversial, but will hopefully provoke a grounded exploration of options and consequences.6 Many are ambitious, and will require rapid rates of uptake of new technologies. For example, S/CAP projects that 90% of vehicles owned in Palo Alto will be EVs by 2030. Is that possible? We don’t know, given that the State projects only 30%. More useful questions might be “What measures could we undertake to accelerate that change, or to take advantage of potential market changes that move more quickly than projected (as we have seen for years with PVs, EVs and other technologies)?” and “What policies could we pursue that might eliminate barriers that would otherwise hinder the rapid expansion and proliferation of Electric Vehicles in Palo Alto?” The relative GHG reduction impacts (in metric Tons CO2e) and associated “mitigation costs” (in $/mT) are shown in Figure 1. (The measures further to the right indicate greater impact; the measures higher on the chart indicate more favorable economics.) 6 Note that in all these scenarios, reductions are partially driven by factors outside our control, including Federal and state policy, legal and regulatory constraints, cost‐effectiveness of measures and technology, the pace of technology innovation, and behavioral changes by our population. In this way, the S/CAP may be similar to California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) update to the State’s scoping plan, which suggests that near‐term actions and targets need to be specific, quantifiable, and within an agency’s control, while longer term actions and targets may require changes in technology and/or actions by others, and could be less precise. It should be noted, however, that the Draft S/CAP in some cases builds on the assumptions in the State’s Scoping Plan, suggesting – for example – that the City seek to achieve a level of Electrical Vehicle (EV) ownership (for residents and commuters) three times what the CARB is targeting state‐wide for 2030. Expand non‐auto mobility options 15% Create right financial incentives for non‐auto 12% Adapt land use patterns 1% Reduce carbon intensity of vehicles 25% Reduce use in existing homes 16% Reduce use in existing businesses 22% Reduce use in new buildings 5% Zero waste 4% City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 16 of 63 Figure 10. Prioritizing Actions by GHG Impact & Mitigation Cost The Power of “Unreasonable” Goals The SCAP goals are ambitious, as called for by the Paris climate agreement. They also may be uniquely achievable by Palo Alto, because of the city’s significant head start, its carbon neutral electricity platform and its control of Palo Alto Utilities. They are in any event not certain to be successfully accomplished, since they depend on many variables, both within our control—such as the desirability of CPAU services and incentives and the effectiveness of City programs—and many factors outside our control—such as the pace of price/performance improvement of electric vehicles and the effectiveness of State climate programs. Despite that uncertainty, stretch goals drive innovation better than safe ones. Setting a big goal and perhaps not fully reaching will likely get us farther than setting a safe goal and reaching it, especially in a time of rapid change. Our key question should not be “Are we confident we can achieve it?” No one knows if ambitious climate goals are achievable, based on today’s knowhow and experience; Johanna Partin, Director of the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance, observes that "most of the CNCA cities…have a pretty good sense of how they're going to get to somewhere between 25‐70% of their target by 2020/25/30, but no one yet knows exactly how they're going to get to 100% of their goal.” We only know that we must do our best to find ways to achieve them. Better questions might be: Is the goal worthy? Is the strategic direction right? Are the first steps right? If so, then let's get going, and re‐evaluate goals and progress in five years; let’s support proposed goals with bottom up analyses, assessing "what combination of measures might make it possible to meet that specific goal?" As General (and later, President) Dwight D. Eisenhower observed, “Plans are useless. Planning is essential.” ($700) ($600) ($500) ($400) ($300) ($200) ($100) $0 $100 $200 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 Ma r g i n a l Ab a t e m e n t Co s t ($ / M T CO 2 e ) Emissions Avoided in 2030 (MT CO2e)Expand bicycle infrastructure Expand transit options Grow ridesharing services and mobility apps Provide universal transit passes Implement parking pricing Electrify Palo Alto‐based vehicles Electrify inbound vehicles Electrify water heating in businesses Electrify space heating in businesses Electrify commercial cooking Electrify residential water heating Electrify residential space heating Encourage all‐electric new buildings City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 17 of 63 Guiding Principles The Vision Statement for the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Governance Element declares that: “Palo Alto will maintain a positive civic image and be a leader in the regional, state, and national policy discussions affecting the community. The City will work with neighboring communities to address common concerns and pursue common interests. The public will be actively and effectively involved in City affairs, both at the Citywide and neighborhood levels.”7 S/CAP builds on that vision with these guiding principles as a basis for effective and sustainable decision‐making: Consider “sustainability” in its broadest dimensions, including quality of life, the natural environment and resilience, not just climate change and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Address the sustainability issues most important to the community and select most cost‐effective programs and policies—recognizing that this will entail moral and political, as well as economic, decision factors. Seek to improve quality of life as well as environmental quality, economic health and social equity. Foster a prosperous, robust and inclusive economy. Build resilience—both physical and cultural—throughout the community. Include diverse perspectives from all community stakeholders, residents, and businesses. Recognize Palo Alto’s role as a leader and linkages with regional, national and global community. Design Principles In both evaluating this S/CAP, and in developing and evaluating future programs guided by it, Palo Alto is guided by these design principles: Focus on what’s feasible—recognizing that technology and costs are shifting rapidly. Prioritize actions that are in the City’s control – recognizing that we can urge others to join us, but leading by example is most effective Be specific about the actions and costs to achieve near‐term goals, while accepting that longer‐term goals can be more aspirational Use ambient resources: Maximize the efficient capture and use of the energy and water that fall on Palo Alto. Full cost accounting: Use total (life cycle) cost of ownership and consideration of externalities to guide financial decisions, while focusing on emission reductions that achievable at a point in time (i.e. not on life cycle emissions). Align incentives: Ensure that subsidies, if any, and other investment of public resources encourage what we want and discourage what we don’t want. Flexible platforms: Take practical near term steps that expand rather than restrict capacity for future actions and pivots. Decision Criteria In selecting specific programs and policies to pursue, and in allocating public resources to support them, Palo Alto will be guided by these decision criteria: Greenhouse gas impact Quality of life impact 7 http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/plan‐contents/governance‐element/ City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 18 of 63 Mitigation cost Return on investment (ROI) Ecosystem health Resilience Impact on future generations Overarching Policies and Legal Issues The proposals set forth in the draft S/CAP will need to be specifically analyzed in the context of applicable local, state and federal legal requirements, policy tradeoffs, budget and cost considerations, technological feasibility and economic impacts to the City prior to any adoption. Implementation of any of the new policies and programs described in the draft S/CAP will also be subject to the same considerations, as determined periodically by the Palo Alto City Council, and will continue to take into account existing local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and programs to avoid unnecessary duplication, minimize uncertainty, and maximize predictability. Measures presented here constitute a preliminary menu of options for Council to consider as potential methods for achieving greenhouse gas reduction goals adopted by Council; the proposals set forth in the draft S/CAP are for discussion and the City of Palo Alto. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 19 of 63 RETHINKING MOBILITY Road transportation represents about 61% of Palo Alto’s carbon footprint—and a congestion headache for everyone. Palo Alto’s existing Comprehensive Plan calls for reducing reliance on the automobile, and we've made some progress, with reductions in commute trips by Single Occupant Vehicles (SOV) from 75% to 62% between 2000 and 2014 and to 55% for commuters to Downtown. We’ve also dramatically reduced car trips to Palo Alto schools, with 44% of high school students commuting by bicycle. Beyond our borders, federal CAFE standards have reduced the carbon intensity of the US vehicle fleet. But congestion continues unabated, and the majority of Palo Altans, and commuters to Palo Alto still make Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips in fossil fuel powered vehicles. GHGs from road travel are a function of two factors: Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), and the carbon intensity of that travel (GHG/VMT). Reducing GHG/VMT is largely a function of vehicle technology, driven for example by Federal CAFE standards, state policy, improved fuel efficiency, electrification and customer adoption. Most of these factors are outside the purview of cities, but Palo Alto has some ways to influence VMT, by developing attractive alternatives to SOV trips, and GHG/VMT, largely by encouraging electrification of City, resident and commuter fleets. Traditional approaches to transportation—adding capacity by building roads and parking—send the wrong signals, encourage SOV travel and add pain. But what if we asked a different question: How could we make it more convenient for anyone, anywhere, anytime to not have to get into a car and drive? The key tools the City has for doing so include: Optimizing transit Electrifying Vehicles Incentivizing People to change their travel modes Integrating Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and Autonomous Vehicles Implementing land use policies that support these shifts. Goal: Expand non‐auto mobility options This goal focuses on improving alternative modes of transportation to support non‐automobile based mobility. The key: making it more convenient for anyone, anywhere, at any time, not have to drive by Expanding existing initiatives (such as bike infrastructure) Targeting specific populations with relevant non‐SOV services that they can afford Developing advanced, software‐based solutions (MaaS) Continually tracking performance of these programs overtime “Mobility as a Service” (MaaS) is an integrative approach that proposes to shift the traditional focus from fixed transportation to flexible, responsive transportation services designed to meet people’s diverse and changing needs by providing seamless regional multi‐modal mobility services, including improved transit, and bike share; dynamic, on‐demand shuttles; flexible first & TDM/TMA: The City supports a number of emerging transportation demand management (TDM) initiatives including its first Transportation Management Association (TMA)1, which will develop, manage, and market transportation programs to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips in the Downtown Core area. The Comprehensive Plan Update also provides an opportunity to establish policies that outline when TDM should be applied and programs that specify how compliance will be periodically measured and enforced. TDM plans for individual development projects can establish TDM requirements and set enforceable SOV mode‐share targets. TDM plans would establish a list of acceptable TDM measures that include transit use, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash‐out, bicycling, walking, and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. They should provide a system for incorporating alternative measures as new ideas for TDM are developed. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 20 of 63 last mile solutions; walkable/bikeable communities; and smart apps that provide convenient access to all of these. Figure 11. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Schematic Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction T‐FAC‐1. Expand bicycle infrastructure Increase bike boulevard miles to 26 miles Increase bike mode share, including work commute trips, from 7% to 25% 8,400 MTCO2e T‐FAC‐2. Expand transit options Increase transit ridership by 60% 19,200 MTCO2e T‐FAC‐3. Grow ridesharing services and mobility apps Increase in rideshare mode 6,400 MTCO2e City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 21 of 63 Strategy: Expand bicycle infrastructure (T‐FAC‐1) Upgrade and integrate bicycle network (T‐FAC‐1.1) Continue to integrate bicycle boulevards with separated bikeways on arterial street and off‐street paths and trails to create an integrated network of internal and inter‐city routes that are safe and comfortable for use by cyclists of all ages and abilities, and accessible to all major destinations in the City. Ensure bikeway networks are represented on online mapping Install bicycle and pedestrian sensors on utility poles to track transportation mode shares Convert 40% of bike lanes to protected bike lanes by 2030. Evaluate what would be required to achieve bicycle mode share levels being targeted by other cities, ranging from Portland and Copenhagen and LA. Develop bike routes that link effectively with adjacent jurisdictions. Reduce gaps in bikeways by creating a stress map to identify gaps Institute additional car‐free streets through extending days that University Avenue is car‐free Replace parking lanes in specific areas with separated bike lanes Increase bike boulevard mileage within Palo Alto (T‐FAC‐1.2) Implement 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan proposals for new additions to the bicycle boulevard network, and a design toolbox that emphasizes integrated wayfinding, speed limit reductions, actuated arterial crossings, and greater use of traffic circles as a replacement for stop signs. Increase bicycle boulevards network to increase bicycle mode share, safety, and mobility. Reestablish and expand Palo Alto bike share program (T‐FAC‐1.3) Work with neighboring cities to establish a program to continue a bike share program, and expand the number of bikes from the 37 bikes at five stations to more than 20 stations by 2020. Update the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan every 5 years. Integrate bike share into regional transit payment media, commuter wallet and Clipper 2.0 Incentivize e‐bikes through rebates Incentivize e‐bikes through charging infrastructure in bike racks Strategy: Expand transit options (T‐FAC‐2) Expand ridership on SamTrans, VTA, Dumbarton Express and Palo Alto shuttles. (T‐FAC‐2.1) Complete shuttle study to determine what is needed to increase ridership Increase marketing, information, and education about transit service and how to use different transit options Decrease shuttle headways to 10 minutes or less during commute hours and 15 minutes or less at other times. Contract low‐carbon or zero‐carbon shuttle fleet Add transit service to high demand routes and upgrade service on other routes to expand the network of routes achieving frequent service standards. Institute queue jump lanes for high ridership and regional transit lines (e.g., Dumbarton Express, 522 ECR, high ridership shuttles) Support and enhance inclusion of public and private school commute patterns in the local transit system, including schedule and route coordination. Provide real time, “next bus” scheduling information at shelter stops, on smart phones and integrate into “commuter wallet” as part of MaaS. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 22 of 63 Provide (or invite) dynamically responsive shuttles. Achieve target levels of ridership of Caltrain Modernization. (T‐FAC‐2.2) Provide real‐time arrival information at shelters, stops and on phones, integrated into the "commuter wallet" Ensure inter‐operable, real time data across all transit agencies, and support efforts to integrate train, bus, and shuttle schedules Continue to encourage the provision of amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage including real‐time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety, and convenience. Support continued development and improvement of the Caltrain Stations as important transportation nodes for the City. Develop and improve Caltrain stations as transit hubs with amenities such as bike share, showers, bike parking, car share, and designated areas for transportation network companies Improve access to Caltrain stations, including better connections to Stanford Research Park through new shuttles Focus new development near Caltrain stations, particularly within ¼ mile. Work with Peninsula Corridor partners to upgrade the Caltrain corridor to provide reliable, frequent, all day high capacity transit service to/from destinations along the US101 corridor from San Francisco to San Jose (and on to Gilroy). Decrease wait times for intercity transit to 10 minutes or less during commute hours and 15 minutes or less at other times. Ultimately, support development, as needed, of additional tracks and stations, and potentially grade separation of all or a part of the Caltrain corridor. Strategy: Grow ridesharing services and mobility apps (T‐FAC‐3) Increase shared transportation ridership rates (T‐FAC‐3.1) Facilitate casual carpool, and use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs; eg, Uber, Lyft, and others) for dynamic commute ridesharing and for first mile/last‐mile travel options. Provide financial assistance and driver opportunities to low‐income TNC riders Support infrastructure for ridesharing (T‐FAC‐3.2) Adopt carpool matching app/service with City employees serving as initial pilot Designate curb space for rideshare/carpool pick‐up and drop‐off downtown, and at Caltrain Station, and near stations. Install kiosks with information for TNCs Promote and facilitate smart phone applications for seamless mobility payment and booking options (T‐FAC‐3.3) Develop or procure MaaS smart phone app to provide seamless plan/book/ride/pay service, either through a Palo Alto “commuter wallet” or a regional collaboration Work with regional partners to develop regional MaaS solutions Require ride‐sharing transportation network companies to share data to support integrated services. Embed specific requirements in requests for proposals (RFPs) to encourage utilization of common technology platforms and expand services to diverse neighborhoods and populations Provide real‐time reporting/dashboard on city travel/corridors City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 23 of 63 Provide additional incentives for carpooling and vanpooling (T‐FAC‐3.4) Expand the availability and utilization of vanpools, especially targeting shared transportation to dispersed employment sites in Palo Alto from parts of the SF Bay Area (and adjacent counties in the Central Valley and Monterey Bay Areas) that are not especially transit accessible. Designate carpool and vanpool parking spaces in City garages. Provide discounted parking for carpools, paid parking refund for vehicles parked in public lots or on‐street. Optimize parking signal timing for GHG reduction Model/Pilot having neighborhoods compete to have greatest non‐SOV ridership Goal: Create the right incentives for mobility Despite the goal in Palo Alto’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan to reduce dependence on the private automobile, the City provides free parking in public lots and garages—thus incentivizing driving to the tune for $3600/year8—and has plans to build additional parking capacity. Instead, Palo Alto will identify ways (starting with a paid parking study this spring) to phase out automobile subsidies by charging for parking—ideally in coordination with neighboring jurisdictions—and investing the proceeds (as Stanford has successfully done9) in alternatives like transit, bicycle infrastructure, ride sharing, walkable neighborhoods, etc. Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction T‐INC‐1. Provide universal transit passes 75% of residents and employees have universal transit passes 7,600 MTC02e T‐INC‐2. Implement parking pricing 100% of City sites and 50% of private sites have parking pricing 18,400 MTCO2e 8 Amortized cost of providing parking spaces at investment of ~$60,000 per space. 9 Stanford’s program has reduced SOV rates from 72% to 42%, and avoided $107 in capital expenditures for parking structures that were no longer needed. See, for example, http://bit.ly/1RCmSS2 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 24 of 63 Strategy: Provide universal transit access (T‐INC‐1) Expand universal transit pass program for all residents and employees (T‐INC‐1.1) Expand TDM policies to include requirements for the provision of Go‐Passes, as well as Eco‐Passes (a similar universal transit pass offered by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) to all residents of existing and new multi‐unit buildings in the City, as well as all employees of Palo Alto employers with ten or more employees. This strategy is complementary to several other transportation strategies including T‐FAC‐3 Expand transit facility and services, T‐INC‐2 parking pricing and management approaches, and T‐LU‐1 balanced community. Strategy: Implement parking pricing (T‐INC‐2) Have all City employment sites and 50% of private employment sites to institute parking pricing programs and policies (T‐INC‐2.1) Complete and evaluate Paid Parking Study to identify primary recommendations and phasing for reducing or eliminating parking subsidies. Pilot voluntary parking cash‐out with non‐union City employees and change memorandum of understanding with City union employees to allow parking cash‐out Reduce or eliminate requirements for off‐street parking for new commercial/residential development Require unbundling parking costs from lease or sale of commercial and residential units Use meters/permits or time limits to manage parking demand in congested areas. Expand paid parking strategies in specific areas (T‐INC‐2.2) Evaluate the use of paid or meter parking strategies for on‐street and off‐street parking to facilitate parking availability and maximize parking utilization. Institute a “free parking surcharge” in select areas, and apply revenues to non‐SOV alternatives Consider comparable programs for the California Avenue business district, the Stanford Research Park and potentially other districts. Assess off‐street parking requirements (T‐INC‐2.3) Review off street minimum vehicle parking requirements Determine whether they can be reduced in situations where building location or design could reduce the demand for parking spaces and where reductions are acceptable in exchange for desired uses such as car‐ share spaces or alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure. Explore “parking maximum” and trip cap requirements Apply parking revenues to travel and parking demand (T‐INC‐2.4) Evaluate use of parking revenues and the development of a new in‐lieu fee program for transportation programs Support the downtown transportation management association (TMA) to reduce single‐occupancy driving Consider using parking revenues to pay for streetscape improvements that make biking, walking and transit more appealing Goal: Seek balanced development Palo Alto can potentially reduce commute‐related VMT though development patterns that support shorter commutes and complete neighborhoods, by enabling people to live closer to where they work. This is a sensitive City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 25 of 63 and controversial topic, but its impact is so significant that it must be included here, and discussed and resolved in the community. Palo Alto has long had an imbalance between jobs and housing, with almost three times as many jobs and employed residents in 2014. This imbalance between jobs and employed residents contributes to local and regional traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and other impacts, as some workers travel long distances between their residence and workplace. The imbalance is projected to grow if the City does not take affirmative steps to address the issue through the Comprehensive Plan Update. These steps could include: Increased housing densities Increased areas under existing maximum zoning rules Additional regulation of employment densities Additional commercial downzoning This strategy would include adopting a land use and transportation scenario to enable additional growth and development in transit accessible areas, provided that all such development was designed for low traffic/energy/carbon/water impact and would be approved only with an integral plan resulting in no in no net increase in vehicle trips to/from Palo Alto. (Mitigation Measure Trans1a in the Comprehensive Plan EIR would provide this type of requirement.) Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction T‐LU‐1. Develop zero‐impact, mixed‐use housing Target 2.95 jobs‐housing ratio10 2,900 MTCO2e 10This jobs‐housing ratio is expressed as the ratio between jobs and employed residents. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 26 of 63 Vehicle Trip Cap: Mountain View sets maximum parking requirements and eliminates minimum off‐street requirements, and targets 30‐45% single‐ occupancy vehicle mode share, depending on the density of employment within buildings. One employer faces penalties of $100K for each 1% over the cap. Similar caps are in place in Sunnyvale, Menlo Park and Cupertino. A mitigation measure in the Comp Plan Draft EIR suggests a similar approach, requiring aggressive TDM plans, with quantitative performance measures and enforcement, as well as requirements to off‐set any new trips that cannot be reduced through TDM. Strategy: Increase zero‐impact, mixed‐use housing (T‐LU‐1) Explore “zero impact” standards in residential and commercial development (T‐LU‐1.1) Use sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, access to amenities, and support housing diversity Accelerate transit‐oriented development (TOD) of infill and redevelopment that creates no additional vehicle trips, traffic/energy/carbon/water impact. Support additional mixed use development (T‐LU‐1.2) Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed‐use development near a range of types new community services, through amending the zoning code to allow high‐density residential in commercial areas near transit Identify, as part of long‐range planning, potential sites for transit‐oriented development with higher allowed density (T‐LU‐1.4) Plan for additional—zero impact—housing units beyond current levels under consideration. Areas for potential growth include Stanford Research Park, downtown core, Stanford Shopping Center, as well as additional infill through “backyard cottages” and other accessory dwelling units. Expand housing options consistent with zero‐impact goals (T‐LU‐1.3) Consider creating an amnesty program to legalize existing illegal second units, where consistent with compliance with code standards, and character of existing neighborhoods. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable housing to support Palo Alto’s share of regional housing needs. Prioritize street infrastructure improvements to prioritize GHG emissions reductions (T‐LU‐1.5) Redevelop existing streets to open up street space to prioritize shared modes. Embrace “tactical urbanism” to rapidly experiment with different alternatives and learn what works. Prioritize traffic signal timing to reduce GHG emissions instead of amount of delay in car travel. Goal: Reduce the carbon intensity of vehicular travel Expanding the percentage of trips taken in EVs would have the largest impact on emissions from road transportation, which is in turn the largest category of Palo Alto emissions. Since the city’s electricity is 100% from renewable resources, taking steps to encourage all new vehicles purchased to be EVs or other zero emissions technology would significantly reduce emissions associated with on‐road vehicles. Palo Alto already has one of the highest rates of EV ownership in the country (estimated by staff at 3‐4% of registered vehicles), but several factors limit EV adoption, City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 27 of 63 including price (which is dropping rapidly), total cost of ownership (often poorly understood), and vehicle performance— especially “range anxiety.” Initiatives to overcome these barriers, and keep Palo Alto’s EV adoption well ahead of the State’s aggressive goals, could include: public education, target incentives and charging infrastructure development. Based on the ratio of jobs to employed residents and an analysis of VMT, approximately 93% of Palo Alto’s transportation‐related emissions are estimated to be related to trips into or out of Palo Alto for work, shopping and other purposes (i.e. the VMT is not associated with trips that are internal to Palo Alto). An estimated 78% of the total vehicle trips have origins or destinations external to Palo Alto. 11 Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction T‐EV‐1. Electrify Palo Alto‐based vehicles 90% of vehicles in Palo Alto are zero emission 22,900 MTCO2e T‐EV‐2. Electrify inbound vehicles 50% of inbound vehicles (non‐Palo Alto based) are zero emission 27,000 MTCO2e Strategy: Explore ways to expand charging infrastructure across Palo Alto (T‐EV‐0) Reconvene the electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) task force Examine how to promote prewiring of EV infrastructure in existing building to remove barriers for future electric vehicle owners Develop strategies for expanding city‐wide EV charging infrastructure. Develop pricing policies and CPAU rate structures (consistent with legal requirements) for electric vehicle charging at home, in places of business and shopping, as well as in the public right‐of‐way and parking structures. Develop an EV promotion roadmap that identifies all policy and technical issues, barriers and opportunities to focus on over the next 3 to 5 years. Identify grant opportunities, rebates, incentives, and other promotional programs to stimulate electric vehicle ownership and support EV infrastructure, and coordination opportunities related to electric vehicle ownership and infrastructure. Explore opportunities to partner with major manufacturers like Tesla and Google to identify policy roadblocks and collaboration opportunities. 11 Estimated 95,742 jobs and 34,428 employed residents. (Source: 2016 Official City Data Set.) Estimates of Internal, Internal‐External, and External‐Internal VMT and vehicle trips are from the Comp Plan Draft EIR p. 4.13‐45. S/CAP allocates road emissions differently than the CompPlan analysis, where emissions from all trips, which are assumed to be round trips, are equally split between inbound and outbound. Since potential strategies available to Palo Alto to affect those trips are different for inbound vehicles than for those based in Palo Alto, the S/CAP allocates these emissions based on trip origination. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 28 of 63 Strategy: Electrify and decarbonize Palo Alto‐based vehicles (T‐EV‐1) Explore time‐of‐use (TOU) electric rate options for residential customers, including EV customers, residential customers, including EV customers, for residential charging. (T‐EV‐1.1) Develop policies to permit installation of on street electric vehicle charging for private use, including for multi‐family dwelling units Consider rebates or financial incentives for Palo Alto residents (T‐EV‐1.2) Identify grant opportunities, rebates, incentives, and other promotional programs to stimulate electric vehicle ownership and support EV infrastructure, and coordination opportunities related to electric vehicle ownership and infrastructure. Develop an EV promotion roadmap that identifies all policy and technical issues, barriers and opportunities to focus on over the next 3 to 5 years. Explore providing rebates to Palo Alto residents and employees for electric vehicle and/or EVSE purchases, using Low Carbon Fuel Standard funds, or other funding sources . Explore new models for financing EVs in Palo Alto Seek to convert public transportation vehicles to EVs. (T‐EV‐1.3) Accelerate the electrification of City fleet Specify and provide bidding preference for electric or zero emission options for Palo Alto shuttles. Work with SamTrans and VTA to encourage the adoption of electric, fuel cell or other zero emission vehicles Provide more information about electric vehicles including considerations related to charging infrastructure/programs/policies, vehicle range, lifecycle costs of ownership compared with conventional vehicles Increase education and outreach related to electric vehicles (T‐EV‐1.4) Provide more information about electric vehicles including considerations related to charging infrastructure/programs/policies, vehicle range, lifecycle costs of ownership compared with conventional vehicles Strategy: Electrify and decarbonize inbound vehicles (T‐EV‐2) Prioritize workplace and retail charging requirements (T‐EV‐2.1) Require and/or incentivize employers to provide workplace charging through reduced parking requirements, or other financial incentives. Provide preferential parking for electric vehicles at employment sites and retail/shopping areas Make it easier to find public charging stations (T‐EV‐2.2) Develop (or encourage private sector firms to develop) smartphone app to show real‐time charging information and predictive analytics to indicate likely availability of chargers Create incentives for high‐mileage vehicles to convert to electric or other zero emission vehicle (T‐EV‐2.3) Explore policies and incentives for transportation network companies and car‐sharing programs. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 29 of 63 BUILDING AN EFFICIENT ELECTRIC CITY Palo Alto has made remarkable progress in advancing energy efficiency, through CPAU’s incentive programs and the City’s nation‐ leading Green Building Ordinances and Energy Reach Codes, and in decarbonizing its electricity sector, through CPAU’s carbon neutral electricity (CNE) initiative, which is largely responsible for Palo Alto’s remarkable 36% GHG emissions reduction to date. The CNE Resource Plan, adopted in 2013, directed CPAU to eliminate fossil‐generated electricity by (1) expanding purchases of long‐term renewable energy contracts to about half of Palo Alto’s electricity needs by 2017, (2) relying on existing carbon‐free hydroelectric resources for the other half of electric supply needs, and (3) purchasing short‐term renewable resources and/or renewable energy credits (RECs) to counterbalance emissions from remaining “brown” or “market power purchases until those long‐term renewable energy contracts are in the place. Emissions from natural gas use currently represent ~25% of Palo Alto’s remaining carbon footprint.12 CNE opens to opportunity reduce natural gas use through electrification—“fuel switching” various natural gas uses to electricity—in addition to continued efficiency measures. The vast majority of natural gas usage is related to today’s building stock (existing buildings), with commercial and industrial buildings accounting for 63% of natural gas usage in the City. Palo Alto will first seek to reduce natural gas usage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of water heating, space heating and cooking where cost effective. Figure 12 illustrates the estimated distribution of natural gas usage in Palo Alto. 12 Natural Gas (i.e., methane, is a potent greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) at least 23 times that of CO2. Recent research suggests that the climate impacts may be 80‐100% higher. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 30 of 63 Figure 13: Summary of Natural Gas Usage in Palo Alto Buildings I The S/CAP roadmap is based on six leverage points: Tenant improvement pathway: energy efficiency upgrades, and electrification requirements Voluntary retrofit pathway: Palo Alto Utilities incentive programs (point‐of‐sale/distributors and contractors), education/outreach Predictive failure analysis: to anticipate Replace‐on‐burnout: develop programs to quickly retrofit with efficient electric equipment, particularly for small businesses. Time‐of‐sale pathway: energy efficiency upgrades and electrification requirements Institutional pathway: removing barriers by streamlining permitting, advocating at the state level to address CEC requirements for cost‐effectiveness (so we can require electric equipment), making it easier to “do the right thing” (service and convenience) Goal: Efficiency and electrification Efficiency comes first. More efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas and water, reducing demand on CPAU and saving customers money. Reduced electrical demand from efficiency—even of Palo Alto’s already carbon neutral electricity—provides more capacity to meet electricity needs generated by the EV growth and the fuel switching initiatives described below. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 31 of 63 Strategy: Encourage advanced efficiency and integrative design, ultimately for Net Zero (or Net Positive) buildings that exceed state minimum requirements for energy efficiency (NG‐EE‐1) Develop energy reach code to exceed state minimum for energy efficiency in all new buildings, and all existing buildings doing work that requires a building permit. (NG‐EE‐1.1) Develop energy reach code every 3 years in coordination with building code update; focus efficiency first with carbon as component of policy Provide alternate building code pathways for all‐electric homes Evaluate feasibility of Heat Pump technology in buildings from an electrical as well as cost efficiency perspective. Partner with other jurisdictions and NRDC to align energy efficiency and carbon reduction goals in California Energy Commission (CEC) regulations and state policy. Increase education and outreach to promote the policy, and to improve ease of implementation and predictability for project applicants Explore new or expanded programs and policies for energy efficiency in existing buildings (NG‐ EE‐1.2) Assess opportunities for residential energy use disclosure requirements Explore potential incentives or requirements for energy audits to be completed every 5 years for existing buildings Consider time‐of‐sale requirements for energy upgrades (e.g., Residential/Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance) Continue to expand energy efficiency incentive and technical assistance programs through Palo Alto Utilities to exceed current goals Goal: Reduce natural gas usage in existing businesses Reduce natural gas usage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of water heating, space heating and cooking where cost effective. Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction NG‐COMM‐1. Electrify water heating in businesses 50% of commercial water heating is electric 21,200 MTCO2e NG‐COMM‐2. Electrify space heating in businesses 50% of commercial space heating is electric 15,900 MTCO2e NG‐COOK‐1. Electrify commercial cooking 40% of commercial cooking is electric 11,300 MTCO2e City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 32 of 63 Strategy: Electrify water heating in businesses (NG‐COMM‐1) Determine monthly costs associated with hot water fuel switching (NG‐COMM‐1.1) Using the residential analysis as a template, evaluate the monthly energy costs to consumers associated with switching from natural gas to electric hot water systems. Study should include buildings with both low and high hot water demand. Assess requirements for major renovations and retrofits (NG‐COMM‐1.2) Study feasibility of including heat pump water heater (HPWH) installations as part of CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 standard Pilot electric hot water in a high‐profile building (NG‐COMM‐1.3) Leverage a high profile City building – such as City Hall – to demonstrate the ability of an entirely electric system to supply all the domestic hot water needs of a large commercial building. Investigate changes to building code to encourage or if possible require hot water fuel switching for existing buildings (NG‐COMM‐1.4) Explore building code requirements for existing buildings to switch from gas to electric hot water systems upon the end of life of existing gas hot water systems. Explore regulatory barriers associated with California Energy Commission cost‐effectiveness requirements for ordinances that would require electrification of water heating Strategy: Electrify space heating in businesses (NG‐COMM‐2) Determine monthly costs associated with space heating fuel switching (NG‐COMM‐2.1) Evaluate the monthly energy costs to consumers associated with switching from natural gas to electric space heating systems. Study should include building with both low and high space heating demand. Pilot electric space heating in a high‐profile building (NG‐COMM‐2.2) Leverage a high profile City building – such as City Hall – to demonstrate the ability of an entirely electric system to supply all the space heating needs of a large commercial building. Investigate changes to building code to encourage or if possible require space heating fuel switching for existing buildings (NG‐COMM‐2.3) Explore building code requirements for existing buildings to switch from gas to electric space heating systems upon the end of life of existing gas space heating systems. Study feasibility of including heat pump or resistive space heating installations as part of CalGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 standard. Key leverage points for retrofitting with electric equipment include tenant improvement projects, time‐of‐ sale, replace‐on‐burnout, voluntary programs and removing institutional barriers such as permitting, etc. Strategy: Electrify commercial cooking (NG‐COOK‐1) Encourage restaurants to switch from gas to electric cooking equipment (NG‐COOK‐1.1) Encourage restaurant owners—through education, hands‐on demonstrations and potentially utility incentives—to replace natural gas cooking equipment at end of life and in new restaurants with electric cooking equipment through the provision of incentives. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 33 of 63 Host “hands‐on” demo events for electric cooking equipment tailored to the restaurant industry (NG‐COMM‐2.2) City hosts events showcasing electric cooking equipment and restaurant owners/chefs who have installed electric equipment to educate the restaurant community on the advantages of these technologies. (Modeled on successful “ride and drive” events for EVs.) Goal: Reduce natural gas usage in existing homes Reduce natural gas usage through energy efficiency and conservation, followed by electrification of water heating, space heating and cooking where cost effective. Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction NG‐RES‐1. Electrify residential water heating 70% of water heaters are electric 13,600 MTCO2e NG‐RES‐2. Electrify residential space heating 60% of residential space heating is electric 23,300 MTCO2e City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 34 of 63 Strategy: Electrify residential water heating (NG‐RES‐1) Education and outreach on heat pump water heaters for homeowners. (NG‐RES‐1.1) Provide customers with information on options and cost‐effectiveness of heat pump water heaters, including web‐based calculator tools Educate contractor and installer workforce (NG‐RES‐1.2) Inform and educate water heater installers about heat pump technologies. Explore options for trainings or advertise trainings available. NG‐RES‐1.3. Funding and incentives for heat pump water heaters Explore funding sources for heat pump water heater rebates for customers, as well as funding sources to incentivize installers to offer heat pump water heaters as a default option. Explore a 24‐hour emergency hot water heater replacement program (NG‐RES‐1.4) Explore developing a streamlined process to assist Palo Alto residents with replacing water heaters upon—or before—failure, with heat pump water heaters in a. Utilize building data to target programs. (NG‐RES‐1.5) Explore development of an analytic process that would enable staff to predict the life expectancy of older water heaters based on past building permit data and use these predictions to target promotion and installation of heat pump water heaters before natural gas water heaters reach end of life. Strategy: Electrify residential space heating (NG‐RES‐2) Explore feasibility and economics of retrofitting multi‐family buildings (NG‐RES‐2.1) Target multi‐family buildings that presently have electric baseboard heating to approach with heat pump space heating technologies. Provide resources to homeowners to convert existing homes to all‐electric (NG‐RES‐2.2) Compile list of qualified architects, develop case studies, set up communication channels for homeowners to share ideas and host workshops on electrifying existing homes. Provide funding sources for electrifying existing homes (NG‐RES‐2.3) Explore feasibility of new funding sources and incentives to electrify existing homes on a pilot scale. Develop retail electric rate schedules for homes that electrify (NG‐RES‐2.4) Evaluate all‐electric rate schedule for residential customers as part of the upcoming electric cost of service analysis; if feasible, recommend such retail rates for Council consideration and approval. Goal: Reduce natural gas in new buildings New construction offers a unique opportunity to build zero net energy buildings with low incremental costs. With the new California energy code requirements and the plummeting price of LED bulbs, the only real cost to a homeowner is the cost of a solar PV system, which is also dropping rapidly. California is requiring “net zero energy” for all new residential construction by 2020, and all new commercial construction by 2030. Palo Alto is currently considering whether and how to accelerate those deadlines in the next Green Building Ordinance. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 35 of 63 Strategy: Encourage all‐electric new buildings (NG‐GAS‐1) Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction NG‐GAS‐1. Encourage all‐electric new buildings New buildings are zero net energy ahead of state targets 11,900 MTCO2e Expand programs for incentives for zero net energy new buildings (NG‐GAS‐1.1) Continue to develop energy efficiency programs targeted at new buildings that meet specified energy use intensity targets appropriate for the Palo Alto climate zone. Provide technical assistance and educational resources for all‐electric zero net energy buildings (NG‐GAS‐1.2) Provide additional educational and outreach programs related to all‐electric building design strategies and technologies for architects, design teams and contractors. Require new homes to be zero net energy ahead of state goals (NG‐GAS‐1.3) Explore legal/regulatory ramifications of all‐electric buildings without natural gas hookups. Explore additional residential and commercial building code changes for new construction and remodeling projects to expedite electrification. Explore requirements for all‐electric new construction. (NG‐GAS‐1.4) Explore building code requirements for electric water and space heating in all new commercial buildings. Explore feasibility of requiring all‐electric construction in new buildings and/or major renovations Goal: Reduce the carbon intensity of natural gas Similar to the approach utilized for carbon neutral electric supply, Palo Alto will continue to explore opportunities to procure biogas and/or carbon offsets in the short term in order to “green the gas” while we work towards reduced natural gas consumption and infrastructure. Carbon offsets and biogas supplies should be evaluated and monitored in parallel with electrification and progress on reductions in natural gas consumption in Palo Alto to ensure that the City meets its 2030 targets. Strategy: Eliminate natural gas emissions with carbon offsets or biogas (NG‐OFF‐1) Make PaloAltoGreen Gas program opt‐out (NG‐OFF‐1.1) PaloAltoGreen Gas program is currently an opt‐in program, which limits participation. The program should be modified as an opt‐out program, providing flexibility to customers who truly do not want to participate. Consider carbon offsets to offset remaining GHG emissions. (NG‐OFF‐1.1) After all feasible measures are taken to reduce natural gas consumption, utilize carbon offsets – either by making the PaloAltoGreen Gas an “opt‐out” program or the purchase of carbon offsets by the City. Procure biogas supply. (NG‐OFF‐1.2) Palo Alto will continue to assess opportunities to incorporate biogas (Renewable Natural Gas) supply into the natural gas mix. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 36 of 63 ZERO WASTE AND THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY Reducing the amount of waste discarded in landfills is an important strategy for both greenhouse gas reductions and overall sustainability. Diverting waste from landfills occurs through product changes, material use reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. .Equally important, these diversion strategies will create a “circular economy” where materials, water and energy do not create waste or pollute, but rather contribute their value back into a sustainable, circular cycle of human and ecosystem activity. Achieving a “zero waste” will require reducing the overall amount of waste generated within the City—through purchasing decisions and material use reduction (and ultimately product design), as well as more effective sorting, recovery and recycling. In 2007, the City completed a Zero Waste Operational Plan established a goal of 73% diversion by 2011 and 90% by 2021— well beyond state requirements13. This new S/CAP sets a new goal of 95% Diversion by 2030. Goal: Achieve 95% landfill diversion by 2030, and ultimately zero waste Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction SW‐1. Achieve zero waste Achieve 95% diversion rate 9,500 MTCO2 13 California Assembly Bill 939 was passed in 1989, and mandated local jurisdictions to meet a solid waste diversion goal of 50% by 2000. Furthermore, each jurisdiction was required to create an Integrated Waste Management Plan that looked at recycling programs, purchasing of recycled products and waste minimization. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 37 of 63 Strategy: Enhance policies and programs for recycling, composting and reuse (SW‐1) Increase education and outreach for existing waste diversion programs (SW‐1.1) Promote existing programs, including City’s Household Hazardous Waste Program, through aggressive outreach, initiatives and extended producer responsibility (EPR) initiatives. Reduce the number of non‐recyclable or non‐compostable materials in the community (SW‐1.2) To the maximum extent practical, utilize the municipal code to restrict non‐recyclable or non‐ compostable products sold in the City Work with partner agencies and the business community to develop producer‐funded take‐back programs. Engage local businesses to increase the number of companies participating in the program and adopting best practices related to food waste, landscape waste and recycling. Partner with local agencies to promote recycling and reuse (SW‐1.3) Partner with local non‐profits (e.g., Goodwill) to boost efforts in material reuse and exchange Support Bay Area Green Business Certification program that requires adoption of waste reduction practices Revise and implement new more stringent C&D ordinance recovery measures (SW‐1.4) Work with stakeholders and regional waste recovery facility management to increase the City’s existing C&D recovery percentage requirements. Emphasize on site reuse or off site salvaged to provide a higher and better use for the materials than recycling or disposal. Strategy 2030 Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction SW‐2. Implement an energy savings and pollutant reduction strategy for waste collection vehicles 100% electric (or low‐carbon fuel) waste collection vehicle fleet Zero GHG emissions (if electric vehicles available ) City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 38 of 63 Strategy: Implement an energy savings and pollutant reduction strategy for waste collection vehicles (SW‐2) Utilize electric or alternative fueled waste collection vehicles as soon as possible (SW‐2.1) Change to a 100% CNG fleet in the next (2021) waste collector agreement. Monitor the availability of electric collection vehicles, and introduce them as rapidly as feasibile. Eliminate the separate collection of garbage (SW‐2.2) As the City moves closer to zero waste, more of the waste materials collected should be recoverable (recyclable or compostable), evaluate eliminating separate collection of garbage, and moving to a two‐ cart collection scheme. Minimize transportation and manage the City’s waste as locally as possible (SW‐2.3) Track developments in processing technology to identify options that could be implemented at local or regional locations. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 39 of 63 GETTING SMART ABOUT WATER Palo Alto has done an outstanding job of meeting annual water use reduction requirements of the current “drought.” But both potable water supplies and hydroelectric needs could be challenged by long‐term shifts in California’s precipitation regime. With shifting climate patterns14, significant uncertainty exists about whether drought conditions are the “new normal” for California, with a possible “new normal” of less (and less reliable) precipitation. Moreover, most climate projections show increases in average temperatures and reduced snowpack where Palo Alto sources much of its water—which could impact Palo Alto’s hydroelectric power and thus its carbon neutral electricity strategy. Given current climatic projections, long‐term increases in water supplies from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) appear highly unlikely. It would be prudent to reduce water consumption while exploring ways to increase the availability and use of recycled water. Goal: Reduce consumption of potable water CPAU water demand management measures (DMMs) have supported customers in reducing water use 27% between 2000 and 2010. CPAU’s drought response programs have enabled the City to reduce water use by 24% in 2015 compared with 2013 levels, far ahead of the State’s mandated reduction requirements. Long‐term water reduction strategies should focus not only on implementing these procedures during times of drought, but rather using the incentives and policy drivers listed in the water management plan to drive sustained water consumption reduction. 14 The California Department of Water Resources (http://www.sei‐international.org/news‐and‐media/3252), the Association of California Water Agencies (http://www.acwa.com/events/2016‐executive‐briefing‐defining‐new‐ normal) and others are examining the potential impacts of Climate Change on Hydrologic Trends and Water Management. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 40 of 63 Strategy: Strengthen policies for community‐wide water conservation and water efficiency (W‐1) Provide increased funding for landscape conservation rebate program to drive participation in program (W‐1.1) Supplement existing funding for the landscape conservation rebate program in order to offer additional rebates for Palo Alto residents and businesses beyond the $2.00 per square foot offered by SCVWD. Increasing rebates to $3.00 ‐ $4.00 per square foot will drive increased participation in the program. Develop landscape water budgets and link to block rates to discourage excessive water consumption (W‐1.2 ) Develop landscape water budgets for high‐use customers based on landscape area, plant materials and climate condition. To the extent feasible, link landscape water budgets to tailored block rate schedules to encourage conservation. Develop long‐term efficiency goals, and aggressively market toward them (W‐1.3) Set long‐term, strategic targets for increased installation rates of water efficient fixtures and appliances and use a variety of marketing techniques – hardware swaps, replacement programs, rebates and incentives – to achieve these targets. Develop and implement water efficient landscape and indoor water regulations Incorporate net zero water standards in future Green Building Ordinances (W‐1.4) Build net zero water standards into future Green Building Ordinances. Achieve that goal through a combination of rainfall harvesting, aggressive conservation, and water recycling, and buildings that can achieve self‐sufficiency from the water “grid”. Evolve Palo Alto landscapes to adapt to changing precipitation trends, and allocate water resources to protect our urban canopy (W‐1.5) Emphasize incorporation of drought‐tolerant and drought‐resistant plants and landscape design into publically owned land – including parks, school yards and medians. Educate and incent CPAU customers to adapt and evolve their landscapes. Goal: Supplement existing water supplies In addition to reducing potable water consumption, Palo Alto will seek to supplement existing SFPUC water supplies with “new” sources, to provide redundant supplies that strengthen resilience and water security, including: 1) increasing local water capture, 2) maximizing the potential for water recycling and 3) exploration of decentralized, on‐site waste water treatment. Net Positive Water What if Palo Alto, or specific buildings, could capture more water than it used? What would it take? What would it look like? City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 41 of 63 Strategy: Supplement SFPUC water supply with other sources of potable and non‐potable water (W‐2) Create and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan that prioritizes green streets infrastructure (W‐2.1) Create policies that integrate the design of green infrastructure into City and private sector projects to store, infiltrate, cleanse and evapotranspire stormwater. Expand permeable paving and reduce impermeable paving. Increase rainfall infiltration, replenish groundwater, utilize soil to filter pollutants, increase habitat, retain and detain stormwater and meet State and Federal permit requirements Utilize: bioswales, raingardens, infiltration basins, retention basins, rain barrels cisterns, green roofs, vegetation, and permeable blocks, pavement and systems. Incentivize water harvesting and downspout disconnections (W‐2.2) Provide education, support and incentives to promote the capture of rainwater and greywater to be utilized for landscape and other water needs. Require and/or incentivize the disconnection of downspouts to redirect water to landscapes, rain barrels, cisterns, or permeable areas – instead of the storm drain. Expand recycled water capacity and uses (W‐2.3) Continue to investigate methods for expanding water recycling from the RWQCP, including: facility upgrade at the Plant, increased delivery to Mountain View, new delivery to East Palo Alto and other RWQCP partners, and interties to the North and South of the RWQCP service area Continue to explore expansion of purple pipe infrastructure within Palo Alto Explore new uses for recycled water including the production of purified (potable) water groundwater storage/recharge, and ultimately direct potable reuse. Explore and pilot advanced technology water recycling technologies, including onsite treatment, and energy, water and materials harvesting from wastewater (W‐2.4) Investigate the potential of onsite wastewater treatments systems that enable property owners to treat and reuse wastewater on site. Investigate NASA, Stanford and other onsite water treatment technologies for possible pilot at City Hall Explore beneficial use of wastewater biosolids, including anaerobic digestion, gasification, pyrolysis, including various uses for the energy produced, such as microbial fuel cells and hydrogen production Phase out incineration of biosolids by 2019. W‐2.5 Evaluate potential for large scale water storage beneath parks, schools, paring lots, etc. Study the feasibility of large‐scale underground water storage that enables rapid storage of water during large precipitation events that would otherwise be destined for storm drains. Beneficially Reuse 100 % of the treated wastewater from the RWQCP (W‐2.5) Evaluate minimum flows and maximum nutrient/pollutant loadings for Bay Discharge Evaluate benefits and amounts of discharge to local marsh systems, creek augmentation, sea level rise mitigation and groundwater infiltration/injection Combine results with W‐2.3 explorations to insure that 100% of the wastewater is ultimately used to benefit human and ecosystem needs City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 42 of 63 MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS – LEADING THE WAY The City of Palo Alto has long demonstrated its commitment to sustainability and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions through its municipal operations. Palo Alto city government’s environmental footprint is small—3.1% of citywide electricity use, 2.9% of natural gas use and 5.3% of water use in FY 2014. But resource efficiency, low carbon and other sustainability initiatives can save money, improve operating performance, reduce emissions, and provide leadership by for the community. And the City has an important role in both leading by example has a powerful impact, both by providing a governing framework that supports sustainability throughout the community and inspiring within out community and to neighboring communities. The city government’s commitment: “We walk the talk, and we go first.” Goal: Efficient City Buildings The City spends approximately $6 million annually on utilities; “typical” 10‐20% potential efficiency savings could result in more than $600,000 saved per year. The City requires LEED certification for all new City buildings over 10,000 square feet, and assessment of “green building” potential for substantial renovations and additions over 5,000 square feet. These requirements may not have captured all opportunities, and advances in green building design and technology continually open new ones. Strategy: Use City Buildings as Demonstration Projects for Advanced Building Technologies Explore opportunities to electrify existing and new City buildings, including utilizing heat pump water heaters and heat pump space heating technologies. Require LEED™ Gold or Platinum certification for new City buildings, and at least LEED certification for retrofits.15 Strategy: Develop a Facilities Master Plan for City buildings Analyze resource consumption in City buildings to identify priority opportunities for efficiency gains and management improvements. Identify capital improvement goals, and methods for ensuring sustainability and efficiency goals are embedded in the capital improvement process. Provide criteria for Facilities, Engineering and the Sustainability Office to use to guide inter‐division coordination and collaboration, and evaluate City performance, and will include: o A Long‐term energy management plan o Energy efficiency standards o Processes for retro‐commissioning and performance benchmarking to incentivize and ensure high performance that matches design 15 Palo Alto currently requires LEED silver for new construction (as do many cities). San Francisco and Vancouver require LEED goal. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 43 of 63 o Long‐range capital improvement plan o Budgetary goals Goal: Efficient City Fleet Strategy: Continue to electrify city fleet vehicles where possible Develop protocols to systematically shift City fleet vehicles to electric where appropriate Continue to explore third‐party providers of EV charging infrastructure, as a potential way to expand that infrastructure at minimal cost to the City. Strategy: Explore new models for City fleet vehicle operations Explore partnership opportunities between City fleet and car‐sharing companies (e.g., performance contracts, and/or and making fleet available for public rental after business hours)16 Consider piloting use of self‐driving vehicles as part of City vehicle fleet Goal: Procurement—“Default to Green” In 2007, the City authorized the implementation of a green purchasing program, and subsequently adopted a Green Purchasing Policy (GPP) in 2008, which supports existing environmental policies and Council direction to reduce GHG, pesticides and mercury, and achieve Zero Waste and pollution prevention goals. In 2015, the City Manager established a “default to green” strategy that makes the greener product the norm rather than the exception. Staff will always have the option to purchase alternative products, wherever cost or performance requirements make the green product in appropriate, but by making the greener purchase easier, and supported by tools that assist staff in choosing the best option, the City hopes to embed greener purchasing in to City processes. (This has been accomplished for paper and toner purchases, and is underway for fleet purchases.) [A 2014 OSS analysis showed that the Scope 3 GHG impacts of City purchases would add an estimated 25% to City government emissions.] Strategy: Continue to update and expand GPP awareness Establish additional GPP criteria in all priority procurement categories Work with vendors and allies to develop clear support material for City staff Provide green procurement training and tools to City procurement staff Strategy: Optimize allocation of funds to support GPP implementation Allocate funds to develop or acquire “green purchasing” management and tracking software Allocate funds and/or staff for at least 30%FTE to implement current green purchasing plan (from ASD, CMO, or PWD) which includes annual reporting and tracking; Allocate 25% FTE of ASD Purchasing Staff to assist with program implementation Report progress at least annually. Goal: Embed Sustainability in Management Systems and Processes Wherever possible, the City will embed sustainability criteria in City management systems, to ensure that the concerns identified in this Plan are addressed early, as part of standard operating procedure rather than special “sustainability add‐ons.” 16 As, for example, ZipCar has done with New York, Houston and other cities City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 44 of 63 Strategy: Infuse sustainability throughout City operations Embed sustainability commitments and criteria into CIP process, and specification and management of building construction, renovation and operation Incorporate a “sustainability impacts” section into standard staff report templates. Establish internal carbon targets, pricing and trading to increase GHG‐reduction17 Provide relevant sustainability training modules through the City’s training systems. 17 According to the World Bank, more than 150 companies, 40 countries and 20 cities have instituted carbon pricing. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing‐carbon City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 45 of 63 PALO ALTO’S UTILITY OF THE FUTURE The utility industry is changing. Rapidly dropping costs of renewable and distributed power sources, energy storage, electric vehicles and energy‐related telecommunications are combining to challenge the traditional utility framework and business. CPAU is tracking these trends, has begun piloting residential “smart meters” in a few hundred locations and begun assessing the load and storage impacts of electric vehicles on the grid. These trends intersect sustainability and climate action concerns, and raise both significant challenges and opportunities for CPAU. CPAU will explore and evaluate the “Utility of the Future” concept—including potentially moving from a centralized utility provisioning model to a more agile one of greater embracing distributed energy generation and storage, an increased focus on energy services in addition to energy generation and distribution. Goal: Implement innovative efficiency strategies As discussed above, efficiency comes first. CPAU has successfully delivered a suite of efficiency products and services for years; new approaches to delivering efficiency may be need to both meet carbon goals and ensure capacity to meet future needs. Strategy: Continue to incorporate energy efficiency as the highest priority resource Procure energy efficiency as a resource (e.g. negawatts)—and a tradable commodity—to access funds based on levelized marginal cost rather than total resource cost (TRC). Promote—and monetize—radical resource efficiency o Apply retro‐commissioning and performance benchmarking to incentivize and ensure high performance that matches design o Develop integrated utility service offerings (including electric vehicles, solar and energy efficiency), with predictive analytics and on‐bill financing City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 46 of 63 Promote energy efficiency and conservation through both outreach and financial incentives and repayment programs (education, outreach, on‐bill financing/repayment, incentives, etc.) Strategy: Evaluate and advance appropriate electrification strategies To the extent feasible, adopt electric and natural gas rates and tariffs that support fuel switching, and that provide the right incentives for where we want to go now. Maintain integrity of natural gas infrastructure as natural gas revenues decline. Strategy: Evaluate and advance appropriate distributed generation strategies Develop a long‐term plan for Integration of high levels of distributed resources into the system to promote low carbon energy and reliable and cost effective delivery. Address to potential challenge of “grid defection,” for example through rate policy (feed in tariffs), service offerings (provide/manage/finance local generation and storage), etc. Improve and maintain the resilience of the power grid, as well as natural gas, water, wastewater distribution systems. Goal: Advance smart grid strategies Smart grid strategies connect to Palo Alto’s existing, smart city and open data strategies, and offer the promise of more responsive and efficient energy systems, and more connected and satisfied customers., Strategy: Deploy Smart Grid as key part of “smart and connected city” Implement real‐time metering for all customers to match costs with power pricing o Conclude smart meter pilot and roll out smart meters city‐wide by 202X. o Provide customers easy, real‐time access to their utility data through Green Button and other APIs Provide incentives for—or provision and manage—localized or neighborhood storage Develop smart micro‐grid and nano‐grid strategies to integrate electric vehicles, energy storage, renewable generation and islanding protection from blackouts. Goal: Evaluate and adapt the CPAU business model The utility industry faces a potentially disruptive future—driven by changing technology, economics and customer expectations, as well as policy changes—that could include the challenge of “grid defection” as customers become their own providers, and of new regulatory models and new competitors that shift revenues from utilities to other participants in the energy system. Few utilities have begun to consider how to adapt to the creative destruction in by the proliferation of distributed generation and energy efficiency; many are actively resisting the transition. CPAU, small and locally controlled, has the capabilities to rapidly evolve the business models these trends are demanding. Strategy: Consider long‐term CPAU strategy in light of rapidly changing technology Carefully consider and decide what fundamental value CPAU will deliver to its customers: o Buy, broker and distribute energy o Sell benefits, not resources o Deliver efficiency services o Own and manage distributed generation & storage capacity o Sell management, services, financing & data City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 47 of 63 Develop options to adapt business model to changing industry dynamics and proactively explore “utility of the future” strategies to take advantage of potential disruptive change facing the industry. Develop an agile, service‐focused (rather than commodity‐focused) business model, including Develop long‐range plans to meet Palo Alto’s goals for sustainability, economic prosperity, and continued quality of life in the face of changing market conditions and customer expectations Evaluate the potential regulatory barriers and possible implications of electrification strategies, including impacts of potential decline in natural gas use on CPAU revenues Strategy: Leverage the resiliency and potential cost benefits of distributed energy resources (e.g., solar, storage, microgrids ) Maximize local solar+storage as resilient complement to grid solar. Explore microgrid and district energy strategies in key districts Goal: Continue to advance carbon neutrality CPAU will continue to play a central role in Palo Alto’s carbon neutrality trajectory. Continue to support electrification programs and requirements identified in the S/CAP to effectively draw down the use of natural gas, including: o Restructure rates to not penalize increased electrical demand o Prepare to upgrade grid to meet rising demand from electrification. Develop hydroelectric power contingency plans o Ensure maintenance of carbon neutral electricity in face of potential reduced reliability of hydroelectric power o Increase renewables power procurement to hedge hydro uncertainty, subject to the City’s Risk Management Policies and Procedures City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 48 of 63 COMMUNITY BEHAVIOR, CULTURE & INNOVATION Ultimately the way individuals and businesses act dictates our consumption patterns and thus our impact on natural resources. To truly address the challenges of climate change and sustainability, individual behavior will have to continue to change. In fact the GHG impact of individual purchasing decisions—not reflected in Palo Alto’s GHG inventory, above—is significant. (See Figure 14, below.) Achieving that change will require broad community engagement, participation, guidance— and individual initiative. To support that, the City will active inform & convene stakeholders, support individual & collaborative action, and disclose and report impacts of both City and community‐wide initiatives and impacts. [Graphic: stages of behavior change?] Goal: Provide a platform for community change in culture, behavior and innovation Strategy: Changing Cultural Norms Inform & convene stakeholders, support individual & collaborative action, and disclose and report impacts of both City and community‐wide initiatives and impacts. Develop awareness and understanding community‐wide to the relevance of actions to reduce energy consumption, switch to cleaner sources of energy, embrace non‐auto based mobility options, and reduce both water and solid waste. Foster experimentation, alliances, design competitions, hackathons and big leaps led by our local residents, businesses and community stakeholders. Strategy: Facilitate personal and neighborhood action Pilot “CoolBlock” collaborations to support neighborhood cooperation toward sustainability and resilience goals Pilot neighborhood competitions to reduce single‐occupancy vehicle travel, with opportunities for City of Palo Alto to pilot street improvements to facilitate walking/biking/transit Deploy/encourage performance dashboards and “fitbit for sustainability” apps Estimate/report “scope 3” emissions, to seed conversations about consumption City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 49 of 63 Figure 15: Palo Alto Per Capita GHG emissions, including "Scope 3" Impact of Purchases Strategy: Develop Smart City and Power of Open Data Extend open data initiatives to include mobility, utility, operations & environmental quality Provide visual performance dashboards that simplify tracking and benchmarking sustainability performance—and support effective action Provide real‐time reporting/dashboard information on key city arterials and corridors providing information on real‐time mode share of driving, biking, pedestrian activity Accelerate smart grid deployment. Enable customer and 3rd party access to accurate, timely data. In all these, ensure reliable protection of privacy. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 50 of 63 CLIMATE ADAPTATION: PREPARING FOR CHANGE The first imperative of climate change planning is mitigation, the reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases so that the impacts can be kept as small as possible. However, even if all carbon emissions were stopped today, some of these effects are likely to continue for decades into the future. Palo Alto’s greatest climate change risks are a product of the City’s bayside setting, the inherent sensitivities of its Mediterranean climate, and its dependence on imported water from the distant Sierra Nevada mountains as its primary water and hydro‐ electric supply. Sea‐level rise is expected to affect low‐lying areas of Palo Alto surrounding the San Francisco Bay with more frequent and severe flooding. The State of California has adopted guidance and planning sea level rise projections for the San Francisco Bay region from the National Research Council (NRC, 201218) of projected 11 inches of sea level rise by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches by 2100.19 18 National Research Council (NRC), 2012. Sea‐Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 19 California, via the Ocean Protection Council, (OPC, 201319), has adopted the San Francisco Bay region sea level rise projections from the National Research Council (NRC, 201219), which includes an allowance for vertical land motion. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 51 of 63 Figure 16 and Figure 17 provide an overview (leveraging Silicon Valley 2.0, a regional planning effort to minimize the anticipated impacts of climate change) of community assets identified at risk of sea level rise/flooding and fire risk. (See detailed assessment of risks and potential responses in Appendix XX.) City staff have several related work streams underway. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 52 of 63 Figure 16. Palo Alto Community Assets at Risk from Sea Level Rise and Associated Flooding City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 53 of 63 Guiding Principles for Sea Level Rise Response Recognizing the most immediate risks related to sea level, particularly for critical facilities along the San Francisco Bay Shoreline, Palo Alto has identified six guiding principles1: (1) For city of Palo Alto capital projects, use sea level rise assumptions consistent with the State of California adopted guidance, with a minimum of 55 inches based on Bay Conservation Development Corporation (BCDC) numbers. (2) Continue to monitor latest climate change and sea level rise science and adapt as needed if sea level rise occurs at a more rapid pace and/or higher levels than projected (3) Ensure engineering solutions are adaptable to changing climate predictions (4) Consider tools to protect, adapt and retreat as appropriate and cost‐effective (5) For areas that are to be protected, consider additional tools in case severity and speed of sea level rise increase, such as designing structure that can get wet and locating sensitive equipment higher in a building (6) Continue to collaborate with regional planning efforts on studies of climate impacts and strategies to respond to sea level rise Figure 17. Change in Fire Exposure Risk, Showing Community Asset Locations City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 54 of 63 Goal: Protect, Adapt, Retreat Strategy: Protect Municipal Services Center, Utility Control Center and Utility Control Center Review long‐term plans to protect these assets, including potential relocation, or establish additional redundant operational capabilities in case these facilities become incapacitated during a flooding event. Assess foothills communication towers in the foothills for vulnerability to wildfire. Update emergency preparedness plans accordingly. Strategy: Enhance Energy Security and Infrastructure Action: Develop an energy resiliency plan focusing on building in resiliency and lessening the impact of statewide and regional energy events. o Adaptation measures would include islanding, smart grid, local generation, energy storage and redundant transmission lines. Strategy: Water Supply Action: Continue aggressive water conservation programs Action: Set higher conservation goals in the 2015 update to the Palo Alto Urban Water Management Plan Action: Participate in in regional planning efforts by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Santa Clara Valley Water District and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Action: Investigate potential alternative supplies, including recycled water and use of local groundwater sources. Strategy: Wastewater Management The greatest risk to the City’s wastewater management is potential failure of existing levees that protect the RWQCP from coastal flooding associated with sea level rise by 2100. Action: Evaluate feasibility of “horizontal levees,” and opportunities to incorporate treated wastewater effluent in their creation. Action: Develop a flood proofing plan for the RWQCP that minimizes impacts to the site in the event of local inundation. Strategy: Stormwater Management Action: Coordinate creek flood management planning with the SAFER coastal flood management project that is just getting underway. Action: Assess opportunities to integrate stormwater into the wetlands rather than segregating it in stormwater channels and detaining it in flood basins, in order to create a more resilient shoreline. Strategy: Transportation Infrastructure Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the Palo Alto Airport, and surface streets in the Palo Alto floodplain are all at significant risk from sea level rise by the year 2100. Current levees are not likely to adequately protect these assets from sea level rise; the SAFER Bay project is planning improvements to these levees. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 55 of 63 Action: Assess the vulnerability of Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the Palo Alto Airport, and surface streets in the Palo Alto floodplain to sea level rise by the year 2100. Action: Better define adequacy of current levees to protect these assets from sea level rise, along with consequences of failure and contingency plans in the event they become damaged or inaccessible. Action: Assess the vulnerability of roads and highways in the foothills for wildfires by the year 2100. Strategy: Public Health The City’s most vulnerable populations (elderly, low‐income and health‐compromised residents) face significant risk from extreme heat events by 2100, and higher risk of health problems from worsening air quality and new disease vectors. Action: Engage the public and promote community involvement in actions to reduce climate change risks, using linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches that are effective for diverse populations. Action: Reduce urban heat islands (also has energy conservation/GHG co‐benefit). Action: Partner with organization like Cal‐BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) to forecast climate impacts and assess public health vulnerabilities, educate and engage more effectively with the community, assess current strategies, and identify effective responses. Action: Engage with and seek support from Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) community resilience programs; in particular their multiple hazard risk assessment and study of housing resilience in the face of natural disasters. Strategy: Continue to work with regional partners to implement integrated resiliency approaches Promote and participate in cooperative planning with other public agencies and regional and adjacent jurisdictions, especially regarding issues related to climate change, such as water supply, sea level rise, fire protection services, emergency medical services, and emergency response planning. Develop new requirements for shoreline development to ensure that new development is designed and located to provide protection from potential impacts of flooding resulting from sea level rise and significant flood events. o Requirements could include: new setbacks to ensure to structures are set back far enough inland that they will not be endangered by erosion; limits on subdivisions and lot line adjustments in areas vulnerable to sea level rise to avoid the creation of new shoreline lots; incentive or transfer of development rights (TDR) programs to relocate existing development away from high risk areas; and/or triggers for relocation or removal of existing structures based on changing site conditions and other factors. Strategy: Build resilience considerations into City planning and capital projects, especially near the San Francisco Bay shoreline. Prioritize the Municipal Service Center (MSC), which is located in a potential future inundation zone, to determine the best approach to protect the emergency response capabilities and other services that the MSC provides. Pursue “green infrastructure” as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and as warranted by staff analysis; include supporting policies in the Comp Plan Update aimed at increasing storm water capture and infiltration. Evaluate and strengthen SLR and flooding concerns in planning, zoning, permitting and insurance requirements City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 56 of 63 REGENERATION AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Sustainability is not only about mitigation and resiliency to change, but also about regeneration and identifying opportunities for renewal, restoration and growth of our natural resources and environment. Green infrastructure management provides one of the rare opportunities to enhance ecosystem positives such as sequestration of carbon, recharge of groundwater reserves, local food, walk‐ability and bike‐ability, and improved human health rather than solely reduction of negative impacts such as pollution and waste. Palo Alto will continue to build the natural resources, “common wealth” and biocapacity that sustains it: soils, vegetation, tree canopy, biodiversity, water and many other critical components. Green infrastructure refers to natural areas and systems to provide habitat, flood protection, storm water management, cleaner air and cleaner water. Goal: Renew, restoration and enhance resilience of our natural environment Strategy: Adapt canopy, parklands, biodiversity, soil health to changing climatic regimes Implement the Urban Forest Master Plan o Analyze and estimate potential tree canopy impacts due to changes in water application o Work closely with Utilities Department to evaluate current information, education programs and incentives to determine the most appropriate best practices for both urban forestry and water conservation goals. o Continue to develop and distribute information about preferred and restricted tree species, adapting trees to lower water needs, building greater drought resilience into tree planting sites through soil enhancements and selecting native or site appropriate trees of the proper size and characteristics. o Further explore and emphasize the importance of local foods, including smaller, fruiting trees and concepts related to local “food forests” that foster low‐maintenance sustainable plant‐ based food production. Develop and implement the Parks, Trails, Open Space & Recreation Master Plan o Provide clear guidance and recommendations on how to meet the demands for future recreational, programming, environmental, and maintenance needs, as well as establish priorities for future park renovations and facility improvements. o Identify opportunities to increase sustainable and resource‐saving practices associated the operation and management of parks and open space, as well as recreational facilities within the City. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 57 of 63 Strategy: Value and enhance the common wealth for future generations. Action 1. Prepare an audit of the commonwealth and common health under that government’s jurisdiction. o This audit would provide an inventory of parks, water and air quality, and infrastructure necessary for community wellbeing—all of the commons that are essential for the health and well‐being of present and future generations. The audit could be reported as a qualitative, non‐ monetized set of assets. Action 2. Draft a legacy plan for the commons. o What is needed to improve, restore, and expand the commons to leave them in good shape for future generations? Some threats are particularly important to consider in plans. It is difficult to flourish in the face of floods, drought and fire. The legacy plan could become the basis of governmental sustainability goals. Action 3. Review all regulations and land use plans for their impact on future generations. o Designate a “guardian of future generations” empowered to recommend modifications to regulations and land uses that would protect future generations. o Evaluate incorporation of “ecosystem functionality” layers into planning GIS to ensure no diminution of ecosystem functionality by development processes Strategy: Deploy Green Infrastructure. Develop a green infrastructure policy o Require consideration of green infrastructure strategies whenever street or open space improvements may be made, including construction, landscaping and traffic calming projects. o Coordinate strategies across departments to leverage benefits. For example, reduced roadway and parking demand resulting from SOV‐reducing transportation strategies would enable more permeable surfaces and water capture; Include such economic benefits in analysis of those transportation projects. Map city water flows and soil types to evaluate which types of green infrastructure investments and locations could provide greatest benefits Incent Green Roof Installation. Address through building policy or utility incentive the promotion of green roofs. Establish City policy on Green Streets and Green Parking Design. o Include Green Streets, alleys and curb cuts in street work, parking strips, planter areas of sidewalks, curb extensions, and street medians. o Establish City design policies to include green parking infrastructure in all new parking facilities o Incorporate additional green infrastructure elements into parking lot designs including permeable pavements installed in sections of a lot and rain gardens and bioswales included in medians and along a parking lot perimeter. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 58 of 63 FINANCING, FUNDING AND INVESTMENTS The total financial impact of the goals and strategies identified in this plan is estimated to result in a net present value of $400 million generated by estimated City investments of $10 million combined with investments across the Palo Alto economy of approximately $760 million over the next 14 years. (These are best estimates in the face of rapidly evolving technologies and rapidly improving price/performance ratios in energy, mobility and other sectors; they should be revised regularly.) This return on investment may seem surprising that reducing GHG emissions are estimated to provide a net positive economic benefit, since most people have long thought that environmental quality costs money. But efficiency has long delivered good return on investment, and renewable energy is becoming increasingly competitive compared to fossil fuels. This makes carbon neutrality a good investment seen in the light of alternative costs if Palo Alto were to continue to source its energy from fossil fuels. Additionally, the levers and strategies identified in this plan also contribute to improving the health and quality of life for Palo Alto residents and businesses by reducing congestion, noise and local pollution. Financing these pathways Staff has identified a variety of potential sources of funds to finance the S/CAP; all of these sources (including private financial vehicles) need a more complete assessment of applicable legal and regulatory requirements and the risks and obligations associated with the various approaches.20 These include operating savings, parking feebates, utility rates, revolving loan funds, local offsets, carbon tax or fee, voluntary contributions, green bonds, transfer taxes, public/private partnerships and private financial vehicles.21 There is evidence that market demand exceeds supply for well‐constructed sustainability and climate related investment opportunities; as a result some initiatives discussed here may be financeable through private investors. Capital formation People—and companies—sometimes resist environmental improvements for fear they are too expensive, or say we’ll do as much as we can afford. But as the late Ray Anderson, founder and CEO of Interface, would say, “If you think sustainability is expensive, you’re doing it wrong.” Analysis shows that sustainability can be a good investment. But it is an investment—and like any other can be structured in many ways Many funding options are available and new forms are continually emerging. In most cases, innovation comes from combining instruments in creative ways to achieve specific goals rather than creating entirely new mechanisms. 20 The City of Palo Alto has just been award an $85k grant from USDN for a multi‐city exploration of potential sustainability financing strategies 21 This despite a common misperception: Most people who have not been deeply engaged in sustainability work assume that low‐carbon and other sustainability initiatives will necessarily require financial, performance or quality of life sacrifices, because “better usually costs more.” As we’ve seen in the world’s product innovation, green building, and corporate eco‐efficiency, this is not necessarily the case; in fact a growing body of evidence documents that attractive returns on investment are possible from well‐designed and well‐executed sustainability initiatives. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 59 of 63 The “best” choice of funding vehicle for a particular entity is one that compliments the current political and cultural context of a region by allocating costs and benefits equitably. Figure 18 summarizes key financing options and their estimated scale. Figure 19: Potential Financing Sources and Amounts STRATEGIES DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL FUNDS COMMENTS Utility Costs Operating Savings Allocate 50% of cost savings from retrofit of City buildings $0.6m/yr Current spend ~$6m/year; estimated 10% savings Parking Feebates Phase out free parking; apply revenues to commute alternatives as MaaS* $10‐20m/yr (Modeled on the Stanford engine) Utility Reserve Apply 10% of Utility Reserve to finance low‐carbon initiatives $5m/yr Revolving Loan Fund Establish bond‐funded low‐interest revolving loan fund for on‐bill financing of efficiency projects TBD Green Bonds Issue green bonds to finance green infrastructure and low carbon initiatives TBD Beneficial interest rates since demand exceeds supply Local Offsets Switch GreenGas to opt‐out; use portion of funds to finance qualified local projects (5% first year) $1.6m/year Carbon Tax Explore and pilot local carbon tax or fee $5‐15m/yr See Boulder, for example. Would likely require ballot measure. Total $22.2‐32.2m/yr Goal: Utilize diverse financial pathways to drive S/CAP implementation Evaluate the economic and legal feasibility of the financing measures identified in Figures ___ Utilize the general fund to incentivize investments to promote appliance switching, which may not be possible for the Enterprise funds to finance due to legal restrictions. Establish internal carbon pricing for all City departments and financial activities. To the extent feasible, include carbon pricing into the gas rates to fund efficiencies and fuel switching. Identify a neighborhood or commercial district as a special district to carry out innovative pilot projects around GHG reduction, electric transportation development, or other approaches. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 60 of 63 IMPLEMENTATION: TURNING VISION INTO ACTION Achieving the emissions reductions detailed in this plan requires that the strategies and actions are implemented in a timely, coordinated a sustained way. Partial or poorly coordinated implementation will reduce the emissions reduction potential of the S/CAP. Monitoring and Tracking Progress The Office of Sustainability will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the progress of the S/CAP on the following schedule: Community greenhouse gas inventory: Annually. S/CAP Strategy Indicators: Annually Below, we summarize the key performance indicators associated with each Strategy: Table 1. Summary of S/CAP Strategy Indicators for Monitoring Progress Levers Goals Strategy 2030 Performance Target 2030 GHG Emissions Reduction (MTCO2e) Re t h i n k i n g Mo b i l i t y Expand non‐ auto mobility options T‐FAC‐1. Expand bicycle infrastructure Increase bike boulevard miles to 26 miles Increase in bike mode share to 30% 8,400 T‐FAC‐2. Expand transit options Increase transit ridership by 60% 19,200 T‐FAC‐3. Grow ridesharing services Increase in rideshare mode 6,400 Create right financial incentives T‐INC‐1. Provide universal transit passes 75% of residents and employees have universal transit passes 7,600 T‐INC‐2. Implement parking pricing 50% of sites have parking pricing 18,400 Implement land use approaches T‐LU‐1. Increase zero‐impact housing Target 3.1 jobs‐housing ratio 2,900 Reduce carbon intensity of vehicles T‐EV‐1. Electrify Palo Alto‐based vehicles 90% of vehicles based in Palo Alto are zero emission 25,200 T‐EV‐2. Electrify inbound vehicles 50% of inbound (not based in Palo Alto) vehicles are zero emission 29,800 El e c t r i f y i n g ou r Ci t y Reduce use in existing businesses NG‐COMM‐1. Electrify water heating in businesses 85% of commercial water heating is electric 21,200 NG‐COMM‐2. Electrify space heating in businesses 85% of commercial space heating is electric 15,900 NG‐COOK‐1. Electrify commercial cooking 50% of commercial cooking is electric 11,300 Reduce use in NG‐RES‐1. Electrify residential Close to 100% of water heaters are City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 61 of 63 existing homes water heating electric 13,600 NG‐RES‐2. Electrify residential space heating 70% of residential space heating is electric 23,300 Reduce use in new buildings NG‐GAS‐1. Encourage all‐ electric new buildings New buildings are zero net energy ahead of state targets 11,900 Ze r o Wa s t e Enhance programs and infrastructure SW‐1. Achieve zero waste Achieve 95% diversion rate 9,500 City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 62 of 63 CONCLUSION Climate change is a global problem and only through local solutions designed to meet the needs of our community can we mitigate and adapt to its impacts and protect the environment. While the challenge of climate change is unprecedented, local‐level solutions can reduce emissions, increase efficiency, promote economic development, and improve quality of life for residents. Together, we can continue to foster a vibrant economy, increase our resiliency and support Palo Alto’s vision for a livable and sustainable community for generations to come. The City of Palo Alto has taken a significant step toward a more sustainable future with this climate action plan. This Plan has identified areas and opportunities to reduce GHG emissions within the community and City operations that along with statewide efforts can achieve our environmental goals. While an important first step, this plan will remain a living document, to be updated as technology and policies progress, to support the City’s efforts to manage GHG emissions for a sustainable future for all. City of Palo Alto: Sustainability and Climate Action Plan 2016 April 18, 2016 Page 63 of 63 GLOSSARY BAU: Business as Usual. Measures, initiatives or impacts that do not depend on new City of Palo Alto action BAU 1: BAU resulting from demographic projections, external (State and Federal) policy choices. Based on CompPlan analysis, modified by S/CAP consultants to distinguish certain elements. (See BAU2) BAU 2: BAU resulting from existing (enacted and/or in progress) Palo Alto: The entire Palo Alto community, including COPA, residents and businesses CPAU: City of Palo Alto Utilities COPA or The City: City of Palo Alto municipal government, including City of Palo Alto Utilities GHG: Greenhouse gas emissions SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 1 of 124 Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Appendices: A Roadmap to 80 x 30 Draft – April 2016 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 2 of 124 Contents APPENDIX A – Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ................................................................... 4 APPENDIX B – S/CAP Process ....................................................................................................................... 6 APPENDIX C – S/CAP Strategy Calculation and Assumptions ....................................................................... 7 APPENDIX D – Analysis of Three Possible Emissions Scenarios ................................................................. 11 2050 Executive Order: 80% reduction by 2050 (80x50) .................................................................... 12 2030 Challenge: 80% reduction by 2030 (80x30) .............................................................................. 17 California Moonshot: 100% carbon neutral by 2025 (100x25) .......................................................... 23 APPENDIX E – S/CAP Wedge Chart Details ................................................................................................ 29 Transportation Levers, Strategies and Actions ...................................................................................... 29 Natural Gas Levers, Strategies and Actions ........................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX F – Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Analysis ................................................................... 34 Method .................................................................................................................................................. 38 Summary of Current Relevant Planning Initiatives ................................................................................ 42 City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................................ 42 Existing Natural Environment Element .............................................................................................. 42 Updated Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element ......................................................... 43 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................. 44 Water Supply ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Wastewater ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................................ 45 City Utility Energy Planning ................................................................................................................ 47 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) ................................................................................................ 48 Community Services Department ...................................................................................................... 49 Development Services Department ................................................................................................... 49 Planning and Community Environment Department ........................................................................ 49 Public Safety Departments ................................................................................................................ 50 Public Works Department .................................................................................................................. 51 Utilities Department .......................................................................................................................... 51 Information Technology (IT) Department .......................................................................................... 51 City of Palo Alto 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) ..................................................... 51 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 3 of 124 Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation Along the Bay (SAFER Bay) ..... 60 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) .................................................... 60 Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP ........................................................................ 61 Silicon Valley 2.0 ................................................................................................................................ 64 Climate Change Exposures ..................................................................................................................... 73 Vulnerability ........................................................................................................................................... 83 Assessing Risk and Prioritizing Adaptation Responses ........................................................................ 110 Establishing a Shoreline Vision ............................................................................................................ 117 APPENDIX G – Additional Technical Analysis ........................................................................................... 119 Transportation emissions attributable to Palo Alto residents ............................................................. 119 Water Heating in Businesses ............................................................................................................... 119 Space Heating in Businesses ................................................................................................................ 121 Space Heating in Homes ...................................................................................................................... 122 All-‐electric Zero Net Energy Buildings .................................................................................................. 123 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 4 of 124 APPENDIX A: Palo Alto Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Palo Alto Community & City Municipal Operations GHG Emissions: Reduction of 36% since 1990 City Municipal Operations* & Palo Alto Community GHG Emissions Summary Excludes Biogenic Emissions**; All units in Metric Tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT of CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT of CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT of CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT of CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT of CO2e) Notes Scope 1 Emissions Natural Gas Use (Therms) 31,374,970 166,350 30,086,536 159,519 30,336,076 160,842 26,103,713 138,402 25,491,698 135,153 1 Natural Gas Distribution Leakage 4,718 4,718 4,718 4,781 4,781 2 Palo Alto Landfill Fugitive Emissions 6,811 4,336 6,640 8,470 8,617 3 Palo Alto Landfill Gas Flaring (biogenic) 5,853 3,827 5,941 3 Wastewater Process Emissions 8,504 6,414 5,024 4,616 4,080 4 Scope 2 Emissions -‐-‐ Actual Total Electric Load (MWh) 996,091 966,839 986,241 978,561 965,857 Hydro Supply (MWh) 548,760 413,584 406,570 266,026 251,466 Renewables Supply (MWh) 49,980 188,566 188,086 172,139 227,110 Brown Power Supply (MWh) 397,352 158,427 364,689 145,404 391,585 0 540,370 0 487,280 0 5a Palo Alto Green Purchases (MWh) 30,601 (12,201) 75,805 (30,224) N/A N/A N/A 6 Scope 2 Emissions -‐-‐ Weather Adjusted*** Total Electric Load 996,091 966,839 986,241 978,561 965,857 Hydro Supply (MWh) 514,073 514,073 514,073 514,073 514,073 Renewables Supply (MWh) 49,980 188,566 188,086 172,139 227,110 Brown Power Supply (MWh) 432,038 172,257 264,200 105,339 284,082 113,266 292,324 116,552 224,673 89,579 5b Palo Alto Green Purchases (MWh) 30,601 (12,201) 75,805 (30,224) 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Scope 3 Emissions Commute into, from, and within City 371,870 319,720 319,720 329,296 329,296 7 Lifecycle Emissions From Annual Total Waste Placed in Landfills 22,265 7,953 14,082 5,030 14,549 5,197 15,087 5,389 14,012 5,005 8 Landfilling Recyclable Material 22,779 14,406 14,886 15,435 14,335 8 Total Emissions (weather adjusted, biogenic excluded) 752,130 591,373 515,497 507,346 501,267 Emission Reduction (since 2005) 21% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 31% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 33% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 33% SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 5 of 124 Emission Reduction (since 1990) 24% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 34% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 35% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 36% Notes 1 Total Community supply of natural gas use/delivery. 2 Leakage from the natural gas distribution system-‐ modeled result, unchanged over the period. 3 Calculated using total captured landfill gas, actual methane percentage; fugitive gas assumed to be 33% of captured rate. 2005 estimate has been revised to reflect current methodologies. 4 Represents N2O emissions from biological treatment process and release of Nitrogen. 5 a. Represents actual quantity of brown power related emission @879 lbs/MWh in 2005 and 2012; not applicable beyond 2012 due to Carbon Neutral electric supply. b. Weather normalized (for hydroelectric generation) quantity of brown power. No GHG impact in 2015. 6 Emissions saved due to purchase of PaloAltoGreen related RECs. PAG related RECs not included in 2015 due to Carbon Neutral electric supply. 7 Study results from Fehr and Peer (03/19/2013) using Valley Transportation Authority regional transportation model based Vehicular Miles Travelled (VMT) and vehicular profiles -‐ does not account for Palo Alto specific parameters related to greater penetration of alternate fuel vehicles, bicycle use, etc. Study results under review. 2015 assumed to be same as 2012. 8 Based on characteristics and tons of material landfilled: 2005, 2011, 2012 and 2013 figures; Landfilled amount in 2014 up 4% compared to 2012. * Municipal emissions related to electricity and natural gas consumption included within utility load numbers; fleet vehicle emissions also assumed to be included in community wide commute related emissions estimates made by consultant. ** Table excludes biogenic emissions related to: Landfill gas flaring and WQCP sludge incineration. *** Normalized to account for the vagaries of weather on hydroelectric supplies. No GHG impact in 2013. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 6 of 124 APPENDIX B – S/CAP Process The S/CAP process investigated three scenarios (with different goals: 80x50, 80x30, 100x25) in considerable detail. For each, the S/CAP team asked: "what combination of strategies and measures might make it possible to meet that specific goal?" The list of potential measures was fairly clear; their feasibility, and pace of introduction, was not. So the team then filtered for technical feasibility; cost effectiveness (over time, since costs for many relevant technologies has been dropping rapidly); mitigation cost (which may make some measures attractive even if not strictly speaking cost effective, and worth exploring through alternative financing strategies). The team considered likely timing, and the entry points afforded by technology life cycles. For existing buildings, the team considered leverage points for change: pulling a permit, appliance failure (actual or predicted), time of sale. The team assumed starting with voluntary programs (like CPAU's Heat Pump Water Heater pilot), and potentially adding mandatory programs (such as the proposed Energy Reach Code proposed by Development Services) as the team understands better what’s possible and what’s needed. And the team applied informed and wherever possible documented assumptions about costs, availability, rate of adoption, etc. (Where documented data was not available—for example with new initiatives like Mobility as a Service—the assumptions are intentionally conservative, and probably underestimate GHG reduction potential.) The S/CAP team benefited from expert opinion from Rocky Mountain Institute, as well as experts from Stanford University, Goldman Sachs, Carbon Free Palo Alto, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, and other advisors. Community engagement included: a design charrette (40 people), an ideas expo (80 people), two polling cycles (~500 people), a community climate summit (300 people), several study sessions with Council, UAC and CAC, regular meetings with staff through the Sustainability Board and several staff retreats, the S/CAP Advisory Board (27 people), community meetings, newsletters (2500 people), social media (600 people) and individual conversations. Staff will continue to seek community input as the Draft S/CAP provides specific proposals and analysis for consideration by the City Council and the community. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 7 of 124 APPENDIX C – S/CAP Strategy Calculation and Assumptions In this section, we describe the key assumptions associated with each S/CAP strategy to estimate GHG reduction potential for the 80% below 1990 levels by 2030 target. T-FAC-1 o Percent of proposed bicycle lanes added annually from 2016 to 2030: 6.67% (DNV GL) o Trips per Capital Bikeshare station per month: 1,000 trips/month (https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/) o Estimated percent of Palo Alto land area suitable for bikesharing: 40% (DNV GL) o Total bikesharing stations in Palo Alto by 2030 at 28 stations/square mile density: 266 stations in Palo Alto (https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/) o BAU annual bicycle trips to/from/within Palo Alto: 25,099 trips (Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan projection for 2035. 2035 projection used for 2030, assuming early implementation of planned facilities and services.) o Percent increase in daily bike trips compared to 2030 BAU resulting from establishment of enhanced bicycle facilities: 100% increase (DNV GL) o Each 1% shift of driving trips to bicycle trips reduces VMT by 0.5% (Carbon Neutral Scenario Analysis + Pudget Sound Regional Council 2006 Household Activity Survey Analysis Report) o Total miles of additional bicycle lanes built by 2030 under proposed “40% of full implementation scenario”: 21 miles (DNV GL) o Percentage of additional arterial bicycle lanes that will require arterial motorized vehicle lane reduction: 50% (DNV GL) o Percent of average daily motor vehicle traffic eliminated by lane reduction: 22% (http://contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/reading/disappearing- traffic/resources/disappearing-traffic/) T-FAC-2 o Annual percentage increase in all public transportation ridership: 6.67% (DNV GL) o Total percent increase in VTA El Camino BRT, SamTrans, and Palo Alto Shuttle average weekday ridership from 2014 to 2030: 60% ridership increase (DNV GL) o California High Speed Rail Palo Alto boardings per day by 2030: 7,800 boardings (http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/09/21/stanford-resists- local-high-speed-rail-station) o Express bus service in dedicated bus lanes with 90 second headways on US 101 throughout the peak hour by 2030 (DNV GL) T-FAC-3 o Informal/casual carpooling programs started in the US 1010 corridor ¥ Ridership to/from Palo Alto is proportionate to Pal Alto’s share of all boardings/alightings in Caltrain Corridor – 14.4%. (Caltrain) ¥ Web/assisted/dynamic ridematching options allowing shared travel to multiple destinations – opposed to “many to one” model of casual carpooling in East Bay/SF market (DNV GL) ¥ Would facilitate shared travel to major employment site through the 101 corridor: San Francisco, San Jose + site in between (DNV GL) ¥ Analysis assumes that the travel market for the full 101 corridor would be approximately twice the volume of shared rides in the East Bay/SF market during both AM + PM peak periods. This is due to the bi-directional nature of travel in the region opposed to primarily in-bound trips in East Bay/SF SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 8 of 124 market (DNV GL) o Estimated volume of casual carpoolers/dynamic ridesharers in 101-corridor by 2030: (Berolo (1990)[est. 8,000], and Litman (2004) [est. 10,000]) ¥ Northbound AM: 9,000 ¥ Soutbound AM: 9,000 ¥ Northbound PM: 9,000 ¥ Southbound PM: 9,000 o Percent of 101-corridor daily carpool/rideshare trips to/from Palo Alto beyond BAU by 2030: 19.4% This assumption is based on Palo Alto’s share of Caltrain boardings/alightings -14.4% - plus a adjustment factor – plus 5% - to account for the above average participation rate at Stanford University. (Caltrain + DNV GL) T-INC-1 o Annual percent ramp-up of program from 2016 to 2030 (reaching 100% deployment of program in 2030): 7% annual increase (DNV GL) o Percent of Palo Alto resident work trips via public transportation in 2014: 5.0% (2014 Dev. CAP) ¥ Percent change in transit ridership for resident work trips from 2014 to 2030 above BAU increase: 82.9% (Santa Clara VTA, Bellevue, WA, Boulder, CO, Ann Arbor, MI) o Percent of Palo Alto resident non-work trips via public transportation in 2030 BAU: 4.1% (Valley Transportation Plan 2035, Santa Clara VTA). ¥ Percent change in transit ridership for resident non-work trips with Eco- Pass implementation: 79.0% (Caltrans: “Parking and TOD: Challenges and Opportunities," 2002) o Housing units in Palo Alto in 2010: 28,546 households (Comp Plan EIR) ¥ Percentage of housing units in multi-unit buildings in 2010: 38.5% (US Census 2010) o Housing units in Palo Alto by 2030: 32,964 (Placeworks, Scenario 4) ¥ Percentage of units in multi-unit buildings in 2030: 42.5% (DNV GL) T-INC-2 o Annual ramp up of program from 2016 to 2030 (reaching 50% of full implementation by 2030): 3.3% (DNV GL) o Percent of total floor space – both commercial and residential – affected by off- street parking reforms by 2030 under 100% implementation scenario: 32% (Nelson, A. 2006, JAPA) o Percent reduction in residential vehicle VMT (non-work and non- commercial/heavy truck travel) at sites affected by off-street parking reforms: 20% (DNV GL) o Percent reduction in work-related auto trip to Palo Alto from adoption of employee parking pricing under 100% implementation scenario: 27.4% (Mid Wilshire/LA, Warner, Century City, Civic Center, Ottawa). ¥ Projected BAU drive-alone mode share for work trips in 2030: 73.9% (VTA VTP 2035) T-EV-1 o Annual percent increase in electric vehicles owned by Palo Alto residents beyond the BAU increase in electric vehicle ownership from 2016 to 2030: 6% (DNV GL) o Percent of total vehicles owned by Palo Alto residents that are electric vehicles by 2030 under BAU scenario: 25.5% (CPAU + Committee on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels “Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels”, 2013) o Percent of total vehicles owned by Palo Alto residents that are electric vehicles by 2030 under policy scenario: 92.5% (DNV GL) o Annual percent increase in non-electric vehicle MPG and electric vehicle MPG- equivalent from 2016 to 2030 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm). o Percent increase in BAU VMT of Palo Alto residents from 2016 to 2030: 11% SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 9 of 124 (DNV GL) T-EV-2 o Annual percent increase in electric in share of vehicles not owned by Palo Alto residents (responsible for external-internal VMT) that are electric vehicles by 2030: 4% (DNV GL) o Percent of vehicles not owned by Palo Alto residents (responsible for external- internal VMT) that are electric vehicles by 2030: 60% (DNV GL) T-LU-1 o Assume jobs/employed resident ratio of 2.95, resulting in increase of 5,600 housing units by 2030, compared with CompPlan 2030 BAU estimates of an increase of 2,719 housing units by 2030. o Assume 30% average reduction in VMT per capita associated with compact development relative to sprawl-type development (Ewing, p.33) o Assume additional housing units to be “compact development” in mixed-use development or “infill” backyard cottages within existing urban street grid of Palo Alto NG-RES-1 o Life of typical gas water heater: 13 years (CPAU) o Percent reduction in residential water heating demand from EE measures: 10% (DNV GL) o One residential water heater per home in Palo Alto (estimate) o 5% of residential water heaters replaced each year from 2016à2030 NG-RES-2 o Life of typical gas furnace: 20 years (CPAU) o One gas furnace per home in Palo Alto (DNV GL) o Percent reduction in space heating demand from EE measures: 10% (DNV GL) o Life of air source heat pump: 20 years (CPAU) o 4% of furnaces replaced each year from 2016à2030 NG-COMM-1 o Overall Palo Alto Commercial Assumptions: ¥ Total commercial square footage in Palo Alto: 28,300,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) ¥ Life of typical gas water heater: 13 years (CPAU) ¥ 3% of commercial gas water heaters replaced each year from 2016à2030 ¥ Percent reduction in commercial water heating demand from EE measures: 10% (DNV GL) o Palo Alto “Small Commercial” Assumptions: ¥ Total square footage of “Small Commercial” requiring residential-style heat pump hot water in Palo Alto: 26,602,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) ¥ One heat pump hot water heater per small office or restaurant ¥ Life of heat pump electric water heater: 13 years (CPAU) o Palo Alto Large Commercial Assumptions ¥ Total square footage of “Large Commercial” requiring solar thermal with 60% solar fraction coupled with electric resistance heating hot water in Palo Alto: 1,698,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) ¥ Solar fraction for domestic hot water energy use: 60% (DNV GL) o Life of solar-electric heat pump hot water system: 15 years (DNV GL) NG-COMM-2 o Overall Palo Alto Commercial Assumptions ¥ Percent reduction in commercial space heating demand from EE measures: 10% (DNV GL) ¥ Total commercial square footage in Palo Alto: 28,300,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 10 of 124 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) o Palo Alto Small Commercial Assumptions ¥ Life of typical gas-pack furnace: 10 years (CPAU) ¥ Total square footage of “Small Commercial” requiring in-kind replacement of gas-fired package units with heat pump packaged units for space heating in Palo Alto: 26,602,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) ¥ Life of heat pump space heater: 10 years (CPAU) o Palo Alto Large Commercial Assumptions ¥ Life of standard furnace boiler: 15 years (CPAU) ¥ Total square footage of “Large Commercial” requiring replacement of chiller and boiler with heat recovery chiller feeding heating hot water loop for space hating: 4,245,000 square feet (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan - http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/8170 + Loopnet) ¥ Typical life of heat recovery chiller: 15 years (DNV GL) NG-COOK-1 o 3% of eligible restaurant kitchens converted from gas to electricity per year from 2016à2030 o Total restaurants with fume hood in Palo Alto: 169 (Melissa Data, ZipMap, Yelp) o Percent of restaurants in Palo Alto with fume hood using natural gas for cooking: 50% (DNV GL) o Median square footage of restaurants in Palo Alto: 3,500 square feet (http://www.restaurantowner.com/public/1317.cfm) o Typical life of gas and electric kitchen equipment: 12 years (http://www.fishnick.com/saveenergy/tools/calculators) NG-GAS-1 o 3% annual increase in BAU efficiency of new commercial and residential construction due to building codes (DNV GL) o New commercial square footage per year from 2016à2030: 327,848 square feet/year (Placeworks Scenario 4) o New residential housing units per year from 2016à2030: 316 housing units (Placeworks Scenario 4) o 2014 Housing units in Palo Alto: 28,546 housing units (Placeworks Scenario Analysis) SW-1 o Community-wide waste diversion rate in 2014: 78% (Palo Alto Earth Day Report) ¥ BAU waste diversion rate remains at 78% from 2014-2013 o Waste diversion rate by 2030: 92% (DNV GL) ¥ Annual percent increase in waste diversion rate: 0.93% (DNV GL) o Annual increase in community-wide total generated waste (including landfill, recycling, compost): 1.46% (projections based on historic data from Palo Alto Earth Day Report) o Waste emissions factors: ¥ Life cycle emissions per ton of waste placed in landfills: 0.36 MT CO2e/Ton (Palo Alto Earth Day Report) ¥ Emissions resulting from recyclable materials per ton of waste placed in landfills: 0.79 MT CO2e/Ton (Palo Alto Earth Day Report). SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 11 of 124 APPENDIX D – Analysis of Three Possible Emissions Scenarios When it comes to issues as complex and uncertain as climate change, scenario development is a valuable tool for stimulating debate, stretching the imagination, and inspiring action and innovation. To support this, the S/CAP project previously developed emissions reduction scenarios to help define the limits of what can be done locally (by the community and the local government), including some actions to be taken regionally (by the agencies and communities with which the City interacts) to achieve deep reductions in GHG emissions. The scenarios explore the limits of what Palo Alto, as a progressive city and an engine of innovation and global economic growth, can do to achieve deep reductions in GHG emissions. What does success look like, and how can the City help create conditions for that success? In contrast to most City initiatives, the S/CAP project approach is to explicitly link the City’s more traditional approach toward safely achievable goals with a “reverse engineered” future vision— planning backwards from “impossible” goals to the present—and ensuring that those two approaches meet. Staff and consultants explored three “goals scenarios”: ¥ California’s goal of 80% reduction of GHG emissions by 2050 (80x50); ¥ a more aggressive goal of 80% reduction by 2030 (80x30)1; and ¥ the “California Moonshot”: 100% carbon neutral by 2025 (100x25). At the beginning of the SCP process, we didn't know whether the Moonshot—or any of these goals—is achievable either financially, politically or socially. But we did know that the challenges we pose affect the questions we ask, and the questions we ask affect the answers we find. By first assessing extremely aggressive goals, we have uncovered potential strategies that we would not have found – or even looked for – if were focusing on an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. As a result we have uncovering the potential strategies, driven by the "moonshot" challenge, that we would not have found—or even looked for—if we were focusing on 80x50. Below, we summarize the results of the scenario analysis utilized to inform the development of the S/CAP and support a grounded conversation by Council and community about those goals, by providing clear roadmaps of what it would take to reach each of them. 1 Note that on April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Governor Jerry Brown has also called for 50 percent of California’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2030, doubling energy efficiency of existing buildings and reducing automobile dependency on oil and gas by 50 percent. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 12 of 124 2050 Executive Order: 80% reduction by 2050 (80x50) In the transportation sector, full implementation of the strategies explored would result in Palo Alto achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The top of the stacked areas represents the business-‐as-‐usual projections based on historic vehicle fuel efficiency improvements from 2005-‐2012 which offsets the BAU forecasted increase in VMT. Each of the colored areas represents the emission reductions associated with different transportation strategies. The black area represents the remaining GHG emissions. With the 100% adoption of electric vehicles combined with reductions in vehicle-‐miles traveled, no carbon offsets are needed in this scenario. Figure 1. Possible Transportation Sector Strategies to Achieve 2050 Target Strategy Code Transportation Strategy Name Implementation Level by 2050 Implementation Description T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network 100% Convert all class II bike lanes to protected bike lanes Increase bike boulevard mileage from 22-‐32 miles Expand bike share to 28 stations per square mile T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services 100% Caltrain modernization ridership targeted in 2040 achieved Expand SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles by 200% El Camino Real and Dumbarton Bus Rapid Transit T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport 100% Dynamic ridesharing based on San Francisco casual carpool rates, with Palo Alto share proportionate to Palo Alto Caltrain ridership T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass 100% Expanded Universal Transit Pass (UTP) -‐ Caltrain GoPass, SamTrans Way2GoPass, and VTA Ecopass, for all residents and employees SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 13 of 124 T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approach 100% All employment sites institute parking pricing, parking cash-‐out, parking feebate equivalent to market price of parking Full cost pricing of residential parking (unbundling or eliminating minimum parking requirements) T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt a "balanced community" approach for growth 100% Assume jobs-‐housing balance of 1.44 with growth in specific areas (e.g., Stanford Research Park, downtown core, Stanford Shopping Center, etc) T-‐EV-‐1 Convert vehicles to EV 100% Assume all vehicles are electric, or zero emissions T-‐PT-‐1 Carbon offsets 0% No offsets needed 2050 Possible Transportation Roadmap 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Palo Alto TMA launched to support alternatives to driving T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services Continue to explore ways to expand service on local bus/shuttle routes related to SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles. Assess needs and opportunities for increased service and ridership (links to provide eco-‐pass, universal transit pass) Expand public transit ridership by 200% by 2050 Advocate for major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service. Assess potential for below grade Caltrain improvements Build political support for bus rapid transit along El Camino Real and cross-‐ town Dumbarton Provide a dedicated bus lane and signal priority for El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit. Work with Caltrain to implement major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service ahead of 2040 timeline Provide incentives to expand availability and utilization of vanpools Encourage third-‐party developers to explore data-‐driven transit solutions through competitions, hack-‐a-‐thons, etc Implement cohesive data platform to support Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Achieve 45% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Achieve 100% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Designate curb space for rideshare/carpool pick-‐up and drop-‐off downtown, and at Caltrain stations Discount parking for carpools, paid parking refund for vehicles parked in public lots or on-‐street Objective: Expand non-‐ auto mobility options T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network for all ages and abilities Expand bikesharing program by identifying next 10-‐15 sites, funding and coordination with future development Build bike stations (parking/shower/locker facilities) near public transit hubs/key destinations /transfer points Achieve 28 bike share stations per square mile (267 stations) Identify Class II bike lanes for upgrade to protected bike lanes (also know as "cycle tracks") and integrate with bicycle boulevards T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport Palo Alto TMA to assess opportunities to increase availability and utilization of vanpools SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 14 of 124 Similarly, Figure 1provides one possible roadmap to 80% reduction by 2050 for the natural gas sector. The top of the stacked colored areas represents the business-‐as-‐usual forecasted increase in natural gas consumption, with the colored wedges representing emissions reduction strategies. The black area at the bottom is the remaining GHG emissions. For the natural gas sector, this scenario assumes all new construction is all-‐electric and net zero energy, along with significantly more water heating and space heating electrification in the existing commercial building sector by 2050. In this scenario, no carbon 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for MF development Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for large office developments Adopt on-‐street parking vacancy target Objective: Create right financial incentives for alternatives T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass Expand requirements to include additional residential new construction and significant renovation projects within 0.5 miles of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) Use meters/permits/time limits to manage parking demand in congested areas, along with mobile apps Monitor occupancy and availability of on-‐street parking regularly 100% of Palo Alto residents have universal transit pass Expand requirements to include all employers within 0.5 mile of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) 100% of Palo Alto employees have universal transit pass T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approaches Incentivize unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units Require unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units Eliminate requirements for provision of off-‐street parking for new commercial/residential Incentivize employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits (feebates, etc) Require employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 CompPlan 2030 underway Objective: Implement land-‐use development approaches T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt Comp Plan Scenario 4 (Modified) Replace zoning restrictions on residential unit density with a cap on average daily vehicle trips generated Provide incentives for growth and development in transit-‐accessible areas (e.g., tying allowable floor-‐ to-‐area ratios to reductions in VMT and other sustainability measures) Through CompPlan 2030, continue to identify areas for increased density and potential future development Enable/support low-‐traffic/low-‐carbon mixed-‐use development, in specific areas through zoning, complete streets requirements and other land use strategies 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Support and incentivize public & private EV charging infrastructure through reducing permitting fees/streamlining process Develop Priority parking program for EVs Investigate options for community-‐scale bulk purchasing of EVs Collaborate with and promote EV charging apps (e.g. PlugShare) LEVER: Reduce carbon intensity of vehicular travel T-‐EV-‐1 Convert vehicles in Palo Alto and surrounding region to EVs Develop and implement EV charging infrastructure plan for city City fleet vehicles lead the way: electric school buses, garbage trucks, etc Sales tax refund for EV purchased in Palo Alto by Palo Alto residents Require pre-‐wiring of electric vehicle charging infrastructure Require electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) actually installed for all new residential / commercial construction, additions, and remodels Incentivize automakers to design improved EVs through kickstarter campaign (similar to Automotive X Prize) Engage with EV car dealerships to simplify sales process and promote EV educational resources Smart phone apps to provide real-‐time traffic information, and provide reservation services and map of available EV charging stations. 100% of vehicles are electric by 2050 Bulk purchase program for EV's and EVSE equipment to bring down costs of EV purchases Develop behavior-‐change campaign(s) to encourage residents and employees to purchase EV's, utilize public charging stations. Monitor purchases of EV's, installation of charging stations, to determine whether uptake is meeting targets. Adjust targets and behavior change campaigns accordingly. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 15 of 124 offsets are needed to achieve the 2050 target. The estimated net present value is $465 million associated with natural gas strategies in this scenario. Figure 2. Possible Natural Gas Sector Strategies to Achieve 2050 Target Strategy Code Natural Gas Strategies Implementation Level by 2050 Annual Adoption Rate Implementation Description NG-‐RES-‐1 Residential water heating electrification 100% 3% Assume all residential water heaters could be replaced with electric if we start immediately NG-‐RES-‐2 Residential space heating electrification 70% 2% Residential space heating more difficult and less cost-‐effective than water heating NG-‐COMM-‐ 1 Commercial water heating electrification 85% 2% Assume small commercial buildings have a gas storage tank water heater that is replaced by an air source heat pump water heater. Assume large commercial buildings have a gas boiler that is replaced with solar hot water and electric resistance heating. NG-‐COMM-‐ 2 Commercial space heating electrification 85% 2% Assume small commercial buildings have gas-‐ pack furnaces that are replaced by a packaged heat pump heater. Assume large commercial buildings have gas boilers that are replaced with heat recovery chillers. 80% by 2050 (no offsets) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 16 of 124 NG-‐COOK-‐1 Commercial cooking electrification 50% 1% Given the industry, fairly aggressive, but minimal impact on overall cost of scenario NG-‐GAS-‐1 Restrict natural gas hook-‐ups and require ZNE new construction 100% 100% All new construction achieves ZNE, no gas hook-‐up (both residential and commercial) NG-‐OFF-‐1 Carbon offsets 0% 0.0% No offsets needed to achieve 80% by 2050 goal NG-‐OFF-‐2 Biogas 0% 0.0% No biogas needed to achieve 80% by 2050 goal 2050 Possible Natural Gas Roadmap 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Replace on burnout pathway Pilot 24-‐ hour hotline Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐RES-‐1 & NG-‐RES-‐ 2 Residential water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Information services for electric water heaters/ space heating systems Full implementation of 24-‐hour hotline for electric water heater replacement Require all water heaters / space heating systems be replaced with electric at end-‐of-‐life Develop utility program for electric water heater/space heating system replacements, pilot electrification of a sample of homes Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream incentive programs Develop energy benchmarking and disclosure time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for residential Voluntary time-‐of sale ordinance for energy efficiency and electrification (incentives and recognition program) Mandatory time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for energy efficiency and electrification 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Tenant improvement pathway Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐COMM-‐1 & NG-‐ COMM-‐2 Commercial water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Information and outreach related to tenant improvement building permits Voluntary program (e.g., incentives, checklists, expedited permitting, reduced fees) for electrification of space and water heating equipment Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Develop utility program for electric water heater/gas heating system replacements Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream programs Education and outreach to vendors, landlords, real estate community Develop voluntary time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades Develop mandatory time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 17 of 124 2030 Challenge: 80% reduction by 2030 (80x30) Under this 80x30 scenario, additional carbon offsets are needed to achieve the 80% reduction by 2030 goal. For 2030, we considered what aggressive levels of implementation might be possible by 2030 for protected bike lanes, transportation network company facilitated ridesharing, universal transit pass, parking pricing (e.g., unbundling and full cost pricing of parking), etc. In this scenario, the selected strategies and associated implementation levels achieve the target; thus, and carbon offsets are not necessary to meet the 2030 target. The 2030 scenario is estimated to result in approximately $390 million in net present value (savings), along with an investment cost of approximately $800 million. 2015 2018 2020 2022 2024 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Green gas pathway Implementation of voluntary "Palo Alto Green Gas" program Assess costs of carbon offsets and biogas for all natural gas usage in the community Infrastructure pathway Financing and rates pathway N-‐OFF-‐1 and NG-‐ INF-‐1 Green gas, offsets and new utility business model to support carbon neutrality Purchase of carbon offsets and/or biogas with goal of 100% by 2020 implement study of natural gas distribution system and impacts of reduced natural gas consumption Develop roadmap for staged/planned reductions in specific areas of the city (which neighborhoods are likely to be most impacted/early adopters) Actively manage reductions in natural gas delivery Assess appropriate restructuring of natural gas and electricity rates for electrification Restructure natural gas & electricity rates to support fuel switching to electricity Continue to support policy and long term planning for restructuring gas utility that will minimize financial risks to rate payers or bond-‐holders SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 18 of 124 Figure 3. Possible Transportation Sector Strategies to Achieve 2030 Target Strategy Code Transportation Strategy Name Implementation Level by 2030 Implementation Description T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network 40% 40% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Increase bike boulevard mileage from 22-‐26 miles Expand bike share to 11 stations per square mile T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services 60% Expand SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttle ridership by 60% and support bus rapid transit and advocate for major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service. T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport 60% Achieve 60% of current levels of SF casual carpool rates, pro-‐rated for Palo Alto T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass 100% 100% of residents and employees have Universal Transit Passes T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approach 50% All city parking sites and 50% of private sites have parking pricing T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt a "balanced community" approach for growth 5% Target 2.95 jobs-‐housing balance, as defined by jobs-‐ employed residents ratio (currently at 3.06 in 2014) T-‐EV-‐1 Convert Palo Alto vehicles to EV 90% 90% of vehicles converted to electric T-‐PT-‐1 Carbon offsets 0% No carbon offsets are needed to achieve the 80x30 GHG target 80% by 2030 (with offsets) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 19 of 124 2030 Possible Transportation Roadmap 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Palo Alto TMA launched to support alternatives to driving T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services Continue to explore ways to expand service on local bus/shuttle routes related to SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles. Assess needs and opportunities for increased service and ridership (links to provide eco-‐pass, universal transit pass) Build bike stations (parking/shower/locker facilities) near public transit hubs/key destinations /transfer points Achieve 11 bike share stations per square mile (81 stations) Identify Class II bike lanes for upgrade to protected bike lanes (also know as "cycle tracks") and integrate with bicycle boulevards Achieve 15% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Achieve 40% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Expand public transit ridership by 60% by 2030 Advocate for major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service. Assess potential for below grade Caltrain improvements Work with Caltrain to implement major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service ahead of 2040 timeline Build political support for bus rapid transit along El Camino Real and cross-‐ town Dumbarton Provide a dedicated bus lane and signal priority for El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit. Designate curb space for rideshare/carpool pick-‐up and drop-‐off downtown, and at Caltrain stations Discount parking for carpools, paid parking refund for vehicles parked in public lots or on-‐street T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport Palo Alto TMA to assess opportunities to increase availability and utilization of vanpools Provide incentives to expand availability and utilization of vanpools Encourage third-‐party developers to explore data-‐driven transit solutions through competitions, hack-‐a-‐thons, etc Implement cohesive data platform to support Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Objective: Expand non-‐ auto mobility options T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network for all ages and abilities Expand bikesharing program by identifying next 10-‐15 sites, funding and coordination with future development 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for MF development Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for large office developments Adopt on-‐street parking vacancy target Objective: Create right financial incentives for alternatives T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass Expand requirements to include additional residential new construction and significant renovation projects within 0.5 miles of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) Use meters/permits/time limits to manage parking demand in congested areas, along with mobile apps Monitor occupancy and availability of on-‐street parking regularly 75% of Palo Alto residents have universal transit pass Expand requirements to include all employers within 0.5 mile of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) 75% of Palo Alto employees have universal transit pass T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approaches Incentivize unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units Require unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units Eliminate requirements for provision of off-‐street parking for new commercial/residential Incentivize employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits (feebates, etc) Require employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 CompPlan 2030 underway Objective: Implement land-‐use development approaches T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt Comp Plan Scenario 4 (Modified) Replace zoning restrictions on residential unit density with a cap on average daily vehicle trips generated Provide incentives for growth and development in transit-‐accessible areas (e.g., tying allowable floor-‐ to-‐area ratios to reductions in VMT and other sustainability measures) Through CompPlan 2030, continue to identify areas for increased density and potential future development Enable/support low-‐traffic/low-‐carbon mixed-‐use development, in specific areas through zoning, complete streets requirements and other land use strategies SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 20 of 124 For the natural gas sector, the proposed rate of electrification of natural gas equipment would result in the achievement of sufficient emissions reductions by 2030 without the need to purchase carbon offsets. This scenario assumes all new construction is all-‐electric and net zero energy, along with significantly more water heating and space heating electrification in the existing commercial building sector by 2030. The associated net present value associated with natural gas strategies is estimated at $157 million (savings), largely driven by the financial savings associated with net zero energy new construction. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Support and incentivize public & private EV charging infrastructure through reducing permitting fees/streamlining process Develop Priority parking program for EVs Investigate options for community-‐scale bulk purchasing of EVs Collaborate with and promote EV charging apps (e.g. PlugShare) LEVER: Reduce carbon intensity of vehicular travel T-‐EV-‐1 Convert vehicles in Palo Alto and surrounding region to EVs Develop and implement EV charging infrastructure plan for city City fleet vehicles lead the way: electric school buses, garbage trucks, etc Sales tax refund for EV purchased in Palo Alto by Palo Alto residents (8% reduction) 75% of vehicles are electric by 2030 Bulk purchase program for EV's and EVSE equipment to bring down costs of EV purchases Require pre-‐wiring of electric vehicle charging infrastructure Require electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) actually installed for all new residential / commercial construction, additions, and remodels Incentivize automakers to design improved EVs through kickstarter campaign (similar to Automotive X Prize) Engage with EV car dealerships to simplify sales process and promote EV educational resources Smart phone apps to provide real-‐time traffic information, and provide reservation services and map of available EV charging stations. Develop behavior-‐change campaign(s) to encourage residents and employees to purchase EV's, utilize public charging stations. Monitor purchases of EV's, installation of charging stations, to determine whether uptake is meeting targets. Adjust targets and behavior change campaigns accordingly. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 21 of 124 Figure 4. Possible Natural Gas Sector Strategies to Achieve 2030 Target Strategy Code Natural Gas Strategies Implementation Level by 2030 Annual Adoption Rate Implementation Description NG-‐RES-‐1 Residential water heating electrification 70% 7% Assume significant portion of residential water heaters could be replaced with electric if we start immediately NG-‐RES-‐2 Residential space heating electrification 60% 5% Residential space heating more difficult and less cost-‐effective than water heating NG-‐COMM-‐ 1 Commercial water heating electrification 50% 6% Assume small commercial buildings have a gas storage tank water heater that is replaced by an air source heat pump water heater. Assume large commercial buildings have a gas boiler that is replaced with solar hot water and electric resistance heating. NG-‐COMM-‐ 2 Commercial space heating electrification 50% 6% Assume small commercial buildings have gas-‐ pack furnaces that are replaced by a packaged heat pump heater. Assume large commercial buildings have gas boilers that are replaced with heat recovery chillers . NG-‐COOK-‐1 Commercial cooking electrification 40% 3% Given the industry, fairly aggressive, but minimal impact on overall cost of scenario 80% by 2030 (with no offsets needed) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 22 of 124 Strategy Code Natural Gas Strategies Implementation Level by 2030 Annual Adoption Rate Implementation Description NG-‐GAS-‐1 Restrict natural gas hook-‐ups and require ZNE new construction 100% 100% All new construction achieves ZNE, no gas hook-‐ up (both residential and commercial) NG-‐OFF-‐1 Carbon offsets 0% 0.0% No offsets needed to achieve 80% by 2030 goal NG-‐OFF-‐2 Biogas 0% 0.0% No biogas needed to achieve 80% by 2030 goal 2030 Possible Natural Gas Roadmap 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Replace on burnout pathway Pilot 24-‐hour hotline Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐RES-‐1 & NG-‐RES-‐ 2 Residential water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Information services for electric water heaters/ space heating systems Full implementation of 24-‐hour hotline for electric water heater replacement Require all water heaters / space heating systems be replaced with electric at end-‐of-‐ life Develop utility program for electric water heater/space heating system replacements, pilot electrification of a sample of homes Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream incentive programs Develop energy benchmarking and disclosure time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for residential Voluntary time-‐of sale ordinance for energy efficiency and electrification (incentives and recognition program) Mandatory time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for completing energy efficiency and electrification 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Tenant improvement pathway Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐COMM-‐1 & NG-‐ COMM-‐2 Commercial water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Information and outreach related to tenant improvement building permits Voluntary program (e.g., incentives, checklists, expedited permitting, reduced fees) for electrification of space and water heating equipment Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Develop utility program for electric water heater/gas heating system replacements Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream programs Education and outreach to vendors, landlords, real estate community Develop voluntary time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades Develop mandatory time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 23 of 124 California Moonshot: 100% carbon neutral by 2025 (100x25) For the California Moonshot goal, the project team explored what might be at the outer limits of feasibility for each strategy by 2025. For both the transportation and natural gas sectors, aggressive levels of implementation were assumed for each strategy, combined with purchase of offsets for Palo Alto to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025. 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 Green gas pathway Implementation of voluntary "Palo Alto Green Gas" program Assess costs of carbon offsets and biogas for all natural gas usage in the community Infrastructure pathway Financing and rates pathway N-‐OFF-‐1 and NG-‐ INF-‐1 Green gas, offsets and new utility business model to support carbon neutrality Purchase of carbon offsets and/or biogas with goal of 100% by 2025 implement study of natural gas distribution system and impacts of reduced natural gas consumption Develop roadmap for staged/planned reductions in specific areas of the city (which neighborhoods are likely to be most impacted/early adopters) Actively manage reductions in natural gas delivery Assess appropriate restructuring of natural gas and electricity rates for electrification Restructure natural gas & electricity rates to support fuel switching to electricity Continue to support policy and long term planning for restructuring gas utility that will minimize financial risks to rate payers or bond-‐holders 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2030 New construction pathway: green building ordinance Existing buildings pathway Release LIDAR as open data Infrastructure pathway NG-‐INF-‐2 Increase local distributed generation in Palo Alto Consider ZNE for larger residential for 2017 code cycle Consider ZNE for some commercial buildings and no new natural gas hookups in residential by 2025 Continue to support bulk purchase programs, PACE financing to bring down costs of solar PV panels Conduct a distribution system / renewables impact study to determine the most cost-‐effective methods to stabilize the local distribution grid Install smart meters in all commercial and residential buildings Require "smart" inverters to control impacts of solar intermittency SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 24 of 124 Figure 5. Possible Transportation Sector Strategies to Achieve 2025 Target Strategy Code Transportation Strategy Name Implementation Level by 2025 Implementation Description T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network 30% 30% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Increase bike boulevard mileage from 22-‐25 miles Expand bike share to 9 stations per square mile T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services 20% Achieve 20% of target ridership of Caltrain modernization Expand SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles by 40% T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport 50% Achieve 50% of current levels of SF casual carpool rates, pro-‐rated for Palo Alto T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass 50% 50% of residents and employees have Universal Transit Passes T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approach 30% 30% of sites have parking pricing T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt a "balanced community" approach for growth 10% Target 3.2 jobs-‐housing balance (currently at 3.34) T-‐EV-‐1 Convert vehicles to EV 50% 50% of vehicles converted to electric T-‐PT-‐1 Carbon offsets 100% Purchase offsets for remaining emissions Carbon neutral by 2025 (with offsets) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 25 of 124 2025 Possible Transportation Roadmap 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Palo Alto TMA launched to support alternatives to driving Expand bikesharing program by identifying next 10-‐15 sites, funding and coordination with future development Build bike stations (parking/shower/locker facilities) near public transit hubs/key destinations /transfer points Achieve 9 bike share stations per square mile (81 stations) Identify Class II bike lanes for upgrade to protected bike lanes (also know as "cycle tracks") and integrate with bicycle boulevards Build political support for bus rapid transit along El Camino Real and cross-‐ town Dumbarton Provide a dedicated bus lane and signal priority for El Camino Real Bus Rapid Transit. Achieve 30% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Achieve 15% of class II bike lanes converted to protected bike lanes Work with Caltrain to implement major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service ahead of 2040 timeline Continue to explore ways to expand service on local bus/shuttle routes related to SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttles. Assess needs and opportunities for increased service and ridership (links to provide eco-‐pass, universal transit pass) Provide incentives to expand availability and utilization of vanpools Palo Alto TMA to assess opportunities to increase availability and utilization of vanpools Implement cohesive data platform to support Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Objective: Expand non-‐ auto mobility options T-‐FAC-‐1 Build out bike network for all ages and abilities T-‐FAC-‐2 Expand transit facilities and services Expand public transit ridership by 40% by 2025 Encourage third-‐party developers to explore data-‐driven transit solutions through competitions, hack-‐a-‐thons, etc Designate curb space for rideshare/carpool pick-‐up and drop-‐off downtown, and at Caltrain stations Advocate for major upgrades to reliability, frequency, and capacity of Caltrain service. Assess potential for below grade Caltrain improvements Discount parking for carpools, paid parking refund for vehicles parked in public lots or on-‐street T-‐FAC-‐3 Facilitate shared transport 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for MF development Require Caltrain go-‐ pass as requirement for large office developments Adopt on-‐street parking vacancy target 50% of Palo Alto residents have universal transit pass 50% of Palo Alto employees have universal transit pass Expand requirements to include additional residential new construction and significant renovation projects within 0.5 miles of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include all employers within 0.5 mile of Caltrain station Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) Expand requirements to include universal transit pass (Caltrain, VTA, Samtrans) Objective: Create right financial incentives for alternatives T-‐INC-‐1 Provide eco-‐ pass/universal transit pass T-‐INC-‐2 Utilize parking pricing and management approaches Monitor occupancy and availability of on-‐street parking regularly Incentivize employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits (feebates, etc) Require employers to offer employees option to receive transportation benefits instead of parking benefits Use meters/permits/time limits to manage parking demand in congested areas, along with mobile apps Eliminate requirements for provision of off-‐street parking for new commercial/residential Require unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units Incentivize unbundling of parking costs from lease/sale of commercial/residential units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CompPlan 2030 underway Objective: Implement land-‐use development approaches T-‐LU-‐1 Adopt Comp Plan Scenario 4 (Modified) Replace zoning restrictions on residential unit density with a cap on average daily vehicle trips generated Enable/support low-‐traffic/low-‐carbon mixed-‐use development, in specific areas through zoning, complete streets requirements and other land use strategies Through CompPlan 2030, continue to identify areas for increased density and potential future development Provide incentives for growth and development in transit-‐accessible areas (e.g., tying allowable floor-‐ to-‐area ratios to reductions in VMT and other sustainability measures) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 26 of 124 In the natural gas sector, this scenario includes targets such as converting all residential water heaters to electric by 2025, as well as a substantial percent of commercial water heating and space heating technologies. This scenario is estimated to result in a net present value of $28 million (savings), which is inclusive of $13 million (cost) spent on offsets from 2016-‐2025. Figure 6. Possible Natural Gas Sector Strategies to Achieve 2025 Target 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Support and incentivize public & private EV charging infrastructure through reducing permitting fees/streamlining process Develop Priority parking program for EVs Investigate options for community-‐scale bulk purchasing of EVs Collaborate with and promote EV charging apps (e.g. PlugShare) LEVER: Reduce carbon intensity of vehicular travel T-‐EV-‐1 Convert vehicles in Palo Alto and surrounding region to EVs 50% of vehicles are electric by 2050 Require pre-‐wiring of electric vehicle charging infrastructure Require electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) actually installed for all new residential / commercial construction, additions, and remodels Sales tax refund for EV purchased in Palo Alto by Palo Alto residents (8% reduction) Smart phone apps to provide real-‐time traffic information, and provide reservation services and map of available EV charging stations. Develop behavior-‐change campaign(s) to encourage residents and employees to purchase EV's, utilize public charging stations. Monitor purchases of EV's, installation of charging stations, to determine whether uptake is meeting targets. Adjust targets and behavior change campaigns accordingly. Incentivize automakers to design improved EVs through kickstarter campaign (similar to Automotive X Prize) Engage with EV car dealerships to simplify sales process and promote EV educational resources Develop and implement EV charging infrastructure plan for city City fleet vehicles lead the way: electric school buses, garbage trucks, etc Bulk purchase program for EV's and EVSE equipment to bring down costs of EV purchases Carbon neutral by 2025 (with offsets) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 27 of 124 Strategy Code Natural Gas Strategy Name Implementation Level by 2025 Annual Adoption Rate Implementation Description NG-‐RES-‐1 Residential water heating electrification 100% 10% Assume all residential water heaters could be replaced with electric if we start immediately NG-‐RES-‐2 Residential space heating electrification 40% 5% Residential space heating more difficult and less cost-‐effective than water heating NG-‐ COMM-‐1 Commercial water heating electrification 60% 6% Assume small commercial buildings have a gas storage tank water heater that is replaced by an air source heat pump water heater. Assume large commercial buildings have a gas boiler that is replaced with solar hot water and electric resistance heating. NG-‐ COMM-‐2 Commercial space heating electrification 60% 6% Assume small commercial buildings have gas-‐ pack furnaces that are replaced by a packaged heat pump heater. Assume large commercial buildings have gas boilers that are replaced with heat recovery chillers . NG-‐COOK-‐ 1 Commercial cooking electrification 30% 3% Given the industry, fairly aggressive, but minimal impact on overall cost of scenario NG-‐GAS-‐1 Restrict natural gas hook-‐ups and require ZNE new construction 60% 60% Of new construction between 2016-‐2025, only 60% achieve ZNE, no gas hook-‐up (both residential and commercial) NG-‐OFF-‐1 Carbon offsets 100% 100% Purchase offsets for remaining emissions NG-‐OFF-‐2 Biogas 100% 0% Procure biogas for remaining gas use 2025 Possible Natural Gas Roadmap 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Replace on burnout pathway Pilot 24-‐ hour hotline Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐RES-‐1 & NG-‐RES-‐ 2 Residential water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream incentive programs Voluntary time-‐of sale ordinance for energy efficiency and electrification (incentives and recognition program) Mandatory time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for completing energy efficiency and electrification Develop energy benchmarking and disclosure time-‐of-‐sale ordinance for residential Develop utility program for electric water heater/space heating system replacements, pilot electrification of a sample of homes Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Full implementation of 24-‐hour hotline for electric water heater replacement Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Require all water heaters / space heating systems be replaced with electric at end-‐of-‐life Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Information services for electric water heaters/ space heating systems SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 28 of 124 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Tenant improvement pathway Voluntary retrofit pathway Institutional pathway Time of sale pathway NG-‐COMM-‐1 & NG-‐ COMM-‐2 Commercial water heating / space heating -‐ fuel switch Information and outreach related to tenant improvement building permits Require electrification as part of all water heaters / space heating system retrofit projects Voluntary program (e.g., incentives, checklists, expedited permitting, reduced fees) for electrification of space and water heating equipment Develop utility program for electric water heater/gas heating system replacements Evaluate replacement rates. Increase incentives for electric water/space heating systems if needed Streamline permitting process for electric water heaters / space heating systems Education and outreach to vendors, landlords, real estate community Develop voluntary time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades Develop mandatory time-‐of-‐sale requirement for energy upgrades Work with local distributors and contractors to implement upstream programs 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Green gas pathway Implementation of voluntary "Palo Alto Green Gas" program Assess costs of carbon offsets and biogas for all natural gas usage in the community Infrastructure pathway Financing and rates pathway N-‐OFF-‐1 and NG-‐ INF-‐1 Green gas, offsets and new utility business model to support carbon neutrality Purchase of carbon offsets and/or biogas with goal of 100% by 2020 implement study of natural gas distribution system and impacts of reduced natural gas consumption Develop roadmap for staged/planned reductions in specific areas of the city (which neighborhoods are likely to be most impacted/early adopters) Actively manage reductions in natural gas delivery Restructure natural gas & electricity rates to support fuel switching to electricity Assess appropriate restructuring of natural gas and electricity rates for electrification Continue to support policy and long term planning for restructuring gas utility that will minimize financial risks to rate payers or bond-‐holders SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 29 of 124 APPENDIX E – S/CAP Wedge Chart Details The S/CAP represents conservative estimates of costs and GHG reduction potential, particularly related to cost curves associated with electric vehicles, and solar PV pricing. Furthermore, GHG potential associated with Mobility as a Service is conservative due to lack of data. In this section, we describe the range of S/CAP strategies analysed in support of Appendix C wedge charts for 2025, 2030 and 2050. Transportation Levers, Strategies and Actions A suite of transportation related levers and strategies were considered as part of the three scenario analyses. T-FAC-1: Expand bicycle network and infrastructure This strategy focuses on leveraging the Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, to support the City in meeting a goal of doubling the rate of bicycling for both local and total work commutes to 15% and 5%, respectively, by 2020. The S/CAP project assessed additional targets associated with specific actions to evaluate the potential greenhouse gas emissions savings for 2025, 2030 and 2050. Actions modeled: ¥ Convert all class II bike lanes to protected bike lanes (PBL) ¥ Increase bike boulevard mileage from 22-32 miles ¥ Expand bike share to 28 stations per square mile (currently 5 stations citywide) T-FAC-2: Expand transit facilities and services This strategy identifies transit agency expansion and improvement plans under way, associated opportunities to improve service frequency, speed, reliability and capacity. However, to implement these transit expansion strategies, the key action of the City is to collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions in Santa Clara County and along the entire San Francisco Peninsula to advocate for major public investment in transit service and infrastructure and to define these projects in a way that maximizes future capacity, ridership, convenience, reliability and frequency of service. Actions modeled: ¥ Achieving the Caltrain modernization ridership rates targeted in 2040 ¥ Expand SamTrans, VTA and Palo Alto shuttle ridership by 200% ¥ El Camino Real and Dumbarton Bus Rapid Transit T-FAC-3: Facilitate shared transport options This strategy focuses on facilitating the use of shared travel options, including transportation network companies (TNCs) for conventional carpooling as well as dynamic ridesharing particularly along the US 101 corridor and for first mile/last mile travel options. Actions modeled: SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 30 of 124 ¥ Dynamic ridesharing based on San Francisco casual carpool rates, with Palo Alto share proportionate to Palo Alto Caltrain ridership ¥ Actions include designating curb space for rideshare/carpool pick-up and drop-off downtown, and at Caltrain Stations. T-INC-1: Provide universal transit access Beginning in 2014, the City of Palo Alto offered a free Caltrain Go-Pass to all of its benefits-eligible employees working at downtown locations. As a condition of development, the City of Palo Alto currently requires developers of selected properties to purchases Caltrain Go-Passes for all full-time employees of tenants. The new Palo Alto Transportation Management Association is working on a bulk- discount VTA eco-pass program for downtown employees. This strategy assumes additional significant and widespread adoption of a universal transit pass including all transit agency programs (Caltrain Go- Pass, SamTrans Way2GoPass, and VTA EcoPass). Actions modeled : ¥ Expanded Universal Transit Pass (UTP) - Caltrain GoPass, SamTrans Way2GoPass, and VTA Ecopass, for all residents and employees T-INC-2: Utilize parking pricing and management The price and availability of parking at one’s destination is a key factor in travel mode choice, with free on-street parking and required off-street parking (i.e., parking minimums) creating an effective subsidy for travel by cars. This strategy focuses on actions such as unbundling parking costs from lease/sale of commercial and residential units, adopting on-street parking vacancy target, monitoring occupancy and availability of on-street parking regularly, and requiring employers to offer the option of receiving transportation benefits instead of parking benefits (e.g., parking cash-out, or feebate program). Actions modeled: ¥ All employment sites institute parking pricing, parking cash-out, parking feebate equivalent to market price of parking ¥ Full cost pricing of residential and commercial parking (unbundling or eliminating minimum parking requirements) T-LU-1: Pursue jobs-housing balance Understanding that land use and jobs-housing balance can be controversial issues, this strategy was included to better understand the potential impact of a more balanced ratio of jobs and housing with the City. The California Department of Finance considers a 1.5 jobs-to-housing ratio to be desirable. As such, the S/CAP project including analysis of “what it would take” to achieve this type of balance in Palo Alto. Infill growth in specific areas of Palo Alto was explored, in addition to potential new housing through “backyard cottage” and other types of accessory dwelling units. Actions modeled: ¥ Target jobs-housing balance of 1.44 with growth in specific areas (e.g., Stanford Research Park, downtown core, Stanford Shopping Center, etc), by developing mixed use and higher density in targeted areas. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 31 of 124 T-EV-1: Convert vehicles to electric vehicles In addition to reducing vehicle-miles traveled, reducing the carbon content of vehicle fuels is an another important strategy for overall reductions in transportation emissions. Electric vehicle technology continues to improve rapidly, with significant uptake regionally and in Palo Alto. This strategy was assessed for the GHG impact of different rates of adoption of electric vehicles. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased target electric vehicle adoption rates through incentives, bulk purchase programs and expanded electric vehicle charging infrastructure Natural Gas Levers, Strategies and Actions A suite of natural gas related levers and strategies were considered as part of the scenario analysis. NG-RES-1: Electrify residential water heating For existing homes, identify and implement actions to reduce fuel switching costs, require upgrades at key leverage points (e.g., time-of-sale and/or major renovation) and make it easy for the community to find appropriate products for their needs. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased target adoption of electrification of water heaters in homes NG-RES-2: Electrify residential space heating For existing homes, identify and implement actions to reduce fuel switching costs from furnaces to electric technologies (e.g., air source heat pumps), require upgrades at key leverage points (e.g., time-of-sale) and make it easy for the community to find appropriate products for their needs. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased adoption of electric technologies for heating homes NG-COMM-1: Electrify commercial water heating This strategy focused on the estimated GHG emissions savings potential of electrifying commercial water heating. The S/CAP project assumed that small commercial buildings have a gas storage tank water heater that would be replaced by an air source heat pump water heater. We also assumed that of large commercial buildings with gas boilers would be replaced with solar hot water and electric resistance heating. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased adoption of electrification of water heating in commercial buildings NG-COMM-2: Electrify commercial space heating This strategy focused on the estimated GHG emissions savings potential of electrifying commercial space heating. The S/CAP project assumed that small commercial buildings had gas-pack furnaces that would be replaced by a packaged heat pump heater. This also assumes that large commercial buildings have gas boilers that would be replaced with heat recovery chillers. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 32 of 124 Actions modeled: ¥ Increased adoption of electrification of space heating in commercial buildings NG-COOK-1: Electrify commercial cooking Commercial cooking equipment is notoriously inefficient, with additional challenges associated with “user experience” and impacts on final product that need to be considered in retrofitting with electric equipment. For the purposes of this S/CAP analysis, this strategy focused on opportunities to replace gas cooking equipment with electric cooking equipment in restaurants currently using gas cooking equipment by the target year. Cooking equipment considered include combination ovens, convection ovens, fryers, griddles, steamers, and induction ranges. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased adoption of electric cooking equipment in commercial food service NG-GAS-1: Eliminate natural gas use through zero net energy new construction Natural gas usage in the new construction (and major remodels) must be reduced in addition to existing buildings. This strategy focuses on restrictions on natural gas usage in the new construction sector being tied to California's zero net energy goals. Specifically, this analysis assumed that certain percentages of new commercial construction and new residential construction are built to a net zero standard - relying on rooftop PV to provide 100% of energy needs and relying on air source heat pumps and heat pump hot water heater to provide all space and water heating needs. Actions modeled: ¥ Increased adoption of zero net energy buildings ahead of state targets with all-electric buildings NG-OFF-1: Purchase carbon offsets This strategy would move from the voluntary City of Palo Alto Utilities GreenGas Program to buy offsets or credits to immediately make the entire natural gas supply carbon neutral in Palo Alto. Then focus on designing and implementing strategies for fuel switching, efficiency and policy drivers to move away from natural gas. As part of this strategy, Palo Alto would explore the allocation of purchased offsets to fund local GHG reduction initiatives. Actions modeled: ¥ Purchase carbon offsets2 NG-OFF-2: Procure biogas An alternative to carbon offsets is to procure biogas instead of fossil fuel-based natural gas supply. This was previously assessed by City of Palo Alto Utilities with costs found to be prohibitive. This 2 The quality of carbon offsets varies significantly in the market. Our analysis assumed high quality offset products like Green-‐e climate certified carbon offsets. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 33 of 124 strategy is included in the analysis as an option, but due to cost considerations and supply constraints, was not selected in the proposed scenarios. Actions modeled: ¥ Procure biogas as a carbon neutral gas supply SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 34 of 124 APPENDIX F – Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Analysis The objective of the City of Palo Alto Vulnerability Analysis and Adaptation Roadmap (Adaptation Roadmap) is to examine a broad spectrum of the community’s potential climate change vulnerabilities and prioritize adaptation responses based on the greatest risks, needs, and synergies with related planning efforts. The Adaptation Roadmap is meant to guide adaptation planning by identifying important City-owned and community assets that are vulnerable to climate change impacts, assessing the risk that climate change poses to those assets, and recommending response actions that the City should integrate into its planning efforts to mitigate that risk. The overall goal is to establish a stronger framework for gathering data, making decisions, and prioritizing actions that will improve the City’s resilience to climate change over time. The Adaptation Roadmap assesses vulnerabilities for the following eleven functional categories of community assets, which include City-owned or operated facilities deemed critical for operations, utility services, and risk management, and other assets that are important to community health, safety, and well-being: 1. Emergency Response and Communications 2. Energy Security and Infrastructure 3. Water Security and Supply Infrastructure 4. Wastewater Management 5. Stormwater Management 6. Transportation Infrastructure 7. Shoreline Flood Management 8. Public Health 9. Buildings and Property 10. Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Management 11. Natural Areas/Ecosystems Palo Alto’s greatest risks related to climate change are a product of the City’s bayside setting, the inherent sensitivities of its Mediterranean climate, and its dependence on imported water from the distant Sierra Nevada mountains as its primary water supply. Some of the City’s critical utility infrastructure, including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and the Utility Control Center, is located in a flood basin or in close proximity to the low-lying shoreline where risk of damage or disruption from sea level rise is significant. Climate change is expected to bring hotter and drier summers and winter storms that are predicted to be fewer in number but higher in intensity. These changes can stress natural habitats and public health while posing a potentially serious risk to the long-term reliability of the City’s potable water supply and hydroelectric supply. Based on this study, the City-owned and community assets at highest risk from climate change by the year 2100 include the following: SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 35 of 124 1. Property and infrastructure located in areas along the Bay shore prone to coastal flooding, including the areas east of Highway 101, where the RWQCP, Municipal Services Center, Utilities Control Center, Utilities Engineering Center and the Palo Alto Airport are located. Current levees are not designed to protect these assets from sea level rise; 2. The City’s long-term potable water supply, which is largely dependent on runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, especially during dry years; 3. The City’s hydroelectric supply, which is vulnerable to a reduction in Sierra mountain snowpack; 4. Road transportation assets including streets and highway approaches which are located in flood-prone areas along the Bay shore; 5. The health and well-being of the most vulnerable of the City’s residential populations, and its natural inhabitants (flora and fauna), which can experience severe stress from extreme heat, drought and extreme precipitation events. Palo Alto is already engaged in multiple planning efforts that address some or all of these risks, but the Adaptation Roadmap represents the City’s first broadly coordinated effort to identify and document vulnerabilities across a broad range of community assets and assess the risk of climate-related impacts to those assets over near-term (to 2050) and longer-term (to 2100) planning horizons. Coastal Flooding Adaptation strategies for sea level rise should be woven into a comprehensive vision for the Bay shore that addresses climate change along with other issues including water quality, the protection of the Baylands ecology, public access and recreation. Many of the shoreline adaptation challenges faced by Palo Alto arise from decades of managing stormwater, water supply, and flood protection as separate systems rather than using an integrated approach incorporating broad stakeholder engagement, multi-objective planning, and vulnerability assessment that recognizes the dependencies and relationships between systems and the potential for exacerbating risk of failure to critical assets. Moreover, much of the shoreline infrastructure, including levees, flood control facilities and waste water treatment plants, is more than 50 years old, built in the Clean Water Act era when federal and state grants covered most costs. Even though concerns about maintaining the area’s infrastructure have been growing for decades, a commensurate increase in funding has not occurred. Beyond the price tag, the regulatory and institutional challenges of doing multi-benefit projects remain substantial. Most clean water regulations, flood control specifications, and Bay fill policies were written 20-50 years ago, when conditions were quite different than they are today or what they are projected to be in the future. Retreating from rising seas is inherently difficult in areas where the shoreline has been developed, presenting enormous societal and political challenges that are likely to generate decades-long debates. Strategies that focus on strengthening or maintaining the existing levee alignment can buy time for much harder decisions to be made. The current Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay (SAFER Bay) project, focused on the San Francisquito Creek, is planning improvements to existing coastal levees while also examining asset re-location, real estate easements, and horizontal levees. Innovative approaches, like using horizontal levees to restore protective marshes and integrate ecosystem restoration with management of wastewater, sediment and flooding are promising for Palo Alto but require more study and can be stymied by current regulations. In general, regulation needs to evolve along with adaptation strategies, continuing to protect the environment and natural habitats but allowing room for innovation and response actions as the environment changes over the next century and beyond. There are lessons to be learned from SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 36 of 124 international experience, such as the coastal armoring approaches used by the Dutch, but the ecological, political and cultural landscape of the Bay is quite different from other places, and appropriate adaptation strategies are highly dependent on local geomorphology and ecology, the assets at risk, the appetite for risk, and the resources available. Water Supply The City’s current water supply is highly vulnerable to drought, but the risk of failure is uncertain. The City is dependent on City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), for the bulk of its long-term water supply. During periods of extended drought, the ability of SFPUC to supply its wholesale customers (including City of Palo Alto) is at risk, though SFPUC has reported as recently as 2009 that it does not consider its regional supply to be at significant risk from climate change through the year 2030. However, California’s current drought, now in its fourth year, is putting added emphasis on long-term water security and forcing public agencies to redouble conservation efforts and expand contingency planning. Accordingly, SFPUC and the City of Palo Alto are increasing efforts to improve conservation, upgrade storage and delivery systems, and diversify local water supplies. Hydropower Long-term changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change represent significant risk to the availability of hydropower for the City, due to expected higher incidence of severe droughts, loss of Sierra snowpack, and wildfires. These climate perturbations will lead to additional stresses on the State’s energy system and the reliability of power to the City. As a result, energy resiliency will become increasingly critical to the City and its utility. The City long term plan for managing energy supplies needs well consider measures around islanding, smart grid, local generation, energy storage and redundant transmission lines. The MSC, UCC, and Utility Engineering Center, which are all critical to energy operations, face moderate risk from sea level rise by 2050 and significant risk from sea level rise by 2100. Plans should be established to protect these assets, relocate them, or establish redundant operational capabilities in case these facilities become incapacitated during a flooding event. Critical Transportation Assets Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the Palo Alto Airport, and surface streets in the Palo Alto floodplain are all at significant risk from sea level rise by the year 2100. Current levees are not likely to adequately protect these assets from sea level rise; the Strategy to Advance Flood protection, Ecosystems and Recreation along the Bay (SAFER Bay) project is planning improvements to these levees. As an intermediate measure, the City should develop contingency plans for temporary loss of these assets. Many roads and highways in the foothills are in high risk zones for wildfires by the year 2100. The vulnerability of these assets should be better defined, along with consequences of failure and contingency plans in the event they become damaged or inaccessible. Vulnerable Populations The City’s most vulnerable populations (elderly, low-income and health-compromised residents) face significant risk from extreme heat events by 2100. These populations will also face higher risk of health problems from worsening air quality and new disease vectors. The City has an important role, in partnership with public agencies and community based organizations, to educate and engage the public on climate change issues, and to promote community involvement in actions to reduce climate SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 37 of 124 change risks, using linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches that are effective for diverse populations. Summary Palo Alto, like many cities in the Bay Area, is generally aware of the risks it faces from climate change, but is faced with a dearth of “actionable science” and cost-benefit studies on which to rely for critical decision-making. It is difficult to know how to best apply limited resources when there are so many competing demands for City budgets and staff time. Climate change is inherently complex and its predictions are fraught with uncertainty, adding to the difficulty of building stakeholder consensus to take action. The Adaptation Roadmap provides a compendium of current plans, studies, policies, and actions that are relevant to the City’s adaptation planning efforts and provides a framework for making informed decisions on how to best focus resources going forward to increase the City’s resilience to an uncertain future. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 38 of 124 Method The methodology used to develop the Palo Alto Adaptation Roadmap is derived from the California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide3 (CCAPG), which recommends a sequence of nine steps in developing strategies to address climate change impacts (see Figure 2.1): (1) assess exposure to climate change impacts; (2) assess community sensitivity to the exposure; (3) assess potential impacts; (4) evaluate existing community capacity to adapt to anticipated impacts; (5) evaluate risk and onset, meaning the certainty of the projections and speed at which they may occur; (6) set priorities for adaptation needs; (7) identify strategies; (8) evaluate and setting priorities for strategies; and (9) establish phasing and implementation. The first five steps (colored gray) in Figure 2.1 represent the vulnerability assessment, while steps 6 through 9 represent strategy development. The vulnerability assessment helps determine the potential impacts of climate change on community assets and populations. Understanding the extent, potential severity, and likelihood of those impacts enables a community to develop climate adaptation policies and programs to increase resilience to climate change (steps 6 through 9). Figure 2.1 - The nine steps in adaptation planning development (from CCAPG) 3 California Emergency Management Agency and California Natural Resources Agency, 2012. California Adaptation Planning Guide. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 39 of 124 Setting Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions forecasts underlie predictions of future climate change and assessments of potential exposure to climate change impacts. The following passage is extracted from Climate Chapter of the 2013 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan4 (IRWMP): Two GHG emissions scenarios have been commonly used in recent planning documents for California. Scenario A2 (Medium–High Emissions) assumes higher GHG emissions and high growth in population and represents a more competitive world that lacks cooperation in sustainable development (similar to “business as usual”), while B1 (Lower Emissions) is a lower GHG emission scenario that represents social consensus and action for sustainable development. Generally, the B1 scenario might be most appropriately viewed as an optimistic “best case” or “policy” scenario for emissions that will require 4 Kennedy Jenks Consultants (with Environmental Science Associates), 2013, San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 40 of 124 fundamental shifts in global policy, while A2 is more of a status quo scenario reflecting real-world conditions incorporating incremental improvements and may be the more realistic choice for decision- makers to use for climate adaptation planning. To date, actual global emissions have more closely tracked, and even exceeded, the A2 scenario put forth in 2000. Climate change assessments are performed using the output of computer models that project future conditions utilizing GHG emission scenarios as input. These models are not predictive, but provide projections of potential future climate scenarios that can be used for planning purposes. The primary climate variables projected by global climate models (GCMs) that are important for water resources planning in California are changes in air temperature, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea-level rise. A set of six GCMs were run for the two GHG emissions scenarios, A2 and B1, and downscaled to locations in California. The six GCM models used were: 1. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Parallel Climate Model (PCM) 2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Geophysical Fluids Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) model 3. French Centre National de Researches Meterologiques CNRM3 model 4. NCAR CCSM3 model 5. German MPI ECHAMS model 6. Japanese MIROC3.2 (medium-resolution) model Based on historical simulations, the selected models are capable of producing a reasonable representation of California’s seasonal precipitation and temperature, variability of annual precipitation, and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation.5 Statewide Climate Change Projections All of the models show increased warming throughout the 21st century, with average annual air temperature increasing about 2ºF to 5ºF by 2050. The Mediterranean seasonal precipitation pattern is expected to continue during the 21st century, with most of the precipitation occurring during winter from North Pacific storms. The hydro-climate (hydrology and weather) is expected to be influenced by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) with alternating periods of wet and dry water years. In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, there will be some shift to more winter precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow, with a reduction in snowpack accumulation and shifts in runoff patterns, especially during the summer and fall. By 2050, scientists project a loss of at least 25% of the Sierra snowpack.6 Bay Area Region Climate Change Projections Temperature 5 Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis, 2012. Climate Change Scenarios for the San Francisco Region. California Energy Commission Publication No. CEC-‐ 500-‐2012-‐042. 6 California Department of Water Resources, 2014. Climate Change. www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/ , accessed March 10, 2014). SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 41 of 124 The historical average annual temperature in the San Francisco Bay Area region is 56.8ºF (13.8ºC). Overall average air temperatures in the SF Bay Area are expected to rise 2.7ºF (1.5ºC) between 2000 and 2050 regardless of the GHG emissions scenario, but the A2 and B1 scenarios project increases of 10.8ºF (6ºC) and 3.6ºF (2ºC), respectively, by the end of the 21st century. The temperature projections begin to deviate between the A2 and B1 scenarios around mid-century, with the A2 scenario increase about twice the B1 scenario by 2100. Precipitation in the San Francisco Bay Area region is essentially all due to rain, and significant shifts in the timing of precipitation are not expected to occur.7 The SF Bay Area is likely to continue with a Mediterranean climate of cool wet winters and hot dry summers. Possible changes in precipitation projected by the GCMs are uncertain in part due to the highly variable precipitation that California experiences on an annual and decadal time scale. Up to the year 2050 annual precipitation changes produce mixed results; however there is an indication that conditions will be drier than the historical average in the second half of the century. Looking at averaged projections by month, it is possible to identify greater reductions in precipitation in March and April while November, December and January may remain relatively unchanged. While average conditions may be drier the expectation is that more intense downpours will occur during a somewhat shorter rainy season. Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Flooding Sea-level rise is expected to increase the risk of coastal erosion and flooding along the California coast, and higher water levels due to sea-level rise could magnify the adverse impact of storm surges and high waves. Impacts to assets from extreme high tides in addition to net increases in sea level will likely result in increased inundation frequency, extents, and depths leading to catastrophic flooding and coastal erosion. Understanding the extent, depth and duration of inundation and the patterns of erosion will be necessary for characterizing infrastructure vulnerability in coastal areas. The picture is further complicated by the concurrent vertical movement of the land due to tectonic activity. Projections of the relative sea level, the sum of both sea level rise and vertical land movement, are therefore important in the San Francisco Bay area. Sea level has been measured at the Presidio tide gauge in San Francisco since 1854, with a recorded rise in relative sea level of 7.6 inches (19.3 cm) over the last 100 years.8 Present sea-level rise projections suggest that the rate of global sea level rise in the 21st century can be expected to be much higher. California, via the Ocean Protection Council, (OPC, 20139), has adopted the San Francisco Bay region sea level rise projections from the National Research Council (NRC, 201210), which includes an allowance for vertical land motion. For the Bay Area, this study projects 11 inches of sea level rise by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches by 2100. 7 Cayan, Tyree, and Iacobellis, 2012. 8 National Research Council, 2012. Sea-‐Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 . 9 State of California Ocean Protection Council, State of California Sea-‐Level Rise Guidance Document, March 2013 update. 10 National Research Council (NRC), 2012. Sea-‐Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13389 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 42 of 124 Summary of Current Relevant Planning Initiatives ESA staff met with City staff from the Palo Alto Department of Public Works and Office of Emergency Services to review critical facilities and functions, and to discuss perceived vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity to climate change impacts. ESA also reviewed the most relevant planning initiatives and documents related to climate change adaptation planning for the City of Palo Alto. Findings and results are summarized below. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan The City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the primary tool for guiding preservation and development in Palo Alto, was last updated from 1998 to 2002. It is currently being revised to bring all the Plan Elements up to date, address changing demographic, economic and environmental conditions, and look forward to 2030. The Current Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and a City Structure map showing the City’s neighborhoods and commercial centers (Figures 8.3 and 8.4, respectively, from the Draft Existing Conditions Report for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update11) are included in Appendix A. Existing Natural Environment Element The Natural Environment Element of the existing Comprehensive Plan addresses the management of open land and natural resources in Palo Alto and the protection of life and property from natural hazards. Many of its goals pertain to protecting and conserving Palo Alto’s natural resources, natural habitat areas, and the urban forest to provide ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. Its wide-ranging policies cover the use of open space for the preservation of natural resources, the management of natural resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, creeks and riparian areas, wetlands, the urban forest, water resources, wildlife, air quality, hazardous materials, solid waste disposal, and energy. It also includes public safety policies for reducing exposure to natural hazards like earthquakes and fires. The City’s major open spaces are in the foothills, including the 1,400-acre Foothill Park, 2,200 acres of Montebello Open Space Preserve, the 610-acre Arastradero Preserve, and 200 acres of Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. Foothill and Arastradero Parks are owned and operated by the City, while Montebello and Los Trancos are operated by the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District. Other open spaces in the foothills are owned by Stanford University, the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club, and numerous private landowners. Approximately 477 acres of the City’s privately owned open space is restricted by the Williamson Act, a State program that creates tax incentives for keeping property in agricultural or open space use. The Williamson Act properties include cattle grazing lands, orchards, and a Christmas tree farm. Approximately 149 acres are considered to be prime farmland. Along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, open space is contained in what is generally called the Palo Alto baylands. This multi-use area of about 2,100 acres includes the John Fletcher Byxbee Recreation Area, the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, the Baylands Athletic Center, the Palo Alto Landfill (part of which has been closed and converted into Byxbee Park), a flood control basin, and several natural salt marshes. The area contains a number of low impact recreational facilities, including hiking and bicycling trails and a boardwalk. It also includes the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center, a small picnic area, and a sailing station open to windsurfers, kayakers, and small sailboats. Most of 11 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Population, Housing and Employment. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 22, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 43 of 124 the area consists of passive open space, including a duck pond and bird sanctuary, restored salt marshes, the Emily Renzel Freshwater Marsh, and some of the most extensive salt marsh and mudflat habitats remaining in the Bay Area. Locations of parks and open spaces are shown on the Land Use map and the City’s Open Space and Water Bodies map (Figure 3.3 from the Draft Existing Conditions Report for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update12) included in Appendix A. Updated Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element The Draft Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element13 of the Comprehensive Plan update includes new sections on Climate Change and Adaptation (N2) and Safety and Emergency Management (N8). The Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended changes to the goals, policies, and programs of the Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element that are still going through a public review process. If those recommendations are accepted and adopted by the City Council in the context of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update, there would be a new vision statement and policies as indicated below. New vision statement: Palo Alto shall preserve its ecosystems, including its open space, creeks, habitats, and air quality while working towards a sustainable urban environment of urban forests, water quality, waste disposal reduction, emergency preparedness, community safety and a plan for climate change mitigation. New Policy N2.5: The City shall monitor changes to sea level, temperatures, wildfire risk, and other potential changes, taking advantage of state and federal information, and use that information to adapt to the effects of climate change. ¥ N2.5.1 PROGRAM Prepare a Climate Adaptation Strategy to serve as a companion document to the Climate Protection Plan and identify the ways in which Palo Alto can respond to the predicted changes to its physical environment associated with climate change. New Policy N2.6: Include in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) five year plan a priority for infrastructure improvements that address adaptation of critical facilities to climate change. New Policy N8.1: Facilitate ongoing public education and awareness to prevent loss of life and property from impacts of natural and man-made disasters. ¥ N8.1.1 PROGRAM Initiate public education programs strongly encouraging that each household in the City be prepared to be self-sufficient for at least 72 hours after a major earthquake, flood, terrorism, pandemic or other major disasters. (Previous Program N-82) ¥ N8.1.2 PROGRAM Continue to implement the Emergency Services Volunteer program and encourage residents and employees to participate in citywide emergency drills and other public education activities. 12 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Biological Resources. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐ conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 22, 2014. 13 City of Palo Alto, 2014,Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element; http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/plan-‐contents/natural-‐environment-‐element/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 44 of 124 Policy N8.2: Focus efforts to reduce exposure to natural hazards in those areas of the City where greatest risks exist. New Policy N8.7: Monitor and respond to the risk of wild land fire hazards caused by climate change. ¥ N8.7.1 PROGRAM Consider implementation of CAL FIRE recommended programs in educating and involving the local community to diminish potential loss caused by wildfire and identify prevention measures to reduce those risks. Utilities and Service Systems The Draft Existing Conditions Report: Utilities And Service Systems14 for the Comprehensive Plan update provides background information on the City’s extensive utility services, which include water supply and distribution, electricity and natural gas service, collection and treatment of waste water at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), collection and management of stormwater, collection/recycling/disposal of solid waste, and fiber optics communications. These are all essential services that play vital roles in the economic development and quality of life of the community and are critical for maintaining public health. Water Supply Although the Draft Existing Conditions Report contains much of the same information that is provided in the City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (discussed later in this section) regarding water supply and conservation, the following two paragraphs from the Report represent additional information: BAWSCA is developing the Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy (Strategy) to meet the projected water needs of its member agencies and their customers through 2035, and to increase their water supply reliability under normal and drought conditions. The Strategy is proceeding in three phases. Phase I was completed in 2010 and defined the magnitude of the water supply issue and the scope of work for the Strategy. Phase II of the Strategy resulted in a refined estimate of when, where, and how much additional supply reliability and new water supplies are needed throughout the BAWSCA service area through 2035, as well as a detailed analysis of the water supply management projects, and the development of the Strategy implementation plan.15 The Final (Phase III) Strategy Report is planned for completion by December 2014. This report will incorporate the results of additional work and present the recommended Strategy and the associated Strategy implementation plan (i.e., who will do what by when). Phase III will include the implementation of specific water supply management projects. Depending on cost-effectiveness, as well as other considerations, the projects may be implemented by a single member agency, by a collection of the member agencies, or by BAWSCA in an appropriate timeframe to meet the identified needs. Project implementation will continue throughout the Strategy planning horizon, in coordination with the timing and magnitude of the supply need. The development and implementation of the Strategy will be coordinated with the BAWCSA member agencies and will be adaptively managed to ensure that the goals of the Strategy, i.e., increased normal and drought year reliability, are efficiently and cost-effectively being met. The City is participating in the Strategy and has submitted several potential projects for review. 14 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Utilities And Service Systems. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐ existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 8, 2014. 15 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWCSA), 2012. Phase II Long-‐Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Report, Vol I. July 30. http://bawsca.org/docs/BAWSCA%20PH%20II%20A%20Final%20Report_2012_07_03%20Revised%20073012.pdf SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 45 of 124 The City anticipates these projects will be evaluated during subsequent project phases, but also as part of several other regional efforts that are simultaneously underway. These efforts include the Palo Alto RWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan and the SCVWD Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan. The City is actively participating on all of these efforts in conjunction with the BAWSCA study. Water supply issues related to hydropower generation, and the risks thereto, can be found in Section 7.2.1. Wastewater This functional asset category covers Palo Alto’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operations, sewerage, and outfalls. The City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) provides wastewater collection, with treatment services provided by the Public Works Department, for the City and its sphere of influence (SOI). The CPAU oversees a wastewater collection system consisting of over 208 miles of sewer lines, while the Public Works Department oversees the treatment of approximately 3.4 billion gallons of wastewater per year.16 Wastewater effluent is routed to the Palo Alto RWQCP, where it is treated prior to discharge into the San Francisco Bay. In addition to serving the City, the RWQCP serves Mountain View, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Stanford University, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. Approximately 220,000 people live in the RWQCP service area. Of the wastewater flow to the RWQCP, about 60 percent is estimated to come from residences, 10 percent from industries, and 30 percent from commercial businesses and institutions. The RWQCP treats 21 million gallons per day of effluent from all the partner cities.17 The RWQCP is designed to have an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 39 MGD and an average wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD. Average daily flow is 22 MGD. According to the Background Report, the RWQCP does not experience any major treatment system constraints and capacity is sufficient for current dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans for expansion or to “build-out” the plant; however, in 2012 Palo Alto City Council approved a Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP to ensure capital reinvestment, wastewater treatment services for six agencies, and ongoing water quality control to protect the San Francisco Bay and local creeks. Stormwater The City owns and maintains a municipal storm drain system consisting of approximately 107 miles of pipeline and 2,750 catch basins, 800 manholes and 6 pump stations. These improvements are located within the Palo Alto public road right-of-way. Storm drain systems within private streets or private development are privately maintained but are permitted to drain into the public system. The City’s storm drain pipe systems are designed for a 10-year return 6-hour storm event and the hydrology and hydraulics design criteria conform with Santa Clara County Storm Drainage Manual. In the upper watershed areas, storm drains flow directly to creeks by gravity, but, due to relatively flat slopes and low-lying land, much of the lower watershed is pumped to the creeks through one of the City’s six stormwater pump stations. Figure 4.1, from the Comprehensive Plan update, shows 16 City of Palo Alto, 2014. Utilities at a Glance. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/16777 , accessed December 8, 2014. 17 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Utilities And Service Systems. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐ existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 8, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 46 of 124 locations of stormwater pump stations. In 1989, the City Council created a separate enterprise fund to pay for storm drain maintenance, capital improvements, and stormwater quality programs. The storm drain fee is collected from each property on the City’s monthly utility bill. Figure 4.7: Map of City of Palo Alto pump stations Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report18 The storm drain system is separated into four watershed areas, with the storm drains within an area discharging into one of four local creeks: San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, or Adobe Creek. San Franciscquito Creek drains unimpeded into San Francisco Bay. The other three creeks drain into the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB). The PAFB was constructed in 1956 to provide storage capacity for creek discharges. The Flood Basin is separated from the Bay by levees and tide gates to block the propagation of high tides into the Basin, thereby preserving storage capacity for creek discharge even during high tides. The tide gates are controlled by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A map of the San Francisquito Creek and Baylands is provided in Appendix B, showing the location of the PAFB and its relationship with surrounding land uses. Several sections of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code pertain to stormwater management and protecting water quality related to storm events. In particular, Palo Alto’s Flood Hazard Regulations Ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.52) is designed to minimize loss of life, damage to private land development, public facilities and utilities, the need for rescue and relief efforts, business interruptions, and future blighted areas caused by flooding. The ordinance was adopted in order to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It ensures that property owners construct new and substantially-improved buildings in the Special Flood Hazard Area in a manner that protect the improvements from flood damage. The City Engineer is responsible for enforcing this ordinance, which includes methods and provisions to control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and protective barriers; to control filling, grading, dredging and other development that can increase flood damage; to regulate the construction of flood barriers which can divert flood waters or 18 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Utilities and Service Systems. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐ existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 22, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 47 of 124 increase flood hazards in other areas; and to require that uses vulnerable to floods be protected against flood damage at the time of their construction. This ordinance has special regulations for new development within a coastal high hazard area. City Utility Energy Planning The City’s Utilities department is responsible for energy planning and procurement of natural gas and electricity commodities for use by residents and businesses within city limits. This includes Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center, but excludes Stanford University. Natural Gas The City’s natural gas supply policy is provided by the Gas Utility Long Term Plan (GULP). The key objectives of the GULP are to provide market price, lower delivered gas cost over the long term, promote the deployment of all feasible, reliable, cost-effective energy efficiency measures, reduce the carbon intensity of the gas portfolio, and a reasonable cost, protect the City’s interests and maintain access to transportation on par with PG&E’s core customers. Because of its small size, and more aggressive gas main replacement program, the gas utility’s costs have been around 25% higher than neighboring PG&E costs. PG&E is raising its costs of distribution as a result of its increased focus on safety and main replacements. As of July 2012, the Utility transitioned its purchasing strategy to market price-based, monthly- adjusted gas supply rates by designing monthly-adjusted gas supply rate; revising the reserve guidelines for Council approval; and conducting customer communication and outreach. Simultaneously, the City is pursuing possible below‐market assets available through the Gas Transportation and Storage Settlement by evaluating the pipeline capacity reservation options available and by contracting with PG&E for any pipeline capacity with an estimated cost below the forecasted market value. The City has also developed a Council-directed work stream to meet the gas efficiency targets through the evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of electrification (substituting gas- using appliances for electricity-using appliances) and incorporating cost-effective substitution measures in the implementation plan to meet the gas efficiency targets. Three major interstate natural gas pipelines operated by PG&E transect Palo Alto. One of them is placed in a relatively low-lying area that runs along Highway 101. The City maintains four delivery “gate” stations where the city receives gas from PG&E transmission system. Electricity The policy for electric supply for the City is managed through the Long-term Electricity Acquisition Plan (LEAP). The objectives of LEAP are to meet customer electricity needs through the acquisition of least total cost energy and demand resources including an assessment of the environmental costs and benefits; manage supply portfolio cost uncertainty to meet rate and reserve objectives; enhance supply reliability to meet City and customer needs by pursuing opportunities including transmission system upgrades and local generation. The primary strategies comprising LEAP focus on acquisition of least total cost resources including an assessment of environmental costs and benefits to meet the City’s needs in the long term by evaluating each potential resource on an equal basis by evaluating rate impacts and establishing costs and values for location, time of day and year, carbon, value of renewable supplies and any secondary benefits attributed to the resource. The LEAP strategy includes all electricity resources – conventional energy, local and remote renewable energy supplies, energy efficiency, cogeneration, and demand reduction. The City of Palo Alto’s electric distribution system is connected to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) transmission grid line running along the shoreline via three 115 kV transmission lines at a SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 48 of 124 single intertie. These three lines provide redundancy and back-up power delivery; all three lines run in a common corridor on the bay side of the City, a corridor that is in close proximity to the Palo Alto Airport. The three PG&E owned transmissions lines supplying the City are located within a PG&E transmission corridor that passes through East Palo Alto. All lines are overhead lines, with two lines located on steel towers and the third on wood poles. The towers and the wood poles are located just 40 feet apart. The common corridor and proximity to an airport means that the City’s power supply is susceptible to single events that can affect all three lines, as happened in February of 2010 when a small aircraft hit the power lines resulting in a city-wide power outage for over 10 hours. These 115 kV transmissions lines connect to the Colorado substation where the power is distributed to a network of substations throughout the City’s distribution network. The City has considered potential projects to reduce interruption risks to accident or other event. One potential project, referred to as the Ames Line Project would provide a second 115 kV transmission line from the PG&E grid to the City. This project would reduce the interruption risk between the shoreline transmission line and Palo Alto, but would not reduce Palo Alto’s redundancy due to any failure in the shoreline transmission line itself. This Ames Line project is still under consideration. The City has also considered installing a 230-60kV transformer at SLAC’s 230 kV substation and building two underground 60kV lines from SLAC to Palo Alto’s Hanover substation which would provide transmission redundancy. This project has not been implemented. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) The City of Palo Alto participates in the Association of Bay Area Governments regional Resilience Program. The City’s Annex (Section 18) to the 2010 Santa Clara County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) 19 is managed by for the City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES), and is updated every five years. The LHMP assesses the technical, managerial, and fiscal capabilities of the City to support hazard mitigation, including a summary of relevant local plans, policies and City ordinances. It also provides a vulnerability assessment of the City’s critical facilities (for potable water supply, shelter, fire suppression, emergency response, electricity supply, natural gas supply, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, and city administration), by identifying the facilities (see Table 18-12 of the LHMP) and assessing their exposure to risk from flood, sea level rise, wildfire, and earthquake hazards. Vulnerability to heat and drought is also considered, but the LHMP concludes that the City of Palo Alto does not have unique concerns regarding those hazards. The 2010 LHMP identifies 50 critical facilities in the following function categories: ¥ Potable water reservoir ¥ Potable water booster station ¥ Potable water/fluoride ¥ Stormwater pump station ¥ Electric substation ¥ Natural gas station 19 Santa Clara County, 2012; Palo Alto Annex to the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011 update; available at: http://www.sccgov.org/sites/oes/PlansPublications/Pages/LHMP.aspx SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 49 of 124 ¥ Police and Fire Stations ¥ Regional wastewater treatment ¥ Utility Control Center (UCC)Emergency operations/recovery ¥ Shelter ¥ Administrative Office The LHMP includes maps showing the overlap of hazard zones with critical facilities, along with tables summarizing the risks and consequences of critical facilities being exposed to these hazards. The Office of Emergency Services is in the process of updating its critical facilities list in preparation for the 2015 LHMP update. Facility data is being migrated from a spreadsheet-based system to a relational database and analytic risk management software package known as Cal COP (formerly Digital Sandbox DS7), through the Bay Area Urban Area Security Initiative (Bay Area UASI) that is funded by the Department of Homeland Security. New algorithms will help the City determine critical assets going forward. In 2014, the City became one of the first jurisdictions in the Bay Area to complete a Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) process. THIRA expands the LHMP assessment, consistent with all hazards planning best practices. The redacted version of the THIRA is posted on the web: www.cityofpaloalto.org/thira Departmental Responsibilities The City of Palo Alto operates several departments with capabilities for implementing hazard mitigation strategies. These departments and their roles and responsibilities are summarized as follows: Community Services Department The Community Services Department operates the Cubberley Community Center along with various parks (including the Baylands) and other facilities, many of which function as shelters, evacuation points or other uses in a disaster. Further, the CSD Open Space Rangers are trained in wildland firefighting and also support the Police Department in patrolling parks and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Development Services Department The mission of the Development Services Department is to work collaboratively with other departments to provide citizens, business owners, developers, and applicants reliable and predictable expectations in the review, permitting, and inspection of development projects that meet the minimum municipal and building code requirements to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public. The Building Division ensures construction quality by reviewing construction plans for conformance to building codes, permit processing, and inspecting projects while under construction. Planning and Community Environment Department Planning Section The Planning Section provides staff support for the Planning & Transportation Commission, the Architectural Review Board, the Historic Resources Board, and administers the City's housing SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 50 of 124 programs as well as preparing and monitoring the Comprehensive Plan and providing long-range planning studies. This division also processes applications for planning entitlements. Code Enforcement Program The Code Enforcement Program promotes maintaining a safe and desirable living and working environment, and helps improve the quality of the community Transportation Division The Transportation Division enhances safety and mobility in Palo Alto’s transportation system while protecting environmental resources and preserving the community's quality of life. Office of Sustainability The Office of Sustainability's mission is to lead the organization, residents, and visitors in promoting a culture of environmental sustainability by developing, coordinating, and leading initiatives citywide, regionally, and through partnerships with the community. Public Safety Departments The City of Palo Alto has a coordinated structure among its Public Safety departments. This includes, for example, a unified Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) 911 Center that serves the City as well as Stanford University for law enforcement, fire/EMS, public works, utilities, animal services, and other emergency call types. Fire Department The City of Palo Alto Fire Department provides fire and emergency medical services (EMS) to the city and to Stanford University. The large number of businesses and the Stanford University campus often increase the daytime population to over twice the residential baseline population. The Fire Marshal and fire inspector staff perform plan checks and other such functions to maintain the safety of buildings, as well as certain special events. Office of Emergency Services The City of Palo Alto's Office of Emergency Services (OES) has a mission to prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. The powers of OES are enumerated in the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section PAMC 2.12.050(b): "(4)Direct coordination and cooperation of services and staff of the emergency organization of the city, and resolve questions of authority and responsibility that may arise between them; and (5)Represent the city in all dealings with public or private agencies on matters pertaining to emergencies as defined herein." Therefore, OES leads or coordinates day-to-day planning, intelligence, and coordination, not only internally but also with allied agencies, Stanford University, the private sector, and the community. OES is responsible for numerous critical assets, including the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) located in the Police Department, the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC), various interoperability systems, and other equipment. Police Department The Palo Alto Police Department, in addition to providing law enforcement services, is responsible for maintaining a core asset for emergency operations: the 911 Communications Center, which provides dispatch for Palo Alto Police Department, the Stanford Department Public Safety (DPS) police, the Palo Alto Fire Department, as well as other government channels. This center serves as the 911 Public SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 51 of 124 Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for the Palo Alto and Stanford communities. The City's Animal Shelter and Animal Services operation is also a division of the Police Department. Public Works Department The Public Works Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and management of Palo Alto's public facilities, streets, sidewalks, street trees; parking lots and storm drains. The Public Works Department is also responsible for the administration and operation of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant; and administration of the National Flood Insurance Program. In addition, Public Works maintains the entire City fleet with full equipment replacement, preventative maintenance and fueling at the Municipal Service Center, a facility located in the Baylands. The Public Works Department also manages the Palo Alto Airport, also located in the Baylands. The Airport is a critical asset for emergency operations, including day-to-day public safety (for example, it is where the Stanford Life Light rescue helicopter refuels and is maintained). The Civil Air Patrol also has a squadron at the Palo Alto Airport. Utilities Department The Utilities Department is responsible for the approval, construction, maintenance and management of Palo Alto's public electric, fiber, water, gas, and wastewater collection facilities. The Utilities Department is also responsible for the maintenance and operation of the street light and traffic signal programs. In addition to having the responsibility for the infrastructure, the Utilities Department purchases all of the water, gas and electricity commodities used within the City. Information Technology (IT) Department The IT Department is responsible for data integrity and reliability of information systems that support the functioning of the City and its response to emergencies. The Department bases its information management on three tiers of criticality assigned to the City’s systems (e.g., fire protection) that serve the community. Data and operational software for most of the City’s systems is currently being moved from on-site computers to a cloud-based system, making it less vulnerable to local physical hazards. The exception is the City’s natural gas and electric systems. City of Palo Alto 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)20 The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires every urban water supplier (of a certain minimum size) to prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) for the purpose of “actively pursue[ing] the efficient use of available supplies,” and stipulates required contents of UWMPs. UWMPs must describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable. Since 1937, the City has depended on water supplied by the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS) operated by the SFPUC. The RWS is supplied predominantly by watersheds in the Sierra Nevada mountains, while local watersheds and treatment facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties supplement the system. On average, SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy Project (see Figure 4.2) provides over 85% of the water delivered to the SFPUC service area. The reliability of the SFPUC water supply is very dependent on reservoir storage. During period of drought, reservoir storage is critical because it enables the SFPUC to carry over water supply from wet years to dry years. During droughts the water received from the Hetch Hetchy system can amount to over 93% of the total water delivered. 20 City of Pal Alto Utilities, June 2011: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/eng/water/watermgmt.asp SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 52 of 124 To assure the long-term adequacy of its water system, the SFPUC is currently undertaking the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). The WSIP is a $4.6 billion, multi-year, capital program to upgrade the RWS. The program will deliver improvements that enhance the SFPUC’s ability to provide reliable, affordable, high-quality drinking water to its wholesale customers and retail customers in an environmentally sustainable manner. The SFPUC developed WSIP water supply objectives based on RWS supplies forecasted for a conservative “design drought” of 8.5 years.21 Figure 4.2: SFPUC Regional Water System Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco City of Palo Alto is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), whose member agencies receive water from the City and County of San Francisco through a contract that is administered by the SFPUC. The City, working in cooperation with SFPUC and BAWSCA, has completed several studies and reports analyzing weather- and climate-related reliability of the water supply. The UWMP summarizes the following studies: Water Wells, Regional Storage and Distribution System Study (1999) – This study examined the ability of the City’s water system to supply water during an 8-hour disruption of SFPUC supply. The study concluded the City should invest in certain capital projects. These projects became part of the City’s Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, which is currently complete. The Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP, 2000) – The WSMP was a joint study by BAWSCA and the SFPUC to address the future water supply needs of the 30 agencies and 2.3 million people who are served via the SFPUC water system. The City was actively involved in the development of this plan, participating on the WSMP Steering Committee. 21 The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2013 Water Availability Study for the City and County of San Francisco, March 2013 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 53 of 124 Alternative Emergency Water Supply Options Study (2001) – This study examined the ability of the City’s distribution system to supply water during various lengths of supply disruption (e.g., 1 day, 3 days, 30 days) and included an analysis of the vulnerability of the City’s water distribution system. The study concluded that the capital projects in the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project, specifically related to groundwater wells, would result in the ability to supply sufficient water in disruptions of SFPUC supply. Water Integrated Resource Plan (WIRP, 2003) – The WIRP evaluated all the City’s water supply alternatives in an effort to determine what long-term direction the City should take for water resource planning. In 2000, this effort resulted in the publication of a document describing in detail all the identified alternatives. The WIRP concludes, based on available information, that supplies from the SFPUC are adequate in normal years, but additional supplies are needed in drought years to avoid shortages. City of Palo Alto Emergency Water Supply & Storage Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2007) – The City certified the EIR to locate a site and construct a 2.5 million gallon underground water reservoir and pump station in Palo Alto to meet emergency water supply and storage needs. In addition to this water reservoir, the project includes the siting and construction of several emergency supply wells and the upgrade of five existing wells and the existing Mayfield Pump Station. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project has been completed. Recycled Water Facility Plan (March 2009) – This study defined the recycled water alternatives and identified a recommended project alignment. The study also provided a funding strategy and an implementation plan for the recommended project. Water Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP, 2009) - The goal of the WCIP is to develop an implementation plan for BAWSCA and its member agencies to attain the water efficiency goals that the agencies committed to in 2004 as part of the Program EIR for the WSIP. At that time, over 32 water conservation measures were evaluated. The WCIP identifies how BAWSCA member agencies can use water conservation as a way to continue to provide reliable water supplies to their customers through 2018 given the SFPUC’s Interim Supply Limitation (See Water Supply Agreement in next section). Local Water Use Total water purchases by CPAU in FY 2014 amounted to 12,673 acre-feet (AF), about equal to FY 2013 sales. Water consumption in FY 2014 was significantly lower than the 1987 (pre-drought) usage. The reduction in present water consumption, compared to pre-drought levels, appears to be the result of several factors, including permanent water conservation measures implemented during the past 30 years and increased standards for water efficient appliances. The UWMP reports that overall water use in the community decreased by 27% during the period 2000 to 2010. All customer classes showed a significant reduction in annual water use per account. During this period, water use per account decreased by 46% for industrial customers, by 32% for commercial customers, by 12% for public facilities, and by 35% for City facilities. 2010 total water use by single- family residential customers decreased by 22% and multi-family residential water use decreased by 34%. The UWMP states that the City’s water consumption is forecast to remain relatively stable in the future, with a slight increase due to a rebound in the economy and continued, albeit gradual, increase in population and employment numbers. Future projections are uncertain, but large increases in consumption are unlikely. Without implementation of Demand Management Measure (DMMs), water use would increase by about 29 percent by the end of 2030. This forecast includes an expected 17 percent increase in the total number of accounts. This baseline projection includes anticipated effects SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 54 of 124 of the plumbing code on overall water use as well as expected ongoing conservation efforts among customers. After incorporating the impact of DMMs, total sales are expected to increase by 17 percent from the period 2010 to 2030. Water Supply Agreement As a wholesale customer of the SFPUC, the City is bound by the 2009 Water Supply Agreement (WSA) and Individual Water Sales Contract with the SFPUC which has a 25-year term. The WSA provides a “Supply Assurance” of 184 million gallons per day (MGD) to be shared among its wholesale customers that is subject to reduction in cases of water shortage due to drought, emergencies, or malfunctioning/ rehabilitation of the RWS. Under the WSA, the City of Palo Alto has an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 17.07 million gallons per day (MGD). The WSA includes a Water Shortage Allocation Plan that addresses shortages of up to 20% of system-wide use, through pre-set allocations to its wholesale customers. The Tier 1 plan addresses how the available water supplies would be divided between San Francisco and its wholesale customers. The Tier 2 plan, developed in 2010 by BAWSCA agencies, was approved by all participating agencies including Palo Alto. It addresses how the water available to the wholesale customers would be divided among them. The Tier 2 Water Shortage Implementation Plan is in effect until 2018, when SFPUC must re-evaluate the Supply Assurance. In addition to the WCIP described above, BAWSCA and its member agencies identified five additional water conservation measures, which, if implemented fully throughout the BAWSCA service area, could potentially save an additional 8.4 MGD by 2018 and 12.5 MGD by 2030. The demand projections for the BAWSCA member agencies, as transmitted to the SFPUC on June 30, 2010, indicate that collective purchases from the SFPUC will stay below the 184 MGD allocation through 2018 as a result of revised water demand projections, the identified water conservation savings, and other actions. When SFPUC adopted the WSIP, it approved an interim water supply limitation through 2018, when it expects it will be in a better position to make decisions regarding long term water supply issues. Palo Alto’s Interim Supply Allocation (ISA) is 14.70 MGD. The UWMP does not anticipate exceeding the 14.70 MGD ISL during the ISL period ending in 2018. The ISA is distinct from the ISG. The ISG is a perpetual entitlement for water delivered from the SFPUC system that survives the expiration of the current water delivery contract. The ISA is an interim water delivery limitation intended to accomplish the goals outlined in the adopted WSIP, and it automatically expires in 2018. Climate Change section of the UWMP The UWMP recognizes the importance of climate change in water resources planning. The following passage, extracted from the City’s 2010 UWMP, indicates that the SFPUC is monitoring the effects of climate change on its water supply and as recently as 2009 did not consider supply to be at significant risk through the year 2030: As described by the SFPUC in its October 2009 Final Water Supply Availability Study for the City and County of San Francisco, there is evidence that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses have caused and will continue to cause a rise in temperatures around the world that could result in a wide range of changes in climate patterns. These changes are expected to have a direct effect on water resources in California. Climate change could result in the following types of water resource impacts, including impacts on the watersheds in the Bay Area: SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 55 of 124 ¥ Reductions in the average annual snowpack due to a rise in the snowline and a shallower snowpack in the low and medium elevation zones, such as in the Tuolumne River basin, and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year; ¥ Changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow; ¥ Long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that could affect water quality; ¥ Sea level rise and an increase in saltwater intrusion; ¥ Increased water temperatures with accompanying potential adverse effects on some fisheries and water quality; ¥ Increases in evaporation and concomitant increased irrigation need; and ¥ Changes in urban and agricultural water demand. According to the SFPUC’S October 2009 study, other than the general trends listed above, there is no clear scientific consensus on exactly how climate change will quantitatively affect the state’s water supplies, and current models of water systems in California generally do not reflect the potential effects of climate change. Initial climate change modeling completed by the SFPUC indicates that about seven percent of runoff currently draining into Hetch Hetchy Reservoir will shift from the spring and summer seasons to the fall and winter seasons in the Hetch Hetchy basin by 2025. This percentage is within the current interannual variation in runoff and is within the range accounted for during normal runoff forecasting and existing reservoir management practices. The predicted shift in runoff timing is similar to the results found by other researchers modeling water resource impacts in the Sierra Nevada due to warming trends associated with climate change. The SFPUC has stated that based on this preliminary analysis, the potential impacts of climate change are not expected to affect the water supply available from the San Francisco Regional Water System (RWS) or the overall operation of the RWS through 2030. The SFPUC views assessment of the effects of climate change as an ongoing project requiring regular updating to reflect improvements in climate science, atmospheric/ocean modeling, and human response to the threat of greenhouse gas emissions. To refine its climate change analysis and expand the range of climate parameters being evaluated, as well as expand the timeframes being considered, the SFPUC is currently undertaking two additional studies. The first utilizes a newly calibrated hydrologic model of the Hetch Hetchy watershed to explore sensitivities of inflow to different climate change scenarios involving changes in air temperature and precipitation. The second study will seek to utilize state-of-the-art climate modeling techniques in conjunction with water system modeling tools to more fully explore potential effects of climate change on the SFPUC water system as a whole. Both analyses will consider potential effects through the year 2100. It is now known when these studies will be completed, but SFPUC’s 2015 update of its UWMP should provide additional information. Drought Planning October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2014 was the driest three-year period on hydrologic record in California and as a result, reservoir storage, snowpack, and reservoir inflows were significantly lower than normal throughout the State. The unprecedented dry weather conditions prompted Governor Jerry Brown to declare a drought emergency for the State of California in January 2014. This action SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 56 of 124 spurred the SFPUC to request that all customers of the Regional Water System voluntarily reduce water use by at least 10%.22 When the City’s 2010 UWMP was completed, the City had experienced severe droughts during 1976- 77 and 1987-93. In response to these droughts the City adopted a number of water conservation strategies. Following the conclusions in the 2003 WIRP that supplies from the SFPUC could be inadequate during drought years, the City adopted a set of guidelines in 2003 seeking to reduce the potential supply deficit. The options considered include using groundwater, connecting to the SCVWD’s treated water pipeline, developing recycled water, and expanding water efficiency programs. Following the WIRP a public survey was conducted, and based on conclusions from the survey and the WIRP, City staff in 2004 made the following 5 recommendations: 1. Installation of advanced treatment systems for groundwater is too expensive, both in capital and in operating costs. 2. Blending at an SFPUC turnout is the best way to use groundwater as a supplemental drought time supply while maintaining good water quality. 3. In the selection process for new well sites, the costs for blending with SFPUC water in droughts should be considered. The least expensive location is a well at El Camino Park due to its proximity to an SFPUC turnout. 4. Actively participate in the development of long-term drought supply plans with SFPUC and BAWSCA. 5. Continue in the efforts identified in the Council-approved WIRP Guidelines: o Evaluate a range of demand-side management (DSM) options for their ability to reduce long-term water demands; o Evaluate feasibility of expanding the use of recycled water; and o Maintain emergency water conservation measures to be activated in case of droughts. Conservation Measures At its core, the UWMP is essentially a plan to comply with the Water Conservation Bill of 2009 (SBx7‐ 7), enacted in November 2009, which requires water suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. Palo Alto’s 2020 target is 179.3 gallons per capita, a 20% reduction from a baseline of 223 (average calculated over 10 year period from 1995-2004). At minimum, an UWMP must evaluate fourteen Demand Management Measure (DMMs) identified in the Urban Water Management Planning Act. The following DMMS are currently implemented or are planned for future implementation by the City. The 2010 UWMP evaluates each of them in detail for goals, cost-effectiveness, and conservation savings: A. Water Survey Programs for Single-Family and Multi-Family Residential Customers 22 ibid SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 57 of 124 B. Residential Plumbing Retrofit C. System Water Audits, Leak Detection, and Repair D. Metering with Commodity Rates for All New Connections and Retrofit of Existing Connections E. Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives ¥ Landscape Survey Program for Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Customers ¥ Weather‐Based (Evapotranspiration) Irrigation Controller Rebates ¥ Large Landscape Turf Replacement ¥ Residential Turf Replacement ¥ Landscape Rebates for Irrigation Hardware Upgrades F. High‐Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs G. Public Information Programs H. School Education Programs I. Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Accounts ¥ Commercial Water Audits ¥ Water Efficiency Direct Installation Program ¥ Water Efficient Technologies Rebate Program ¥ CII High Efficiency Toilet Direct Installation Program J. Conservation Pricing K. Water Conservation Coordinator L. Water Waste Prohibition M. Residential Ultra‐Low‐Flush Toilet Replacement N. New Development Indoor and Outdoor Regulations O. Irrigation Classes for Homeowners P. Rainwater Harvesting Incentives Q. Residential Graywater Reuse The City is currently operating or is in the process of launching several new conservation programs with particular emphasis on outdoor irrigation efficiency including high water use landscape conversion, and improved efficiency measures for the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors. Additionally, the use of graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting systems, and other water efficiency measures may be evaluated further for conservation potential leading up to the 2015 UWMP. The City is committed to promoting all cost-effective conservation programs that meet both the City’s water SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 58 of 124 reduction goals and community interest. Palo Alto shifts emphasis between different conservation programs depending on various factors, including community acceptance. Over time, the program mixture may change, though the overall savings goals will remain constant. Local Groundwater Supply The quality of the City’s groundwater is considered fair to good23, having recovered from past overdrafts, and the City has an existing water well system consisting of eight deep aquifer wells (not hydrologically connected to surface groundwater) with a combined total rated capacity of approximately 11,300 gallons per minute (gpm). Some of these wells have been called into service in the past (1988 and 1991) when the City faced shortages due to SFPUC implemented mandatory rationing. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) is the groundwater management agency in Santa Clara County; the groundwater basin is not adjudicated, meaning water rights have not specifically been established by the courts to determine who can pump groundwater, how much groundwater can be pumped, and how the process is managed. As of the 2010 UWMP writing, no decision had been made regarding whether or not to use groundwater as a supplemental supply in droughts, though the City has completed the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project which provides the City the flexibility to rely on groundwater during a drought if necessary. The project consists of the repair and rehabilitation of the five existing wells, construction of three new wells, potentially equipping one well for use as a supplemental water supply, construction of a new 2.5 million gallon underground storage reservoir at El Camino Park and associated pump station, and other upgrades to the groundwater supply system. If the wells were to be used as a dry year supplemental supply source, the City would use the new well at El Camino Park and blend the groundwater with SFPUC supplies to meet regulatory standards for drinking water quality. In addition, several other issues will need to be addressed prior to the use of the wells during a drought, including issues of water quality compared to the City’s SFPUC source, customer acceptance, and SCVWD groundwater production costs. The Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project’s primary goal is to provide water supply in the case of fire, or drought emergency, or loss of SFPUC supplies due to earthquake or other disaster. The completed project provides a minimum of eight hours of normal water use at the maximum day demand level and four hours of fire suppression at the design fire duration level. The groundwater system may also be used to a limited extent for water supply during drought conditions (up to 1,500 acre feet per year), and is capable of providing normal wintertime supply needs during extended shutdowns of the SFPUC system. The project provides up to 11,000 gpm of reliable well capacity and 2.5 million gallons (MG) of water storage for emergency use. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities Because the existing RWS does not have sufficient supplies in dry years, dry-year water transfers are potentially an important part of future water supplies. In addition to the WSMP and the WSIP described above, the City is monitoring the development of a water transfer market in California, including a mechanism for BAWSCA members to transfer contractual entitlements on the SFPUC system. The City supports SFPUC’s efforts to pursue cost-effective dry-year water transfers as part of 23 The City’s groundwater is approximately six times higher in total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness compared to SFPUC-‐supplied water. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 59 of 124 the overall water supply for the RWS. BAWSCA has the ability to pursue water transfers on its own as long as a wheeling arrangement can be negotiated with the SFPUC. Recycled Water The City operates the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), a wastewater treatment plant, for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Stanford University. Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. The UWMP provides a thorough assessment of recycled water as a water source for the City, noting that the quality of the water discharged from the RWQCP meets very high standards and approaches the standards for drinking water. The 2010 UWMP summarizes the extensive planning work the City has conducted related to recycled water, starting with the Water Reclamation Master Plan co-authored with other RWQCP partners in 1992, a Recycled Water Market Survey in 2006, and a Recycled Water Facility Plan in 2008. The latter study recommended the Palo Alto Recycled Water Project,24 which proposes the construction of a recycled water pipeline and associated facilities to provide an alternative water supply for non-potable uses. The proposed project, now being implemented in phases, involves the construction of approximately five miles of 12- to 18-inch pipes, a booster pump station and a pump station at the RWQCP, and approximately five miles of lateral pipelines to over 50 use sites. The project is envisioned to serve approximately 900 acre-feet per year of recycled water25, mostly to the Stanford Research Park Area. The predominant use of recycled water for this project is landscape irrigation. Some industrial use, such as commercial and light industrial cooling towers, could also be included at a later date. The City is a stakeholder in multiple regional recycled water planning groups and initiatives, including the California Water Reuse Association, the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, SCVWD Recycled Water Committee, the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies Recycled Water Committee, and the ABAG-led effort to secure grant funding for the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) and related projects. In September 2010, the RWQCP completed installation of a new ultraviolet disinfection facility which will allow a gradual increase in the amount of recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard if demand requires an upgrade to the recycled water storage capacity. The remaining treated wastewater meets the restricted use standard and can also be recycled. 24 The Utilities and Service Systems Element of the City’s 2014 Draft Comprehensive Plan provides an up-‐to-‐ date assessment of the Recycled Water Project, noting that the majority of the wastewater treated at the RWQCP could be recycled and that the plant already has some capability to produce recycled water that meets the Title 22 unrestricted use standard (approximately 4.5 MGD of capacity of which 4.5 MGD is presently available). The Recycled Water Project is currently serving non-‐potable needs in areas east of Highway 101, including irrigation at the golf course and Greer Park, marsh enhancement at Emily Renzel Marsh, and various needs at the Municipal Service Center and RWQCP. 25 Since the 2010 UWMP, elevated salinity levels in the recycled water have been identified as an area of concern to the project’s stakeholders. The City has approved a Salinity Reduction Policy outlining steps to lower the TDS levels in the recycled water towards the goal of increased customer acceptance of the use of recycled water. Recently completed salinity control measures have proven successful and the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) has been reduced from 920 mg/L (2009-‐2012 Average) to 770 mg/L (2013 average). Additional projects are underway and further reductions are anticipated. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 60 of 124 Desalinated Water The UWMP notes that the City has no plans for development of desalinated water. It is possible a desalination facility may be part of a preferred supply portfolio identified in the BAWSCA Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy. The City is currently aware of one regional collaborative effort between different water agencies to evaluate a large scale Bay Area desalination project, The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project. The Bay Area Regional Desalination Project is a collaboration between the East Bay Municipal Utility District, SCVWD, the SFPUC, Contra Costa Water District, and Zone 7 Water Agency to jointly explore developing the feasibility of a regional desalination facility that could directly or indirectly benefit 5.4 million San Francisco Bay Area residents and businesses served by these agencies. Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation Along the Bay (SAFER Bay) The existing coastal levees along Palo Alto’s San Francisco Bay shoreline are too low to provide FEMA- certified flood protection to Palo Alto and its neighbors. The existing levees do not meet current state and federal standards. Therefore, the Palo Alto has joined with other member communities in the San Francisco Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) to plan and design coastal flood management. This project is known as Strategy to Advance Flood Protection, Ecosystems, and Recreation Along the Bay (SAFER Bay). This project started in December 2014, with planning to continue through 2015. The SAFER Bay project will reduce the risk of flooding within the study area from San Francisco Bay coastal waters and support the communities’ desire to be removed from the FEMA floodplain. At a minimum, the project will accommodate the current FEMA 100-year still water elevation plus freeboard. Where feasible, current FEMA 100-year plus freeboard plus 3 feet of future sea level rise will be provided. This accommodation for 3 feet of sea level rise will match the design criteria of another SFCJPA project to improve the levees along the lower, tidal portion of San Francisquito Creek. In addition, the project will also: ¥ expand opportunities for improved recreation and community connectivity; ¥ minimize future maintenance requirements; ¥ incorporate features that facilitate adaptation to our changing climate by utilizing tidal marsh areas for flood protection in a way that enhances habitat and facilitates restoration associated with the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project; and ¥ create opportunities for partnership with agencies and organizations pursuing similar objectives. In relation to the last bullet, Palo Alto is also coordinating with the City of Mountain View to coordinate coastal flood management along these cities’ shared boundary. Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP)26 The Bay Area IRWMP presents a thorough summary of climate change projections and expected impacts to four water-related Functional Areas in the Bay Area, including water supply/water quality, flood control wastewater/stormwater, and watershed and habitat protection. 26 San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, September 2013. Available at: http://bairwmp.org/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 61 of 124 The Bay Area IRWMP reviewed climate change adaptation strategies from a wide range of regional and local initiatives and planning documents such as urban water management plans, habitat restoration plans, wastewater treatment master plans, watershed stewardship plans and water supply strategies. Table 4-1 identifies climate change adaptation strategies identified by the IRWMP that are included in representative regional and local plans according to corresponding Functional Areas and vulnerabilities and priorities. The IRWMP reviewed plans affecting all Functional Areas and sub regions. The review confirmed that, with the exception of urban water supply, the approach to water resources planning in general varies widely across Functional Areas and among agencies. For example, with respect to sea level rise and vulnerable water resources infrastructure (e.g., wastewater treatment plants), not all local plans reviewed contained adaptation strategies. This may reflect the absence of a legal requirement for a plan rather than a lack of planning for sea level rise; some agency websites indicated that climate change planning was indeed underway. Adaptation Strategies Identified In Bay Area IRWMP The Bay Area IRWMP identifies the following general strategies for adapting to climate change: ¥ Incorporate climate change adaptation into relevant local and regional plans and projects; ¥ “No Regrets” approach to address immediate or ongoing concerns while reducing future risks; ¥ Establish a climate change adaptation public outreach and education program; ¥ Build collaborative relationships between regional entities and neighboring communities to promote complementary adaptation strategy development and regional approaches; ¥ Establish an ongoing monitoring program to track local and regional climate impacts and adaptation strategy effectiveness; and ¥ Update building codes and zoning. Additional strategies identified in Bay Area local plans for adapting to water supply impact include local capture and reuse projects, and desalination. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 62 of 124 Table 4-1: Bay Area Adaptation Strategies Identified in the Bay Area IRWMP27 Vulnerability Areas/Functions Affected Strategies Sea Level Rise & Coastal Flooding ¥ Low-lying Baylands increasingly vulnerable to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding ¥ Critical infrastructure in the hazard zone, includes wastewater treatment plants power plants vulnerable to 100-year coastal flood ¥ Multifunctional ecosystem- based adaptation along the bayshore and rivers ¥ Remove critical infrastructure from hazard zone ¥ Raise, armor and maintain flood control structures that protect critical infrastructure that cannot be moved. ¥ Prevent placement of new infrastructure in areas likely to be inundated. ¥ Improve emergency preparedness, response, evacuation and recovery plans. Fluvial Flooding ¥ More intense storms leading to more frequent, longer, deeper flooding generally expected Hydropower ¥ Decrease in Sierra snowpack is expected; increased evapotranspiration is expected; shift in timing of runoff virtually certain; and timing and amount of power generation is expected to change Water Supply ¥ Decrease in total precipitation is possible; ¥ Delta Sources – impacts from sea level rise ¥ Regional Sources – continued variability in precipitation; potentially less spring precipitation; more intense storms may affect surface water runoff, storage, groundwater recharge. ¥ Continued water conservation including water efficient landscaping programs ¥ Reduce reliance on imported water ¥ Increased use of recycled water ¥ Improve potential movement of water supplies among neighbouring agencies during periods of extreme water 27 Based on Table 12-‐3 in the Bay Area IRWMP SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 63 of 124 ¥ Demand likely to increase due to increases in air temperature, increased evaporation losses and longer growing season shortage ¥ Expand available water storage ¥ Adopt land use ordinances that protect natural functioning of groundwater recharge areas ¥ Implement tiered pricing to reduce water consumption and demand Water Quality ¥ Sierra Nevada Supplies – imported water potentially vulnerable to water quality change ¥ Delta Supplies – increased salinity from sea level rise, increased turbidity from extreme storm events ¥ Regional Supplies – water quality impacts from increased temperature, decreased precipitation, decreased recharge, more intense storms, increased wildfire risk, longer periods of low flow conditions. ¥ Evaluate capability of surface water treatment plants to respond to extreme storm events and increased risk of wildfires. ¥ Encourage projects that improve water quality of contaminated groundwater sources ¥ Increase implementation of LID techniques to improve stormwater management. Ecosystem and Habitat ¥ Changes in temperature and precipitation, together with increased wildfire will result in impacts to species, increased invasive species’ ranges, loss of ecosystem functions, changes in growing ranges for vegetation. ¥ Provide or enhance connected “migration corridors” and linkages between undeveloped areas for animals and plants ¥ Promote water resources management strategies that restore and enhance ecosystem services ¥ Re-establish natural hydrologic connectivity between rivers and floodplains SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 64 of 124 Silicon Valley 2.0 Silicon Valley 2.0 is a regional planning effort, led by the County of Santa Clara Office of Sustainability, to minimize the anticipated impacts of climate change. 28 The primary goals of the project are to: ¥ Identify assets threatened by climate change and the magnitude of the potential economic, social, and environmental impacts; ¥ Identify potential strategies to minimize these impacts; ¥ Develop a decision-support tool to evaluate potential climate change impacts and community / regional strategies; ¥ Identify the region’s top priorities and the near–term actions to implement an effective regional scale adaptation response; and ¥ Facilitate and coordinate regional climate adaptation planning and implementation efforts for Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley 2.0 is assessing five exposure areas of climate change: Sea Level Rise, Coastal Storm Surge, Riverine Flooding, Wildfire, and Extreme Heat. Vulnerability assessments and strategies for adapting to these exposures are organized into nine separate categories of community assets: ¥ Shoreline protection (dikes and levees) ¥ Buildings + Properties ¥ Communications ¥ Ecosystems ¥ Energy ¥ Public Health (including vulnerable populations) ¥ Solid + Hazardous Waste ¥ Transportation ¥ Water + Wastewater A decision support tool is being developed as part of the Silicon 2.0 project, which will allow local governments in Santa Clara County to assess vulnerabilities and potential economic impacts of climate change within their communities. The tool (see Figure 4.3) , which should be available in 2015, will identify assets that will be exposed to climate change variables, estimates level of economic consequence resulting from asset vulnerability, and allow users to select and prepare vulnerability and risk reports. This project should provide the City of Palo Alto with a valuable resource for adaptation planning going forward. 28 Santa Clara County Office of Sustainability, Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook, Administrative Draft, December 2, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 65 of 124 Figure 4.3: Silicon Valley 2.0 Tool Screen Shot: Vulnerability Assessment Overview Living with a Rising Bay (2011)29 In 2011, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) prepared this shoreline vulnerability assessment to help local and regional government agencies and the public understand how existing planning and management challenges will be exacerbated by climate change and to assist in developing strategies for dealing with these challenges. The assessment focused on shoreline development, the Bay ecosystem, and governance. The report provided the basis for a subsequent amendment to the Bay Plan specifically addressing sea level rise. While the report acknowledged the limitations of BCDC’s regulatory authority to ensure that sea rise is taken into consideration in project planning, it also identified a number of strategies that the agency and others can undertake to address issues identified in its vulnerability assessment. These are summarized in Table 12-4 of the Bay Area IRWMP, and summarized in Table 4-2 below. 29 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), 2011: Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. Available at: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 66 of 124 Table 4-2: Summary of Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategies Identified by BCDC Shoreline Development General Strategies ¥ Conduct risk assessments for shoreline areas and larger shoreline projects. ¥ Design for the Long-Term. Design projects to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection and adaptable to longer-term impacts. ¥ Consider Impacts. Build projects that do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety, or if projects do increase flood risks, ensure that regional public benefits outweigh the increased risk of flooding. ¥ Incorporate Flood Protection. Protect new projects from future storm activity and sea level rise by using setbacks, elevating structures, designing structures that tolerate flooding or other effective measures. ¥ Avoid Filling the Bay. Set aside land on the upland side of levees to allow for future levee widening to support additional levee height so that no fill is placed in the Bay. ¥ Preserve Public Access. Design and construct shoreline protection to avoid blocking physical and visual public access. Public Access Strategies ¥ Design to Avoid Impacts. Site, design, manage and maintain public access to avoid significant adverse impacts from sea level rise and shoreline flooding. ¥ Accommodate Future Conditions. Design any public access to remain viable in the event of future sea level rise or flooding, or provide equivalent access to be provided nearby. Bay Ecosystem General Strategies ¥ Preserve Sensitive Habitat. Preserve and enhance habitat in undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and have current or potential value for important species. ¥ Incorporate Habitat into Shoreline Protection Design. Design shoreline protection projects to include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible. ¥ Include Buffers. Include a buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. Research and Planning ¥ Conduct Research and Monitoring. Conduct comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. ¥ Update Targets to Accommodate Climate Change. Update regional habitat conservation and restoration targets to achieve a Bay ecosystem resilient to SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 67 of 124 climate change and sea level rise. Governance Regional Conservation Strategy ¥ Adaptive Management. Develop a regional strategy for conservation and development of the Bay and its shoreline that incorporates adaptive management. ¥ SB 375. Ensure that the strategy is consistent with the climate change mitigation goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy. ¥ Update. Update the strategy regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information. Mapping ¥ Map Vulnerable Areas. Include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding. ¥ Consult Authorities. Prepare the maps under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly update them in consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection Integration ¥ Long-Term Planning. Identify and encourage the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies. ¥ Incorporate Multiple Agencies. Develop a framework for integrating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies. ¥ Integrate with Local Processes. Provide information, tools, and financial resources to help local governments integrate regional climate change adaptation planning into local community design processes. ¥ Environmental Justice. Address environmental justice and social equity issues. ¥ Hazards and Emergencies. Integrate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning with adaptation planning. Adapting to Rising Tides (ART)30 ART is a collaborative planning effort, led by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the NOAA Coastal Services Center, to understand how San Francisco Bay Area communities can adapt to sea level rise and storm event flooding. The ART Project has engaged local, regional, state and federal agencies, as well as non-profit and private stakeholders, to 30 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2011: Adapting to Rising Tides; project information and resources available at http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 68 of 124 explore how the Bay Area can increase resilience to sea level rise and storm events while protecting critical ecosystem and community services. The ART pilot project focused on a portion of the Alameda County shoreline, from Emeryville to Union City. The pilot project formed a working group of the subregion’s diverse stakeholders, including staff at local, county, regional, state and federal agencies that work in the subregion, as well as some private interests with investments in the study area, to assess the subregion’s vulnerability and risk associated with sea level rise and storm events. A portfolio of possible adaptation responses was then developed for the ART subregion, which now serve as starting points for further adaption planning that will need to occur at multiple scales in the region. BCDC and its partners are now transitioning ART from a pilot project to regional program that will provide tools, data, and resources to local communities around the Bay. The ART pilot project identified many planning issues that are relevant across the Bay region at most planning scales. The ART pilot project report highlights the general need for more high quality data and information to improve the understanding of vulnerability and risk. These information gaps include: ¥ Limited understanding of how groundwater and salinity levels along the shoreline will respond to a rising Bay. ¥ Limited understanding of how tidal marshes and managed marshes will respond to sea level rise. There is a lack of information on how these dynamic systems will be affected by changes in the shoreline, and in particular by structural solutions such as levees and berms that can change tide, wave or sediment conditions. ¥ Limited information on the ownership, location and condition of energy, pipeline, telecommunication, and stormwater infrastructure is particularly difficult to obtain, as it does not currently exist or is not publically available, up-to-date, or easily accessible. ¥ A lack of centrally coordinated, up-to-date, accurate information about hazardous material sites and contaminated lands is a barrier to planning for future flood risks. Many commercial and industrial land uses generate, treat, store or transport hazardous materials, and a number of shoreline parks in the subregion are built on closed landfills. These types of land uses are particularly vulnerable as flooding could result in a release or mobilization of potentially harmful materials. ¥ Flood risk maps for many shoreline communities around the Bay that remain outdated or inadequate in terms of predicting future changes due to sea level rise. The ART pilot project also highlighted the risk to assets that function as interconnected networks, such as highways, rail corridors, utility infrastructure, and systems of shoreline protection along the Bay’s edge, where disruption to one segment can cause cascading, secondary impacts to adjacent and distant segments, rendering the entire systems highly vulnerable. Much of the networked infrastructure in the Bay Area is essential to day-to-day community and economic functions, and is critical during an emergency or disaster. These networked systems typically represent myriad stakeholders, jurisdictions, and management systems. It is important for local jurisdictions to understand dependencies on regional networked infrastructure and climate-related vulnerabilities and risks they represent. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 69 of 124 Cal-adapt31 Following the 2009 publishing of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy, the California Natural Resources Agency in partnership with UC Berkeley’s Geospatial Innovation Facility (GIF) and the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program developed the Cal- adapt web-based climate adaptation planning tool. Cal-adapt allows planners and other decision makers to identify potential climate change risks in specific geographic areas throughout the state. It synthesizes volumes of existing downscaled climate change scenarios and climate impact research and presents it in an easily available, graphical layout that is intended to benefit local planning efforts. Maps and data can be downloaded in a variety of tabular and GIS formats. Interactive maps and charts are provided for looking changes over time under different GHG emissions scenarios for: ¥ Temperature: monthly and decadal averages ¥ Temperature: degrees of change ¥ Temperature: extreme heat events ¥ Snowpack: decadal averages ¥ Precipitation: decadal averages ¥ Sea Level Rise: threatened areas ¥ Wildfire: fire risk areas 31 Cal-‐adapt web-‐based climate adaptation planning tool available at: www.cal-‐adapt.org SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 70 of 124 Community Assets Community assets considered in the vulnerability analysis include City-owned or operated facilities deemed critical for operations, utilities, and risk management, and other assets that are important to community health, safety, and well-being. It also includes the residents and businesses of Palo Alto. For a full list of community assets, see Appendix C. The City’s 2010 LHMP identifies 50 critical facilities related to potable water supply, shelter, fire suppression, emergency response, electricity supply, natural gas supply, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, and city administration. The LHMP list provided the starting point for identifying City facilities that are exposed to climate change hazards. Building from that list, this Adaptation Roadmap assesses vulnerabilities in the following eleven functional categories of community assets. Appendix C includes a map showing the locations of these community assets, identified by number and by functional asset category. Emergency Response and Communications (ER): Facilities that are critical in times of emergencies and natural disasters, including hospitals and other medical facilities, telecommunications infrastructure, cooling centers, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers and evacuation shelters. The City-owned dark fiber optic backbone provides access to key City facilities and offices such as IT Infrastructure Services, electric utility substations, traffic signals, libraries and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The majority of the City’s business parks (e.g. Stanford Research Park) and commercial properties are also passed by the fiber backbone. Energy Security and Infrastructure (ES): The City’s energy supply and supporting infrastructure, including electrical substations and transmission lines, natural gas lines and pumping stations, and emergency generators. Changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change are expected to directly affect the availability of hydropower for the City, since the city receives a percentage of power generated by the Western Area Power Administration’s Central Valley Project and the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project. In addition to the anticipated decline in overall precipitation, the quality and timing of winter precipitation will also impact Palo Alto’s power supply. Water Security and Supply Infrastructure (WS): Natural and manmade water systems for supplying clean, safe and reliable water supply for the City of Palo Alto, including potable water reservoirs, groundwater wells, piping systems, pumping stations, turnouts, and water treatment infrastructure. As described in the UWMP, the City of Palo Alto receives 100% of its water supply from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by the SFPUC, which is supplied 85% on average from distant Sierra Nevada mountain watersheds. Palo Alto’s water utility operations and dispatch of service vehicles are centralized at the Palo Alto Municipal Services. Wastewater Management (WW): Palo Alto’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operations, approximately 208 miles of sewer lines, and treated effluent outfalls. Wastewater operations and service vehicles are centralized at the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center. Stormwater Management (SW): Palo Alto’s stormwater management system is designed to convey the 10-year return 6-hour storm event. The system consists of approximately 107 miles of pipeline and 2,750 catch basins, 800 manholes and 6 pump stations. This infrastructure conveys runoff into one of four local creeks: San Francisquito Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, or Adobe Creek. San Franciscquito Creek drains unimpeded into San Francisco Bay. The other three creeks drain into the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB) before draining to the Bay. The PAFB (for location, see Appendix C), constructed in 1956, provides flood management for the City, as well as providing wildlife habitat. The PAFB consists of levees surrounding a 600-acre portion SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 71 of 124 of the Palo Alto Baylands that extends east-northeast from Highway 101. By preventing tides from inundating the Flood Basin, the levees provide storage capacity for creek discharge and reduce the City’s coastal flood risk. The Basin receives inflow from Matadero Creek, Adobe Creek, Barron Creek, and the City of Mountain View’s Coast Casey Storm Water Pumping Station. The Basin can store discharges from these sources and release them to San Francisco Bay through tide gates when the water level in the Basin is higher than the Bay water level. The tide gates are controlled by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Basin has the capacity to retain several hours of high creek discharge while waiting for a low tide when stored flood waters can be released to the Bay. Starting in 1973, the tide gates were modified to enable a muted tidal influence while preserving water levels in the Basin close to the Bay’s low tide level. Since that time, the basin has been designated as a tidal wetlands nature preserve by the City, providing critical habitat protection for tidal marsh wildlife. Palo Alto’s stormwater operations and dispatch of service vehicles are centralized at the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center. Transportation Infrastructure (TI): Critical roads, and bridges, and other transportation infrastructure including the Palo Alto Airport. Operational control of the Palo Alto Airport was recently transferred to the City from Santa Clara County. Though the LHMP does not encompass critical transportation infrastructure assets, the OES recognizes both the airport and two Highway 101 overpasses (San Antonio Road and Oregon/Embarcadero Road) as potential critical points of failure in an emergency because they provide a transportation link between many of the City’s critical facilities (e.g., emergency response vehicles and operations for the Departments of Public Works and Utilities) and the bulk of the City’s population, which reside on opposite sides of U.S. 101. Shoreline Flood Management (SF): Currently, much of Palo Alto’s shoreline is exposed to coastal flood hazard, as indicated by FEMA’s mapping of the 1% annual chance floodplain (Figure 6.6). Although the existing levees provide some degree of protection from coastal flooding, these levees are not certified by FEMA. The levees are not certified because their crest elevation is below the 1% water level freeboard requirements and they likely do not meet geotechnical specifications. Since the levees lack certification, FEMA considers the levees to fail at stopping or reducing the inland propagation of the 1% still water level. Public Health (PH): The health-related impacts of climate change, with a special focus on the City’s populations who are most vulnerable those impacts, including those with special needs, living in poverty, or most exposed to the physical impacts of climate change. In terms of public health, climate change vulnerability is a function of an individual or a community’s ability to respond and adapt to climate stressors, which in turn is dependent on socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health and physical abilities. Buildings and Property (BP): This asset category includes homes, businesses, commercial and industrial buildings, government buildings, schools, parks and recreation areas, and other property assets. Palo Alto encompasses a mix of high value private properties that are important to the well- being of the community, including several commercial zones, mixed use residential/commercial areas, neighbourhoods of stately and historical homes, high-tech and light industrial employment districts, and several concentrated employment centers (Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore, and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor). In 2013, the median home sales price in Palo Alto was $1,720,000, more than 2.5 times that of the County median price of $645,000. Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Management(SM): Solid waste facilities including landfills, materials recovery facilities, transfer stations, composting facilities; also includes hazardous waste management facilities, contaminated land sites, and the inactive City-owned Class III landfill and landfill gas collection system that could be vulnerable to flooding and erosion from sea level rise. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 72 of 124 Natural Areas/Ecosystems (NE): This includes natural environments and habitats considered valuable or essential to the health and well-being of the community, including the rich variety of plants, animals, and other organisms that reside in City of Palo. The Natural Environment element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (“Embracing the New Century”) identifies 29 neighborhood and district parks in the City totaling approximately 190 acres and larger open space preserves primarily located in the southern foothills but also along the Bay on the northeastern edge of the City. In addition to these facilities, there are a variety of other facilities in Palo Alto that serve to reduce the demand for City-owned and operated natural and recreational areas. These include lands owned by Palo Alto Unified School District used for recreation, Stanford University open space and recreation lands, privately owned recreational facilities, land managed by conservation groups, and State and regional parks in the vicinity of Palo Alto. Approximately 59 percent of land within the Palo Alto City limit is park land, open space, or public conservation land, compared to 40.5 percent in 1996. Palo Alto’s open space preserves, located primarily in the southern foothills but also extending along the Bay on the northeastern edge of the City, provide opportunities for hiking, biking, fishing, picnicking, camping, nature study, and non-motorized boating. They also have significant ecological and aesthetic value, providing important habitat for wildlife and a scenic backdrop to the urban area. Other Important Community Assets The Cultural Resources element of the Draft 2014 General Plan outlines the City’s archeologically sensitive areas, which range from prehistoric sites and artifacts from early communities in the area and historic structures from the more recent past. The City also contains several paleontological resources including site where fossils of extinct marine mammals and other prehistoric plant and animal life have been found. The City maintains an inventory of historic sites, which contains approximately 450 structures of historic merit ranging from the thousand-year old “El Palo Alto” redwood tree, where early Spanish explorers are believed to have camped, to the HP garage, where Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started the Hewlett Packard Company in 1939. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 73 of 124 Climate Change Exposures Using Cal-Adapt and other available tools, ESA summarized the type, magnitude, and onset of various local exposures of climate change that Palo Alto can expect to experience by the years 2050 and 2100, as predicted for the high emissions (A2) and low emissions (B1) scenarios by global climate models. The exposure analysis considers the effects of climate change on local temperature, local precipitation, drought, wildfire, and sea level rise, as well as the secondary exposure pathways facing the City of Palo Alto. Temperature California in general expects overall hotter conditions for both mean and extreme temperatures. An increase in heat waves and wildfires are expected to be among the earliest climate impacts experienced across the state. 32 Figure 6.1, generated from Cal-Adapt, indicates that between A2 and B1 scenarios, the Palo Alto can expect to experience a rise in average annual temperature of about 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit above the historical average by the end of the century. Figure 6.2 shows the expected increase in extreme heat days, defined in the Cal-Adapt tool as a day in April through October where the maximum temperature exceeds the 98th historical percentile of maximum temperatures based on daily temperature data between 1961-1990. By the year 2100, Palo Alto is expected to experience approximately 30 extreme heat days per year under the low emissions (B1) scenario, compared to a historical average of about 4; under the high emissions scenario (A2), the expected number of extreme heat days doubles to approximately 60, as shown in Figure 6.3. Figure 6.1: Projected Change in Annual Average Temperature for A2 and B1 Scenarios 32 California Natural Resources Agency, 2014, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk; An update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 74 of 124 SOURCE: Cal-adapt.org (11/26/2014) Figure 6.2: Number of Extreme Heat Days per Year low emissions (B1) scenario SOURCE: Cal-adapt.org (11/26/2014) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 75 of 124 Figure 6.3: Number of Extreme Heat Days per Year low emissions (B1) scenario SOURCE: Cal-adapt.org (11/26/2014) Because of these temperature increases, heat-related illness and mortality are expected to increase. Though extreme heat events in coastal areas like the City are not expected to be as severe or as long- lasting as further inland, the resident population is not as well prepared or equipped to deal with higher temperatures. Air conditioning is far less common, for example. Outdoor workers, elderly populations, and infants are particularly vulnerable to extreme temperatures. Higher temperatures and drier summer conditions produce higher levels of ozone and increase the potential for wildfires, both of which could lead to declines in air quality and negative impacts to respiratory and cardiovascular health. Precipitation Local precipitation exposures encompass changes in annual averages as well as peak events during extreme storms. Since the City already has an arid climate, it is sensitive to a decrease in annual local precipitation, which can cause local drought, impacting local flora and contributing to wildfire risk (for regional drought and impacts to water supply, see Section 0 below; for wildfire risk see Section 0 below). An increase in local precipitation during extreme storms can increase the peak storm runoff, thereby increasing the risk of flooding due to the overtopping of stormwater channels, pipes, pumps, and creeks. Figure 6.4 shows that the average annual precipitation in the City of Palo Alto, when averaged across global climate models and decades, is expected to decrease slightly by 2100 under both emissions scenarios. Individual GCMs predict larger changes, with some GCMs predicting decreased annual precipitation and other GCMs predicting increased annual precipitation. These opposing directions of change result in the relatively small net change when averaging all GCMs. This range in GCM predictions is representative of the current uncertainty as to the potential effects of climate change on precipitation. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 76 of 124 Figure 6.4: Decadal Average Precipitation to 2100 for A2 and B1 scenarios SOURCE: Cal-adapt.org (11/26/2014) Extreme storms include periods of intense rainfall that can overwhelm the City’s storm drain and creek flood management systems, causing flooding. The current stormwater drainage system is designed for extreme precipitation based on historic climate data. Based on the GCM that projects generally wetter conditions for the Bay area, there some chance that the precipitation from individual storms could increase by approximately 10%, as shown in Table 6-1. Selecting the wetter GCM and the higher end of the precipitation distribution is more conservative and thus more risk averse. Table 6-1: Projected Changes in Peak Precipitation Extreme Precipitation Time horizon Emissions Scenario Average for Watersheds Overlapping City Boundary % Change in 98th percentile 1-day rainfall relative to 1970-2000 average (Parallel Climate Model - Wet GCM) 2050 B1 6% A2 4% 2100 B1 12% A2 5% Along the Bayshore, higher average sea levels will elevate Bay water levels, which can impede the drainage of precipitation via the creeks. This exposure will be felt most prominently at the Palo Alto Flood Basin, which stores creek discharge within the coastal flood plan and can only drain to the Bay SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 77 of 124 through tide gates when Bay water levels are sufficiently low. Since this exposure is caused by sea level rise, it is addressed in Section 0 below. Drought As outlined in the City’s 2010 UWMP and the Bay Area IRWMP, regional changes in precipitation and temperature patterns present a long-term risk to the region’s water supply. Expected impacts include reductions in the average annual Sierra snowpack and a shift in snowmelt runoff to earlier in the year; changes in the timing, intensity and variability of precipitation, and an increased amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of as snow; long-term changes in watershed vegetation and increased incidence of wildfires that could affect water quality. Higher temperatures would also increase evaporation which in turn would increase irrigation demand. The primary drought-related risk of concern to Palo Alto is the long-term viability of its water supply, as described in earlier sections. A related risk of concern is the secondary impact of drought in reducing the City’s available hydroelectric supply. The LHMP considers exposure to drought and concludes that the City of Palo Alto does not have any unique concerns regarding the hazard of drought as presented in Section 4. However, that analysis does not consider the wider implications of regional drought on the City’s water supply. More frequent or more intense droughts could also stress local flora and fauna. Wildfire Wildfire frequency and intensity are expected to increase in California due to warmer temperatures, longer dry seasons and decreased plant moisture. This is especially true in mountainous areas along the northern coast and the Sierra Nevada. More fires will increase public safety risks, damage property, stress local fire suppression capabilities and drive up emergency response costs to the local government. Wildfires also impact watersheds, water quality, and wildlife habitat. The City of Palo Alto has a Foothills Fire Management Plan, which has been adopted as a Community Wildland Protection Plan: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/27163 Figure 6.5: Change in Fire Exposure Risk, Showing Community Asset Locations SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 78 of 124 Figure 6.5 shows the expected change in fire exposure risk in the City from current baseline (2000 to 2010) to the end of the century (2070 to 2100), based on recent modeling done by the California SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 79 of 124 Department of Water Resources (DWR).33 DWR assessed data on fire probability generated by Krawchuk and Moritz (2012)34 to map the probability of 1 or more fires occurring within 30-year time periods from 1971-2000, 2010-2039, 2040-2069, and 2070-2099. The map in Figure 6.5 shows that the risk of fire will greatly increase by 2070 in the hills and open space preserves of Palo Alto’s southwestern corner, and moderately in the areas west of Interstate 280. (Note: for security purposes, critical infrastructure assets are not shown on the map; these include electrical substations, gas receiving stations, water reservoirs, well sites, water booster stations and water receiving stations.) Sea Level Rise As discussed in Section 0, the 2012 NRC report projects 11 inches of sea level rise in the Bay by 2050 (with a range of 5 to 24 inches) and 36 inches by 2100 (with a range of 17 to 66 inches). Figure 6.6 shows the City’s current coastal flood hazard and future exposure from sea level rise inundation (Note: for security purposes, critical infrastructure assets are not shown on the map; these include electrical substations, gas receiving stations, water reservoirs, well sites, water booster stations and water receiving stations). This mapping is based on the proximity to the Bay, ground surface elevation, extreme Bay water levels, and the lack of certified levees. As delineated by the orange line and blue crosshatch in Figure 6.6, much of the City northeast of Middlefield Road is in the existing FEMA 100-year (or 1% annual chance) coastal flood zone. This is because the land surface elevations in this area are below the estimated 100-year Bay water level and the levees have not been certified by FEMA. The FEMA coastal floodplain surrounds multiple City critical assets. The City’s additional exposure to coastal flooding due to sea level rise was estimated with projections by the USGS (Knowles, 201035). For the first mapped increase of sea level, 19 inches (50 cm), there is not much change in inundation area because of the relatively steep land surface slope between the existing 100-year water level and that predicted level for 19 inches of sea level rise. As a result, there are not many additional structures in the FEMA floodplain. However, inundation in this area would be more frequent and deeper, thereby increasing expected damages. Correspondingly, to reduce these damages, the design elevation would increase for the levee crest or for the first habitable floor of structures not sheltered by a certified levee. With the second mapped increase of sea level, 39 inches (100 cm), there is significant increase in inundated area, as indicated by the darker blue shading. This greater change in inundated area for the same increment in sea level rise (i.e. the additional 20 inches) occurs because the increment occurs over a flatter land surface slope. Like the first increment of sea level rise, the increase to 39 inches would also create increases of inundation frequency, depth, and damages. FEMA recently developed updated total water levels and wave run-up distributions for its Regional Coastal Hazard Modeling Study for South San Francisco Bay (DHI, 201336). These distributions provide 33 DWR, 2014: Fire Exposure Assessment Methodology. Climate Change Team: Andrew Schwarz, Aaron Cuthbertson, Erin Chappell, Michelle Selmon. 34 Krawchuk, M. A., and M. A. Moritz (Simon Fraser University; University of California, Berkeley). 2012. Fire and Climate Change in California. California Energy Commission. Publication number: CEC-‐500-‐2012-‐026. 35 Knowles, N. 2010. Potential Inundation Due to Rising Sea Levels in the San Francisco Bay Region. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 8:1. 36 DHI. 2013. Regional Coastal Hazard Modeling Study for South San Francisco Bay Final Draft Report. Prepared for FEMA Region IX. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 80 of 124 recurrence interval data for water levels and waves for present day conditions. This study provides recent, local estimates of present Bay water levels in the absolute North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). By adding sea level rise projections (NRC, 2012), future water levels can be projected, as summarized in Table 6-2. Note that these values do not include the effect of waves, which, depending on local shoreline characteristics, may increase flood hazard. Comparing the values between columns in Table 6-2 characterizes the effect of sea level rise on water level frequency. For example, the present 10-year water level of 9.7 ft NAVD will occur nearly annually as a King Tide by mid-century. Similarly, the present 100-year water level of 11.0 ft NAVD will be exceeded annually by a King Tide by end-of-century. Figure 6.6: Palo Alto Community Assets at Risk from Sea Level Rise and Associated Flooding Table 6-2: Palo Alto Shoreline Bay Water Levels for Today (DHI, 2013) and for Projected Sea Level Rise (NRC, 2012) Water Level Present ft NAVD Mid-century 11 inches End-of-century 36 inches SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 81 of 124 ft NAVD ft NAVD MSL 3.5 4.4 6.4 MHHW 7.4 8.3 10.4 King Tide (Annual Astronomic Peak) 8.6 9.5 11.6 10-year 9.7 10.6 12.7 100-year 11.0 11.9 14.0 Even if peak precipitation and associated runoff are relatively unaffected by climate change as currently projected (see Section 0), sea level rise could impact the stormwater management system since the system ultimately drains into the Bay. The discharge rate to the Bay decreases as Bay water levels increase. Reduced discharge rates will cause higher water levels upstream in the stormwater system, a process sometimes referred to as ‘backwatering’. Stormwater pump stations that already rely on mechanical action to discharge water are typically not that sensitive to the water levels in the Bay (ESA PWA, 201237). However, discharges that rely solely on gravity can be sensitive to Bay water levels. The PAFB, which receives discharge from three of the City’s creeks, drains by gravity to the Bay. Because of tide gates at the Flood Basin’s outlet, discharge to the Bay only occurs when Bay water levels are lower than water levels in the Flood Basin. Other coastal flood hazard assessments are underway or planned for the City’s shoreline. These assessments include: ¥ FEMA is in the process of revising its 100-year coastal floodplain maps for Santa Clara County, including the City. This revised mapping only considers current conditions and does not include sea level rise. It differs from the existing maps (i.e., what is shown in Figure 6.6) in that it uses the most recent hydrodynamic modeling (DHI, 2013) and considering the role of waves as per the most recent FEMA mapping guidelines (FEMA, 200538). ¥ The collaborative project Our Coast, Our Future (OCOF) recently released sea level rise inundation maps for the Bay area (Ballard et al., 201439). For the scenario with no sea level rise and the annual storm, OCOF results predict inundation of more than 600 acres of developed City property. Flooding this extensive has not been observed in Palo Alto, indicating that the OCOF modeling has issues resolving storm-induced water levels and/or levee topography in this area. OCOF’s predictions of scenarios with higher water levels due to sea level rise and storm intensity are generally consistent with the USGS projections shown in Figure 6.6. 37 ESA PWA. 2012. Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study Feasibility Report and Capital Improvement Program. Prepared for the City of Mountain View. 38 FEMA. 2005. Final Draft Guidelines for Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping for the Pacific Coast of the United States. A Joint Project by FEMA Region IX, FEMA Region X, FEMA Headquarters. 39 Ballard, G., Barnard, P.L., Erikson, L., Fitzgibbon, M., Higgason, K., Psaros, M., Veloz, S., Wood, J. 2014. Our Coast Our Future (OCOF). [web application]. Petaluma, California. www.pointblue.org/ocof. (Accessed: January 5, 2015). SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 82 of 124 ¥ Santa Clara Valley Water District, in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is in the process of analyzing the City’s flood hazard for existing conditions with sea level rise for the Shoreline Study. The results of this analysis are expected in 2016. In addition to these primary exposures, sea level rise may also entail several secondary exposures. For instance, the higher Bay water levels may expose portions of the shoreline to additional erosion potential. These newly exposed portions may not have suitable bank protection to resist erosion. In addition, increased Bay water levels will alter the groundwater gradients along the shoreline, possibly causing landward salinity intrusion. This change will be most directly impact to the surface aquifer, which is not currently used for water supply. However, this surface aquifer does interact with some City assets, such as infiltration into the City’s stormwater collection system and the landfill. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 83 of 124 Vulnerability Vulnerability is the degree to which facilities, systems, and services are susceptible to the climate change exposure (changes in sea level rise, temperature, and precipitation). This section is organized around eleven functional categories of community assets, systems and services that are vulnerable to climate change. In evaluating vulnerability, both the exposure to climate change impacts and the consequences are considered. As defined by the California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide (Steps 1 through 5 in Figure 2.1), vulnerability is determined by the following: ¥ Exposure: What climate change effects will a community experience? ¥ Sensitivity: What aspects of a community (people, structures, and functions) will be affected? ¥ Potential Impacts: How will climate change affect the points of sensitivity? ¥ Adaptive Capacity: What is currently being done to address the impacts? ¥ Risk and Onset: How likely are the impacts and how quickly will they occur? The following sections provide preliminary vulnerability assessments of City of Palo Alto functional asset categories, identifying specific assets at risk as well as general services or capabilities at risk, based on exposures and potential impacts from climate change. It is important to point out the inter- related nature of these functional categories with respect to climate change vulnerability. Due to cascading impacts, it is not always obvious where true vulnerabilities lie. For example, the loss of power during a storm could impact the ability of the local waste water treatment plant to adequately treat inflowing sewage, while stormwater overflow that is directed to the plant could exceed the plant’s treatment capacity. The combination of these factors leads to a much bigger emergency than does each factor in isolation. Thus, it is important for the City’s planners and managers to consider inter-related systems when assessing vulnerability. Emergency Response and Communications (ER) This functional category includes facilities that are critical in times of emergencies and natural disasters, including hospitals and other medical facilities, telecommunications infrastructure, cooling centers, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers and evacuation shelters. In Palo Alto, higher average sea levels in the future will lead to storms impacting the Bay shore more frequently with higher storm surges, more extensive inland flooding, and increased erosion. If more frequent or severe natural disasters occur, existing emergency response and communications services may not be adequate to deal with the consequences. Extreme storms and extreme heat combined with drought may also strain emergency response systems. Table 7.1 summarizes the primary vulnerabilities of Emergency Response and Communications facilities and systems within the City. Refer to Figures 6.5 and 6.6 for the locations of assets at risk from flooding and wildfire. The LHMP identifies Fire Station #8 as being located in a high risk fire hazard zone. The City staffs a brushfire rig at Fire Station #8 on red flag days, and is exploring the feasibility of installing a fire monitoring system in the foot hills, along with increased outreach and education to the area’s residents. The City of Palo Alto operates its own fiber optic utility, with CPAU providing day-to-day responsibility for operating and maintaining the dark fiber optic backbone system (“fiber system”). The 41-mile fiber system supports multiple network developers and service providers, and is routed to pass and provide access to key City facilities and offices such as IT Infrastructure Services, electric utility substations, traffic signals, libraries and the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The majority of the City’s business parks (e.g. Stanford Research Park) and commercial properties are also passed by the fiber backbone. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 84 of 124 Silicon Valley 2.0 assessed fiber optic line location data provided by Metromedia, the major provider of internet infrastructure in the Bay Area, and found no fiber optic lines vulnerable to sea level rise in Santa Clara County, but a small portion of fiber optic line near San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto was found to be within the 100 year FEMA floodplain and vulnerable to fluvial flooding. Several communication towers in the southwestern portion of Palo Alto were also found to vulnerable to wildfire hazard. The Silicon Valley 2.0 report findings did not consider the dark fiber network operated by City of Palo Alto. TABLE 7-1. Climate Change Vulnerability of Emergency Response Capabilities Function Facilities and services that are essential to the safety and survival of the City population in times of emergencies and natural disasters, includes emergency response capabilities, communications, and critical City operations Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Higher temperatures combined with dry conditions increase wildfire risk. ¥ Fire suppression capability Precipitation ¥ Higher risk of fluvial flooding of critical facilities such as MSC and key access roads ¥ Potential to interrupt power supply. ¥ Municipal Service Center (map #8), ¥ Utilities Control Center (map #6) ¥ Low lying access roads (e.g., Oregon Expressway 101 Underpass) ¥ City of Palo Alto dark fiber network ¥ Metromedia fiber optic line near San Francisquito Creek Drought ¥ Dry conditions increase the risk of wildfire. ¥ Stress on water supply ¥ Fire suppression capability Wildfire ¥ Excessively dry periods increase the risk of wildfires at the urban-wild interface along the eastern portion of the City. ¥ Fire suppression capability, including Fire Station #8 (#22 on map). “Red flag” fire days can stretch the capacity of the emergency response capabilities of the Palo Alto Fire Department. ¥ Communication towers in the foothills SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 85 of 124 Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Flooding of low-lying roads, highways, and airport could hinder or prevent access by emergency vehicles. ¥ Flooding of operation and control centers could disrupt critical communications, emergency response and recovery, and utility operations. ¥ Municipal Service Center (map #8), including utility vehicles for the Public Works and Utilities Departments; access roads to MSC also at risk ¥ Utility Control Center (map #6) ¥ Palo Alto Airport: used as helicopter base by Office of Emergency Services ¥ City of Palo Alto dark fiber network The web site City-Data.com identifies the following hospitals and medical centers in Palo Alto.40 None of these facilities are considered vulnerable to flooding, sea level rise, or wildfire risk through the year 2100, based on their locations relative to these impacts as shown on Figures 6.5 and 6.6: ¥ Lucile Packard Stanford Pediatric Dialysis Facility (725 Welch Road Pediatric Dialysis Rm 1229); ¥ Stanford Home Care (1520 Page Mill Road); ¥ Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital At Stanford (725 Welch Road); ¥ Palo Alto VA Medical Center (Hospital, Acute Care - 3801 Miranda Avenue); ¥ Surgecenter Of Palo Alto (Hospital, 795 El Camino Real); ¥ Bay Healthcare - Palo Alto (Nursing Home, 4277 Miranda Ave); ¥ Casa Olga Intermediate Health Care Facility (Nursing Home, 180 Hamilton Avenue); ¥ Lytton Gardens Health Care Center (Nursing Home, 437 Webster Street); ¥ Palo Alto Nursing Center (Nursing Home, 911 Bryant Street); ¥ VI At Palo Alto (Nursing Home, 600 Sand Hill Road). Energy Security and Infrastructure (ES) 40 City-‐Data.com: http://www.city-‐data.com/city/Palo-‐Alto-‐California.html, accessed December 23, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 86 of 124 This functional asset category includes critical local facilities for the City’s energy security including power stations, transmission lines, gas pipelines, and the City’s reliance on regional infrastructure and hydropower generation from Sierra Nevada watersheds. In addition to the anticipated decline in overall precipitation, the quality and timing of winter precipitation will also impact Palo Alto’s power supply. Palo Alto’s energy utility operations and dispatch of service vehicles are centralized at the Palo Alto Municipal Services Center, located at 3201 E. Bayshore Road. Electricity and Power Numerous studies have highlighted the impact of climate change on California’s energy infrastructure, which in turn impacts power availability to the City. The California Energy Commission’s report (CEC‐ 500‐2012‐057, Estimating Risk To California Energy Infrastructure From Projected Climate Change, 2012) highlights a constellation of negative climate change impacts on the grid system including higher temperature impacts on power plant capacity, electricity generation, transmission lines, substation capacity, and peak electricity demand; increased wildfire frequency or severity and the resulting impacts near transmission lines; and sea level encroachment upon power plants, substations, and natural gas facilities. The study suggests that up to 25 coastal power plants and 86 substations in California are at risk of flooding (or partial flooding) due to sea level rise. The CEC study looks at impact on three timescales: ¥ Near-term (+2°C warming) impacts of between 1.4 to 13.9% decrease in hydropower, with an average decline of 8.3% ¥ Mid-term (+4°C warming) impacts of between 3.6 to 31.8% decrease in hydro power with an average decline of 15.4% ¥ Long-term (+6°C warming) impacts of between 5.8 to 35.2% decrease in hydro power with an average decline of 20.3%. Overall, the CEC study suggests that by end of century hydropower generation will drop from a baseline of 17,413 GWh to 13,875 GWh in the study area (Sierra Nevada), which supplies 75% of California’s hydro power. The study also shows that a majority of the reductions in hydropower generation occur in the highly productive watersheds in the northern Sierra Nevada serving Palo Alto. The City has recognized as well that changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change will directly affect the availability of hydropower for the City. The city receives a percentage of power generated by the Western Area Power Administration’s Central Valley Project and the Calaveras Hydroelectric Project. In addition to the impacts of reduce precipitation caused by a decline in precipitation, the quality and timing of precipitation will also impact Palo Alto’s power supply. In particular, reduced hydropower availability will result from overall higher altitudes for the snow line therefore reducing late season inflows into reservoirs, more mid-winter rainfall events which will reduce snowpack, and an overall reduction in water stored as snow above reservoirs. A review of these risks by the City of Palo Alto suggest a 10 to 20% decline in water storage and generation from the City’s hydro resources and a 20 to 40% decline in generation during peak June to September SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 87 of 124 periods in California by 2050.41 The figure below illustrates some of the multiple stresses and financial risks to the City as a result of climate related changes in the hydropower supply. Natural Gas Infrastructure The City maintains four delivery “gate stations” where the city receives gas from the PG&E transmission system. The city’s natural gas distribution network consists of about 205 miles of mains (2” to 12” in diameter) and 18,000 service lines (0.5” to 6”) which connect customers with the service mains. A potential climate risk to the natural gas pipeline is inundation of pumping stations due to temporary flooding or sea level rise. The City’s list of critical assets includes four natural gas stations. These are located at 3241 E Bayshore Rd, 1735 Embarcadero, Alma & Colorado, and 1961 Old Page Mill Rd. The first two of these stations lie within the potential inundation zone outlined by the ESA and BCDC risk mapping (see Figure 6.6). 41 Van Orsdol, Karl G., and Karl Knapp: A Practical Look at Managing Climate Risk – A Municipal Utility Perspective; City of Palo Alto; available at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/7481 SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 88 of 124 TABLE 7-2. Climate Change Vulnerability of Energy Security and Infrastructure Function Facilities and systems essential to the supply and transmission of electricity and natural gas to City residents, businesses and government services. Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Transformers exploding ¥ Overhead lines sagging ¥ More frequent and severe heat waves lead to energy usage spikes ¥ Thermal inefficiency in generating plants could reduce energy supplies to grid system ¥ Degraded efficiency in transmission lines could disrupt supplies. ¥ Transmission Assets (PG&E owned) ¥ Supply Assets due to: ¥ Reduced transmission grid reliability ¥ Reduced transmission capability to supply reserve power ¥ Increased congestion within load pocket Precipitation ¥ Flooding from San Francisquito Creek ¥ Loss of access to facilities ¥ Utility Control Center (map #6) ¥ Municipal Service Center, including utility vehicles (map #8) ¥ Adobe Creek Substation ¥ Utility Engineering Center (map #3) ¥ Colorado substation ¥ Ames substation Drought ¥ Reduced snowpack for hydropower generation ¥ Insufficient hydropower supplies to meet load requirements, resulting in the need to purchase additional renewable energy to replace the reduced hydrogeneration while maintaining a carbon neutral electric supply portfolio ¥ Long-term hydroelectric power supply risk ¥ Electric reserve fund could be impacted by short term price volatility. ¥ Short-term supply: Possible brownouts and black outs if supply disruption impacts larger grid system ¥ Additional REC purchases required if increased wholesale power SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 89 of 124 purchases required. Wildfire ¥ Grid disruption could result when wildfires disrupt or impede grid transmission interrupting the delivery of energy supplies. ¥ Distribution/power lines in higher risk zones near urban forests and open spaces ¥ Gas station #3 ¥ SLAC interconnect (planned) Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding of energy facilities ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Increased inundation and rising groundwater may limit access to facilities and infrastructure for maintenance and operations; Inability to access transmission towers. ¥ Utility Control Center (map #6) ¥ Municipal Service Center, including utility vehicles (map #8); access roads to MSC also at risk ¥ Utility Engineering Center (map #3) ¥ Adobe Creek Substation ¥ Colorado substation ¥ Other at-ground substations in the eastern areas of the city and in underground locations. Water and Wastewater Water and Wastewater includes three functional asset categories of Water Supply, Wastewater Management, and Stormwater Management. Water Supply (WS) This functional asset category includes natural and manmade water systems for supplying clean, safe and reliable water supply for the City of Palo Alto, including potable water reservoirs, groundwater wells, piping systems, pumping stations, turnouts, and water treatment infrastructure. The City’s current water supply is highly vulnerable to drought, but the risk of failure is uncertain. The City is dependent on City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), operated by SFPUC, for the bulk of its long-term water supply. During periods of extended drought, the ability of SFPUC to supply its wholesale customers (including City of Palo Alto) is at risk, though SFPUC has reported as recently as 2009 that it does not consider its regional supply to be at significant risk from climate change through the year 2030. However, California’s current drought, now in its fourth year, is putting added emphasis on long-term water security and forcing public agencies to redouble conservation efforts and expand contingency planning. Both SFPUC and the City of Palo Alto are increasing efforts to improve conservation, upgrade storage and delivery systems, and diversify local water supplies. With the Emergency Water Supply and Storage Project now completed, the City owns eight wells that access the City’s deep aquifer that could provide potable water in a drought emergency. Three of SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 90 of 124 those wells are vulnerable to flooding from sea level rise and stormwater flooding: the Library Well at 1213 Newell Road; the Eleanor Pardee Well at 851 Center Drive; and Rinconada Well at 1440 Hopkins Avenue. Palo Alto encompasses significant land areas in the foothills and elsewhere that are highly vulnerable to wildfire. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies several critical water supply facilities that are in a high risk fire hazard zone: Montebello Reservoir, Corte Madera Reservoir and Booster Station, Park Reservoir and Booster Station, Boronda Reservoir and Booster Station, Quarry Booster Station, and Page Mill Turnout. Table 7-3.1 summarizes the primary vulnerabilities of the City’s water security and supply infrastructure to climate change impacts including sea level rise and drought. TABLE 7-3.1. Climate Change Vulnerability of Water Supply Function Systems and infrastructure that provide a clean, safe and reliable water supply for the City of Palo Alto. Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Regional water demand likely to spike due to irrigation demand and increased evaporation losses ¥ Secondary impact of elevated fire risk may increase water demand for fire suppression ¥ Short-term water supply for potable needs and fire suppression Precipitation ¥ Higher risk of fluvial flooding of critical drinking water facilities ¥ Potential to interrupt power supply needed for water delivery ¥ Water supply infrastructure in Palo Alto flood plain including piping & distribution facilities, ¥ Municipal groundwater wells ¥ Recycled water: flooding could impact RWQCP ability to supply recycled water (#5 on map) Drought ¥ Decrease in total precipitation, with decreased snowpack in Sierra, leading to Regional Water System (RWS) shortages ¥ Longer periods of low flow condition can affect water quality ¥ More vulnerability to ¥ Long-term water supply: during extended drought SFPUC’s regional water system may be inadequate to supply Palo Alto, and may suffer decline in quality SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 91 of 124 extreme heat event ¥ Regional water demand will generally increase due to irrigation demand and increased evaporation losses ¥ More extraction of local groundwater could deplete supply and cause land subsidence Wildfire ¥ Reservoir and water supply infrastructure at risk from wildfire; could disrupt supply and/or affect water quality ¥ Water imported from Sierra Nevada Supplies is potentially vulnerable to water quality change from fire-induced erosion ¥ Could disrupt infrastructure, or access to infrastructure through fire damage and fire-induced erosion ¥ Montebello Reservoir ¥ Corte Madera Reservoir and Booster Station ¥ Park Reservoir and Booster Station ¥ Boronda Reservoir and Booster Station ¥ Dahl Reservoir and Booster Station ¥ Quarry Booster Station ¥ Page Mill Turnout Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding of critical drinking water facilities ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Potential for saline intrusion to contaminate deep aquifer that provides emergency potable water supply. ¥ Increased inundation and rising groundwater may limit access to facilities and pipelines for maintenance and operations; Inability to access valves and access manholes ¥ Buoyancy and corrosion of ¥ Municipal Services Center (map #8) ¥ Utility Control Center (map #6) ¥ Utility Engineering Center (map #3) ¥ Water supply infrastructure in Palo Alto flood plain including piping & distribution facilities, ¥ Municipal groundwater wells ¥ Recycled water: flooding could impact RWQCP ability to supply recycled water (map #5) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 92 of 124 pipes Wastewater Management (WW) This functional asset category covers Palo Alto’s wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure including the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) operations, sewerage, and outfalls. The City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) provides wastewater collection, with treatment services provided by the Public Works Department, for the City and its sphere of influence (SOI). The CPAU oversees a wastewater collection system consisting of over 208 miles of sewer lines, while the Public Works Department oversees the treatment of approximately 3.4 billion gallons of wastewater per year.42 The RWQCP is designed to have an average dry weather flow (ADWF) capacity of 39 MGD and an average wet weather flow capacity of 80 MGD. Average daily flow is 22 MGD. Due to aging infrastructure and the need for more informed financing and operations decisions, in 2012 the Palo Alto City Council approved a Long Range Facilities Plan for the RWQCP, which guides capital reinvestment, wastewater treatment services for six agencies, and ensures ongoing water quality control to protect the San Francisco Bay and local creeks. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the RWQCP and Utility Engineering Center as being at risk from mid-century sea level rise (16 inches), while the Utility Control Center and the Municipal Services Center are at risk from end-of-century sea level rise (55 inches). Figure 6.6 also shows these assets are at risk from sea level rise and associated flooding. TABLE 7-3.2. Climate Change Vulnerability of Wastewater Management Function Systems and infrastructure that enable the City to reliably collect and treat its wastewater to a minimum standard for protecting public and ecosystem health. Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Precipitation ¥ Increased stormwater inflow into wastewater collection system ¥ Localized flooding of RWQCP works from direct precipitation ¥ Storms could knock out power to RWQCP ¥ RWQCP operations (map #5 ) ¥ RWQCP peak treatment capacity 42 City of Palo Alto, 2014. Utilities at a Glance. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/16777 , accessed December 8, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 93 of 124 Drought ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Wildfire ¥ Could knock out power to RWQCP ¥ RWQCP operations Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding of critical wastewater treatment facilities (RWQCP) ¥ Increased inundation and rising groundwater may limit access to facilities and pipelines for maintenance and operations; Inability to access valves and access manholes ¥ Buoyancy and corrosion of pipes ¥ Peak discharge trough outfall could be reduced ¥ Short-term flooding can disrupt biological treatment processes ¥ RWQCP operations o Flooding of below-grade joint interceptor sewer and galleries o Outfall pumping ¥ Wastewater transmission pipes east of Bayshore Freeway. Stormwater Management (SW) This functional asset category includes the City’s stormwater facilities and drainage systems. As explained in the Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Existing Conditions Report for Utilities and Service Systems, the City owns and maintains a municipal storm drain system consisting of approximately 107 miles of pipeline and 2,750 catch basins, 800 manholes and 6 pump stations. The City’s storm drain pipe systems are designed for a 10-year return 6-hour storm event and the hydrology and hydraulics design criteria conform with the Santa Clara County Storm Drainage Manual. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies several critical stormwater-related facilities at risk from mid-century sea level rise (16 inches): the Utility Engineering Center and the Adobe, Colorado, Matadero, and San Francisquito pump stations. The LHMP identifies the Utility Control Center, the Municipal Services Center, and the Airport Pump Station as being at risk from end-of-century sea level rise (55 inches). Figure 6.6 also shows these assets are at risk from sea level rise and associated flooding. Flooding exposure can be mitigated with permeable surfaces that allow stormwater to infiltrate into soils instead of contributing to surface drainage, or watershed detention basins that retard stormwater flow or allow it to infiltrate. TABLE 7-3.3. Climate Change Vulnerability of Stormwater Management Function Collect stormwater in piped networks and open channels and transport it to open water discharge sites as quickly as possible, without harming the receiving body of SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 94 of 124 water Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Precipitation ¥ Increased discharge to stormwater system ¥ Fluvial flooding can damage stormwater infrastructure ¥ Overall capacity of stormwater system, including the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin ¥ Pump stations in flood prone areas: Adobe (#1 on map); Airport (#2); Colorado (#4), Matadero (#17), and San Francisquito (#66). Drought ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Wildfire ¥ Increased sediment from fire-damaged areas can impede drainage; increase maintenance ¥ Capacity of stormwater drainage system Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased potential for stormwater and fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding may damage stormwater infrastructure. ¥ Overall capacity of stormwater system, including the Palo Alto Flood Control Basin ¥ Pump stations in flood prone areas: Adobe (#1 on map); Airport (#2); Colorado (#4), Matadero (#17), and San Francisquito (#66). SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 95 of 124 Transportation Infrastructure (TI) This functional category encompasses the City’s major transportation infrastructure including state and federal highways, local arterials and access roads, bridges, railways, pedestrian pathways and bikeways, and the Palo Alto Airport. Major highways located in the City or serving the City include: Interstate 280; US Route 101 (Bayshore Freeway); State highway 84 (Dumbarton Bridge/Woodside Road) and 82 (El Camino Real); County highways G3 (Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway) and G5 (Foothill Expressway). Primary local roads include Embarcadero Road, Middlefield Road, Alma Street, Page Mill Road and Arastradero Road. Caltrain, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and AC Transit (Dumbarton Express) all provide service to and from Palo Alto. The Palo Alto Transit Center, located on University Avenue between El Camino Real and Alma Street, is the regional transit hub for the City, providing connections to neighboring communities and the wider Bay Area. Caltrain provides commuter rail service along Alma Street with stations at Palm Drive and California Avenue. VTA operates 14 bus routes in Palo Alto, providing connections to VTA light rail, Caltrain, Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) and AMTRAK Capitol Corridor. Stanford University Parking and Transportation Services operates a free public shuttle service connecting the campus to nearby transit, shopping, dining, and entertainment. Many significant transportation assets that serve Palo Alto and the surrounding region do not have adequate alternatives in the case of flooding or other emergencies that put them out of commission. For example, disruption of State Highway 101, or the Highway 84 approach to the Dumbarton bridge, would result in heavy congestion that could overwhelm not only the City of Palo Alto but also the region as a whole. The Palo Alto Airport, the Municipal Services Center, and the Utility Control Center, as well as local access roads these facilities, are located in a major flood zone. Disruption to the road network will also affect public transportation, both directly for bus service and indirectly for CalTrain. The lack of adequate alternatives could leave Palo Alto residents isolated during emergencies or disasters. Figure 6.6 shows the portion of Highway 101 between the Oregon Expressway and San Antonio Way, along with the approaches to the 101 overpasses at those two points, is at high risk from inundation due to sea level rise and storm surge by mid-century. Figure 7.1, from the Draft Silicon Valley 2.0 Climate Adaptation Guidebook, shows a number of bridges (including elevated roadways crossing Highway 101) in this area are vulnerable to sea level rise and storm surge by mid-century, primarily because the approached to these bridges, not necessarily the bridges themselves, would be inundated. Figure 7.1: Bridge Assets Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise and Storm Surge, Mid-Century (from Silicon Valley 2.0) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 96 of 124 TABLE 7-4. Climate Change Vulnerability of Critical Transportation Infrastructure Function Provide mobility and access to support safety, security, and prosperity Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Roads: Can buckle, deform, soften pavement ¥ Rail: extreme heat stresses materials and can buckle rails ¥ Control and communication systems can overheat ¥ Local streets, highways ¥ CalTrain railway Precipitation ¥ Fluvial flooding of low-lying transportation infrastructure – erosion and other damage (exacerbated by sea level rise) ¥ Increased precipitation increases surface water on roads ¥ Highway 101 and associated approach roads to overpasses ¥ Surface streets in Palo Alto Flood Plain ¥ Bicycle and pedestrian ways in Palo Alto floodplain ¥ Palo Alto airport SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 97 of 124 Drought ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Wildfire ¥ Fire damage to roads and highways ¥ Roads and highways in high risk fire zones include Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35), Page Mill Road, and smaller roads west of I- 280 Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Erosion and other damage during storms ¥ Highway 101 and associated approach roads to overpasses ¥ Surface streets in Palo Alto floodplain ¥ Bicycle and pedestrian ways in Palo Alto floodplain ¥ Palo Alto airport Shoreline Flood Management (SF) This functional asset category includes the ad hoc system of levees, landfill, and salt pond embankments, as well as tidal marsh wetlands that provide flood mitigation for the City’s shoreline. Although these features do not provide a level of flood protection sufficient for FEMA certification, they do prevent flooding of developed areas along the shoreline for some coastal scenarios. The shoreline flood management system is deficient relative to FEMA certification standards for levee crest elevation. This implies that the levees are at risk of being overtopped by the 100-year Bay water levels, thereby failing to prevent inundation on the landward side. Sea level rise, which may cause the present 100-year water level of 11.0 ft NAVD to be exceeded annually by a King Tide by end-of- century, will worsen this deficiency of the flood management system. The existing levees are also deficient relative to geotechnical and erosion protection criteria. Sea level rise will increase the geotechnical and erosion forces that the levees face, which makes levee failure more likely. A failed levee would further reduce flood protection, enabling overtopping to occur at lower elevations and greater rates. Tidal marsh wetlands front portions of the City’s coastal levees. In these locations, the marshes provide the ecosystem services of buffering wave heights and erosion. As such, the marshes contribute to the ‘horizontal levee’ system reducing coastal flood risk (ESA PWA, 201343). Toward the end of the century, these marshes may not be able to independently sustain their elevation relative to 43 ESA PWA. 2013. Analysis of the Costs and Benefits of Using Tidal Marsh Restoration as a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Strategy in San Francisco Bay. Prepared for The Bay Institute. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 98 of 124 sea level rise and may convert to mudflat (Stralberg et al., 201144). Loss of the tidal marsh vegetation would expose the shoreline levees to greater risk of failure. At this time, there is not enough information about the potential changes of climate change on regional storm intensity and frequency nor have the local effects of different storm conditions been assessed. The GCMs currently forecast limited change to increase in peak precipitation (see Section 0), which is an indicator of storm intensity. Given this lack of information and relatively small liklihood of change in related processes, the effects of more intense storms on the shoreline management system are noted in Table 7-5, but not included in the adaptation strategy assessment (Section 8). TABLE 7-5. Climate Change Vulnerability of Shoreline Flood Management Function Provide flood protections for the Palo Alto shoreline along San Francisco Bay Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Precipitation ¥ Erosion of levees and wetlands from increased wave forces ¥ Breaching and overtopping of levees ¥ Integrity of flood risk management levees ¥ Integrity of Palo Alto Flood Basin ¥ Fluvial storage capacity of Palo Alto Flood Basin Drought ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Wildfire ¥ None identified ¥ None identified Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding during storms ¥ Long-term increase in overtopping of coastal levees ¥ Increased erosion of levees and wetlands ¥ Overall shoreline flood management capacity ¥ Integrity of flood risk management levees ¥ Integrity of Palo Alto Flood Basin ¥ Functioning of Palo Alto Flood Basin o Reduced capacity to drain by gravity 44 Stralberg, Diana, Matthew Brennan, John C Callaway, Julian K Wood, Lisa M Schile, Dennis Jongsomjit, Maggi Kelly, V Thomas Parker, and Stephen Crooks. 2011. “Evaluating Tidal Marsh Sustainability in the Face of Sea-‐Level Rise: A Hybrid Modeling Approach Applied to San Francisco Bay.” PloS One 6 (11) (January): e27388. oi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027388. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 99 of 124 o Coastal flooding Public Health (PH) This functional asset category covers the health-related impacts of climate change, with a special focus on the City’s populations who are most vulnerable those impacts, including those with special needs, living in poverty, or most exposed to the physical impacts of climate change. The City’s more vulnerable populations (elderly, impoverished, non-English-speaking, or physically incapacitated) face climate-related public health risks associated with heat-related illness and mortality, respiratory impacts, infectious diseases, and changes in socioeconomic conditions that may impact well-being. Extreme heat and precipitation events, diminished air quality (e.g., high ozone levels), new disease vectors, and food insecurity all represent potential health and safety risks. Outdoor workers, in particular, are vulnerable to extreme heat and weather events. 45 Particular concern centers on the increasing tendency for multiple hot days in succession, and heat waves occurring simultaneously in several regions throughout the state, which could affect power reliability. The City’s vulnerable populations may require special response assistance or special medical care after a climate-influenced disaster. Physically vulnerable areas of the City (e.g., low-lying areas prone to flooding) that overlap with high-density residential or commercial development could experience high death tolls and injury rates from extreme weather events. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Palo also had 17.1% of residents over the age of 65, compared to 11.4% for the state of California. 5.7% of City residents are living below the Federal Poverty Level, compared to 15.9% statewide. 46 A map published by the Santa Clara County Public Health Department shows lower-income residents (defined as living at or below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, which was approximately $22,000 for a family of 4 in 2010) concentrated in the northern portion of the City bounded by University, Middlefield, Lincoln, and Alma streets, and in a smaller area bordering the City of Mountain View north of El Camino Real.47 The CalEnviroScreen 2.0 tool uses a science-based method for evaluating multiple pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to pollution’s adverse effects. The tool can be used to identify California’s most burdened and vulnerable communities. The tool presents a broad picture of the burdens and vulnerabilities different areas confront from environmental pollutants. It relies on the use of indicators to measure factors that affect pollution impacts in communities. CalEnviroScreen identifies vulnerable communities in California most burdened by pollution from multiple sources and most vulnerable to its effects, taking into account their socioeconomic characteristics and underlying health status. These same communities are typically those most sensitive to climate change exposure, including extreme heat events, enduring heat waves, sea level rise, extreme storms, diminished air quality, and new disease vectors. CalEnviroScreen provides relative scores (percentiles) indicating population vulnerability with Higher scores indicating areas with highest pollution burdens and most sensitive populations. CalEnviroScreen shows the area of the City east of Highway 101 (census tract 6085504601 with a population of 817) as having a relatively high score of 71 to 75%, driven by high exposures to traffic 45 Drechsler, D. M. 2009. Climate Change and Public Health in California. 46 U.S. census website, accessed 12/22/14: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/ 47 Santa Clara County Public Health Department, 2013. Community Health Existing Conditions Report. Figure 2-‐10: Vulnerable Communities – High Proportions of Low-‐Income Residents SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 100 of 124 density, and potential exposures to impaired surface and groundwater, hazardous/toxic waste, and solid waste. The demographic stressors for this area include relatively high unemployment, relatively older population and relatively low education. Notably, CalEnviroScreen vulnerability scores are relatively low for the low-income areas identified by the County Public Health Department. The Draft Existing Conditions Report for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update48 reports that the percentage of Palo Alto residents living in poverty declined in 2012 for the first time since the 1980s, while the proportion of households below the poverty level in Santa Clara County continued to rise. TABLE 7-6. Public Health: Vulnerability to Climate Change Function Organized community efforts aimed at the prevention of disease and the promotion of health, for the population as a whole Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ More frequent and severe heat waves lead to death and illness, increased air pollution and fires, and greater risk of food and water contamination ¥ Increase in average temperatures leads to more air pollution and greater risk of new pests and diseases ¥ Increasing temperatures, drought, severe storms and invasive species all increase the risk and severity of wildfires ¥ The City’s most vulnerable residents are at risk of health emergencies or longer-term adverse health effects. Precipitation ¥ More frequent or more powerful storms disproportionally impact public safety of vulnerable populations, especially those in low-lying areas ¥ Extreme storms challenge emergency response actions, ¥ Residents, workers and schoolchildren in the Palo Alto Flood Plain, east of highway 101. 48 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Population, Housing and Employment. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 22, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 101 of 124 overburden stormwater management systems, and increase risk of vector-borne disease ¥ Extreme storm could cause flooding of RWQCP outfall and influent pump station, disrupting wastewater treatment operations; potential sewer overflow into Bay creates health risk. Drought ¥ Less local rainfall and diminished Sierra snowpack jeopardizes reliability and quality of potable water supply ¥ Potable water quality and reliability for entire City Wildfire ¥ Smoke from wildfires impacts air quality and respiratory health of vulnerable populations ¥ Displacement and loss of homes and jobs places disproportionate burden on low-income or impoverished populations ¥ Residents and workers at risk from fire hazards and smoke inhalation along the urban-wildfire interface ¥ The City’s elderly, youth, and health-compromised at risk from fire-impacted air quality Sea Level Rise ¥ More frequent and deeper flooding threatens safety and health of vulnerable populations living in low- lying areas ¥ Inundated or saturated areas are potentially at higher risk of liquefaction during earthquakes ¥ Residents, workers, and schoolchildren in flood prone areas, east of 101. Buildings and Property (BP) This functional asset category includes residential and commercial private property, including homes, businesses, commercial and industrial buildings, schools, government buildings, parks and recreation SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 102 of 124 areas, and other property assets. Palo Alto also has many important historical and cultural assets that are potentially vulnerable to climate change impacts. Palo Alto is a relatively wealthy community with high significantly higher property values than the rest of the region. The Draft Existing Conditions Report for the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update49 notes that the median household income in Palo Alto in 2012 was $122,482, while the median home price for single-family residences and condominiums in Palo Alto was $1,720,000 in 2013, up 15 percent from 2012, more than 2.5 times that of the County median price of $645,000. Residential land uses make up approximately 27 percent of the total land area within the City limit. As shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Appendix A), residential land use is primarily located in the urbanized portion of the city between El Camino Real and Highway 101, the neighborhoods west of El Camino Real and south of the Stanford University campus, and areas west of I-280 bordering the town of Los Altos Hills. As shown in Figure 6.6, the residential area bound roughly by Highway 101, Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, and Charleston Road is at risk from sea level rise by 2050, with the at-risk area slightly expanded by 2100. These properties, as well as properties in the vicinity of San Francisquito Creek, are also in the FEMA 100-year flood zone. As shown on Figure 6.5, residential properties west of Interstate 280 bordering Los Altos Hills, as well as multifamily residential properties along Sand Hill Road, are at moderate to high risk of exposure to wildfire. According to the City of Palo Alto web site, Palo Alto is home to more than 7,000 businesses that employ more than 98,000 jobs.50 With its location in Silicon Valley and proximity to Stanford University, the City has long been an engine of entrepreneurial growth, spawning many high profile firms including Xerox, Hewlett-Packard, Google, Facebook, PayPal, Tesla Motors. Stanford Research Park on Page Mill Road is the home to many prominent technology firms. Business, commercial, and industrial land uses make up approximately 10 percent of the total land area within the City limit. The largest business park in Palo Alto is the 10 million-square-foot Stanford Research Park., while the largest commercial area in the City is the approximately 1.4 million- square-foot Stanford Shopping Center. As shown on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Appendix A), extensive commercial and industrial properties exist in low-lying areas along Highway 101 and east of 101 in the PAFB, where they are vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding. Commercial and industrial properties along Sand Hill Road are at moderate risk from exposure to wildfire, as indicated on Figure 6.5. Parks and open spaces uses account for nearly 59 percent of the total land area within the City limit. A map from the Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan51 (Appendix A) indicates that most of these areas are located in the hills west of Foothill Expressway and in the Palo Alto baylands east of Highway 101. As with the private property described, low-lying park areas along the Bay are vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise, while parks in the foothills are at risk from wildfire. In 2014, the City of Palo Alto initiated a planning process to analyze and review Palo Alto’s park and recreation system and prepare a Park and Recreation Master Plan to guide future renovations and capital improvements for parks, trails, open space, and recreation facilities. The Master Plan will 49 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Population, Housing and Employment. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐conditions-‐report/ , accessed December 22, 2014. 50 Palo Alto Business Facts: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=592&TargetID=52 , accessed December 23, 2014. 51 City of Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/pdf/Parks-‐Map.pdf, accessed from City web site on December 23, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 103 of 124 prioritize short term (5 years), mid-term (10 years), and long-term (25 years) improvements. It is anticipated that a final report will be presented to the City Council in fall 2015.52 Palo Alto is home to many public schools, private schools, charter school, libraries, and institutes of higher education including the venerable Stanford University located adjacent to the City. According to the City’s Draft 2014 Comprehensive Plan, the Palo Alto Public School District (PAPSD) operates 13 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 2 high schools across an area that covers the City of Palo Alto as well as portions of the town of Los Altos and portions of Portola Valley and the Stanford University campus. Foothill-De Anza Community College is based in neighboring Los Altos Hills and has campus within Palo Alto located at the Cubberley Community Center, which serves about 3,500 students. Other universities, technical and specialty schools located in the City include: Palo Alto University including the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Sophia University (formerly the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology), and the Bay Area College of Nursing. Palo Alto Unified School District facilities most at risk from flooding due to storms and sea level rise include Ohlone Elementary School, Palo Verde Elementary School, and Jordan Middle School. Duveneck Elementary School faces longer-term risk from sea level rise, but is located in the FEMA 100-year flood zone. To mitigate serious wildfires at the urban interface the State Fire Marshal included adoption of Chapter 7A in the California Building Code, requiring fire resistant exterior construction in hazardous fire areas. The City of Palo Alto has adopted these requirements for new construction or significant remodels in the moderate to high fire hazard severity areas in Palo Alto, as defined by CalFire.53 This includes most of the City’s land southwest of Foothill Boulevard and the area around the RWQCP. The City building code has also required fire sprinklers in new buildings and significant remodels in these areas since 1994. TABLE 7-7. Climate Change Vulnerability of Buildings and Property Function Provides the fabric of urban living, supporting the physical, financial, recreational, and emotional well-being of the community. Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Heat damage to asphalt ¥ Stress capacity of building cooling systems ¥ Asphalt parking lots, driveways, private roads ¥ Ability of HVAC systems to provide adequate cooling Precipitation ¥ Increase in erosion events ¥ Localized flooding ¥ Buildings and property in flood zones 52 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Recreation. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐conditions-‐ report/, accessed December 22, 2014. 53 Cal Fire Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones.php SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 104 of 124 Drought ¥ Increased need for irrigation ¥ Local trees and landscaping; urban forest Wildfire ¥ More frequent and higher intensity wildfires ¥ Private homes and businesses in high risk fire zones ¥ Parks, trails, open space and recreation areas west of Foothill Expressway Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Inundated or saturated areas are potentially at higher risk of liquefaction during earthquakes ¥ Buildings and other property in the Palo Alto floodplain ¥ Baylands recreation areas (e.g., golf course, trails, nature center) SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 105 of 124 Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Management (SM) The Palo Alto Landfill located east of Highway 101 has been closed since February 2012. The City plans to have the landfill 100% capped by the summer of 2015. The landfill has a landfill gas and leachate collection system in place along with an incinerator for flaring the collected methane. The highest elevation of the landfill is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. The landfill’s lower elevations including the road going around it are susceptible to flooding and erosion from sea level. The City expects the landfill to settle and subside for another 20 years, approximately. Flooding could damage or disrupt the landfill gas and leachate recovery operation. GreenWaste of Palo Alto, a joint venture between GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. and Zanker Road Resource Management, Ltd., currently holds the City's contract for the collection and transportation of municipal solid waste, commercial organics, residential yard trimmings. All solid waste and recyclables, including construction and demolition debris, are trucked out of the City and processed at facilities elsewhere. Two of those facilities, the Zanker Material Processing Facility for processing of construction and demolition debris, and the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT Station) for processing of municipal solid waste (MSW), are located in low-lying areas near the bayshore in San Jose. These facilities are at risk from Sea Level Rise and coastal flooding. Several areas of soil and groundwater contamination exist as a legacy of past practices at Stanford Research Park, but these areas to the west of El Camino Real are not vulnerable to sea level rise or climate-related impacts. The City’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) drop-off station is located at the RWQCP. Hazardous materials could be at risk of entering the environment in the event of an extreme flood. TABLE 7-8. Climate Change Vulnerability of Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Facilities Function Control or manage solid waste and hazardous materials disposed of by the community Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ None identified ¥ NA Precipitation ¥ Increased erosion potential ¥ Capped landfill Drought ¥ None identified ¥ NA Wildfire ¥ None identified ¥ NA Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased frequency and depth of coastal flooding ¥ Increased potential for fluvial flooding due to reduced drainage to the Bay ¥ Erosion of levees protecting landfill ¥ Inundation of landfill gas collection system at capped landfill ¥ Containment of contaminated soils and groundwater SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 106 of 124 ¥ Increased erosion potential ¥ Changes to groundwater elevations, gradients, and transport rates ¥ Household Hazardous Waste Facility ¥ GreenWaste Facility ¥ Municipal Service Center SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 107 of 124 Natural Areas, EcoSystems (NE) This functional asset category includes natural areas and ecosystems that are critical to local flora and fauna, as well as ecosystem services (e.g., flood control, wave surge protection, erosion control, nutrient retention, water quality improvement) provided by the City’s natural areas. Palo Alto’s boundaries extend from the San Francisco bay to the Santa Cruz mountains, encompassing several microclimates and natural habitats. Undeveloped lands in the Baylands and in the western hills contain undisturbed plant communities that support a variety of species. The natural vegetation has been substantially altered in the developed areas of the city, leaving the urban forest as the dominant habitat. Some of the stream corridors in the developed portions of the city also support natural vegetation. The primary natural habitats found along the Bay include coastal saltwater/brackish marsh, freshwater marsh, and valley foothill riparian, while the foothills west and southwest of downtown support grasslands, coastal oak woodlands, coastal scrub, redwood forest, and montane hardwood and conifer forests.54 The Draft Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan55 lists more than 300 species of street trees in Palo Alto, with the following five species representing almost 35 percent of the total trees planted: southern magnolia, London plane, American sweetgum, Modesto ash, and camphor. The urban forest, which provides cover, forage, and nesting habitat for common wildlife as well as a buffer against the heat island effect during periods of high temperature, is well established in the older parts of the city, where mature street trees provide a dense canopy. The Draft Urban Forest Master Plan provides an in- depth management plan for the City’s street trees as well as its urban forest, encompassing 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). Public Works has recently updated the approved street tree list in anticipation of climate change impacts including longer periods of drought and more limited water supplies for irrigation. Coast redwoods are no longer approved, and the City is in the process of identifying more drought-tolerant species that are appropriate for Palo Alto and can tolerate higher salinity water, to allow more use of recycled water for irrigation needed in early growth stages. Silicon Valley 2.0, the regional adaptation planning effort, assesses the climate change vulnerability of 11 distinct natural habitats in Santa Clara County. Temperature increases are expected to impact all habitats in Santa Clara County, through decreases in soil moisture, heat stress, disruption of periodic biological phenomena (phonologic cycles), more invasive species, more competition for freshwater resources, and loss of food supply. Changes in precipitation patterns could intensify competition for freshwater resources, and stress natural habitats with increases in wildfire, landslide, and erosion. Reduced or altered vegetation coverage, in combination with heavy precipitation events, results in more runoff, increased erosion and sedimentation, which in turn impact water quality and sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats. Riverine flooding can also impact aquatic and riparian habitats. Drought conditions and higher temperatures increase the risk of wildfires, which alter habitats and ecosystem services. Burned areas are susceptible to increased erosion, flooding, and landslides. 56 54 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Biological Resources. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐ conditions-‐report/, accessed January 2, 2014. 55 City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works: Urban Forestry Division, 2014, Sustaining the Legacy: Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan (Draft), available at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=36187 56 Santa Clara County Office of Sustainability, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 108 of 124 In general, sea level rise will alter existing intertidal, wetland, and coastal habitats through inundation, storm effects, and saltwater intrusion. The flood protection and water quality services provided by marshes and wetlands will also be diminished. In 1978, the City of Palo Alto adopted the Baylands Master Plan57 with the goal of balancing ecological preservation with continued commercial and recreational use of the Palo Alto Baylands. The Baylands Master Plan was updated in 1988 and again in 2008. Today the Baylands offers a wide range of recreational opportunities, including recreational flying, golfing, and team sports played at the popular Athletic Center.58 The City of Palo Alto is currently preparing a Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan to manage, improve and expand its parks and recreational facilities, while ensuring that the open-space and conversation needs of future generations are appropriately balanced and adequately funded. The expected climate change exposures to natural landscapes and ecosystems should be fully incorporated into this long term management plan. TABLE 7-9. Climate Change Vulnerability of Natural Areas, EcoSystems Function Provide habitat to local flora and fauna and ecosystem services for community well- being Exposure Potential Impacts Assets at Risk Temperature ¥ Extreme hear and overall higher temperatures can decrease soil moisture, increase evaporation, increase heat stress at individual and population scales, disrupt phonologic cycles, increase invasive species, increase competition for freshwater resources, and impact food supply. ¥ Uplands habitats ¥ Urban forests ¥ Redwood forests Precipitation ¥ Increase in erosion events and sediment loss ¥ Loss of wetland areas due to wave erosion ¥ Water quality in local streams and reservoirs ¥ 57 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, October, 2008: Baylands Master Plan, 4th Edition. 58 City of Palo Alto, 2014, Draft Existing Conditions Report: Recreation. http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/resources/draft-‐existing-‐conditions-‐ report/, accessed December 22, 2014. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 109 of 124 Drought ¥ Stress to local flora and fauna, natural habitats ¥ Baylands habitats ¥ Urban forest; local trees & vegetation providing habitat ¥ Redwood forests ¥ Wildfire ¥ Loss of natural habitat ¥ Fire makes forested areas more vulnerable to storm- induced erosion and sediment loss ¥ Forested areas in high fire risk areas, including Foothills Park and Pearson-Arastradero Preserve ¥ Water quality in local streams and reservoirs Sea Level Rise ¥ Increased inundation of Baylands marshes leading to drowning and loss of marsh vegetation. ¥ Fragmentation of wetlands ¥ Loss of high tide refugia for dependent species ¥ Inundation and erosion of parklands ¥ Drowning of Bay marshes ¥ Baylands habitats and biodiversity ¥ Baylands ecosystem services (e.g., water quality, erosion protection, aesthetics etc.) ¥ Palo Alto Baylands Park and the future landfill park conversion SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 110 of 124 Assessing Risk and Prioritizing Adaptation Responses Risk and Response Framework This chapter presents a framework for assessing risk and prioritizing adaptation responses using the following steps: 1. Assess the risk associated with the City’s asset vulnerabilities that were identified in the previous chapter; 2. Identify existing plans and measures currently in place at the City that involve that asset and/or provide adaptive capacity to the vulnerability; and 3. Identify response(s) needed in the next phase of City planning to improve resiliency of that asset. Risk Assessment Climate risk is commonly described as the likelihood and consequence of a climate variable’s impact on a vulnerable asset. Risk ratings consider the certainty of the science associated with each climate variable as well as consequence of failure concerning the asset. Due to the inherent uncertainty of the timing and severity of climate change impacts it is often difficult to assess the likelihood of a particular asset being affected within a certain timeframe, so in many cases the evaluation of consequence was the most important component in assessing risk. Some helpful questions used to asses risk include the following: ¥ What is the age, condition, or useful remaining life of the asset? ¥ If impacted, could the asset be repaired or would it require complete replacement? ¥ What would it cost to repair or replace the asset? ¥ Would asset failure or incapacity disrupt a critical service? If so, how long could the disruption last? Is there a redundant systems or service that is less vulnerable? ¥ What are the economic, health, and/or safety costs associated with a disruption in service? A broad, high-level risk assessment was performed for the asset vulnerabilities identified in Chapter 7. The results are presented in the City of Palo Alto Risk and Response Matrix in Appendix D, Organized by functional category, the Risk and Response Matrix presents a “heat map” showing relative risk to each asset from each of the five main climate exposures described in Chapter 6, using colors to indicate the following: The colors are used to represent the risk of climate-related impacts occurring over near-term (to 2050) and longer-term (to 2100) planning horizons. In general, highly vulnerable assets with high costs of failure or disruption are associated with highest risk, and the risk increases with time along with the expected increase in severity of climate change impacts. Existing Adaptive Measures significant risk increase compared to existing conditions moderate risk increase compared to existing conditions minor risk increase compared to existing conditions no identified risk increase compared to existing conditions SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 111 of 124 Identifying appropriate response actions requires first understanding existing conditions in terms of plans, policies, and programs that concern the asset being evaluated. In the Risk and Response Matrix, a column lists relevant plans and programs that are currently providing or addressing adaptive capacity concerning the asset. Plans and programs may be local, regional, state, and/or national. For example, the City’s capability to manage peak stormwater flow is addressed in multiple local plans and programs, including the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Storm Drain Master Plan; the City also participates in relevant regional and national programs (e.g., Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, and the National Flood Insurance Program). Recommended Responses Recommended adaptation response actions concerning each asset are presented in four main categories, with colors to represent the following: A Act: Defines actions that are known and required now to mitigate identified risks P Prepare: Defines tasks to improve understanding of the cause or solution to a significant risk. M Monitor: Requires monitoring of latest climate science developments and local/regional situation N No action needed The following sections summarize significant risks and associated response actions recommended for each functional asset category. Emergency Response and Communications (ER) The City’s Emergency Response and Communications assets most vulnerable to climate change include the Municipal Services Center (MSC) and Utility Control Center (UCC), which face moderate risk from sea level rise by 2050 and significant risk from sea level rise by 2100. Plans should be established to protect these assets, relocate them, or establish redundant operational capabilities in case these facilities become incapacitated during a flooding event. Communication towers in the foothills also face significant risk from wildfire by 2100. These towers should be assessed for their vulnerability to wildfire including their criticality in the overall system, the consequences of failure. Emergency preparedness plans should be updated accordingly. Energy Security and Infrastructure (ES) Long-term changes in precipitation patterns caused by climate change represent significant risk to the availability of hydropower for the City, due to expected higher incidence of severe droughts, loss of Sierra snowpack, and wildfires. These risks could directly impact the stability of the California transmission grid, driving up loads and supply volatility. This volatility will also impact price volatility, which will likely increase the financial risks faced by the Utility and the Electric Enterprise Fund. The City needs to develop an energy resiliency plan focusing on building in resiliency and lessening the impact of statewide energy events. These measures should include islanding, smart grid, local generation, energy storage and redundant transmission lines. The MSC, UCC, and Utility Engineering Center, which are all critical to energy operations, face moderate risk from sea level rise by 2050 and significant risk from sea level rise by 2100. Plans should SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 112 of 124 be established to protect these assets, relocate them, or establish redundant operational capabilities in case these facilities become incapacitated during a flooding event. Water and Wastewater Water Supply (WS) The City’s long-term water supply faces significant risk from loss of Sierra snowpack and drought by the year 2100. The City should continue aggressive water conservation programs, set higher conservation goals in the 2015 update to the Palo Alto UWMP, and continue to participate in in regional planning efforts by BAWSCA, SCVWD and SFPUC. Ongoing investigation of potential alternative supplies, including recycled water and use of local groundwater sources, should be continued. The MSC, UCC, and Utility Engineering Center, which are all critical to water operations, face moderate risk from sea level rise by 2050 and significant risk from sea level rise by 2100. Future recycling operations planned at the RWQCP, along with water supply infrastructure and municipal groundwater wells located in the Palo Alto flood plain, also face significant risk from sea level rise by 2100. Plans should be established to protect these assets, relocate them where possible, or establish redundant operational capabilities in case these facilities become incapacitated during a flooding event. Wastewater Management (WW) The greatest risk to the City’s wastewater management is potential failure of existing levees that protect the RWQCP from coastal flooding associated with sea level rise by 2100. In addition to the SAFER Bay project that is planning coastal levee improvements there may be opportunities for incorporating treated wastewater effluent into future levees by creating ecotone slopes –“a horizontal levee” - bayward of the existing levee. Creating wider, shallower slopes in front of a traditional flood risk management levee would attenuate waves and reduce overtopping, resulting in the need for smaller levees. This would also recreate valuable upland habitat bordering the marshes that has long been missing from the Bay and provide space for marshes to migrate into with rising sea levels. In addition there are potential wastewater polishing benefits to this approach through denitrification and the removal of contaminants of emerging concern. The horizontal levee approach is being investigated in the East Bay by a regional partnership including UC Berkeley and East Bay Dischargers Authority (EBDA), among others. Figure 8.1 provides a conceptual illustration of the demonstration project at Oro Loma Sanitary District, which is funded by the District and a $2.1 million grant from the Integrated Regional Water Management Program through the California DWR. The EBDA is conducting a parallel project to explore ways to redirect and decentralize discharge of treated wastewater effluent and put it to good use irrigating ecotone slopes, transitional habitats and buffer zones along the shoreline. These projects may lead to opportunities to decentralize discharges to the Bay, reduce nutrient loading in the Bay, and make better use of treated wastewater as an increasingly valuable freshwater resource. The City should track the progress of the Oro Loma and EBDA projects and consider a similar approach to integrating wastewater management with coastal flood management and habitat development. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 113 of 124 Figure 8.1: Horizontal Levee Approach Proposed for Oro Loma Sanitary District The City should study the feasibility of a flood proofing plan for the RWQCP that minimizes impacts to the RWQCP site in the event of local inundation. Though there is some increased risk to treatment plant capacity represented by extreme precipitation creating stormwater overflow that gets diverted to the RWQCP, the risk is low based on the relatively small changes predicted by the Global Climate Models (GCMs). For similar facilities in the Bay, direct precipitation onto the site may become a significant issue and cause localized flooding, exacerbated by the number of below grade galleries. This vulnerability was demonstrated at Rockaway WWTP during Hurricane Sandy where a few inches of surface flooding filled below-grade galleries that contained pumps, electrical control gear, spare parts and document storage areas. Floodproofing the below-grade galleries and removing non- essential items to higher locations could significantly reduce the impact. As the sea level rises the required discharge pump head increases reducing the capacity of gravity and pumped systems. Similar pumped outfalls in the Bay are predicting 10-20% reduction in capacity as sea level rises over the next century, requiring either alternative discharge of peak flows, reduced output due to more recycling, or larger pump capacity. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 114 of 124 Stormwater Management (SW) With respect to stormwater management, the biggest risk facing the City is diminished capacity of the Palo Alto Flood Basin to retain stormwater during times of high tide, based on sea level rise projections out to 2100. To improve resilience, the City should coordinate creek flood management planning with the SAFER coastal flood management project that is just getting underway (see Section 4.5, and shoreline flood management discussion below). The horizontal levee concept described above has also been suggested as a way to divert flows from flood basins and accommodate them in a larger coastal floodplain. Integrating stormwater into the wetlands rather than segregating it in stormwater channels and detaining it in flood basins may create a more resilient shoreline by reestablishing sediment and freshwater pathways that allow wetlands to respond to sea level rise. The City’s Airport and San Francisquito stormwater pumping stations are at risk from sea level rise by 2100; Plans should be developed to protect these assets from flooding, or determine the consequences of their failure in the overall stormwater management system, in the event of flood. Transportation Infrastructure (TI) Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), the Palo Alto Airport, and surface streets in the Palo Alto floodplain are all at significant risk from sea level rise by the year 2100. Current levees are not likely to adequately protect these assets from sea level rise; the SAFER Bay project is planning improvements to these levees. As an intermediate measure, the City should develop contingency plans for temporary loss of these assets. Many roads and highways in the foothills are in high risk zones for wildfires by the year 2100. The vulnerability of these assets should be better defined, along with consequences of failure and contingency plans in the event they become damaged or inaccessible. Shoreline Flood Management (SF) Sea level rise is the key climate change risk factor for shoreline flood management. At the end of 2014, the City began its participation in the SAFER Bay project to provide coastal flood improvements. The SAFER Bay project will develop a preferred alignment for the coastal flood protection. As part of this assessment, the SAFER project may consider different levee alignments. Possible areas for re- alignment include around the Palo Alto airport and around the Palo Alto Flood Basin (PAFB). Re- alignment landward would provide opportunities for restoring tidal marsh and/or marsh-to-upland ecotone on the outboard side. The SAFER project is just getting underway for the Palo Alto shoreline, so has not yet produced any specific plans or recommendations. Both the airport and the PAFB have performance criteria which constrain re-alignment. Land to the east of the existing runway may be used for adding an additional runway in the future. However, the existing runway has length and clearance criteria set by FAA that may conflict with raising the levee elevation. The PAFB provides storage capacity for Matadero, Barron, and Adobe Creeks. A recent report (Schaaf & Wheeler, 201459) identifies existing deficiencies in the PAFB’s storage capacity that worsen with sea level rise. Re-aligning the coastal flood levee landward would further reduce the PAFB’s storage 59 Schaaf & Wheeler. 2014. Palo Alto Flood Basin Hydrology. Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 115 of 124 capacity, but may cost less than constructing the coastal flood levee around the PAFB. Reduced storage capacity in the flood basin transfers additional flood risk upstream along the creeks. The flood basin also provides vegetated marsh habitat for endangered species and its water levels are managed to minimize mosquito breeding. The impacts of levee re-alignment on these habitats also need to be considered. The City should consider how treated wastewater effluent and stormwater could be incorporated into the SAFER design (as described in Section 8.4.2 and 8.4.3 above) by decentralizing the discharge of treated wastewater and reconfiguring the detention of stormwater. Public Health (PH) The City’s most vulnerable populations (elderly, low-income and health-compromised residents) face significant risk from extreme heat events by 2100. These populations will also face higher risk of health problems from worsening air quality and new disease vectors. The following general response actions recommended to minimize public health risk from climate change impacts: ¥ Engage the public and promote community involvement in actions to reduce climate change risks, using linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches that are effective for diverse populations. ¥ Reduce urban heat islands (also has energy conservation/GHG co-benefit). ¥ Partner with organization like Cal-BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects) to forecast climate impacts and assess public health vulnerabilities, educate and engage more effectively with the community, assess current strategies, and identify effective responses. ¥ Engage with and seek support from Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) community resilience programs; in particular their multiple hazard risk assessment and study of housing resilience in the face of natural disasters. The following resources are available for Public Health planning and developing public health programs related to climate change: ¥ CalEnviroScreen helps identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. ¥ Cal-BRACE (Building Resilience Against Climate Effects): The goals of the CalBRACE project are to enhance the California Department of Public Health’s (CDPH) capability to plan for and reduce health risks associated with climate change. The program provides resources and technical assistance for the state and local public health departments to build climate adaptation capacity and enhance resilience at the local and regional levels. CalBRACE is funded by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and joins 15 other states and 2 cities across the United States that are also conducting climate adaptation planning efforts from a public health perspective through the CDC Climate Ready States and Cities Initiative. ¥ Partner with the Bay Area’s Climate Readiness Institute to stay up to date on climate-related health issues and related planning, and to bring health messages into the mainstream of climate change communications and extreme heat event response strategies ¥ CDC’s Assessing Health Vulnerability to Climate Change: A Guide for Health Departments SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 116 of 124 ¥ CA Climate Change Portal: Public Health and Climate Change Adaptation ¥ The CEC publication Mapping Climate Change Exposures, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation To Public Health Risks In The San Francisco Bay and Fresno Regions provides an overall assessment of climate change adaptive capacity of the San Francisco Bay Area. Maps in the report demonstrate that different parts of the region have higher vulnerability for different components of vulnerability. Consistent with Palo Alto’s CalEnviroScreen scores, the most vulnerable areas for air pollution exposures are on the most heavily trafficked highway corridors surrounding the most populated areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, such as Highway101 along the Peninsula connecting San Jose and San Francisco. Buildings and Property (BP) Coastal flooding associated with sea level rise represents the biggest climate-related risk to buildings and property. The long-term protection of property and infrastructure located in the Palo Alto coastal floodplain (including parks and open space) is currently dependent on existing levees, which are too low to provide FEMA-certified flood protection and do not meet current state and federal engineering standards. The SAFER Bay project is currently addressing this risk. Buildings and property located in certain areas of the foothills are in high risk zones for wildfires by the year 2100. The vulnerability of these assets should be better defined, along with outreach to property owners about the risks and best management practices for fire protection. The following general response actions are recommended to minimize climate risk to buildings and property: ¥ Engage the public and promote community awareness and involvement in actions to reduce climate change risks, using linguistically and culturally appropriate approaches that are effective for diverse populations. ¥ Engage with and seek support from ABAG’s community resilience programs; in particular their multiple hazard risk assessment and study of housing resilience in the face of natural disasters. Solid Waste/Hazardous Material (SM) No assets in this category are deemed to have significant risk from climate change exposures by the year 2100. However, the existing Palo Alto landfill and its infrastructure for landfill gas capture and groundwater pumping are potentially at risk from sea level rise. These risks should be assessed and landfill’s current protections should be evaluated for resiliency and potential improvements to protect against sea level rise. Natural Areas, Ecosystems (NE) With respect to the City’s natural areas and ecosystems, tidal marshes and coastal wetlands are the most vulnerable from climate change by 2100, facing significant risk from sea level rise which is expected to alter habitats primarily through increasing inundation. The storm-buffering and water quality services provided by marshes and wetlands will also be diminished. Sea level rise is being SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 117 of 124 considered in the current Technical Update to the Bayland Ecosystem Habitat Goals60 Technical Update and City of Palo Alto’s Baylands Master Plan. The City should also integrate ecosystem considerations with the SAFER Bay project and assess the potential for marsh-to-uplands ecotones to improve adaptability of tidal marshes to sea level rise. Such projects also offer the potential co-benefits of using natural marsh habitats to provide advanced wastewater treatment.61 Public Works has recently updated the approved street tree list in anticipation of climate change impacts including longer periods of drought and more limited water supplies for irrigation. Coast redwoods are no longer approved, and the City is in the process of identifying more drought-tolerant species that are appropriate for Palo Alto and can tolerate higher salinity water, to allow more use of recycled water for irrigation needed in early growth stages. Establishing a Shoreline Vision The adaptation actions described above need to be woven into a larger vision of the Palo Alto shoreline that addresses not only climate change but also pre-existing and perhaps more immediate issues such as water quality, the protection of the Baylands ecology, public access and recreation. Much of the shoreline infrastructure, including levees, flood control facilities and waste water treatment plants that are more than 50 years old, were built in the Clean Water Act era when federal and state grants covered most costs. Even though concerns about maintaining our infrastructure have been growing for decades, a commensurate increase in funding has not occurred. Beyond the price tag, the regulatory and institutional challenges of doing multi-benefit projects remain substantial. When clean water regulations, flood control specifications, and Bayfill policies were written 20-50 years ago, conditions were quite different than they are today or what they are projected to be in the future. More recently, scientific results from regional water quality monitoring programs and ecosystem restoration activities are suggesting the need to adjust priorities for the management of wastewater, sediment and flooding while continuing to protect the Bay’s ecological resources. There are lessons to be learned from international experience, such as the approaches used by the Dutch. However we should also bear in mind the ecological, political and cultural landscape of the Bay is quite different from other places as is the attitude to risk. This can be observed in how different countries and states approach flood risk management and shoreline management. Replication of strategies isn’t as effective as understanding the philosophy and making a local interpretation. For instance the “Making Room for Rivers” concept from the mid 1990’s in the Netherlands is very similar to the “Living Rivers” concept from the U.S. during the same period and traces its origins to the Yolo bypass a century before. In the U.S., with a less centralized government and a more varied natural environmental setting, we are likely to see much more variation in adaptation response than in the Netherlands. Retreat in urban areas is inherently difficult. There are not many examples along the Bay shore beyond Hamilton Airfield (which converted an airfield into a wetland) and Inner Harbor Redwood City (which plans to accommodate sea level rise with a park like buffer). In general, shoreline restorations have left the most contaminated sites (e.g., closed landfills) in place. Retreat presents huge societal 60 Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals, 1999. A report of habitat recommendations prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, Calif./S.F. Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif. 61 See description of Oro Loma Ecotone Demonstration Project: http://bairwmp.org/projects/building-‐climate-‐ resiliency-‐along-‐the-‐bay-‐through-‐green-‐infrastructure/ SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 118 of 124 and political challenges that will generate decades-long debates. It could be said that current adaptation strategies, which largely focus on maintaining the existing levee alignment, are buying us time for much harder decisions to be made. Location is important. The appropriate adaptation strategy depends upon the geomorphology, the ecology, the assets at risk, the appetite for risk, the resources available, and current legislation. It could be argued that the combination of FEMA, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act have a big impact on the U.S. landscape and will do so in the future. Regulation needs to evolve along with adaptation strategies, continuing to protect the environment and natural habitats but allowing room for innovation and response actions as the environment changes over the next century and beyond. The City should engage stakeholders in a discussion on shoreline resiliency that considers multiple objectives, which could lead to more effective capital improvement plans, better access to different financial and material resources, and approaches that provide co-benefits to issues beyond climate change. SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 119 of 124 APPENDIX G – Additional Technical Analysis Transportation emissions attributable to Palo Alto residents A significant portion of vehicle emissions result from non-‐residents commuting into the City for work. As Figure 8 shows, the number of jobs in the City is significantly higher than the number of employed residents. While the exact number of employed residents is not known, we have estimated that 75% of total jobs in Palo Alto are filled by non-‐residents, and 25% by residents, and have allocated the vehicle-‐ related GHGs proportionately.62 Figure 8: Estimated Palo Alto Jobs Filled by Residents vs. Non-‐Residents Category Number of People Percentage of Total Jobs in Palo Alto City Population 66,95563 N/A Jobs in Palo Alto 89,37064 100% Employed Persons Residing in Palo Alto 31,00765 N/A Employed Persons Residing + Working in Palo Alto 22,97666 25.7% Jobs in Palo Alto Filled by Non-‐Palo Alto Residents 66,394 74.3% Water Heating in Businesses Finding an electric solution to domestic hot water heating in any application is easy, but not all electrification strategies are created equal. The list below outlines strategies to move away from gas for domestic hot water. While each solution might be the right choice depending on the building design, we’ve outlined these in general from most to least efficient: 1. Stop Using Hot Water: Palo Alto is not going to start making people take cold showers, but minimizing hot water use will decrease the cost to the community of transitioning away from 62 An estimated 25.9% of employed Palo Alto residents have a travel time to work of at least 30 minutes62. If we assume that all of these employed residents with a commute of at least 30 minutes work outside of Palo Alto, it would indicate that approximately 22,976 residents work in Palo Alto – accounting for 25.7% of the total jobs in the City. The remaining estimated 74.3% of total jobs in Palo Alto – 66,394 jobs would be filled by non-‐residents. 63 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0655282.html 64 http://files.mtc.ca.gov.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/pbafinal/index.html 65 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37935 66 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF : Assumes all residents employed in Palo Alto with a commute to work of at least 30 minutes work outside the City limits SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 120 of 124 natural gas. Bathrooms sinks in office building and retail stores do not need hot water; suddenly a piping system supplying an entire high-‐rise can be replaced by heaters located only at showers and kitchens. In addition, low flow fixtures on domestic hot water systems, such as low flow showerheads can provide immediate payback on the energy-‐side. 2. Free Waste Heat: Using free waste heat from air conditioning systems can be extremely effective. This is most easily applicable on large buildings with simultaneous air conditioning and domestic hot water demand. Think large hotels or commercial high-‐rises with attached restaurants. 3. Solar Hot Water: Hotels and hospitals are ideal candidates for solar hot water systems as they have notoriously high hot water demand for showers and washing of clothes and linens. Solar hot water systems are four times as efficient at collecting the sun’s energy as solar photovoltaic systems. However, all solar hot water systems need backup energy, and to move off of natural gas, that back up… 4. Heat Pump Hot Water: Heat pumps are a 60-‐year old HVAC technology, but have only recently been used for domestic hot water heating in the United States. They are 250% more efficient than electric resistance systems and provide gas-‐free hot water at a positive net present value. 5. Electric Resistance: Electric resistance hot water heating is available in both tank-‐type, and tank-‐ less instantaneous configurations. We use it regularly in coffee machines and dishwashers. While it is the least efficient option available, it is simple and inexpensive to install, and might be the best option in small facilities with low demand. Hot water use in Palo Alto’s commercial building stock can be looked at through two major differentiators (see Figure 9). Commercial buildings that fall under the “small” and “low hot water demand” categories outline below make up the vast majority of Palo Alto’s commercial building stock and account for an estimated 80% of Palo Alto’s natural gas consumption associated with commercial hot water use67. Fortunately, these types of commercial hot water systems present the lowest cost, immediate opportunities for electrification of water heating equipment. Concurrent to focusing on near-‐ term retrofits of buildings meeting these criteria, Palo Alto will also focus on education and outreach, and demonstration projects for larger, more complex water heating systems. Figure 9: Approaches for Addressing Hot Water Use in Commercial Buildings Small vs. Large Buildings Small buildings, 25,000 sqft or smaller, tend to have all hot water fixtures grouped into one or two primary areas. The collocation of fixtures and lack of dedicated piping, make these buildings simple to design and inexpensive from a capital Large commercial buildings can often have complicated domestic hot water piping systems with hot water fixtures in different areas throughout a building. The volume of water in the pipes alone reaches 1,000s of gallons. While some buildings, like offices, don’t use much hot water, 67 DNV GL analysis based on gas consumption data form CPAU, the California Commercial End Use Survey, SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 121 of 124 cost standpoint. electrifying the system can be more complex and project specific Low vs. High Hot Water Demand Building types with low hot water demand include offices, schools, and retail stores. Few, if any, showers are taken and in many cases the buildings entire hot water demand could be replaced with an electric resistance hot water showerhead or kitchen fixture. The low annual energy use associated with domestic hot water means that even a technology as inefficient as electric resistance can be implemented without high annual energy cost implications, so long as it is done intelligently, with the hot water heating system located near hot water fixtures. As mentioned above, hotels, hospitals, and restaurants typically have high hot water demand. At these levels, solar hot water systems start to make sense and innovative solutions become a necessity to keep annual costs down. Systems should be carefully designed when switching these facility types away from gas hot water heating. Space Heating in Businesses Palo Alto’s high-‐rise office buildings, hotels, hospitals, and laboratories tend to utilize more complex systems due to occupancy type and overall building design. Central boiler and chilled water systems tend to enable more efficient HVAC operation, but can be difficult to switch over to all-‐electric systems. A variety of options exist, some of which can run off the existing heating hot water system infrastructure, and some that require a drastic HVAC re-‐design. Properly timing the changeover to take advantage of incremental costs savings can be beneficial. T HVAC re-‐redesign should be considered when equipment reaches the end of its useful life, or when a building is getting a major architectural renovation (a good way to tell if a renovation is ‘major’ is whether ceilings are being replaced.) The table below outlines the appropriate electrically-‐heated replacement equipment based on existing commercial building heating infrastructure. Existing Equipment Becomes Gas-‐fired rooftop packaged units Rooftop packaged heat pumps Gas-‐fired central boiler systems Solar, Heat recovery chillers, Heat pump hot water, water-‐source heat pumps, or electric resistance central boiler systems Gas-‐fired radiant heating systems Electric radiant heating systems SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 122 of 124 Space Heating in Homes Currently, heating in Palo Alto is typically accomplished using one of four systems: 1. Central heat pumps, ducted throughout the residence These systems are already electrically heated. They serve as proof that it is possible and practical to heat with electricity in Palo Alto. With energy factors in the 240% range, they are likely to be the standard heating system in years to come. 2. Central furnaces with air conditioning, ducted throughout the residence Air-‐conditioned homes are prime candidates to change to a heat pump system when the furnace or air conditioner fails. Because they already have air conditioning, all the main components of a split system heat pump, including space for the exterior condensing unit are there. A heat pump is only marginally more expensive than an equivalent air conditioner, due to its ability to run in reverse. 3. Central furnaces without air conditioning, ducted throughout the residence Homes with a furnace, but no air conditioning pose the biggest challenge. The lack of an air conditioner means the capital cost and exterior space typically reserved for the residential air conditioner cannot be leveraged for a heat pump. There are a variety of options for switching to electric heating, each with their own pros and cons: Retrofit System Options Pros Cons Central Heat Pump Utilizes existing ductwork High efficiency Option to add A/C High capital cost Exterior space requirement Central Electric Furnace Utilizes Existing ductwork Low capital cost Inefficient Ductless Mini-‐splits High efficiency Option to add A/C Zoned High capital cost Exterior space requirement Does not utilize existing ducts Radiant Underfloor Electric Heats people instead of air High comfort level Zoned Must integrate with floor Capital cost SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 123 of 124 Radiant Baseboard Heats people instead of air High comfort level Zoned Must integrate with furniture Capital Cost Aesthetics 4. The Eichler Home: Radiant floor, with hot water piped throughout the residence. “We love our radiant heating system,” is a common quote from Eichler home residents. The midcentury modern design by Joseph Eichler is a staple in Palo Alto and almost always includes a hydronic radiant floor system. The system is characterized by gas-‐fired hot water tanks which provide hot water to piping found underfloor throughout the residence. If maintaining the current underfloor heating system is preferred, this can be done by replacing the current gas boiler with an electric boiler, or heat pump hot water heater. The heat pump hot water heater is a less common approach, but will yield high efficiency gains, while an electric boiler will result in increased energy costs compared to natural gas.68 If maintaining the underfloor system is not preferred, the options for going electric are the same as the options listed for a furnace system above. All-‐electric Zero Net Energy Buildings An all-‐electric, zero net energy new home are not be that different in cost or appearance than a typical new home. In order to minimize the cost of the solar PV system, it is important to consider passive design strategies to reduce overall energy requirements, including strategies such as: ¥ Orientation and Massing: The home should be oriented to minimize solar heat gain from east and west facades, and maximize natural airflow through the building. These strategies will also provide the “cool breeze” and “natural daylight,” two features which increase resale value. Roof design should be simple on the South side to allow for easy and aesthetically pleasing placement of solar panels. ¥ Shading: Deciduous trees and overhangs on Southern facades provide shading which will drastically reduce air conditioning cost, and the associated solar required to offset that energy. ¥ Envelope: Proper insulation and window selection will ensure heating and air conditioning costs do not have a major impact on energy bills. In addition to reducing energy requirements, zero net energy, all-‐electric homes in Palo Alto will need to rely on the following electric technologies that are commonly available today: ¥ Heat pump hot water systems 68 Reference Aimee Baily analysis here…and perhaps quote from it SCAP Draft Appendices 20160405.docx April 5, 2016 Page 124 of 124 ¥ Heat pump or radiant electric heating systems ¥ Induction ranges and electric ovens ¥ LED lighting ¥ Rooftop solar photovoltaics to generate on-‐site renewable energy Meeting Date: 04/18/2016 Earth Day Report 2016 (EDR16) From: City Manager This is an informational report and requires no Council action. Executive Summary During the past year, Palo Alto has continued to advance its sustainability commitments, including evaluation of electrification options; drought response; managing dewatering issues; launching a downtown transportation management association and convening a regional dialog on mobility alternatives; and development of a new Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) to provide strategic focus to existing and new sustainability initiatives. Background Palo Alto created its first sustainability plan in 2002, and its first Climate Protection Plan in 2007. In the intervening years it has undertaken hundreds of sustainability initiatives, which are summarized annually in an “earth day report” (EDR). This year, because of staff focus on development of the S/CAP, the EDR is condensed, including this summary staff report and appendices that provide more substantial quantitative and qualitative detail. Discussion Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) The Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP), being brought to Council tonight, is an effort to (1) update Palo Alto’s climate goals, strategies and actions; (2) use the S/CAP as a vehicle integrate Palo Alto’s hundreds of sustainability-related initiatives; and (3) approach these issues in ways than improve quality of live, build prosperity and enhance the community’s resilience— its ability to respond effectively to stress and crisis. Resource use Note that while some reported data (e.g., electricity, natural gas and water use) is measured, other reported data (e.g., emissions from transportation and solid waste) are estimates and should be considered approximate; variations smaller than +/-10% may not be meaningful. GHG Emissions: City and community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions declined in 2015 to an estimated 36% below 1990 levels, compared to 35% in 2014 (effectively no change, given the precision of the underlying data. Updated calculation methods for transportation and solid waste related emissions make comparison with estimates reported in prior years difficult, but the trends are directionally the same. GHG Emissions from City Operations: City natural gas emissions for 2015 dropped 37% since 2014, largely as a result of the City signing on to the PaloAltoGreen Gas program in July of 2015. City solid waste related emissions have declined modestly; updated calculation methods have shifted both current estimates and baseline year estimates. GHG Emissions from City and Community Activities: City and community transportation related emissions in 2015 declined an estimated 1% since 1990, and 11.5% since 2005, but have increased an estimated 3% since 2013, possibly due to revised calculation methodologies. (Transportation represents the largest component of Palo Alto emissions; estimates are both the least stable as methodologies change and the least accurately estimated; staff will bring Council a proposal to minimize that problem.) Community-wide natural gas emissions for 2015 dropped 3% since 2014, as a result of both ongoing efficiency measures and about 2% of customers enrolling in CPAU’s opt-in PaloAltoGreen Gas program. Water Consumption: Per capita water consumption has dropped nearly 33% since 2005, with about one-third of that drop in the last year, largely as a result of the community’s exceptional response to the current “drought.” Highlights and Accomplishments from City Departments (See Attachment D) Administrative Services Department (ASD): Drafted three year Green purchasing plan, continued to iteratively green prioritized goods, services and purchasing operations, Implemented eProcurement, collaborated on Urban Sustainability Director Network green purchasing partnership City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU): Achieved RPS of 26.0% in 2015, on track to 57.5% in 2017. Due to drought conditions, hydroelectric power declined to less than 30% of CPAU’s portfolio in 2015, which necessitated purchase of additional RECs to compensate for additional market power purchases. Grew local solar programs. Natural gas use declined 15%, largely due to warm weather and water conservation. Launched the PaloAltoGreen Gas program, with 2% participation by the end of 2015. Developed pilot heat pump water heater (HPWH) program. CPAU is leading Palo Alto’s participation in the Georgetown University Energy Prize, competing against 49 other cities for a $5m prize.. Community Services Department (CSD): Reduced the potable water use in our parks and open space areas by 35% (based on 2013 base year). In partnership with Save the Bay and volunteers, removed over 20,000 pounds of invasive weeds from the Baylands and planted 8,000 native plants. In partnership with Canopy, planted 135 native trees throughout the City of Palo Alto’s parks. Development Services: Developed and adopted New Green Building Ordinance and Energy Reach Code. Continuing to streamline EV and other permitting processes. Studying electrification feasibility and potential PV default requirements for new construction. Library: Participated in Silicon Valley Reads 2016 (siliconvalleyreads.org): “Chance of Rain: The Impact of Climate Change in our Lives.” Open Mitchell Park LEED Platinum library, and won multiple other design awards. Planning and Community Environment (PCE): Comprehensive Plan update; launch and support Transportation Management Association (TMA); develop plans for expanded shuttle service; implemented residential parking permits, developed paid parking and transportation impact fee studies. Office of Emergency Services (OES): Evaluating renewable back up power and microgrids for Cubberly and other critical sites. Integrating climate and other risks into community engagement public safety education and Community Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness Office of Sustainability (OOS): Developed S/CAP; developed Sustainability Dashboard; joined global Compact of Mayors; convened City and regional explorations of “mobility as a service” (MaaS); worked with other departments on electrification, procurement and other initiative. Raised $350k in funding for EV chargers and a multi-city collaboration exploring how to more effectively fund municipal sustainability initiatives Public Works Department (PWD): Benchmarking City buildings energy and water use and cost. Implementation of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Began drafting a Citywide facilities energy management plan. Implemented “EV First” policy for City fleet; installed additional EV chargers at City facilities. Advanced Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) recycled water program. RWQCP GHGs rose slightly in 2015. Attachments Attachment A: Summary of 2007 Climate Protection Plan Attachment B: City Municipal Operations Emissions Attachment C: Palo Alto Community and City Municipal Operations GHG Emission Attachment D: Highlights of Sustainability Initiatives by City Municipal Operations Attachment A: Summary Description of the 2007 Climate Protection Plan NOTE: Emissions estimate have been updated since 2007, and is reflected in the body of the report. This summary is for reference purposes only. In December 2007 Council approved a Climate Protection Plan (CPP) that set a short, medium, and long term goals to reduce City operations and community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These goals were: 1. Short Term Goal: By 2009, the City Operations will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emission levels for a total reduction of 3,266 metric tons of CO2. 2. Medium Term Goal: By 2012 the City Operations and Community will reduce emissions by 5% from 2005 emissions level for a total reduction of 29,702 metric tons of CO2. 3. Long Term Goals: By 2020, the City Operations and Community will reduce emissions by 15% of 2005 levels, equal to 119,140 metric tons of CO2, and bring the community in line with State emission reduction goals. Outlined below in Figure 1 and Figure 2 are the City’s and Community’s GHG emissions profiles, as outlined in the 2007 CPP. The City’s emissions of 65,329 Metric Tons of CO2e (MT CO2e) and the community’s emissions of 728,720 MT CO2e combined is equivalent to approximately 14 tons per resident. Electricity and natural gas related emissions account for approximately 40% of the 793,621 MT CO2e total municipal plus community emissions. (Note: the natural gas leakage estimate has since been substantially revised downwards, from 19,358 MT CO2e to 4,717 MTCO2e.) Figure 1: Municipal (City Operations) GHG Emission Sources in 2005 (65,329 MT CO2e) Source: Climate Protection Plan: December 2007 Note: Natural gas leakage numbers were updated with more accurate numbers since 2007 that resulted in considerable reduction in leakage estimates. Figure 2: Community GHG Emission Sources in 2005 (726,720 MT CO2e) Source: Climate Protection Plan: December 2007 B. Short Term GHG Reduction Goals The City operations undertook a number of departmental level initiatives to meet the goal to reduce municipal GHG emissions by 5% at the end of 2009. Utilities energy efficiency and conservation programs were integral part of this effort. The initiative was classified under five main categories: employee education, electricity conservation and efficiency upgrades, paper use reduction, commute reduction, and waste reduction. A revised 2005 benchmark of 29,364 MT CO2e was established. This lower benchmark down from 65, 329 MT, figure 1 above) reflects the reduced estimate for natural gas leakage and biogenic emissions from the waste water treatment plant because the facility serves other cities too and Palo Alto has minimal control over those emissions. April 2010 Update In April 2010, staff reported to Council that municipal GHG emissions declined by 11% in 2009 relative to the revised baseline year of 2005 (excluding employee commute estimates) (CMR: 194:10). Emissions were down from 29,364 MT CO2e to 25,518 MT CO2e. The principle contributors to this reduction are outlined below: Major upgrades and process improvements at the water quality plant, accounted for 75% of the reduction o Replace natural gas used in the biosolids incinerator emission control equipment with landfill gas that had previously been burned in a flare o Improve aeration system and replace air diffusers o Install more efficient motors and lighting fixtures Upgrade building systems and fixtures o Lighting fixture upgrades at the Elwell Court building o Reduced lighting levels at selected locations o City hall upgrades: motors, boilers, HVAC system Updated 2012 GHG Reduction Goal for the City Based on the progress made since 2007, City Council in 2010 increased the City municipal GHG reduction goal to 20% below 2005 levels by 2012. Attachment B: GHG Emissions of City Municipal Operations: Comparison Data City municipal operations related emissions drivers and associated emissions are shown below. Table B1: City Operations GHG Emission in 2005 and 2012-2015 (in MT of CO2 equivalent) – Biogenic and Anthropogenic, no adjustment for hydro conditions or PAG purchases – 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Scope 1 Biogeni c Scope 2 Scope 1 Biogenic Scope 2 Scope 1 Biogenic Scope 2 Scope 1 Biogenic Scope 2 Scope 1 Biogenic Scope 2 Buildings and Other Facilities 8,723 0 1,819 7,016 0 1,155 5,365 0 0 8,177 0 0 8,053 0 0 Streetlights and Traffic Signals 0 0 689 0 0 534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water Delivery Facilities 2 0 67 34 0 42 91 0 0 41 0 0 54 0 0 Wastewater Facilities 8,504 16,689 2,546 6,414 15,602 1,950 5,024 11,183 0 4,913 10,861 0 5,840 11,054 0 Vehicle Fleet 2,835 1 0 2,546 0 0 2,399 0 0 2,523 0 0 2,373 0 0 Power Generation Facilities 0 0 8,570 227 0 3,839 0 0 0 23 0 0 333 0 0 Solid Waste Facilities 6,846 2,994 29 4,336 3,765 19 6,642 2,919 0 8,470 6,436 0 8,014 5,941 0 Other Processes & Fugitive Emissions 3 0 0 9 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 26,912 19,684 13,720 20,582 19,367 7,539 19,525 14,102 0 24,151 17,297 0 24,673 16,995 0 Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are non-biogenic emissions that are caused by human activity. Biogenic emissions are assumed to be net carbon neutral and not reported under GHG emission reporting protocols. Scope 2 emissions from electricity were eliminated starting in 2013 by the purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) under the Carbon Neutral Plan. Table B2 below shows the transformation of the data in Table B1 above by excluding biogenic emissions, and shows a 39.3% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions from the 2005 baseline. Table B2: City Operations GHG Emission in 2005 and 2012-2015 (in MT of CO2 equivalent) Excludes Biogenic, not normalized for hydro conditions or PAG purchases GHG Emissions comparison (Scope 1 & 2) 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Water Delivery Facilities 69 76 91 41 54 Wastewater Facilities 11,049 8,364 5,024 4,913 5,840 Vehicle Fleet 2,835 2,546 2,399 2,523 2,373 Streetlights & Traffic Signals 689 534 0 0 0 Solid Waste Facilities 6,876 4,354 6,642 8,470 8,014 Power Generation Facilities 8,570 4,067 0 23 333 Buildings & Other Facilities 10,542 8,172 5,365 8,177 8,053 TOTAL 40,629 28,112 19,521 24,147 24,667 Percentage reduction from 2005 baseline 30.8% 52.0% 40.6% 39.3% Table B2 does not include the effects of the purchase of PaloAltoGreen resources and the normalization of the vagaries of hydroelectric supply conditions. Table B3 below does adjust for these two effects and shows a 47.6% reduction in emissions from the 2005 baseline year. Table B3: City Operations GHG Emission in 2005 and 2012-2015 (in MT of CO2 equivalent) Excludes Biogenic, normalized for hydro conditions and PAG purchases GHG Emissions comparison (Scope 1 & 2) 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Water Delivery Facilities 74 64 91 41 54 Wastewater Facilities 11,269 4,659 5,024 4,616 4,225 Vehicle Fleet 2,835 2,546 2,399 2,346 2,373 Streetlights & Traffic Signals 748 387 0 0 0 Solid Waste Facilities 6,878 4,349 6,642 8,470 8,014 Power Generation Facilities 9,308 3,008 0 23 173 Buildings & Other Facilities 10,698 4,643 5,365 8,175 7,060 TOTAL 41,811 19,655 19,521 23,670 21,899 Percentage reduction from 2005 baseline 53.0% 53.3% 43.4% 47.6% Figure 1 below graphically illustrates Table B3 and is a reproduction of Figure 1 from the body of the report. Figure 1: City Operations GHG Emissions: 2005 and 2012-2015 (Hydro and PAG-adjusted) Total Emissions Reduced from 42,000 MT in 2005 to 21,900 MT in 2015 The primary drivers for GHG emission reduction performance are: Building and Other Facilities – Due to enactment of the Carbon Neutral Plan in March 2013, all electricity consumed by the City in 2013 had zero carbon emissions. The City began purchasing carbon offsets through the PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program in July 2015, which reduced emissions from natural gas consumption relative to 2014. Power Generation Facilities – This category accounts for transmission and distribution system losses. The City divested its ownership of the COTP transmission line in 2009, resulting in a lower loss allocation to the City. Distribution loss-related emissions also were eliminated in 2013 due to carbon neutral electric supplies. Solid Waste Facilities – Closure and capping of the landfill, resulting in less methane production and leakage in CY 2012. Higher collection and improved monitoring, combustion of biogenic landfill gas through flaring, and uncaptured methane leakage have resulted in increased emissions since 2014. Streetlights and Traffic Signals – No emissions are reported due to conversions to highly efficient LED streetlights (note, only metered fixtures are shown) and carbon neutral electricity supply. Vehicle Fleet – Fleet Services saw a slight reduction in consumption of CNG fuels in 2014 and 2015. Wastewater Facilities – 63% emissions reduction from 2005 baseline reflects use of landfill gas for incinerator, optimized use of gas from incinerator tuning, and use of carbon neutral electricity. The 16% decrease from 2013 was due to decreases in the volume of nitrogen effluent discharge. Water Delivery Facilities – There has been fluctuating energy use for water pumping, with a decrease in activity for 2014 and 2015. Palo Alto Community & City Municipal Operations GHG Emission: Restated reduction of 33% since 2005, 36% since 1990 1990 2005 2012 2013 2014 2015 Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Consumption Quantity Emissions (MT CO2e) Notes Scope 1 Emissions Natural Gas Use (therms) 36,589,986 194,000 31,374,970 166,350 30,086,536 159,519 30,336,076 160,842 26,103,713 138,402 25,491,698 135,153 1 Natural Gas Distribution Leakage 4,718 4,718 4,718 4,718 4,781 4,781 2 Palo Alto Landfill Fugitive Emissions 24,325 9,900 6,451 5,110 9,427 8,617 3 Palo Alto Landfill Gas Flaring (biogenic) 11,993 2,994 3,765 2,919 6,436 5,941 3 Wastewater Process Emissions 8,504 8,504 6,414 5,024 4,616 4,080 4 Scope 2 Emissions -- Actual Total Electric Load (MWh) 996,091 966,839 986,241 978,561 965,857 Hydro Supply (MWh) 548,760 413,584 406,570 266,026 251,466 Renewables Supply (MWh) 49,980 188,566 188,086 172,139 227,110 Brown Power Supply (MWh) 186,000 397,352 158,427 364,689 145,404 391,585 0 540,370 0 487,280 0 5a Palo Alto Green Purchases (MWh) 30,601 -12,201 75,805 -30,224 N/A N/A N/A 6 Scope 2 Emissions -- Weather Adjusted*** Total Electric Load 996,091 966,839 986,241 978,561 965,857 Hydro Supply (MWh) 514,073 514,073 514,073 514,073 514,073 Renewables Supply (MWh) 49,980 188,566 188,086 172,139 227,110 Brown Power Supply (MWh) 186,000 432,038 172,257 264,200 105,339 284,082 113,266 292,324 116,552 224,673 89,579 5b Palo Alto Green Purchases (MWh) 30,601 -12,201 75,805 -30,224 0 0 0 0 0 6 Scope 3 Emissions Commute into, from, and within City 331,840 371,870 319,720 319,720 329,296 329,296 7 Lifecycle Emissions From Annual Waste Placed in Landfills 7,953 22,265 7,953 14,082 5,030 14,549 5,197 15,087 5,389 14,012 5,005 8 Landfilling Recyclable Material 22,779 22,779 14,406 14,886 15,435 14,335 8 Total Emissions (weather adjusted, biogenic excluded) 780,119 752,130 591,373 515,497 507,346 501,267 Emission Reduction (since 2005) 21% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 31% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 33% Emission Reduction (since 2005) 33% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 24% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 34% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 35% Emission Reduction (since 1990) 36% Notes 1 Total Community supply of natural gas use/delivery. Adjusted for purchases of carbon offsets through PaloAltoGreen Gas program. 2 Leakage from the natural gas distribution system- modeled result, unchanged over the period. 3 Now using 40CFR Part HH methodology, per AB32. Estimates provided in prior estimates have been revised to reflect current methodology. 4 Represents N2O emissions from biological treatment process and release of Nitrogen. 5 a. Represents actual quantity of brown power related emission @ 879 lbs/MWh in 2005 and 2012; not applicable beyond 2012 due to Carbon Neutral electric supply. b. Weather normalized (for hydroelectric generation) quantity of brown power. No GHG impact in 2015. 6 Emissions saved due to purchase of PaloAltoGreen related RECs. PAG related RECs not included in 2015 due to Carbon Neutral electric supply. 7 Study results from Fehr and Peer (03/19/2013) using Valley Transportation Authority regional transportation model based Vehicular Miles Travelled (VMT) and vehicular profiles - does not account for Palo Alto specific parameters related to greater penetration of alternate fuel vehicles, bicycle use, etc. Study results under review. 2015 assumed to be same as 2014. 8 Based most recent EPA WARM methodology, based on characteristics and tons of material landfilled; prior reports relied on 2005 methodology. Landfilled amount in 2014 up 4% compared to 2012. * Municipal emissions related to electricity and natural gas consumption included within utility load numbers; fleet vehicle emissions also assumed to be included in community wide commute related emissions estimates made by consultant. ** Table excludes biogenic emissions related to: Landfill gas flaring and WQCP sludge incineration. *** Normalized to account for the vagaries of weather on hydroelectric supplies. No GHG impact starting in 2013 due to Carbon Neutral Plan. **** 1990 emissions data, where unavailable, were assumed to be equal to 2005 values. Attachment D: Highlights of Sustainability Initiatives by City Municipal Operations Department Name: Administrative Services Department (ASD) Background: ASD provides financial, analytical, budget, strategic and administrative support services for City departments. The Purchasing Division has lead responsibility for implementing city policies to incorporate sustainability considerations into the City’s purchasing processes. Strategy: The Purchasing Division works closely with the City’s interdepartmental Green Purchasing Team to bring sustainably sourced, produced and delivered products and services to all municipal departments, and to provide track and evaluate the success and impacts of these programs. Goals: To increase the City’s purchasing of green alternatives in goods and services and to embed green purchasing into the organization in partnership with the City’s Public Works–Environmental Services Division. To eliminate the use of paper for managing solicitations by moving to an entirely electronic process. Initiatives and Activities: The City‘s award-winning green purchasing program has “greened” structural and landscaping pest control, custodial supplies, office supplies, certain computer and monitor standards, and copier and printer performance requirements. We have eliminated the use of certain plastic products and pesticides prohibited by City policy, and made significant strides to reduce pollutants such as mercury and dioxins that are associated with the purchase of City supplies. Top Three Sustainability Initiatives in 2015 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome 1. Develop 2015-2017 green purchasing goals, objectives, tasks and timeline to further embed Green Purchasing Palo Alto operations. Develop a three year plan building on efforts of previous years’ work. Develop “default to green” options where appropriate. Drafted a three year plan (2015-2017) which includes green purchasing goals, objectives and a timeline. See supplemental materials for plan timeline, recommendations and related policy. 2. Continue to iteratively green prioritized goods, services and purchasing operations. Prioritize high-dollar and high carbon footprint purchases, and target opportunities to reduce waste, pollution and maximize energy efficiency. 1. Increased the purchase of green office supplies via Staples contract and blocked key items from purchase on this contract including: foam foodware, pesticides, virgin copy paper and antibacterial soaps. 2. Configured online purchasing of office supplies to simplify and encourage the purchase of 100% recycled content copy paper and remanufactured toner cartridges. 3. Began process to improve copier contract to improve performance of required preset duplexing. 4. Began RFP for less-toxic structural pest control; 5. Close to adopting a Managed Print Services model for refreshing the City’s copier/printer fleet in an effort to move towards both a print-less environment and a more efficient system of copier/print usage. 3. Implement eProcurement Use new eProcurement system to build in green purchasing objectives into solicitations and reduce paper use and storage. 6. Began effort to research options for using existing SAP program to flag priority products and services to better measure performance and automate more administrative processes. 4. Urban Sustainability Director Network Green Purchasing Grant Partnership Collaborate on nation-wide grant to identify best practices for all aspects of public agency green purchasing. 7. Final report will be completed in 2016 and Palo Alto will review opportunities to update best practices. Data: Data hasn’t been analyzed, but partial data is available, via Staples. Challenges: Despite strong leadership from ASD and Public Works staff, this initiative lacks dedicated budget and there are limited staff resources. Current reporting systems, both from vendors and internal, don’t provide sufficient information to evaluate and manage the initiative. Supplemental Materials: Please see attached: Green Purchasing Recommendations 2015-2017 Green Purchasing Workplan Green Purchasing Policy Department Name: Community Services Department Background: The Community Services Department (CSD) manages 37 parks, a golf course, and open space preserves totaling 4,165 acres of land. Other public facilities managed by CSD include three community centers, a public art center, Junior Museum and Zoo and Children’s Theatre. Parks, open space preserves and other outdoor public spaces provide numerous opportunities to incorporate sustainable practices such as water conservation, replacing turf with drought tolerant plants, removing and preventing the spread of invasive plant species, and reducing waste. Strategy: Working alongside other City departments, such as planning, public works, and utilities, CSD strives to manage and operate parks, open space, and other public spaces using sustainable practices whenever possible. Goals: 1. Maintain a 35% reduction in potable water use in the City’s parks and open space areas. 2. Manage vegetation in parks and open space areas to ensure invasive species are controlled and amount of tree canopy is not reduced. 3. Incorporate sustainable best practices into parks and open space operations and maintenance. Initiatives and Activities: CSD staff reduced the potable water use in our parks and open space areas by 35% (based on 2013 base year). In partnership with Save the Bay and volunteers, over 20,000 pounds of invasive weeds were removed from the Baylands and 8,000 native plants were planted. In partnership with Canopy, 135 native trees were planted throughout the City of Palo Alto’s parks. Top Three Sustainability Initiatives in 2016 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Promote restoration of native species and habitats in ecosystems degraded by invasive plants. Continue to partner with environmental organizations to remove invasive plant species, grown and plant native plants, and maintain or increase tree canopy within parks. CSD partners with environmental organizations to appropriately manage and maintain vegetation in parks open spaces, and other public areas. Provide opportunities for environmental education Provide volunteer opportunities, and offer summer camps. CSD partners with environmental organizations to provide volunteer opportunities. CSD offers programs and summer camps to educate and increase environmental awareness to the community. Include a sustainability policy in the Parks, Trails, Natural Open Space and Recreation Master Incorporate sustainable best practices, projects, and/or programs to ensure the policy Master Plan is anticipated to be complete by December 2016. Plan can be achieved. Challenges: It can be a challenge balancing the recreation needs of the community with sustainable best practices because the perception is they do not always complement one another. One example of this is replacing grass turf areas with drought tolerant plants or dirt. This may be perceived as a lack of park maintenance, but it is actually the result of a well-planned decision to reduce water usage in areas that are not heavily used for recreation, or could support other types of uses such as gathering spaces or nature walks. Department Name: Development Services Background: Development Services is committed to the design and construction of high-performance green buildings that reduce the impact on natural resources and provide healthy environments to live and work. Strategy: Development Services will continue to provide leadership in the area of green building programs and enforcement protocol. We will develop green building policy for new and existing building stock that leads the State in incorporating high performance, resource efficient buildings, net-zero energy and carbon neutral strategies, and encouraging deconstruction and recycling of construction waste. Our policies, programs, and incentives will promote energy, water, and resource efficiency across our community, resulting in occupant comfort, better indoor air quality, and better environmental quality. Goals: Our goal is to reduce water use, energy use and GHG emissions by permitted buildings by 10% over prior year data. Our target equals a total energy use reduction amount of 4.3M kBTu/year, 10.5M gallons/year of water, and 99.0 metric tons of CO2 (compared to 2015 performance data reported below). Also, we have a target to reduce energy use of buildings while promoting local generation to offset what is left to achieve Zero Net Energy consumption over the course of a year. We have published a green building survey to better track these building metrics related to building permit applications. Initiatives and Activities: Deliver interdepartmental training enabling all development review staff and community to answer basic green building questions to the community. Gain approval on two sustainability ordinances related to green building, including the green building ordinance and the energy reach code ordinance. Continue to meet with Green Building Advisory Group for future code cycles and to resolve issues from previous review cycles. Publish a streamlined website promoting design clarity in green building policy and enforcement expectations. Top Sustainability Initiatives in 2015 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome New Green Building Ordinance Expand and update the existing green building ordinance with new criteria that reflects current building technology. Adopted a new Green Building Ordinance, June 22, 2015. An updated version will be presented to City Council in 2016 to coordinate with the 2016 Building Code change. New Energy Reach Code Conduct a cost-effectiveness study enabling the requirement of enforcing a 15% improvement beyond the energy code. Adopted a new Energy Reach Code, September 10, 2015. An updated version will be presented to City Council in 2016 to coordinate with the 2016 Building Code change. Training and Outreach Solicit input on future building code amendments, enforce existing codes, and support awareness and Successful outcomes include improved code compliance and increased capacity from our compliance with existing codes. community partners. Electric Vehicle and Photo Voltaic (PV) Installation Permitting Streamlining Process to move from over-the- counter permitting to on-the-web. This function is being implemented as a part of Accela Work Plan. Study PV as Default for New Construction Explore feasibility of developing “default to solar” codes and policy. The new Energy Ordinance will focus on energy efficiency with solar power as a method for compliance. Conduct Feasibility Study for Electrification Explore feasibility of building code changes related to electrification. Present an update on the Electrification Study at end of 2016 in accordance with the Electrification Study work plan. Data: FY 2015 Green Building Performanc e Measure FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Green Building - revenue $ $25,808 $73,895 $94,113 $127,186 $89,911 $304,625 Green Building valuations with mandatory regulations $ $81,238,249 $187,725,366 $543,237,137 $569,451,035 $349,128,085 $537,328,1 77 Green Building square feet with mandatory regulations 774,482 1,249,748 1,342,448 2,441,575 3,432,025 3,982,319. 97 Energy savings (kBtu/yr) (sf) 449 3,399 1,701 1,922,532 3,141,510 3,958,713 Water reduction (gallons/yr) 84,539 2,119,485 4,976,775 5,580,485 7,730,840 31,285,192 CO2 emissions reduction (metric tons) 1,013 2,818 21 19,269 72,168 103,270 Challenges: Development Services faces continuous change in the area of state, local, and federal policy— particularly policies that don’t align with the specific needs of Palo Alto. California Energy Commission regulates how aggressive agencies can be in their pursuit above minimum code. To affect significant change and meet our GHG reduction goals, new legislation is needed. Development services is working with CPAU, NRDC and other cities to work with the CEC to develop potential regulatory or legislative changes more appropriate to Palo Alto’s carbon neutral electricity environment. Maintaining an educated community of city staff, local architects, and contractors is a concern that impacts our green building and energy policy. Development Services will be rolling out a comprehensive green building training protocol to address this challenge amongst staff and the community. Cost effectiveness analysis that accounts for environmental costs needs to be performed to support reach codes. Department Name: Library Background: The Library provides educational opportunities that provide the public with information and resources for reducing carbon footprint, waste, energy use, and making improvements to home and habits that encourage such a lifestyle. Strategy: Library buildings include information about energy use and conservation, model new thinking regarding public building design, and sustain materials collections that aid customer education about all aspects of sustainability and the environment. For example: Mitchell Park Library: building design as an example of sustainable building practices; architect- developed system of “ecoglyphs” (symbols to lead to discovery of conservation/sustainable systems), and other educational signage to teach while observing/experiencing the environment Awards for MPLCC in 2015: Excellence in Facility Design California Park & Recreation Society Site Design & Low Impact Development Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) LEED Platinum USGBC Library Journal Landmark Library Library Journal Magazine Sustainable Design City of Palo Alto - Architectural Review Board Children’s Library: heating/cooling guide on screen Rinconada Library (formerly Main Library): building improvements from renovation to HVAC system and incorporation of improved furnishings Goals: Specific quantitative targets, where appropriate, described in terms of resource efficiency metrics, GHG reductions, or other relevant indicators. (max 250 words) Initiatives and Activities: PACL continues to host events and provide programs to all ages that passively or purposefully provide examples to demonstrate some aspect of sustainable practices. For example, nearly all crafts programs incorporate reuse of materials. 2015 Library Programs supporting Earth Day-related activities/goals 5/15: Family Date Night: featured the value of gardening for families 5/26-6/9: Jr. Naturalists, in collaboration w/Environmental Volunteers: met at Rinconada Library with topic of “exploring the earth in the backyard” 5/30: Co-sponsored a talk with Acterra, several local congregations that are part of Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action, and California Interfaith Power and Light, to present author Mary Pipher’s as a kick-off to an “All City Read,” sponsored by the City of Palo Alto Library, reading The Green Boat: Reviving Ourselves in Our Capsized Culture. Book discussions were held 6/4, 6, 12, 15 at different library branches. 6/23: Island Press author Richard Willson discussed his new book, Parking Management for Smart Growth, and ideas and solutions to parking issues that Palo Alto and other cities face. 12/17: Program titled “Replace Your Lawn with California Native Plants: Are you looking for some alternative gardening ideas during our drought?” The California Native Plant Society presented ideas to keep a no-water lawn and landscaping. Monthly beginning in late 2015: Master Gardeners of Santa Clara County meet at the library Top Three Sustainability Initiatives in 2016 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Participate in Silicon Valley Reads 2016 (siliconvalleyreads.org): “Chance of Rain: The Impact of Climate Change in our Lives” Palo Alto City Library is pleased to be participating in Silicon Valley Reads, an annual community program that selects books focused on a contemporary theme and offers free events throughout Santa Clara County to engage the public in reading, thinking, and discussing the topic. In 2016 Silicon Valley Reads focuses on climate change and introduces an emerging literary genre, eco-fiction (also called climate fiction), with two outstanding books that speculate about a future with extreme weather: Memory of Water by Emmi Itäranta and Sherwood Nation by Benjamin Parzybok. Two books for children have also been selected: The Storm in the Barn by Matt Phelan and Water is Water by Miranda Paul. The program runs February-March 2016. Education opportunities regarding drought and need for water conservation Multiple programs and author visits, leading to community conversations and reflection about water, as well as increased awareness about the importance of water to our daily lives. Programs currently scheduled: Creative Ecology: Linda Gass, a textile artist, gives a talk on her interest in art, ecology, and education @ the Palo Alto Art Center. Jan 13, 7pm. SVR 2016 Film Series: Screening of Water Detectives @ 3:30 pm; Mega-drought @ 4:00 pm; Earth Under Water @ 5:00 pm. Feb 13 @ Rinconada Library. Success with Low-Water Ornamentals: presented by Master Gardeners of Santa Clara County. Feb 18, 7pm @ Rinconada Library. Silicon Valley Reads Author Visit: Emmi Itäranta will visit the Palo Alto City Library to discuss her book, Memory of Wa-ter. Mar 6, 2pm @ Rinconada Library. Water Cycle Storytime & Craft: A reading of Miranda Paul’s Water is Water. Tues, Mar 8 & Wed, Mar 9, 10:30am @ Children’s Library. Brown Bag Book Club: Book group will discuss Memory of Water. Mar 8, 11am @ Rinconada Library. RainDance: Using Recycled Water: RainDance is a Palo Alto company that helps California home owners use recycled water for gardening. By reducing the use of tap water, the company enables gardeners to enjoy the beauty of their land-scape all year long. Mar 10, 7pm@Rinconada Library. Challenges: The Library’s books are still shipped from other systems and within the Library’s system, relying on vans that depend on fossil fuel. The Library, while using energy efficient equipment, nevertheless relies on automation which requires high energy usage. Additional open hours of service to the public also increase the number of hours for energy use. Department Name: Office of Emergency Services (OES) Background: The Office of Emergency Services works with all City departments as well as the community to promote resilience to threats and risks of all types. Strategy & Planning: The mission of the Office of Emergency Services is to prevent, prepare for and mitigate, respond to, and recover from all hazards. These hazards were recently codified in the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) that was presented to City Council in September 2014 (www.cityofpaloalto.org/thira). The THIRA lists a number of hazards that either directly (criminal sabotage or cyber attack) or indirectly (storm that knocks out power) could endanger critical utilities and fuel supplies. The FEMA THIRA best practice structure also encompasses the “technological or accidental” type of incident, such as occurred in February 2010 when the small aircraft collided with the City’s connection to the power grid. There are a number of City plans and related documents that bear on this topic. The Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) (pending) will address means of keeping the City’s government in operation in the event of disruption of City facilities, including utility-related scenarios. OES has also drafted an Energy Assurance Plan (EAP) with the pro bono assistance of consultant Arrietta Chakos. Palo Alto is required to revise the existing Local Hazard and Adaptation Mitigation Plan (LHMAP, formerly LHMP), with State and FEMA approval, and Council adoption no later than 1 June 2017. The LHMAP process will interface with S/CAP and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Goals: OES is working with the Chief Sustainability Officer, the Public Works Department, Utilities, and other staff to 1) bolster resilience for key facilities, 2) develop vehicles and systems that are resilient and adaptable to energy disruption, supply chain problems, and other emergencies, 3) community engagement and public safety education, and 4) explore strategies to leverage “green” initiatives to support and realize emergency preparedness objectives. Initiatives and Activities: Critical Facilities: OES is evaluating practical and cost-effective means to expand the use of renewables to reduce the risk of power disruption for certain facilities. For example, the Cubberley Community Center is an important resource in the event of a major earthquake or other disaster, since it 1) houses the Red Cross shelter, 2) is an identified site for medical care by the City’s Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), 3) is a back-up location for certain City departments per the Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), and 4) is the location of the City’s Emergency Services Volunteers Division Operations Center (ESV DOC). OES retained an outside expert to evaluate the existing photovoltaic (PV) grid-tied panel system and propose a design to add battery back-up capability, so that certain locations and systems at Cubberley would remain operational even in a grid-down scenario. Future key facilities include the proposed new Public Safety Building (PSB), which may incorporate microgrids, islanding, and other alternative energy elements to reduce dependence on 1) the power grid and 2) diesel fuel for generators, especially during prolonged incidents. Vehicles and Portable Renewable Generation: OES has designed, developed, and now operates a number of vehicles and portable equipment, such as the Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC). OES is investigating solar-battery generator trailers as a means to similarly improve energy resilience for those key assets. OES is even seeking to acquire an all-electric All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) for rescue operations and routine use (which could be the City’s first-ever non-fossil-fueled public safety vehicle). Community Engagement and Public Safety Education: In addition to these energy assurance efforts, OES leads a number of other community resilience efforts, including the Emergency Services Volunteer (ESV) program that encompasses CERT, Neighborhood Watch, and other programs (www.cityofpaloalto.org/emergencyvolunteers), support of Stanford University and affiliates (such as Stanford Hospital), regional public safety planning efforts, regional training programs, coordination with private sector entities for emergency response and recovery, technology development for public safety, grant management, and other all hazards activities. OES believes that the development of local resources, including, for example, locally-grown farm-to-table food (Victory Gardens!), is not only good for the environment but will help us through a crisis. Leverage Environmental Initiatives and Maximize Value for Community Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness: The City and others have made and plan to make substantial investments to reduce greenhouse gasses, etc. OES seeks to assist by providing input from a public safety perspective to facilitate a more complete understanding of the consequences and potential risks of certain strategies on the one hand and to maximize the full value of such investments. The push to increase electric home appliances, for example, has a number of nuances. Those residences with gas appliances (stoves, hot water heaters1) can still use them even during a power outage. Increasing electric vehicles (EV) can create hazards (electrical problems when charging; potential risks to first responders dealing with EVs in accidents, etc. ) that will need to be understood and addressed. This is certainly not to say such strategies should not be explored, but rather that the full spectrum of pros and cons should be evaluated. In many cases, there could be creative work-arounds. For example, a resident could install a new electric water heater in parallel to the legacy gas water heater, idling the gas water heater unless/until electricity fails. There may be some genuine opportunities for “big thinking” in terms of resilience. Palo Alto is unique in having its Utilities, dating back over a century to a time, originally, when the City also controlled electrical generation. Imagine the benefits to residents, businesses, and others were the City and its residents to again own a significant part of its electrical generation capability locally, mitigating the risk of grid failures, future pricing and commodities uncertainty, and so forth. Put another way, which is more worthwhile: an investment of >$100 million in a second connection to the power grid more worthwhile? or developing local electrical power generation? Challenges: 1 Old-school tank hot water heaters have an additional advantage after an earthquake or other disaster where the water supply to a residence is impaired: It can be used as an emergency water source. The Office of Emergency Services should be viewed a source of expertise, creative ideas, and operational experience. Improved interdepartmental cooperation is needed to implement safety programs that interconnect across City Operations. Department Name: Planning and Community Environment 2016 Background: The Planning and Community Environment (PCE) Department is responsible for a range of planning and implementation actions aimed at preserving and enhancing the quality of life in Palo Alto, ensuring wise transportation investments, and facilitating land use and development decisions through consistent and transparent processes. The department is responsible for: • Updating, maintaining, and overseeing compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan • Monitoring and enhancing the City’s transportation infrastructure • Implementing a variety of transportation programs aimed at reducing reliance on the private automobile and improving safety for all modes of travel • Gathering and analyzing data in support of land-use and transportation policy • Reviewing commercial and residential applications for planning entitlements for compliance with the City’s zoning ordinance and applicable guidelines • Reviewing projects for potential environmental impacts on the City and its residents • Administration of the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs • Management and implementation of the City’s Housing Programs • Oversight and implementation of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance • Investigating and abating code violations Strategy: 1-2 year: Prepare an update to the Comprehensive Plan for Palo Alto with active community input, addressing issues related to land Use and community design, transportation, climate change and sustainability, safety, noise, natural environment, community services and facilities, business and economics, governance, housing Goals: PCE’s goals for the current year are: • Incorporate the concept of sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan where appropriate and align with the stand-alone Sustainability/Climate Action Plan that is being prepared concurrently. • Define and analyze a “Quality of Life” scenario for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), incorporating policies and programs consistent with the evolving Sustainability/Climate Action Plan. • Implement transportation programs to address traffic congestion and parking demand generated by single occupant vehicles including a paid parking study and implementation of parking management programs (e.g. RPP), creation and support of a Transportation Management Association (TMA), and development of strategies to enhance shuttle service. Initiatives and Activities: Top Sustainability Initiatives in Progress Sustainability Initiative Objective Desired Outcome Comprehensive Plan Update Align the Comp Plan Update with the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan that is being prepared concurrently Analysis of a “Fifth Scenario” for inclusion in the Comp Plan EIR that would implement the S/CAP and address quality of life issues. Free Shuttle Service Identify ways to increase ridership by improving and/or expanding Strategies are being developed to increase trip frequency and Sustainability Initiative Objective Desired Outcome shuttle service in Palo Alto ridership, and conduct community outreach (1 year planning phase) Parking Management Better manage parking supplies to meet the needs of residents, visitors/customers, and employees, while providing incentivizes for non-SOV trips. Implementation of RPP, Implementation of parking wayfinding, completion of a paid parking study, and evaluation of technologies to improve management of parking in commercial districts (2 year planning phase) Transportation Management Association support Support activities of the new TMA to reduce SOV trips to/from downtown Provide incentives to businesses, residents, and the regional community (3 year planning phase) Housing Element Implementation Support the development of housing as outlined in the City’s Housing Element Consider ways to stimulate additional ADU that are compatible with Palo Alto neighborhoods, as well as micro units and other types of multifamily housing. Also develop an ordinance providing incentives for small lot consolidation as called for in the Housing Element, and consider whether to eliminate sites along San Antonio Road and substitute greater densities or new sites in transit accessible areas with neighborhood services like Downtown, Cal Ave, or the El Camino Corridor. Update the City’s housing impact fees. Transportation Impact Fees Assess the best way to ensure that new development does not contribute to cumulative traffic congestion, and design a new impact fee program to eliminate or offset new trips to the extent feasible. Develop a new transportation impact fee program concurrent with the Comp Plan Update, consolidating existing programs to the extent feasible, and addressing the impacts of new development via TDM, transit, and other trip=reduction strategies. Challenges: PCE recognizes the importance of its sustainability-related initiatives, and has been challenged to hire the staff needed to implement these programs. In addition, the schedule for the S/CAP has lagged behind the Comp Plan, which is itself taking longer than originally anticipated. Therefore, it has been challenging to align the policy framework of the two plans as well as the quantitative analysis of GHG emission reductions. PCE has not had the resources to gather and track meaningful metrics and is currently developing (especially for mobility issues like transit, mode shift to cycling or walking, and parking) a data management system to provide quantifiable evidence for program effectiveness and outcomes. Supplemental Materials: For more information about the work being done by PCE to guide the preservation and development of Palo Alto, please explore the website to the Comprehensive Plan: Our Palo Alto 2030: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/ Department Name: Public Works – Engineering Services & Public Services Background: The Public Works department is committed to building, managing and operating City buildings and infrastructure in a sustainable manner. This includes libraries, community centers, theatres, fire stations, the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, offices and other buildings, parks, athletic fields, roads, bridges sidewalks and the Urban Forest. Sustainable practices are incorporated into major building renovations, maintenance, infrastructure projects and everyday work practices. Strategy: Public Works assesses the performance of City-owned facilities, identifies areas for improvement, and develops phased improvement programs to be optimized through monitoring energy and resource use to provide high quality service to the Palo Alto community. Optimization is achieved through improved building management systems and regular assessments of these systems. Goals: The overarching operational objective of Public Works is to design, construct and renovate efficient and healthful City facilities and infrastructure, operate and maintain them in good order for the comfort and productivity of occupants and users. By optimizing operations, the department seeks to reduce operating costs and negative impacts and improve the reliability of the building systems through continuous improvement of resource efficiency, and to extend the useful life of the buildings consistent with these goals. Initiatives and Activities: Through various Capital Improvement Projects, Public Works is working to use energy more efficiently and reduce water usage. Parks renovations include drought-tolerant landscaping and trees and more efficient irrigation systems. Building projects are utilizing efficient LED lighting, more efficient HVAC systems, cool roofing materials, and water saving fixtures. Street resurfacing and related concrete work are utilizing recycled aggregates and other waste products such as tire rubber and fly ash. We are following the best business practices for recycling of construction related debris on all projects, and evaluating opportunities for salvage of materials. Storm water pollution measures are being implemented in building, parks and street projects. Public Works is incorporating “green infrastructure” in all applicable projects. Green infrastructure is defined as storm drain and other water capture infrastructure on public and private lands (including roads and parking lots) that includes low impact development such as infiltration, biofiltration, and/or storage and use of best management practices to collect, retain, or detain stormwater runoff to limit the discharge of pollutants from streets to the storm drain system. Green infrastructure provides amenities with many benefits beyond water quality improvement and groundwater replenishment, including creation of attractive streetscapes, habitat, reduction of heat island effect, and bicycle and pedestrian accessibility. Palo Alto has completed a Green Infrastructure project in the Southgate Neighborhood. We have installed full trash capture devices on Storm Drain mains identified as potentially having high trash content on Park Boulevard at Ventura Ave and a second location at Park Boulevard. The City’s stormwater discharge is permitted by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), a regional permit covering 76 Bay Area municipalities. The permit was just reissued and includes requirements for Green Infrastructure planning and development. The permit includes requirements to develop a Council-approved framework, a mechanism to prioritize projects and criteria, a list of prioritized projects, design guidelines/standard specifications, ordinance changes, and a funding plan. The permit also requires an update of relevant planning documents (such as comprehensive plan, specific plan, transportation plans, storm drain master plan, pavement work plan, and urban forestry plan). Top Sustainability Initiatives in 2015 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Benchmark City buildings for comparison of resource use and cost Utility Track Software has been acquired and installed in Facilities Management. Staff will create benchmarks and compare with similar buildings in the state and the nation, and identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement. This information will be shared with Engineering Services to identify opportunities for improvement. Construction of Mitchell Park Library and Community Center (designed for LEED Platinum certification) and the Renovated and Expanded Rinconada Library Create new or renovated library and community center space that is energy efficient using sustainable building practices. Construction of both projects was completed in 2014. The Mitchell Park Library and Community Center was awarded a LEED Platinum certification in 2015. Rinconada Library is in process, with the facility expected to achieve LEED silver certification. Water Efficiency Efforts Reduce use of potable water in construction activities New specifications were incorporated into Public Works construction projects requiring use of recycled water for dust control and other applications. Substitution of recycled water for dust control and grading activities at the El Camino Park Restoration project alone saved 250,000 gallons of potable water. New requirements for basement construction dewatering were implemented in 2015, providing “fill stations” at each of the 14 dewatering sites that allowed filling of water trucks and use by neighbors of shallow nonpotable groundwater that is otherwise discharged to the storm drain system. Implementation of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Sustainable work practices for building system maintenance include improvements in mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Mechanical improvements include the use of cool roofing materials to meet Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, replacing air conditioning units with more energy efficient units (when existing units need replacement) and using Building Management Systems (BMS) to control and monitor and mechanical and electrical equipment (including lighting) via computers in some facilities. Electrical improvements include the use of LED lighting, the use of occupancy sensors, and bi-level lighting for parking garages. Plumbing improvements include the use of low flow urinals and low flow toilets. Park Renovation Projects Park renovation projects managed by Public Works incorporate sustainable landscaping and turf elimination to conserve water whenever possible. The El Camino Park Restoration project was completed in 2014. This project incorporated a new artificial turf playing field that is expected to save approximately two million gallons of water annually. The project also included a new 10-foot wide bike path with 5,500 square feet of pervious concrete to allow on- site infiltration of rain water. Procurement and Use of Environmentally Preferable Construction Materials Street resurfacing projects include recycled aggregate in the asphalt mix and base rock. Major arterials are being paved with rubberized asphalt utilizing recycled tire rubber. Sidewalks, curbs and gutters are replaced with concrete that contains approximately 25% fly ash by volume. Paving work on Alma Street and Middlefield Road in 2015 used 1,865 tons of rubberized asphalt. Procurement and Use of Environmentally Preferable Consumables The City uses sustainable purchasing guidelines. City facilities are cleaned with environmentally friendly Green Seal Certified cleaning chemicals and no chlorine and post- consumer content paper towels are supplied in restrooms. Pest management also focuses on prevention and then using non- toxic pesticides. Develop a City wide facilities energy management plan Development of an energy management plan to guide the acquisition and installation of energy conservation measures in City –owned buildings Begin drafting this plan with input from Engineering Services, Public Services/ Facilities and Environmental Services. Fleet electrification Shift fleet from fossil and CNG fueling to EVs, as possible. Conducted cost-effectiveness analysis; established “EV First” policy, and began replacing vehicles. Evalutating 3rd party leasing options to accelerate fleet electrification Data: CY 2014 Row Labels Sum of Electric (kWh) Sum of Gas (Therms) Sum of Water (ccf) Buildings and other facilities 11,271,283 431,145 148,492 Other process and fugitive emissions 1,210 0 0 Power generation facilities 380,030 4,292 149 Solid waste facilities 124,524 0 154 Streetlights and traffic signals 665,701 0 3,903 Wastewater facilities 16,582,000 455,748 1,551 Water delivery facilities 686,565 107 15,291 #N/A 2,252 0 72,796 Grand Total 29,713,565 891,292 242,336 Year Electricity (kWh) Electricity Cost Gas Usage (Therms) Gas Cost Water Usage (CCF) Water Cost Annual Totals 2014 29,713,565 $3,126,178 891,292 $938,600 242,336 $1,893,504 $5,958,281 2013 28,809,795 $3,193,814 842,020 $832,556 283,943 $2,137,872 $6,164,243 2012 $3,331,729 $780,787 $1,650,344 $5,762,860 29,037,416 827,295 230,204 Challenges: As stated in previous reports, when existing building systems are renovated or replaced, air conditioning is being added where it previously didn’t exist. This additional system tends to flatten the overall potential energy savings of the newer more efficient heating systems and lighting. At Rinconada Library, geothermal wells were used to help mitigate this challenge. Historical preservation requirements are also a challenge. At Rinconada Library, the large grass lawn was a key historic feature of the overall site. It was therefore not possible to convert this to drought- tolerant landscaping and reduce irrigation needs. However, the project installed “purple pipe” so that it can easily be converted to recycled water when that system is expanded throughout the City. Public Works has completed a third party independent Facilities Management Organizational Study to evaluate the efficiency of our maintenance of Facilities. This study was conducted by Matrix Consulting. In the study, Matrix called out 10 recommendations related to Energy Management. Our newly appointed Facilities Manager will be analyzing these recommendations with the Engineering Services Division in the coming months. Staff anticipates development of new processes related to identification replacements, standards for replacements and use of energy audits. In this regard, reducing the energy and water usage is an important consideration. Energy and water usage can be tracked through our Utility Track software to determine the impact of efficiency and conservation initiatives. Department: Public Works– Fleet Division Overview: The Public Works Fleet Division is responsible for maintenance, repairs, and compliance of all City of Palo Alto vehicles and equipment. The division is charged with meeting all local, state, and federal air pollution requirements and vehicle safety standards. It also conducts the proper disposal of declared surplus and acquisition of replacement vehicles and equipment. The division’s mandate is to: 1. Maintain fleet availability by providing the vehicles and equipment to all of the departments daily in order for the departments to be able to provide the services to the City of Palo Alto. 2. Work with all operators, managers and departments, to prevent air pollution by training the drivers on reducing idle time as well as demonstrate the proper and safe use and operation of the vehicles and equipment. 3. Perform preventive maintenance inspections and repairs on a daily basis to all of the vehicles and equipment. 4. Ensure regulatory compliance with the BAAQMD, BAR, CHP, DOORS, OSHA and CAL OSHA. 5. Perform vehicle and equipment usage analysis to be able to identify underutilized vehicles and equipment and recommend right-sizing the number of vehicles and equipment needed in the City of Palo Alto. Strategy: Improve fleet efficiency and reduce vehicle and equipment emission by electrifying the fleet, maintaining it in top operating conditions, and training staff in safe and efficient operation. Goals: The Fleet Division is moving toward a low-emission transportation future with these department goals: 1. Identify new technologies and bold strategies to reduce fleet GHG emissions 2. Reduce unleaded fuel consumption by at least 10% each year, by scheduling replacement of all vehicles older than 10 years with current electric or low emissions models. 3. Meet or exceed all regulatory requirements for air pollution reduction and air emissions required by BAAQMD, BAR, DOORS, PERP and EPA while providing an increasingly high level of service to all members of the Palo Alto community. Initiatives and Activities: Fleet Services has been replacing gasoline-powered vehicles and other equipment with cars and trucks that use alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas, or electric vehicles (EV). The City invested in a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station at the Municipal Service Center for the 10% CNG vehicles in the fleet. However, choices for vehicle types are limited from manufacturers. We have replaced three vehicles with 2015 Toyota Prius hybrids, running on 87-octane unleaded fuel, replaced one vehicle with a 2016 Ford Focus electric, and have budgeted to replace one more vehicle with a Ford Focus electric in the 2016 fiscal year. We have developed a new policy (early 2015) to preference the purchase or lease for EVs over CNG, where appropriate, to take advantage of the City’s carbon-neutral electricity. Top Sustainability 2014 Initiatives and Activities: Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions Monitor and reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicles and equipment Number of vehicles purchased and gas powered vehicles retired (data in progress) -15% GHG emissions change from 2005 baseline year through 2014? Reduce unleaded and diesel fuel consumption in the fleet Establish policy and procedure for the operators to minimize the idle time on the vehicle and equipment they are using. Reduce the number of vehicles and equipment in the fleet by performing a vehicle utilization analysis and identify those vehicles that could be declared surplus and sold at auction. The City has established an anti-idle policy, outlined in Policy And Procedures 4-01/PWD, in an effort to reduce vehicle/equipment idle time which will reduce fuel consumption and our GHG emissions. The City also introduced into policy Remote Vehicle Monitoring Systems (RVMS), outlined in Policy And Procedures 4- 09/PWD. Specific uses of RVMS will be to ensure proper use of City equipment and promote fuel efficiency. Pool car utilization analysis was conducted and a total of four vehicles were identified as being underutilized. These vehicles are scheduled for surplus in FY 2016. Through fleets efforts over the last two years both diesel and unleaded fuel consumption were reduced in CY 2015. Data: Table: Fuel Use by Type (Gallons), 2005-2015) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Gasoline 149,861 156,142 152,153 146,398 131,096 137,850 146,595 147,849 146,479 150,732 146,977 Diesel 97,676 103,888 131,810 131,423 122,341 126,500 134,262 95,036 83,539 83,535 74,557 Biodiesel (B20) 46,667 27,261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CNG (City operations) 20,217 18,799 28,197 36,387 36,713 49,948 36,554 40,136 37,854 24,427 15,862 CNG (PASCO, PAUSD) 44,273 60,928 80,491 88,088 86,786 87,635 85,872 91,125 86,570 51,492 56,405 Fleet GHG Emissions (Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents, CO2e), 2005-2014 Fuel Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Gasoline 1,316 1,371 1,336 1,285 1,151 1,210 1,287 1,298 1,286 1,323 1,290 Diesel 997 1,061 1,346 1,342 1,249 1,292 1,371 970 853 853 761 Biodiesel (B20) 381 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - CNG (City operations) 139 129 193 250 252 343 251 275 260 168 109 CNG (including PASCO, PAUSD) 304 418 552 604 595 601 589 625 594 353 387 Total Emissions (excluding PASCO, PAUSD) 2,833 2,783 2,875 2,877 2,652 2,845 2,909 2,544 2,399 2,344 2,547 Percent Change from 2005 baseline -1.80% 1.50% 1.60% -6.40% 0.40% 2.70% -10.20% -15.30% -17.3% -10.1% Challenges: Existing fleet fueling data software has undergone a series of upgrades in order to provide better functionality, and data management. With the new software upgrades the reporting capabilities have increased greatly. However, the lack of staff training in creating reports leaves us unable to benefit from the new capabilities at this time. The department is exploring costs for on-site Crystal Reports specific training. Programs designed for traditional fleet maintenance goals haven’t been focused on meeting the bold target of 80% GHG reduction by 2050; the department needs to develop new programs and manage its performance to achieve its incremental annual reduction targets. Fleet’s vehicle replacement program was developed when CNG fueling was the environmentally preferred option; with the advent of carbon-neutral electricity, EVs are now preferred from an environmental perspective. In 2015 staff determined that EV sedans can also be less expensive on a total cost of ownership (TCO) basis if vehicles are leased, and the City Manager established an “EV first” policy. Staff has also been in discussion with vendors offering a turnkey fleet electrification program. However some staff perceive EVs as less desirable replacement options than current model gas- powered vehicles for some service requirements, so staff education and “ride and drive” opportunities will be important to build staff awareness of current options.. Supplemental Materials: Greenhouse Gas Reduction from Fleet Division: Section 12 in 2015 Clean Bay Plan, available at cleanbay.org. Reduced unleaded and diesel fuel consumption in the fleet: Section 12 in 2015 Clean Bay Plan, available at cleanbay.org. Compliance with regulatory and policy requirements to reduce other priority air pollutants in the atmosphere: 2015 CleanBay Plan report, located at cleanbay.org. Department: Public Works–Watershed Protection & Regional Water Quality Control Plant Background: The Public Works–Watershed Protection Division in collaboration with the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) works to reduce pollutants entering the Bay through award-winning pollution prevention, pretreatment, stormwater and air management programs. Since 1990, the goals of the RWQCP and Watershed Protection have been to: 1. Treat wastewater from the RWQCP six-community service area of East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Stanford; 2. Work with industry and businesses to prevent pollution; 3. Ensure regulatory compliance with the RWQCP wastewater discharge permit, air permit, and the Stormwater Permit; and 4. Provide residential services and education to prevent pollution in Palo Alto’s creeks and San Francisco Bay. Strategy: Given strict stormwater and wastewater permit requirements, Palo Alto must explore all feasible methods of reducing its metals and toxic organic pollutant discharges to San Francisco Bay. After initially focusing on pretreatment programs at major industrial facilities, the RWQCP expanded its efforts to include commercial and residential programs. Strategies include: Commercial and industrial: Integrating pollution prevention into business requirements via ordinance and incentives such as the Clean Bay Business Program; Residential: Providing programs with collection services for pollutants of concern (e.g., pharmaceuticals and sharps) and extensive public outreach including classroom presentations throughout the RWQCP service area; ongoing informational campaigns coordinated locally, regionally and state-wide; workshops, tours and special events; Leverage opportunities to improve and expand recycled water use and infrastructure. Key 2015 Goals: Watershed Protection had several 2015 goals to reduce industrial and residential pollutants for stormwater and wastewater, including the following higher-profile efforts: 1. Identify strategies to reduce greenhouse gasses (GHGs) associated with wastewater treatment and continue to meet goal of 20% reduction from 2005 emissions; 2. Promote the use of RWQCP recycled water through the Residential Truck-Fill Program, salinity reduction efforts, regional collaboration, and pipeline expansion efforts;; 3. Work towards meeting the 60% trash reduction (volume) target by July 1, 2016 in Palo Alto creeks, streets and Bay shoreline as part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirement; For a complete summary of 2015 pollution prevention efforts see the 2016 Clean Bay Plan report located at cleanbay.org. Top Three Sustainability 2015 Initiatives and Activities: Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome 1. RWQCP Greenhouse Gas Reductions Continue to reduce and track GHG emissions associated with wastewater treatment. 1. RWQCP GHG emissions have reduced to 16,608 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e), a 41% reduction since 2005. This reduction marks the continuous achievement of the goal set forth in the 2010 update to the City of Palo Alto’s Climate Protection Plan: 20% reduction of City GHG emissions below 2005 emissions by 2012. 2. The RWQCP purchases carbon neutral power from the City’s electricity portfolio and since July 2015 has purchased natural gas from the City’s green gas portfolio. 3. In early January, 2015, Council approved a contract with CH2M-Hill to design the facilities needed to phase out the City’s sewage sludge incinerator as soon as possible and replace it with a dewatering and truck off-haul facility. This is expected to greatly reduce RWQCP GHG emissions. 4. A GHG and Energy Factsheet was created in 2015 to provide concise information regarding historical and projected GHG emissions. Note: For more information, see Section 11 in 2016 Clean Bay Plan available at cleanbay.org. 2. Recycled Water Expansion Promote the use and expansion of the RWQCP Recycled Water Program as a sustainable and reliable alternative source of water. 1. In 2015, Watershed Protection staff has worked closely with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City of Mountain View, and the City of Palo Alto’s Utility Department to identify expansion opportunities for the RWQCP’s Recycled Water Program. 2. In 2015, City Council approved the Environmental Impact Report for Phase III expansion of the recycled water pipeline. 3. In 2015, the RWQCP expanded its truck-fill program to include residential customers and experienced a 580% increase in active recycled water permits. 4. Watershed Protection Staff, in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Mountain View, have moved forward with a feasibility study of enhancing the quality of the RWQCP recycled water by adding an advanced treatment system such as reverse osmosis. An advanced treatment system is expected to significantly decrease recycled water salinity amongst other water quality improvements. 5. RWQCP staff has continued efforts to identify sources of increased salinity from leaking wastewater collection system pipes. Note: For more information, see Section 12 in 2016 Clean Bay Plan available at cleanbay.org. 3. Trash Reduction in creeks, streets, and along Bay 1. Meet Municipal Regional Permit performance guideline of 60% trash reduction by 2016 along Palo Alto creeks and shoreline and future requirements of 70% by July 1, 2017 and 90% by July 1, 2019. 2. Expand Palo Alto’s Plastic Foam Ordinance to prohibited retail sale or distribution of plastic foam products. 1. In December 2014, The Regional Board confirmed that Palo Alto had met its 40% trash reduction requirement.* The City of Palo Alto reported 60% trash reduction and 71% reduction in the 2015 annual report. The Regional Board reissued the stormwater permit in November 2015 with new requirements. Trash reduction is currently quantified based on on-land visual assessments (i.e. monitoring of trash reduction activity success) and the success of product bans. 2. In December 2015, Council expanded the current plastic foam ordinance to prohibit retail sale or distribution of foam ice chests, foodware, packaging materials and egg cartons. Food service establishments have been prohibited from using plastic foam since 2010. The ordinance will go into effect on March 1, 2016. * More info located in the Long-Term Trash Plan and the 2014-15 Stormwater Annual Report: ** For more information, see Section 7 in 2016 Clean Bay Plan available at cleanbay.org. Data: 1. RWQCP GHG Emissions Data The RWQCP GHG emissions stem from the treatment of wastewater collected from the City of Palo Alto as well as its Partner Agencies (Mountain View, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Stanford). The RWQCP has five major sources of GHG emissions: electricity usage, natural gas combustion for office heating, sewage sludge incineration (natural gas, landfill gas, and biosolids combustion), biological treatment of wastewater, and baylands conversion of wastewater discharge (Figure 1). RWQCP GHG emissions decreased by 41% since 2005 mainly due to the purchase of green natural gas beginning in 2015, purchase of 100 percent green power electricity since 2013, use of landfill gas as a replacement for natural gas in the incinerator afterburner since 2005, and decreased incinerator hearth natural gas usage due to regular incinerator tuning (Figures 2). RWQCP GHG emissions as reported to the California Air Resources Board may differ from the values presented in Table 1 due to different high heat values, global warming potentials, and/or emission factors. RWQCP GHG emissions contained in this report were calculated using a static document, the Local Government Operations Protocol, Version 1.1 (2010) for analysis of historical trends and reductions; in contrast, the California Air Resources Board has periodically updated their GHG calculation methods to better reflect recent advances in science and federal regulations. Figure 1: RWQCP 2015 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source Figure 2: Historical RWQCP Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Calculated by the Local Government Operations Protocol, Version 1.1 (2010) 2. Recycled Water Expansion Data RWQCP total recycled water usage remained relatively constant from 2014 to 2015 with a slight decrease most likely due to increased water efficiency efforts (Figure 3). Despite the relatively constant total usage of recycled water, active recycled water permits significantly increased (Figure 4). In 2015, 61 active recycled water permits were reviewed and approved for use; this is a 580% increase from 2014 when only 9 recycled water permits were active. RWQCP routinely monitors the quality of the recycled water it produces for numerous parameters. One such parameter is salinity. Salinity is of particular concern for use of recycled water to irrigate salt- sensitive vegetation (such as Redwood Trees) as well as for use in industrial cooling towers. The RWQCP analyzes Recycled Water salinity using numerous metrics: total dissolved solids (TDS), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), and specific conductivity. RWQCP and its partner agencies (referenced above in “Background”) are taking efforts to decrease salinity entering the RWQCP from their collection systems (Figure 5). In addition, Watershed Protection, in collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and City of Mountain View, are undertaking a feasibility study for the addition of an advanced water purification system at the RWQCP that would further enhance the recycled water quality, including significant decreases in salinity. Figure 3: Historical Recycled Water Usage. Figure 4: Historical Active Recycled Water Permits. Figure 5: Historical Recycled Water Salinity (total dissolved solids). 3. Continue to meet regulatory requirements for additional pollutant reduction- The RWQCP has many numerical and programmatic regulatory requirements for pollutant reduction. An annual report of compliance and programmatic achievements is provided at cleanbay.org. Challenges 1. Future GHG Reductions: The RWQCP has made large reductions in GHG emissions over the past 5 years due to incinerator tuning, landfill gas replacement of natural gas in the afterburner, aeration basin optimization, installation of variable frequency drive lift pump controls for the trickling filters, as well as purchasing green energy options. As aging or deficient pumps and motors are replaced, the most energy efficient options available will be installed. Ongoing RWQCP optimization will continue, however the major GHG reductions from optimization projects have already occurred. RWQCP GHG emissions associated with biological treatment and baylands conversion are expected to gradually increase overtime as water conservation increases while at the same time the service area population and economy grow. Future GHG reductions will be largely contingent on future plans to phase out sewage sludge incineration expected in 2019, the new biosolids treatment process expected in 2025, and the availability of landfill gas as a replacement for natural gas in the incinerator (Figure 6). Landfill gas is used as much as possible in the incinerator afterburner. However the lower quality of landfill gas requires that natural gas continue to be used in other areas of the incinerator. Additionally, maintenance requirements on the landfill gas collection and distribution system varies from year-to-year and often makes landfill gas unavailable for RWQCP use thus requiring more natural gas be used during those times. Figure 6: RWQCP GHG Emissions & Projected Future Decreases from Change in Biosolids Treatment Processes. 2. Drought and Increased Economic Activity: Drought conditions in the service area have increased water conservation efforts and significantly decreased flows entering the RWQCP (12% from 2009 to 2015). Additionally, the recent economic recovery and growth in the service area (for example the increase in Google employees) increases the daytime population that increases inputs to the RWQCP from toilet flushing versus more dilute inputs such as showering. Decreased flows combined with increased daytime populations have a combined impact of increased loads and concentrations of pollutants such as ammonia and total dissolved solids (salinity). Higher pollutant loading and concentrations strain the current treatment process that was originally designed for treating more dilute wastewater. This issue is anticipated to pose continued challenges with meeting permit limits and internal goals (such as salinity reduction goals) should drought become more common with predicted climate change. 3. Recycled Water: One of the challenges with recycled water is that its quality is very dependent upon the quality of the wastewater that is sent to the RWQCP for treatment. Leaky pipes and transmission lines increase the salinity that must be removed at the RWQCP for future expanded use of the recycled water. Locating and subsequently relining these leaky pipes is challenging and requires not only special evaluations but also cross-departmental collaboration. Another challenge with the expansion of the RWQCP’s Recycled Water Program is the required expansion of the recycled water transmission pipelines. Current pipelines are limited to the area adjacent to the RWQCP. Expanding this pipeline is expensive and may not be cost effective depending on the expected demand for recycled water. The last major challenge for the expansion of the Recycled Water Program is the impact from prolonged drought and increased economic activity. Refer to Challenge No. 2 for more details on drought and increased economic challenges. 4. Trash Reduction: The primary challenge is measuring the impact the City’s programs have on the amount of trash in the creeks and Bay since trash is also transported to creeks and the Bay via wind and direct dumping and not only via the storm drain system. This is a challenge faced by all stormwater co-permittees (the regional stormwater permit is shared by cities in all nine Bay Area Counties). Palo Alto will continue its programs to manage illegal dumping and to provide clean-up events in an effort to address this challenge. The new stormwater permit requires development of tools and protocols for receiving water trash monitoring which will be developed regionally. 5. Sea Level Rise: New facilities being built at the plant will have flooring installed at 10.5 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), or higher, in addition to plans to construct levees outboard of the Plant at ~ 16 feet above MSL. The levees will protect the plant from a sea level rise of ~ 3 feet. Supplemental Materials: The 2016 Clean Bay Pollution Prevention Plan can be found http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1527&TargetID=150 Department Name: Public Works Environmental Services Division, Zero Waste and Landfill Operations Background: The City of Palo Alto adopted a Zero Waste policy in 2005. Since then, the City as a whole dramatically has reduced the amount of material going into landfills. The City now has a waste diversion rate of 80 percent, up from a 63 percent diversion rate in 2005. The City’s solid waste related greenhouse gas emissions stem primarily from two sources: (1) the fugitive emissions from the landfill where materials are buried; and (2) the emissions that are a result from having to mine or fabricate new resources (e.g., aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, etc.) instead of recovering these resources from recycled materials. Simplifying the residential recycling collection process, collecting and composting commercial food scraps, and engaging the community with effective zero waste marketing campaigns, are programs that have helped the City progress towards its greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals as well as zero waste goals. While economic activity and construction have an impact on the overall amount of material disposed, Zero Waste programs have helped keep tens of thousands of tons of material out of the landfill. In 2008, 68,228 tons were disposed in landfills. By 2014, that amount was reduced to 43,730 tons, a 46% reduction. Many more tons are now recycled or composted at homes, businesses, and construction sites. The amount of recyclable materials collected and diverted from the landfill increased from about 13,000 tons diverted in 2008 to 19,378 tons in 2014. Commercial compost collection, which started in 2009, diverts over 11, 580 tons per year of food scraps and food soiled paper from the landfill. On July 1, 2015, all single-family residential customers could now place food scraps and soiled paper directly into the green, yard trimmings cart as part of the residential curbside compost collection program. For new construction, 75 percent of all material must be recycled or reused on site as part of the City’s Green Building Program put into place in 2013, which superseded the Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance of 2004. The Palo Alto Landfill is owned, monitored and maintained by the City of Palo Alto. The municipal solid waste landfill operated from the 1930’s to 2011 and is now in the closure/post-closure phase. The long- planned end use of the landfill is parkland. The Environmental Services Division in the Public Works Department is responsible for the closure and post-closure care of the landfill. By law, the City is required to monitor the landfill for a minimum of 30 years to assure it does not pose an environmental hazard resulting from the release of landfill gas or the creation/release of leachate—the liquid that is created inside the landfill that must be pumped out for treatment at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Landfill gas is collected and either combusted in the RWQCP sludge incinerator facility or flared. Strategy: The zero waste strategy seeks to eliminate waste wherever possible, and then manage the discards we do create through reuse and recycling. Cities tend to focus on “end of pipe” solutions to recover materials for recycling and/or composting. Palo Alto goes even further by emphasizing the elimination of waste with programs like the food waste reduction program and internal environmentally preferred purchasing policies. For the landfill, staff has pursued two strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 1) capping the landfill; and, 2) beneficially reusing the landfill gas. Goals: Achieve a 90 percent diversion rate by 2021. Improve consumption habits and reduce the total amount material sent to the landfill. Provide local recycling and composting resources. Finalize landfill closure and conversion to parkland Maximize the amount of landfill gas sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Initiatives and Activities: A Recycling and Composting Ordinance for commercial customers was adopted by Council on January 25, 2016, which would require commercial customers to subscribe to compost service and properly sort both their recyclable and compostable materials. The proposed ordinance– currently planned for early 2016, may yield GHG emission reductions in excess of 22,000 MT CO2e per year. The landfill closure work was completed in November 2015. The closure work included constructing a new alterative design cap called an evapotranspirative cap. Completion of the cap is expected to reduce the amount of fugitive landfill gas emissions. In addition the landfill continues to send landfill gas to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant where it is used in their incinerator. This reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of landfill gas. Top Sustainability Initiatives in 2015 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Food Waste Reduction program Deliver outreach messages and tools to residents and businesses on how to reduce the amount of food wasted. The quantity of waste diverted is not currently measured by the City’s implementation partner. Cap the landfill Cap the last phase of the landfill (Phase IIC) that will reduce fugitive landfill gas emissions. The final landfill phase has been capped as of December 31, 2015. All environmental protection systems will be completed in FY 2016. Increase beneficial reuse of landfill gas Modify controls at the flare station and incinerator Better control and metering of landfill gas to the incinerator Data: Annual Diversion Rate, 1995-2014 Historical City of Palo Alto Landfill GHG Emissions, 2005 (baseline) - 2015 Overall the trend in the City of Palo Alto GHG emissions is downward. Fluctuations in GHG emissions are likely the result of closure activities. The closure activities include years of decreased waste acceptance followed by a year of increased waste placement, expansion of the gas collection system and completion of cover operations. Forecast: Solid Waste Related GHG Emissions in metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) for the Palo Alto Landfill. Emissions Source 2016 Emissions 2017 Emissions 2018 Emissions Palo Alto Landfill GHG emissions during the year 8,600 8,500 8,400 With the completion of the landfill cap and upgrades to the landfill gas collection system the City expects the Palo Alto Landfill GHG emissions to continue to trend downwards over the next 30 years. The rate of the drop in GHG emissions is difficult to estimate this early in the completion of the cap but as time goes on the rate should be more predictable. Trend: Solid Waste Related GHG Emissions in metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Emissions Source 2005 Emissions1 (baseline) 2012 Emissions 2013 Emissions 2014 Emissions 2015 Emissions (current) Difference (current- baseline) Percent Difference Palo Alto Landfill emissions during the year2 9,900 6,451 5,110 9,427 8,617 (1,283) -13% Life cycle fugitive emissions3 7,953 5,030 5,197 5,389 5,005 (2,948) -37% Landfilling recyclable materials3 22,779 14,406 14,886 15,435 14,335 (8,444) -37% 12005 GHG Emissions are baseline calculations. 2Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 98, Subpart HH model used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions produced by Palo Alto Landfill. 3EPA WARM model using CalRecycle landfill data used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions produced by handling and disposal of City generated solid waste and includes the capture of recyclables at the Sunnyvale Material Recovery and Transfer Station. Challenges: The Regional Water Quality Control Plant incinerator beneficially reuses some of the landfill gas. The system is still being optimized to increase the amount of landfill gas the plant can use. Product design and packaging development is largely outside of the City’s control. The City has implemented a number of internal programs to reduce packaging and waste including the banning polystyrene packaging for City purchases. The audience with the most control over waste sorting--janitorial and custodial staff--is very difficult to reach, train, and keep informed of new programs. To address this audience, Staff, along with Spanish-language support from the City’s contract trash hauler GreenWaste of Palo Alto, conducts regular trainings for employees of City facilities. In keeping with a City-wide “we go first” strategy, the municipal diversion rate should be equal or higher to the residential and commercial waste streams. Staff is providing training and improved signage to City departments, and has begun internal benchmarking to build awareness and engagement. Department Name: Office of Sustainability, City Manager’s Office Background: The Office of Sustainability (OOS), established in December 2013, works with other City departments to develop and implement a world class sustainability strategy for Palo Alto that improves quality of life, grows prosperity and builds resilience, while protecting and improving the living systems that sustain us—and leads Palo Alto to recognized as one of the greenest cities in America. Strategy: In the Office of Sustainability’s (OOS) second full year of operation, our priorities are to develop a world class sustainability and climate action plan (S/CAP), integrating the community’s highest aspirations and the many initiatives across city departments into coordinated one plan; further embed the City’s sustainability commitments into City operations; and develop a city/community wide sustainability performance dashboard, to streamline and improve access to sustainability performance data through the year. In parallel OOS focused on collaboration and community engagement/input. OOS collaborated with other cities, non-profits, and foundations, bringing resources in to raise awareness and build our capacity to deliver projects focusing on reducing emissions in the two most impactful sectors: transportation and buildings. Goals: develop a world class sustainability and climate action plan (S/CAP), integrating the community’s highest aspirations and the many initiatives across city departments into coordinated one plan; Integrate sustainability programs and practices into City operations & Community actions, including management systems, procurement, finance and training. develop a city/community wide sustainability performance dashboard, to streamline and improve access to sustainability performance data through the year. Foster experimentation, alliances & big leaps, such as electrification, “mobility as a service,” “Zero Net” and “Net Positive” Energy building initiatives and smart city. Initiatives and Activities: To further these goals, OOS proposes, supports and adds capacity to the sustainability initiatives that other departments are focused on. Here we highlight a few of them. Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP): Working with a world-class consulting team (from DNV- GL and Rocky Mountain Institute) and key city staff, OOS developed a draft sustainability and climate action plan the City’s first since 2007), that will once again put Palo Alto in the forefront of sustainability strategy. OOS held a community climate summit (January 2016), including 300 diverse stakeholders from our community, as well as Council and staff, who explored key elements of the 80% by 2030 plan, including roadmaps, strategies and actions in the areas of transportation, energy, and water Sustainability dashboard: OOS is implementing a sustainability performance dashboard to collect accurate data on key sustainability performance metrics across departments, produce timely reports for management and the public, and provide a fact-based foundation for bold strategic thinking. This platform is designed to reduce staff time on these tasks, improve transparency and auditability, and give Council and city managers actionable and timely data to optimize their activity, inform decisions, and drive performance. The dashboard launch was delayed by unexpected data privacy concerns and unexpected staff attrition, but dashboard now has Utility data loaded, and other data will be loaded this spring. Mobility as a Service (MaaS): OSS has acted as the “sparkplug” for regional MaaS initiatives, in additional to advancing MaaS discussions within the City. The City Manager hosted the first regional MaaS conversation in City Hall in February, including a delegation from the Finland Ministry of Transportation and Communications (with which we have since signed a Letter of Intent, along with Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV), to collaboration on MaaS development). JVSV has hosted ongoing quarterly convenings, with expanding regional interest. OSS has advanced various MaaS concepts, including responsive shuttle services, paid parking and parking “cash out” with staff, the TMA, the Comprehensive Plan CAC and community groups. OSS has worked with the Planning Department’s transportation group to design MaaS pilots and analysis, including the Shared Use Mobility Center toolkit (interactive map and policy database), Ridescout and VTA employee commuter benefits improvement pilot (app to integrate transit use with commuter benefits), the Commuter Wallet RFP, and a new ride share service called Scoop. In addition OSS held three regional MaaS convenings driving a region-wide strategy with JVSV to transform transportation. Net Zero Energy: OSS collaborated with the Development Services Department (DSD) to convene a multi-city peer exchange on developing a Zero Net Energy (ZNE) policy, learning from best practices, barriers and opportunities from other cities (including Austin, Cambridge and San Jose). This work was supported by grant from the Urban Sustainability Directors Network’s Innovation fund to assist the city in developing California’s first Zero Net Energy Policy ahead of the State’s adoption cycle. In 2016 the City was invited to New York to collaborate with 13 other leading cities to help drive efficiency and reduce carbon emission from buildings. This seminal work is driving the conversation forward. In collaboration with DSD and other city stakeholders they are proposing an Energy Reach Code in May that leverages this work and attempts to codify greater efficiency in new and retrofitted buildings to inch closer to ZNE. Electrification: OOS is participating in multi-departmental staff efforts, in response to Council’s August 2015 directive, to assess options and develop plans for a citywide electrification strategy. Utilities will launch the first pilot in early 2016: a heat pump electric water heater rebate program. DSD is studying the cost effectiveness and any barriers to entry for Heat Pump technology to encourage greater penetration into existing and new buildings. They are also studying whole house Electrification from a building code perspective. Electrifying Transportation: Building on Palo Alto’s 2014 Electric Vehicle (EV) readiness ordinance developed by DSD, OOS won a $53,000 grant from California Energy Commission to do and education (outreach to 50 local businesses and two EV “ride and drive events) on the benefits of installing EV Fast Chargers. OOS also worked with Public Works and BAYCap to secure a $57,500 grant from Bay Area Air Quality Management District to add five new Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (8 ports) to be installed at City Hall – 250 Hamilton Ave; Cowper/Webster parking garage – 520 Webster Street; Cambridge parking garage – 400 Cambridge Ave. (two at this location); Ted Thompson parking garage – 275 Cambridge Ave. (Additional grants for additional charges are pending.) OOS is working with Fleet to implement the City’s new EV first policy, and with Public Works and Utilities to review and potentially revise Palo Alto’s policies with regard to pricing for use of EV chargers on City facilities. Compact of Mayors: OOS worked with Mayor Holman to sign Palo Alto onto the global Compact of Mayors--a global cooperative effort among mayors and city officials committed to reducing local greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing resilience to climate change, and tracking progress transparently. The Compact establishes a common platform to capture the impact of cities’ collective actions through standardized measurement of emissions and climate risk, and consistent, public reporting of their efforts. Neighborhood Engagement Pilot: OOS worked with the not-for-profit Empowerment Institute to establish an MOU for the “Cool Blocks” program and develop an initial 10 block pilot of the program. Cool Blocks organizes and trains teams of neighbors, organized by blocks, to select and implement sustainability and resilience actions to reduce household carbon footprints, and create more connected and resilient community. Finance Scan and Convening: Supported by a grant from Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN.org) OOS led a multi-city collaboration exploring how to more effectively fund municipal sustainability initiatives, including a convening bringing together CSOs, CFOs, and Investors to bridge the sustainability targets and financing gap. (Launched early 2016) Fundraising: OOS has raised $350,000 in grant funding for City sustainability initiatives, including County Alternative Mobility planning; EV education, outreach and charging stations; Multi-City ZNE peer exchange; Sustainability Finance Scan. Challenges: OOS is a very small office with a very large mission, and is challenged to fulfill even a part of that mission without permanent staff. OOS relies on coordination with other departments whose resources are also limited and not always available for collaborative activities; we’re working to design more effective ways to coordinate sustainability activities across departments. Synchronizing the different times lines and processes of the S/CAP and CompPlan processes has been challenging. The emerging nature of OOS’s work requires timely responsiveness (for example in relation to funding and collaboration opportunities and invitations to participate in multi-city platforms and positions) that the City is not always able to provide. Department: City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) Background: The mission of CPAU is to earn a high level of customer satisfaction by providing cost competitive, safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable utility services. Strategy: Continue to implement cost effective energy efficiency and water conservation programs Implement Local Solar Plan with objective of providing 4% of the community’s electrical energy needs from local solar resources by 2023 Maintain the City’s 100% carbon neutral electric supply Facilitate adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in Palo Alto by providing time of use (TOU) electric rate option to residential customers and by optimally utilizing Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) revenue for the benefit of EV owners in Palo Alto Analyze and implement cost-effective electrification (natural gas-to-electric fuel switching) programs Concerted effort in CY 2015 and 2016 to engage residential customers to reduce energy use to compete in the Georgetown University Energy Prize Encourage participation in the PaloAltoGreen Gas program to offset the carbon emissions associated with natural gas use Seek and test emerging technologies that have the potential to enable CPAU to provide more effective utility services Consistent with cost of service requirements, provide customer rates that encourage electrification, including greater EV adoption and Goals: 1. Reduce electric energy use by at least 4.8% by 20232 (no GHG impact since electric supply portfolio is carbon neutral) 2. Reduce natural gas use by at least 2.85% by 2023 (4,500 metric tons per year of GHG reduction by 2023) 3. Meet the State’s mandated drought-related water savings goals (see figure D-5 for actual reductions). The compliance period is from June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. 4. Reduce long-term water use in order to comply with the State’s 20% by 2020 per capita water use reduction requirement. 5. Generate at least 4% of electrical energy from local solar by 20233 (no GHG impact) 6. Achieve PaloAltoGreen Gas program participation of 20% of natural gas customers by 2020, representing around 10% of the citywide gas usage (16,000 metric tons per year of GHG reduction) 7. Continue to procure long-term renewable electric supplies to maintain carbon neutral electric supplies (no GHG impact since electric supply portfolio carbon neutral) 2 For electric and gas 10-year energy efficiency goals, see: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/32390 3 For Local Solar Plan, see: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/39981 Initiatives and Activities: Top Sustainability Initiatives in 2015 Sustainability Initiative Objective Outcome Electricity and Natural Gas Efficiency and Conservation Programs Promote resource efficiency to commercial and residential customers for cost savings, lowered consumption, and avoided greenhouse gas emissions. See impact of energy efficiency programs on utility loads in Figures D-2 and D-3. Due to the relatively warm winter of 2015 and water conservation, the natural gas usage declined by close to 15% in 2015 Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible electric supplies Increase renewable energy in CPAU’s electric portfolio The City’s RPS was 20.6% in 2013, 23.3% in 2014, and 26.0% in 2015. Executed contracts will result in RPS of 42.9% in 2016, and 57.5% in 2017. Local Solar Program Increase local solar generation from 0.7% of total load to 4.0% by 2023. Solar group-buy discount program, Peninsula SunShares, implemented in 2015, resulted in 236 kW of new local solar. The first two Palo Alto CLEAN program applications expected to result in a total of 1.4 MW of new solar installed in 2016. New Community Solar and Solar Donation programs are under design. PaloAltoGreen Gas Enroll 20% of all natural gas customers in a voluntary carbon offset program by 2020, equivalent to 10% of total natural gas usage4. Participation was about 2% of citywide gas usage in 2015 and is expected to double in 2016. The program is on track to reach the goal of 10% of load participation by 2020. Facilitate Electrification Facilitate electrification of natural gas appliances and adoption of electric vehicles Pilot program to facilitate installation of heat-pump water heaters to commence in January 2016. EV count is Palo Alto about 1,200 at the end of 2015. 4 The City of Palo Alto facilities began participation in the PaloAltoGreen Gas program for 100% of their usage starting in July 2015. That usage accounts for a vast majority of the program participation for 2015; the City-owned facilities natural gas use, and corresponding participation in the program, will decline considerably when the incinerator at the water quality control plant is retired in the 2017-18 timeline. Resource Efficiency and Local Renewable Energy Programs Resource FY 2015 Savings Goals (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved Electricity 0.60% 0.77% 7,192 MWh Gas 0.50% 1.20% 225,080 therms Water 0.91% 1.54% 68,227 CCF Customer-side Renewable Program Goal FY 2015 Achievement Cumulative Achievement Solar Electric (PV) 6,500 kW by 2017 814 kW 5,877 kW since 1999 Solar Water Heating 30 systems/year 15 systems 58 systems since 2008 For more details on individual efficiency and local renewable programs and achievements, please review report linked below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14820 Data: 1. See impact of energy efficiency programs on utility loads in Figures D-2 and D-3. 2. See RPS increase since 2005 in Figure D-1. Challenges: 1. Current building standards (Title 24) adopted by the California Energy Commission discourage the adoption of electric water heating and space heating, despite the higher efficiency performance of heat pump appliances. CPAU plans to engage with CEC as well as other stakeholders to remove this bias. 2. For residential customers, switching from natural gas using appliances (for space heating, water heating and cooking) to electric appliances requires a high upfront investment and is not cost effective, especially if the home’s electrical panel needs to be upgraded and the upgrade costs are applied to that single improvement . 3. Future State emergency water reduction regulations are unknown. 4. Hydroelectric power as well as potable water supplies could be at risk in potentially disruptive climate change scenarios. 5. Disruptive innovation in local PV generation, distributed energy storage (including rolling storage provided by growing EV fleets ) and net zero buildings may require re-examination of CPAU business models. 6. Cost of service based retail rate making process required by State law may limit the options available to encourage electrification through retail rate structures. 7. While CPAU is delivering efficiency gains generally ahead of targets, greater progress will be needed to achieve California’s 80% by 2050 GHG reduction goals, or potentially more aggressive S/CAP goals. “Low hanging fruit” efficiency have been achieved, so deeper gains may require new approaches. 8. Electrification will increase electricity demand and reduce natural gas revenues introducing the challenge of maintaining natural gas system integrity if natural gas use and revenues decline dramatically in the coming decades. Supplemental Graphs: Figure D-1: Electricity Portfolio: 2005-2025 (Actuals and Projections) Figure D-2: Impact of Energy Efficiency Programs on Electric Sales5 5 There are no GHG reductions from electric energy efficiency after 2013 since electric supplies are carbon neutral. Figure D-3: Impact of Energy Efficiency on Gas Sales Figure D-4: Residential Per Capita Utility Consumption Declining Figure D-5: Progress in Meeting the State-mandated 24% Potable Water Use Reduction Target City of Palo Alto (ID # 6467) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of an Ordinance Establishing a Single Story Overlay District for 202 Homes Within the Royal Manor Tract Number 1556 by Amending the Zoning Map to Re-Zone the Area From R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 (7,000) to R-1(S) and R-1(7000)(S) Single Family Residential with Single Story Overlay. The Proposed Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Rezoning Boundary Includes 202 Properties Addressed as Follows: Even Numbered Addresses on Loma Verde Avenue, Addresses 984- 1058; Even and Odd-Numbered Greer Road Addresses, 3341-3499; Even and Odd-Numbered Kenneth Drive Addresses, 3301-3493; Even and Odd- Numbered Janice Way Addresses, 3407 to 3498; Even and Odd-Numbered Thomas Drive addresses, 3303-3491; Odd-Numbered Addresses on Stockton Place, 3315-3395; and Odd-Numbered Louis Road Addresses, 3385 to 3465. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act Per Section 15305. Planning and Transportation Commis sion Recommends Approval of a Single Story Overlay for Royal Manor From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Receive the Planning and Transportation Commission recommendation to adopt the Single Story Overlay (SSO) and consider the appropriateness of excluding some properties from the SSO boundary. Moreover, if the Council decides to exclude some properties from the SSO boundary, direct staff to assess level of property owner support for a smaller proposed SSO boundary. Executive Summary Several property owners within the Royal Manor Tract filed an application to establish a Single Story Overlay encompassing 202 of 203 properties within the tract. At the time of application submittal, the applicants submitted information indicating support from 144 property owners City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 202 properties within the proposed SSO boundary (or 71%). Property owner names were verified to the owners of record with the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office information. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) held a meeting, which included public comment from supporters and those in opposition to the project. The PTC, while supportive of an overlay, was concerned about including Stockton Place and Loma Verde Avenue properties, and requested that City Council consider the appropriateness of including these properties in the boundary. Prior to and after the PTC meeting, some property owners began requesting their names be removed from the list of property owners supporting the overlay. Those in opposition to the SSO have expressed concerns about the fairness of the process and lack of clarity regarding what property owners were signing when they added their signatures to the applicant’s list of supporters, among other concerns. For property owner-initiated changes, the requisite level of support must be present at the time the application is filed. Declining level of support may be relevant, however, to the Council’s ultimate decision to rezone. Property owner support at the time this report was prepared has declined to 63.8%% or 129 owners of 202 properties within the proposed boundary (as of March 29, 2016). Support for an SSO that excludes Stockton Place properties is currently 66.1% (127 supportive owners from 192 properties). The Attachment D map indicates supporters as of March 29, 2016. Background The attached ordinance (Attachment A) and map (Attachment B) reflects the proposed SSO boundary encompassing 202 of the 203 properties with Royal Manor Tract #1556, as described in the public notice. Six residents submitted an application on October 27, 2015 to rezone the subject properties within the original Royal Manor tract from R-1 and R-1(7000) to the R-1-S and R-1(7000)-S, Single-Family Residential Single-Story Overlay zone. The one property of the original tract excluded from the proposed SSO boundary is a two-story, non-Eichler home at 1068 Loma Verde, located at the tract’s northeastern-most edge. The application materials are provided as Attachment G to this report. Neighborhood Setting / Character The following information relates to the subject neighborhood and proposed SSO: The Royal Manor Tract (#1556) is located south of Loma Verde Avenue, east of Louis Road, and adjacent to an employment center located to the south and east (the ROLM- zoned East Meadow Circle/West Bayshore area); The Royal Manor neighborhood is comprised primarily of single-story, single-family Eichler homes of a similar age (late 1950s), design and character, and many of the properties exceed the minimum lot size for the zone district; City of Palo Alto Page 3 The properties within the proposed SSO boundary are within the flood zone; the finished first floor of any new home must be at least 10.5 feet above sea level; There are no known ‘Restrictions, Conditions, Charges and Agreements’ for this tract limiting development to single-story homes; 90% (183) of the 202 homes are single-story homes (original Eichler homes) meeting the 80% threshold for a SSO rezoning; The two-story homes within the proposed SSO boundary are the original one-story Eichlers with additions in the Eichler style and building materials; The two-story, stucco home at 1068 Loma Verde Avenue located at the northeasterly corner of the original tract is excluded from the proposed SSO boundary because it was constructed in the 1960’s after the rest of the homes in the tract and does not appear to be an Eichler-built home; There are no two-story home applications currently on file with the City within the proposed SSO boundary; The properties fronting Stockton Place and Loma Verde Avenue are zoned R-1, as are the properties in the tract’s interior on the north side of Kenneth Drive. The minimum allowable lot size in the R-1 district is 6,000 sf and the 23 properties fronting Loma Verde Avenue and Stockton Place and the 13 properties fronting the northerly edge of Kenneth Drive generally conform with this size (i.e. the majority of these lots are 6,000 square feet or slightly larger, though several R-1 properties are nearer to 9,000 square feet in area). The remainder of the lots within the proposed SSO boundary are zoned R- 1(7000), which requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 sf and the majority of these lots appear to be larger than 7,000 square feet. A five foot wide easement runs along the rear properties fronting Loma Verde Avenue prohibits placement of detached garages or other non-habitable structures fully within the entire rear yard setback. The properties fronting Loma Verde are subject to a special setback of 24 feet from the front property line, within which buildings may not be placed; Loma Verde corner lots have street side setbacks (at 16’) that are greater than interior side setbacks (6’); Eichler homes on Loma Verde Avenue and Stockton Place are part of the Eichler tract but face homes that are not Eichler homes and are outside of this Eichler tract boundary, on the other side of these streets. Application Requirements/Procedures/Compliance with Regulations The Single Story Overlay (SSO) combining district was established in 1992. Each application for an SSO is considered on its own merits. Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.80.035 states that SSO applications are considered in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80 and can be made by a property owner within the district in accordance with PAMC 18.12.100 (Attachment H). The eligibility requirements include: (1) 60% of homeowner support in cases where existing CC&R’s restrict development to one story and 70% support otherwise; (2) 80% of homes must City of Palo Alto Page 4 be single story and (3) the boundary reflects an identifiable neighborhood.1 At the time the application was submitted, the Royal Manor SSO proposal met eligibility criteria for the creation of an SSO for the proposed boundary, since (1) the applicants submitted a list of signatures reflecting that at least 70% of 202 homeowners within the proposed SSO boundary supported the SSO, (2) 90% of the 202 homes are single story homes, and (3) the boundary reflects an identifiable neighborhood (Eichler properties within the tract). At the time of application, the petition conveyed signatures of support from 71% (144) of the 202 homeowners within the proposed SSO boundary. The support level calculation for 203 homes in the entire tract was 70.9% (144 owners of 203 properties) at application. The PTC report, available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50938, provides additional background information that is more briefly presented in this report to Council. The PTC report describes the SSO zone history, purposes, requirements and development regulations for SSO properties, information about the applicants and neighborhood, referencing maps and information prepared by staff to illustrate the proposal and neighborhood conditions, such as two story home properties and absentee owners, and a brief summary of constraints to development of properties with frontage along Loma Verde. The City’s SSOs are primarily Eichler neighborhoods. Imposition of SSO zoning does not reduce the allowable square footage and does not ensure compatible replacement one-story homes, nor does it address existing privacy conditions, since no discretionary review is required for a one-story home. Only zoning compliance review is required for one-story home building permits, and no notices are distributed. The most recently adopted SSO was the Greer Park tract, which the Council approved with its boundary intact, noting its inclination to support the request as an entire neighborhood rather than consider removing the properties along one edge of the tract. The SSO process regulations do not require the City to further verify homeowner support via postcard mailing. The code does require notification of the public hearings, which were sent to all property owners and residents of the homes within the proposed overlay boundary, as well as to property owners within 600 feet of the proposed overlay boundary. The regulations for SSOs do not require each street to have a 70% support level; rather, level of support is a percentage of the total number of properties within the boundary. Planning and Transportation Commission Review Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.80.070 (e), the PTC was asked to determine that the rezone application is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning Code) and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The PTC had reservations about their role in the process to recommend Council adopt a reduced SSO boundary, and concern about the SSO regulations and process. 1 PAMC 18.12.100(c)(2)(B) requires SSO applications to show that boundaries correspond to with natural or man- made features “to define an identifiable neighborhood or development.” City of Palo Alto Page 5 PAMC Chapter 18.80 requires staff to present to Council the PTC’s recommendation, despite the apparent erosion of support from property owners affected by the Single Story Overlay. The PTC recommended, on a 4-0 vote, that Council re-classify the zoning within the proposed SSO boundary from R-1 and R-1(7000) to R-1-S and R-1(7000)-S by adopting the attached draft ordinance. The Commission, which had reservations about including Stockton Place and Loma Verde Avenue, requested the Council evaluate the appropriateness of including properties fronting on these streets. The PTC also recommended the Council consider methods to improve the SSO application process better in the future. The PTC’s recommendation reflected the reduced level of support on Stockton Street and Loma Verde Avenue due to emails sent prior to the hearing (Attachment E). Verbatim PTC meeting minutes are provided as Attachment F. Owner Support Level Following PTC Review The owner support map as of March 29, 2016 is provided as Attachment D; the map also reflects the two story homes. The map that was provided to the PTC is Attachment C. The SSO code does not state that the support level must remain at 70% both during the process and at the point of Council action. Attachment I contains the emails received just prior to and after the PTC hearing. The current overall 63.8% support level reflects 17 owner signature withdrawals (or “reverse” to “non-support”) as follows: Three Stockton Place owners withdrew their support prior to the finalization of the PTC packet map, Nine Kenneth Drive homeowners withdrew their support; three of these owners withdrew their support prior to the PTC hearing, and six of these owners withdrew their support after the PTC hearing, Two Janice Way homeowners withdrew their support after the PTC hearing, One Loma Verde homeowner withdrew support after the PTC hearing, and Two Thomas Way homeowners withdrew support after the PTC hearing. The current 63.8% support level also reflects four original supportive owner signatures that were omitted from the map presented to the PTC (3371 and 3381 Thomas, 3437 and 3490 Kenneth), and the two Kenneth Way homeowners (signatures #90 and #200) who signed in support on February 9th (the day before the PTC hearing). The below charts illustrate the declining support from application submittal through March 29, 2016. Number of properties %/# support at application %/# support at PTC packet %/# support as of 2-10-16 %/# support as of 3-29-16 202 71% 144 owners 69.8% 141 owners 69.3% 140 owners 63.8% 129 owners City of Palo Alto Page 6 The below table reflects a timeline and current owner support level for properties fronting Stockton Place, Loma Verde Avenue, and remaining streets (through March 29, 2016): Street Frontage Number of properties %/# support at PTC packet (of 202 parcels) %/# support as of 2-10-16 %/# support as of 3-29-16 Stockton Place Frontage (includes corner) 10 20% 2 owners 20% 2 owners 20% 2 owners Loma Verde Fronting (excludes corner) 13 69.2% 9 owners 69.2% 9 owners 61% 8 owners Remainder of properties within boundary (not fronting above two streets) 179 72.6% 130 owners of 179 owners 72% 129 owners of 179 owners 66.4% 119 owners of 179 owners Discussion The applicants and proponents (those property owners who have not since withdrawn their support of the proposed SSO) cite many reasons for proposing and supporting this SSO application, such as: community feeling and backyard privacy, low-key, private, single-story character, private extension of indoor living space to the outdoors, shared desire to preserve the privacy and livability as well as unique design and character of a mid-century modern neighborhood, deep appreciation of Eichler homes and their place in the City’s heritage, as having the ‘largest concentration of Eichlers in the world,’ and Concern for the detrimental effect of two story homes on privacy and historic character. The application (Attachment G) contains the above language. Several emails sent prior to the PTC hearing (Attachment E) and some sent after the PTC hearing (Attachment I) described similar reasons. The applicant presentation at the PTC hearing also reflected the applicants’ opinions as to the values that come from living in a neighborhood of Eichler homes. Opponents of SSO have expressed concern that the support level was not met at application, because the boundary excluded one property located within the Royal Manor tract; this is not accurate, since the support with inclusion of the 203rd property was 70.9% at the time of the submittal and at the time the application was deemed complete. City of Palo Alto Page 7 The applicant-proposed boundary for rezoning is easily identifiable: it is the entire Royal Manor Eichler neighborhood minus one non-Eichler, two-story home at the northeasterly corner of the tract. Removal of a non-Eichler two story home is an approach approved by Council for the Los Arboles SSO, the boundary of which excluded two homes within the original tract boundary. The Royal Manor SSO application (Attachment G) provides details about the non-Eichler home as detailed in the PTC report. If the Council decides to move in a direction to support the overlay and seeks to include this 203rd property, additional public noticing and hearings would be required at the PTC before the City Council could take an action expanding the boundary. While there is great latitude for reducing the size of the boundary during the public hearing, increasing the boundary requires advanced notice be sent to those new property owners and tenants. Correspondence from opponents of the rezoning reflects concern of those who signed the petition in support of the SSO without fully understanding what it meant to sign the petition, which is that the application would be complete with their signatures, and would allow staff to forward the rezoning request to the PTC for consideration. Some opponents feel that the manner in which they were approached was not fair, and some reported feeling pressured to sign the petition. These opponents believe the “value” of the signatures originally obtained should therefore be discounted. Opponents to this rezoning have also noted that they did not see one or both of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) documents that the applicants submitted with the application. There were two sets of FAQs in the application. The first FAQ document was distributed in March 2015 to gauge the level of interest, and Answer #5 in the first FAQ was factually incorrect; it said: “the City will send postcards to all affected homeowners, asking if they support or oppose the single story overlay. If someone doesn’t return their card it counts as a NO vote. IF the proposal meets the requirements and has sufficient support from the neighborhood, the Planning Department will recommend that the City Council approve the overlay, else they may recommend against approval. The City Council has the final say, and is not bound to follow the Planning Department’s recommendation.” The second FAQ document was reportedly distributed with the April 26, 2016 “Dear Eichler Neighbors” letter. The Answer #5 in the second FAQ was corrected to be factually correct, since the above italicized, incorrect sentences and phrases were deleted; it stated: “The City will send postcards to all affected homeowners to notify them of the PTC hearing to initiate the rezoning; the Commission would forward its recommendation to City Council. The City Council has the final say, and is not bound to follow the PTC’s recommendation.” City of Palo Alto Page 8 The application letter stated that the applicant learned from staff of the need to make some technical corrections to the original FAQs (e.g. Answer #5) and that they updated and redistributed it as they sought neighbor’s signatures to show support for the SSO. Staff is unable to verify whether or not neighbors were provided both sets of FAQs. Staff’s Analysis Staff supports the interest expressed by a majority of the affected property owners to preserve the low scale character of the Royal Manor Tract. This tract is largely intact and undisturbed by larger two story homes that, if allowed to be constructed, many may argue would be out of context with the existing scale and character of the neighborhood. The planning department has observed that within the residential community there is increasingly varying degrees of conflict between the expectations of long term homeowners in established neighborhoods with new owners purchasing at today’s real estate values and their expectation of being able to remodel and build their desired home. Development is further constrained in the Royal Manor neighborhood due to its location in the flood zone. This tension is being reflected in more challenging Individual Review applications processed by the department, but also the significant increase in the number of SSO applications received. If the city is to continue processing SSO applications, it is clear that the existing procedures established by the Code need to be examined and recommendations made for improving this process. An application such as this should be community building and reflect a significant percentage of like-minded owners interested in preserving their neighborhood in a defined manner. This is a recommendation that reflects both staff and the PTC perspective. For the subject application, it is apparent that support for the proposed SSO is eroding. By staff’s estimate approximately 63.8% of the property owners support this application. The City Council may want to explore making adjustments to the SSO boundary, but under the Code the boundary must correspond with certain natural or man-made features to define an identifiable neighborhood or development. Also, it should be noted that some property owners that now support the SSO may change their position if an adjacent property is no longer subject to the same one-story height standard. For instance, removing Stockton Place may cause those owners to the rear of those properties to reconsider their support since their expectation for privacy would be adjusted with a two story home visible from their backyard. If Council recommends a reduced SSO boundary, it is recommended that the Council direct staff to take the responsibility for assessing property owner support. With Council’s support, the process would be as follows: 1. Staff would obtain property owner names and address information from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office; 2. Staff would send, by certified mail, a letter or postcard requesting the owner of record City of Palo Alto Page 9 indicate his/her support for the SSO rezoning application. Only cards with an affirmative response received within a specified timeframe (i.e. 45 days) will be counted as a ‘vote’ for support. 3. If the response rate is 70 percent or higher, staff will schedule a public hearing before the City Council. If under 70 percent, staff will prepare a report to the City Council indicating the results; this report would be placed on the City Council consent calendar with a recommendation that the zone change not move forward at that time. Alternatively, the City Council may determine at the public hearing (a) that there is sufficient support for the proposed SSO, that it is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, and adopt the draft ordinance; or (b) that there is insufficient support for the proposed SSO and simply deny the application. Public Notice Notice cards for the Planning and Transportation Commission hearing were sent to property owners and residents within the proposed SSO boundary and to property owners and residents within a 600 foot radius of the boundary. A newspaper notice was placed to meet the code requirements for publication for the PTC public hearing and CC public hearing. Correspondence from recipients of the PTC notice cards are attached to this report (Attachment E and Attachment I). Any correspondence from recipients of the Council meeting notice card2 received prior to packet publication is also attached to this report (Attachment J). Notice in the local newspaper and in the notice cards for the Council meeting was provided. Recipients included the affected addresses within the SSO boundaries. Policy Implications Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12.100 requires 70% support from affected property owners for an SSO application to be accepted for initiation and processing. The current SSO proposal met this standard at the time of application and may be approved as proposed, despite the loss of support, as long as Council finds the SSO would be in accord with the purposes of Title 18 and in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, as set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.80 Section 18.80.070. Alternatively, the Council may deny the application or reduce the boundary prior to adoption, as long as the reduced SSO boundary can still be defined as an “identifiable neighborhood” and at least 80% of the homes within that boundary are single story homes. The City Council has already expressed its desire to identify neighborhood conservation alternatives to SSO designation as an implementation action in the Comprehensive Plan Update, and this could provide an opportunity to review and adjust the SSO process as well. 2 Notice cards for Council hearing are not required per the PAMC for this rezoning; nevertheless, courtesy notice cards were sent more than 12 days in advance of the public hearing, on March 30, 2016, to all properties within the proposed SSO boundary, in addition to the newspaper notice. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Resource Impact The Single Story Overlay rezoning process is free for applicants and thus staff time is supported by general fund (tax payer) revenues. Three SSO proposals were submitted within a month’s time in 2015. In February, an additional SSO application was submitted for Faircourt #3 and #4. Staff has also had discussions about the SSO process with two other potential applicants. Timeline Following adoption of an SSO rezoning ordinance, any two story home applications received for properties within the adopted SSO boundary would not be processed. Environmental Review The proposed rezoning is exempt from CEQA per Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. Attachments: Attachment A: Royal Manor SSO Ordinance (DOCX) Attachment B: Proposed Single Story Overlay Map (PDF) Attachment C: February 1 Royal Manor Support Map forwarded to P&TC (PDF) Attachment D: Map of support as of March 29 2016 (PDF) Attachment E: Email correspondence put at PTC places 2 10 16 (PDF) Attachment F: Draft Excerpt Verbatim Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of February 10 2016 (DOC) Attachment G: Application Packet Submittal (PDF) Attachment H: PAMC 18.12.100 SSO Regulations (DOCX) Attachment I: Correspondence (PDF) Attachment J: Public Comments received in response to Courtesy Notice Card Mail-out (PDF) Attachment K: Public Comments to Council (PDF) ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 Ordinance No. XXXX Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to change the classification of certain properties within the Royal Manor tract (Tract #1556) fronting both sides of Greer Road, Kenneth Drive, Janice Way, and Thomas Drive, fronting the south side of Loma Verde Avenue (984 to 1058), the east side of Stockton Place (3315 to 3395), and the east side of Louis Road (3385 to 3465), from R-1 and R-1(7000) to R-1(S) and R-1 (7000)(S) 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. The Planning and Transportation Commission, after duly noticed hearing held February 10, 2016, has recommended that section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth. The City Council, after due consideration of this recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare in that this rezoning is in accord with the purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and with the particular, stated purpose “to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community,” and will further promote and accomplish the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs; particularly: o Policy L-4: “Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods; use the zoning ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities.” o Policy L-5: “Maintain the scale and character of the City.” o Goal L-3: “Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods each with its own distinct character…” which includes verbiage about how Eichler neighborhoods were designed so homes may serve as private enclaves. o Policy L-12: “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.” SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 (Zoning Map and District Boundaries) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of the properties within the tract known as Royal Manor, Tract #1556 (the “subject property”), from “R-1” (Single-Family Residence) and “R-1 (7000)” to “R-1(S)” and “R-1(7000)(S)” (Single-Family Residential, Single-Story Height Combining), except 1068 Loma Verde Avenue, which would retain its “R-1” zoning designation. The subject property is shown on the map labeled ‘Exhibit A’ attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The properties within the Single Story Overlay boundary include all homes within the tract with frontage on Greer Road, Kenneth Drive, Janice Way, and Thomas Drive, the properties with frontage on the south side of Loma Verde Avenue addressed 984 to 1058, the east side of ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 Stockton Place addressed 3315 to 3395, and the east side of Louis Road addressed 3385 to 3465. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ ATTACHMENT A *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 Director of Planning & Community Environment R -1(7 0 0 0) P F P C-3 693 R -1(8 0 0 0) R O L M PC-3726 R -1 R O L M T Christine Drive alisman Loma Verde Avenue Ro s s C o u r t ma Verde Pl Ames Avenue Ri ch a r d s o n C o ur t ve Ames Ct Ames Avenue Ross Road Rorke Way Ro r k e Wa y Stone Lane Lupine Avenue Thornwood Drive Dr i f twood Dr i ve Talisman Drive Arbutus Avenue Ross Road Louis Road Aspen Way Evergreen Drive Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle Greer Road Bayshore Freeway Mu r r a y Wayve nchester Court K e n n e t h Dr iv e Thomas D r i v e Greer R o a d Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Janice Way Thomas Drive Kenneth Drive Loma Verde Ave nue C liftonCour t ux Drive Court Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway yshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road We Kenneth Drive Barron Creek Barron Creek Dry Creek 767 765 869 865 31 8 7 3193 3165 3177 3185 831 8373186 3180 3174 3150 3164 326 4 838 850 844 32 5 0 3248 85 1 3191 3170 193 3187 181 169 3188 3194 32 0 0 3182 3176 883 887 873 3152 3158 3175 87 9 319 8 3164 32 2 4 884 895 3333 32 4 7 86932 6 3 32 7 1 881 875882 886 888 32 4 6 32 9 0 883 88933 1 0 3330 874 880 886887 3302 3307978 3313 3261 3263 3275 3299 3325 3324 3318 3312 3306 940 920 910 892 89 589 1 32 1 8 32 1 2 32 0 6 3256 3264 3272 925 917 903 909 32 5 1 32 3 1 32 0 1 32 9 8 327 5 325 9 3291 32 4 3 32 2 7 32 1 1 32 1 2 32 0 0 32 2 4 31 8 8 31 9 6 31 8 5 31 7 9 914 91 0 3175 31 9 7 3189 3181 933 941 949 3280 3208 32 4 8 3240 3232 329232 0 0 318 8 926 924922 918 930 3178 3224 3214 3197 3288 31 6 7 31 8 0 31 7 2 31 7 3 32 0 4 32 2 9 32 0 9 31 8 9 31 8 131 7 3 31 6 5 31 8 5 31 5 8 317 4 31 6 6 31 8 2 775 385 39333 7 3 33 6 7 771 78578 8 78 6 758 78 4 782770 33 55 351 2 35 1 0 756 51 750 767 761 7 55 795 787 781 775 762 768 774 780 771 775 779 43 1342 7 23191511 764 794 33 7 6 842 839 3475 838 3455 834830 3441 3427 826822 3413 3401 818814 772 780 3366 788 3370 3374 789 784 780 750 746 3340 3294 3292 3290 787 785 783 779 781 775 742 759 763 767 771 3242 3240 3254 3264 3274 3280 3236 815 3178 3190 3196 3211 3195 801 3180 3184 785 3188 3194 3195 788 32303228792 754 828 820 812 80432313261808 814 820 827 821 813 832 826 835 843 3221 758 778 821 809 3232 803 3187- 3191 3179- 3183 834 840 828 807 811 815 819 810 816 804 3377 806 810 3387 875 879 827 831823 887 883 891 895 817 823 829 811 3345 795 826 820 814 808 3337 888 882 870 864 872 874 890 894 858 852 877 871 865 859 853 847 841 835 3270 3284 3292 836 844 852 845 839 833 827 868 862 856 850 844 838 832 772 752 773 765 757 751 751 59 55 750 758 766 774 759 751 777 781 765 3510 3487 3479 3495 3507 3511 3530 3520 801 3519 3532 804 820 845 835 3521 3515 3527 829 3502 35203516 787 783 784 780 788 3580 3584 774 777 791 756 764 760 3582 3583 821 3508 770 780 3715 3719 3690 786 792 3640 3646 3646A 3660 3650790 782 3649 3642 3662 3652 3659 3669 3711 3670 789 795 773 809 3679 821 3592 3616 3608 3600 3598 3575 840 830 3611 3603 3591 3587 3583 3584 3590 3594 3606 3593 3589 3585 3616 3624 3630 3613 3631 3605 3640 3632 3639 3612 3615 3604 3607 3592 3599 3588 3587 8233641 828 844 3648 3640 3624 836 3631 3634 3607 3615 3623 3626 827 833 839 3663 3643 3635 3627 3632 3619 3649 3657 3665 3671 3642 3650 3647 3639 3666 3674 3658 3655 3663 3671 36 860 852 868 367 855 894 880 3360 3370 878 868 866 859 871 35513550 3540 3330 3336 3342 3348 3354 3363 3357 3349 3341 3369 3375 3349 3355 336 0 3366 3458 3385 3450 846 850 854 858 862 864 829 841 835 32 36 3248 967 959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 3198 3202 317 3 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 3331 3330 3325 3320 3319 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 3184 3176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 330 9 3301 3343 3360 3370 3350 3337 3387 3345 3335 3325 3315 986 988 990 992 3517 3525 3531 3520 3530 3543 3509 3580 3579 3568 3563 3558 3547 3524 3535 3500 3505 881 877 865 863 879 868 856 851 844 838 3580 3539 885 877 3499 3493 3487 3481 3538 3460 3510 853 1066 3469 3436 3444 3440 3465 3395 3405 3415 3425 3435 3445 3455 3492 3498 3488 3482 3470 3476 3464 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 3475 3481 3487 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 34 58 3468 34763491 343234283422 3407 34543450 3421 3415 3439 3451 3445 3490 3475 3469 3421 3591 3599 3603 3611 3625 3617 3633 3641 3596 3602 3610 3618 880 1096 1086 1076A 1076B1068 1070 1072 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3493 3489 3485 34 58 3469 3477 3 463 345 5 3 45 2 3 44 8 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 3583 1060 1020 10 40 1036 1050 1015 1085 1069 1051 1041 1057 1059 1053 1035 1025 3 44 9 34 53 3 44 5 34 57 3461 3465 3512 3520 3600 3530 3304 3310 3375 3365 3355 3315 3334 3328 3322 3316 3331 3343 3321 3340 3330 3320 3311 3310 3303 33953385 33963390 3410 3416 3360 3350 3391 3406 3340 33473341 340 3 3209 3219 3229 3239 3249 3259 3269 3279 3289 3274 1077 1099 1055 1033 10113281 3265 3250 3258 3242 3234 3266 3249 3 257 996 994 998 3333 3327 3321 1008 1018 1028 1038 3339 3345 3351 3357 33611048 3358 3352 3346 3370 33763364 3371 3361 1058 1068 3363 3429 3 44 1 34 37 3 43 3 3425 34 49 34443435 3422 3441 34 40 34 363418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 3 466 3418 3 452 3460 380 340 93407 3415 3424 3440 3500 3510 34213417 3413 3409 3405 3401 3393 3387 3381 3373 337133673365 3400 3390 3382 3381 3391 3405 343034003350 3160 31683160 3152 3189 31813173 3165 3157 763765 773 877 3262 788 776 3412 1001 1181 1183 1185 1189 1199 1180 11821186 1188 1190 1192 1198 3298 3292 3290 3288 3282 3280 32783272 3198 3192 3190 3188 3182 3180 3178 1111 1113 1115 1119 1100 1102 1106 1110 3180 3182 3186 3188 3190 3192 3198 1112 111611181120 1122 1126 1128 1130 11511153 1155 1159 1150 1152 1156 1158 11601161 1163 1165 3280 3282 3286 3288 3290 3181 3189 3281 3289 3291 3270 11211123112511271129 1130 1128 1126 11 3633 1055 912 899 31 1105 111 39 795 1129 1179 1178 329 2 31 7 8 1167 1132 3285 3299 3300 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Proposed Single Story Combining District (Royal Manor Tract # 1556) Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 0'450' Proposed Single Story Combining District Royal Manor Tract # 1556 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2015 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2015-11-03 17:07:36SingleStoryOverlay RoyalManorTract1556 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ma Verde Avenue Ames Ct ve v e ve Louis Road As pen Way Evergreen Drive Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle Gr eer Road Bayshore Freeway a y Wa yive K e n n e t h D ri v e Th omas D r i v e Gre e r R o a d Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Ja n i c e W a y Thoma s Drive Ken n e t h D rive Loma Verde Avenue C l ifton Cou r t B a u t i s t a Court Morris Drive Louis Road Moraga Ct Greer Road Maddux Drive vieve Ct David Ct Bayshore Freeway yst Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road Ke nneth Drive Barron Creek ek W est B a ys h ore A re a E ast M e a d o w C ircle 31 70 3160 3193 3187 3141 3143 315 3 31593145 3181 3169 3188 3194 32 0 0 3182 3176 883 88 7 873 87 9 31 9 8 316 32 2 4 884 895 3333 32 4 7 86932 6 3 32 7 1 881 875 882 886 888 32 4 6 32 9 0 883 88933 1 0 3330 874 880 886887 3302 3307978 3313 3261 3263 3275 3299 3325 3324 3318 3312 3306 940 920 910 892 89 589 1 32 1 8 32 1 2 32 0 6 3256 3264 3272 925 917 903 909 32 5 1 32 3 1 32 0 1 31 2 5 31 3 3 3141 31 3 8 31 4 4 3150 135 133 3139 3137 32 9 8 32 7 5 32 5 9 3291 32 4 3 32 2 7 32 1 1 32 1 2 32 0 0 32 2 4 31 8 8 31 9 6 31 8 5 31 7 9 928 92 2 931 923 927 919 914 915 9 1 0 3175 3165 3157 3149 31 9 7 3189 3181 933 941 949 3280 3208 32 4 8 3240 3232 329232 0 0 31 8 8 926 924922 918 930 3178 3224 3214 3197 3288 31 3 7 31 4 3 31 4 0 31 3 2 932 92 1 935 31 4 9 31 5 6 31 4 8 31 6 4 31 6 1 31 6 7 31 8 0 31 7 2 31 7 3 32 0 4 32 2 9 32 0 9 31 8 9 31 8 131 7 3 31 6 5 31 5 7 31 4 2 31 3 4 31 4 1 31 4 9 31 3 3 31 2 5 31 2 6 31 1 8 3 1 4 9 31 2 5 31 3 1 31 3 7 31 4 3 31 8 5 31 5 8 31 5 0 31 7 4 31 6 6 31 5 5 31 8 2 888 882 870 864 87 2 87 4 877 871 865 868 862 3592 3616 3608 3600 3598 3648 3640 3624 3631 3634 3607 3615 3623 3626 3632 3649 3657 3665 3671 3642 3650 3647 3639 3666 3658 3655 3663 868 894 880 3360 3370 878 35513550 3540 3330 3336 3342 3348 3354 3363 3357 3349 3341 3369 3375 3349 3355 3 3 6 0 3366 3458 3385 3450 3 2 3 6 3248 967 959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 3 1 9 8 3202 3 1 7 3 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 3331 3330 3325 3320 3319 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 3184 3176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 3 3 0 9 33 01 3343 3360 3370 3350 3337 3387 3345 3335 3325 3315 986 988 990 992 3517 3525 3531 3520 3530 3543 3509 3580 3579 3568 3563 3558 3547 3524 3535 3500 3505 881 877 879 3580 3539 885 877 3499 3493 3487 3481 3538 3460 3510 1 0 6 6 3469 3436 3444 3440 3465 3395 3405 3415 3425 3435 3445 3455 3492 3498 3488 3482 3470 3476 3464 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 3475 3481 3487 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 3 4 5 8 3468 34763491 343234283422 3407 3 4543450 3421 3415 34 39 3 451 3 445 3490 3475 3469 3421 3591 3599 3603 3611 3625 3617 3633 3641 3596 3602 3610 3618 880 1 086 1076A 1076B 1068 1070 1072 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3493 3489 3485 3 4 5 8 3469 3477 3 4 6 3 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 4 8 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 3583 1060 1020 1 0 4 0 1036 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 5 1085 1069 1051 1041 1057 1059 1053 1035 1025 3 4 4 9 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 5 3 4 5 7 3 4 6 1 3465 3512 3520 3600 3530 3304 3310 3375 3365 3355 3315 3334 3328 3322 3316 3331 3343 3321 3340 3330 3320 3 3 1 1 3310 3303 33953385 33963390 3410 3416 3360 3350 3391 3406 3340 33473341 3 4 0 3 3209 3219 3229 3239 3249 3259 3269 3279 3289 3274 1077 1099 1055 1033 10113281 3265 3250 3258 3242 3234 3266 3249 3 2 5 7 996 994 998 3333 3327 3321 1008 1018 1028 1038 3339 3345 3351 3357 33611048 3358 3352 3346 3370 33763364 3371 3361 1058 1068 3363 3429 3 4 4 1 3 4 3 7 3 4 3 3 3425 3 4 4 9 3 4 4 43435 3422 3441 3 4 4 0 3 4 3 6 3418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 3 4 6 6 3418 3 4 5 2 3460 3 4 0 93 4 0 7 3415 3424 3440 3500 3510 3421 3417 3413 3409 3405 3401 3393 3387 3381 3373 3371 33673365 3400 3390 3382 3381 3391 3405 3430 34003350 31 3136 3124 3113 13 3125 3137 3 1 4 9 3161 3168 3160 3152 3144 3136 3128 3112 3120 3148 3155 3119 3189 3181 3173 3165 3157 3149 3141 3133 3125 311709 877 3262 1181 1183 1185 1189 1199 1180 1182 1186 1188 1190 1192 1198 3298 3292 3290 3288 3282 3280 3278 3272 3198 3192 3190 3188 3182 3180 3178 1111 1113 1115 1119 1100 1102 1106 1110 318 3182 3186 3188 3190 3192 3198 1112 1116 1118 1120 1122 1126 1128 1130 1151 1153 1155 1159 1150 1152 1156 1158 1160 1161 1163 1165 3280 3282 3286 3288 3290 32 3289 3291 1129 1055 912 899 1105 1129 1179 1178 3292 317 1167 1132 3285 3 29 9 3300 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Proposed Single Story Combining District (Royal Manor Tract # 1556) Signed Petition in support of Single Story Overlay (SSO) SSO Applicants Absentee owner signed petition Absentee owner did not sign petition Owner signed petition then reversed support Owner did not sign petition Existing two story structure 0'250' Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e S t o r y C o m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t Ro y a l M a n o r T r a c t # 1 5 5 6 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2016-02-01 14:56:10SingleStoryOverlay RoyalManorTract1556 Yes No (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT C a Verde Avenue Ames Ct e v e Louis Road As pen Way Evergreen Drive Janice Way East Meadow Circle East Meadow Circle Greer Road Bayshore Freeway e K e n n e t h D ri v e Thomas D r i v e Gre er R o a d Stockton Place Vernon Terrace Louis Road Ja n i c e W a y Thoma s Drive Ken n e t h D rive Loma Verde Avenue C lifton Cour t Ba u t i s ta Court Morris Drive Louis Road Moraga Ct reer Road Maddux Drive eve Ct David Ct Bayshore Freeway FreewayWest Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road W Ke nneth Drive Barron Creek k W est B a y s h ore A re a E ast M e a d o w C ircle 3 170 3160 3193 3187 3141 3143 3 31 593145 3181 3169 3188 3194 32 0 0 3182 3176 883 887 87 9 31 9 8 32 2 4 884 895 3333 324 7 86932 6 3 32 7 1 881 875 882 886 888 32 4 6 32 9 0 883 88933 1 0 3330 874 880 886887 3302 3307978 3313 3261 3263 3275 3299 3325 3324 3318 3312 3306 940 920 910 892 89 5 89 1 32 1 8 32 1 2 32 0 6 3256 3264 3272 925 917 903 909 32 5 1 32 3 1 32 0 1 31 3 3 3141 31 4 4 3150 5 3 3139 3137 32 9 8 32 7 5 32 5 9 3291 32 4 3 32 2 7 32 1 1 32 1 2 32 0 0 32 2 4 31 8 8 31 9 6 31 8 5 31 7 9 928 92 2 931 923 927 919 914 915 9 1 0 3175 3165 3157 3149 31 9 7 3189 3181 933 941 949 3280 3208 32 4 8 3240 3232 329232 0 0 31 8 8 926 924922 918 930 3178 3224 3214 3197 3288 31 3 7 31 4 3 31 4 0 31 3 2 932 935 31 4 9 31 5 6 31 4 8 31 6 4 31 6 1 31 6 7 31 8 0 31 7 2 31 7 3 32 0 4 32 2 9 32 0 9 31 8 9 31 8 1 31 7 3 31 6 5 31 5 7 31 4 2 31 3 4 31 4 1 31 4 9 31 3 3 31 2 5 31 2 6 3 1 4 9 31 2 5 31 3 1 31 3 7 31 4 3 31 8 5 31 5 8 31 5 0 31 7 4 31 6 6 31 5 5 31 8 2 888 882 870 87 2 87 4 877 871 865 868 3592 3616 3608 3600 3598 3648 3640 3624 3631 3634 3607 3615 3623 3626 3632 3649 3657 3665 3671 3642 3650 3647 3639 3666 3658 3655 3663 36 868 894 880 3360 3370 878 35513550 3540 3330 3336 3342 3348 3354 3363 3357 3349 3341 3369 3375 3349 3355 3 3 6 0 3366 3458 3385 3450 3 2 3 6 3248 967 959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 3 1 9 8 3202 3 1 7 3 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 3331 3330 3325 3320 3319 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 3184 3176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 3 3 0 9 3 3 0 1 3343 3360 3370 3350 3337 3387 3345 3335 3325 3315 986 988 990 992 3517 3525 3531 3520 3530 3543 3509 3580 3579 3568 3563 3558 3547 3524 3535 3500 3505 881 877 879 3580 3539 885 877 3499 3493 3487 3481 3538 3460 3510 1 0 6 6 3469 3436 3444 3440 3465 3395 3405 3415 3425 3435 3445 3455 3492 3498 3488 3482 3470 3476 3464 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 3475 3481 3487 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 3 4 5 8 3468 34763491 343234283422 3407 345 43450 3421 3415 3 43 9 3451 344 5 3490 3475 3469 3421 3591 3599 3603 3611 3625 3617 3633 3641 3596 3602 3610 3618 880 1096 1086 1076A 1076B1068 1070 1072 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3493 3489 3485 3 4 5 8 3469 3477 3 4 6 3 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 4 8 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 3583 1060 1020 1 0 4 0 1036 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 5 1085 1069 1051 1041 1057 1059 1053 1035 1025 3 4 4 9 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 5 3 4 5 7 3 4 6 1 3465 3512 3520 3600 3530 33 04 3310 3375 3365 3355 3315 3334 3328 3322 3316 3331 3343 3321 3340 3330 3320 3 3 1 1 3310 3303 33953385 33963390 3410 3416 3360 3350 3391 3406 3340 33473341 3 4 0 3 3209 3219 3229 3239 3249 3259 3269 3279 3289 3274 1077 1099 1055 1033 10113281 3265 3250 3258 3242 3234 3266 3249 3 2 5 7 996 994 998 3333 3327 3321 1008 1018 1028 1038 3339 3345 3351 3357 33611048 3358 3352 3346 3370 33763364 3371 3361 1058 1068 3363 3429 3 4 4 1 3 4 3 7 3 4 3 3 3425 3 4 4 9 3 4 4 43435 3422 3441 3 4 4 0 3 4 3 6 3418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 3 4 6 6 3418 3 4 5 2 3460 3 4 0 93 4 0 7 3415 3424 3440 3500 3510 3421 3417 3413 3409 3405 3401 3393 3387 3381 3373 3371 33673365 3400 3390 3382 3381 3391 3405 3430 3400 3350 3160 3136 3124 3125 3137 3 1 4 9 3161 3168 3160 3152 3144 3136 3128 3112 3120 3148 3155 3119 3189 3181 3173 3165 3157 3149 3141 3133 3125 3117 877 3262 1181 1183 1185 1189 1199 1180 1182 1186 1188 1190 1192 1198 3298 3292 3290 3288 3282 3280 32783272 3198 3192 3190 3188 3182 3180 3178 1111 1113 1115 1119 1100 1102 1106 1110 3180 3182 3186 3188 3190 3192 3198 1112 1116 1118 1120 1122 1126 1128 1130 1151 1153 1155 1159 1150 1152 1156 1158 11601161 1163 1165 3280 3282 3286 3288 3290 3 3281 3289 3291 3 11211271129 1 3 1055 91 2 899 1105 1129 1179 1178 3292 3178 1167 1132 3285 32 9 9 3300 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Proposed Single Story Combining District (202 lots/parcels) Signed Petition in support of Single Story Overlay (SSO) SSO Applicants Owner signed petition then reversed support Owner did not sign petition Existing two story structure 0'250' Su p p o r t L e v e l R e f l e c t i n g M o d i f i c i a t i o n s Fe b r u a r y 9 - A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 6 Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e S t o r y C o m b i n i n g D i s t r i c t Ro y a l M a n o r T r a c t # 1 5 5 6 re v . 0 3 / 2 9 / 1 6 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2016-03-29 15:04:06 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) ATTACHMENT D ATTACHMENT E City of Palo Alto Page 1 Planning and Transportation Commission 1 Draft Verbatim Minutes 2 February 10, 2016 3 4 EXCERPT 5 6 Public Hearing 7 8 Item 4. LEGISLATIVE APPLICATION Royal Manor Single Story Overlay: 9 10 Chair Fine: And we have a legislative application for Royal Manor Single Story Overlay (SSO), a request 11 by Ben Lerner et al on behalf of the property owners of the Royal Manor for a zone change from R‐1 12 Single Family Residential to a SSO residential zone. So I believe let’s start with a staff presentation then 13 we’ll have the applicant’s presentation and then we’ll go to public comment. 14 15 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good evening, Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I’m processing 16 the SSOs for the City of Palo Alto. This application for Royal Manor is consistent with the purpose and 17 eligibility requirements for SSO. Those are to preserve single family living areas of predominantly single 18 story character. We have a prevailing one-story character in this neighborhood, Royal Manor, it’s Eichler 19 neighborhood from the late Fifties/early Sixties and we have 80 percent are one-story homes that - 20 sorry, 90.6 percent are one-story homes, which meets the eligibility for 80 percent-one story homes. 21 And when the application came in there was 71 percent support that met the application requirements 22 and we have property owners, there’s six of them I believe, in the applicant team. We’ll hear from them 23 tonight. 24 25 We have 202 homes at these addresses. We did send out notice cards to all of the affected property 26 owners as well as 600 foot radius homeowners beyond that. There are two zones in this SSO, R-1 and R-27 1(7000). 7,000 is the minimum lot size in that district. We do have a map here showing the support as 28 of the, as of the staff report packet last week reflecting where the two-story homes are, reflecting 29 absentee owners. You had this in your staff reports. And there are 19 two-story homes in the boundary 30 area and some of those did sign in support. I believe there were 11 that signed in support and 8 that did 31 not. That was of interest the last time we brought a SSO to the Planning Commission so I thought it was 32 worth noting. There are no two-story homes under construction, none filed at this time. 33 34 One of the homes in the original tract for Royal Manor is not within the boundary proposed. The reason 35 being it’s not an Eichler home. It’s a two-story stucco home that was not built at the same time as the 36 others in the tract and really has nothing in common with them for that reason as far as an identifiable 37 character. 38 39 I have some stats up here. They are also in the report. I want to move through this because I know 40 there’s people who want to speak. Again, in the report and in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 41 that were presented to folks in the neighborhood when the applicants were going through talked about 42 what the limitations would be with a SSO rezoning. And that is in a flood zone the maximum height is 20 43 feet and that has a certain formula to get there. And you can’t put basements in a flood zone and with a 44 SSO you can’t have lofts and mezzanines because that counts as a second floor. The homes that are 45 two-story homes become noncomplying facilities and they are subject to those regulations. 46 47 What this rezoning doesn’t do is mandate design review for one-story homes that would replace the 48 homes. So it was just a building permit in that case and it’s no discretionary review. It’s just a building 49 permit. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 There’s been neighborhood outreach. The applicants will go over that in more detail, but they did quite 2 a bit of effort that started in March of last year with a survey and then a second time with a petition. 3 And I’ll turn it over to the applicants. 4 5 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. 6 7 Rich Willits: Good evening, Chairman Fine and Commissioners; my name is Rich Willits. I live in Royal 8 Manor. I’m a member of the Royal Manor SSO committee. Some of my fellow members are here. 9 Perhaps they can stand up, the people on the SSO committee? We also have some supporters here who 10 can also stand up if you would, supporters? Thank you very much. We are also as you may know there 11 are some of us who are part of the Palo Alto Eichler Association and in that context we have brought 12 several different SSOs to you and appreciate the time and effort that you’ve put into studying those and 13 understanding the overall process as that has evolved and to passing the two that have gone through, 14 Greer Park and Los Arboles. We are also pleased of course that those were unanimously approved by 15 the Council. We want to thank staff as well for their support in this application and for helping us with 16 the overall process so we could understand the code, particularly Amy’s hard effort. She’s been both 17 thoughtful and judicious in leading us through the requirements for submitting an SSO application. 18 19 Now because you’ve looked at SSO applications before and because of Amy’s excellent report which you 20 have and which she summarized in her slides I’m not going to necessarily go through that same material. 21 I’d like to take this opportunity to go through in greater depth some of the history and the applicability 22 of the design of Eichlers to the design of Eichler communities such as ours so that you can have a better 23 idea of where Eichler communities fit into the overall plan of Palo Alto. Before getting into that I’m 24 going to try this… oops, sorry. 25 26 I’m just going to review quickly Royal Manor is the, one of the larger Eichler tracts. You can see us there 27 in the, at the arrow on the southeast corner basically of the Palo Verde neighborhood. There are 202 28 Eichlers as Amy mentioned that were built in the late Fifties all at once. Our community anchors are the 29 Palo Verde Elementary School and the Eichler Swim and Tennis Club. I’m going to jump to the next one 30 which is an aerial shot. You can see the Elementary School and the Swim and Tennis Club off to the right 31 hand side. This is not looking north. This is 101 you see way over in the upper left corner and it’s going 32 south upward that way. So this is kind of a south looking shot. 33 34 We are a cohesive Eichler tract. We are all Eichlers with the exception of the one house, kind of a 35 mystery house that Amy mentioned. None of these houses has been torn down. We’ve had no what we 36 call two-story teardowns. Several of them have had second stories added on top. 37 38 The reason that we and our neighbors signed the SSO application is that none of us wants to have a two-39 story teardown next to our house or over the back fence from us or even two or three houses away. We 40 call this radius one, two, and three and four. Houses, a two-story house at that, even at that distance 41 impacts our houses and our appreciation of our houses. And I’m going to explain a little more about 42 why that is and that’s why, partly why we chose the SSO process. Again, when we started this we 43 looked at what are the various different ways we can get protection from what we saw as being a 44 potential start of rampant replacement of Eichlers with two-story houses and the SSO made the most 45 sense because it treats our whole tract as one and as a community, which is the way we feel about it. 46 47 The two-story teardown when it occurs is a cataclysmic event in an Eichler neighborhood. Usually the 48 resulting houses are not at all of even midcentury modern style. This is an example of 808 Richardson 49 which we see a lot in the press. 808 on the left is the old Eichler that was there. The house that you see 50 City of Palo Alto Page 3 there on the right hand side is that same lot viewed from Frank Ingle’s house next door. You can see 1 that there’s a decided difference in the way that these houses are constructed and massed. Building 2 two-story houses of any kind is blocked by an SSO which is what we desire for our community. We 3 consider these houses especially the two-story teardowns to be out of character of the neighborhood. 4 5 We found as we talked to our neighbors that even the existing two-story additions create a great deal of 6 feeling. I think you’ll understand this more fully if we look at what Eichlers provide, how they relate to 7 each other and community. The first why is this important to Silicon Valley? If you read Walter 8 Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs in the first 10 pages he mentions the importance to Steve of the 9 simplify, the design of the Eichler houses, the type houses that he lived in. These houses think different. 10 Many of the ideas that Steve put into the Macintosh originated with Doug Engelbart who was one of our 11 neighbors. Doug created the ideas of the Personal Computer (PC) in 1962 to 68 while living, raising a 12 family down the street from me on Janice Way in our tract. Doug threw all these great ideas like the 13 mouse, hypertext, word processing, dynamically linked libraries, Windows, etcetera out into the world 14 in an event in 1968 called the Master of All Demos or the Mother of All Demos. That started the PC 15 revolution so we think there is some history of revolutionary thought in our tract. 16 17 This is what our the area basically looked like in about 1952. The buildings that you see right in the 18 middle there you’ll recognize as the Greer Park tract that you approved before. In Greer Park at this 19 time was existing and the important thing about this slide is that these houses were when they started 20 they were built in community to interact with each other and really not with respect to the other houses 21 around them. They were built to interact with each other. 22 23 So what are these basic concepts of these houses in their community? They have the following features 24 as a house provided for the occupant. They are slab on the ground. They feature a flat roof typically or 25 near flat and glass walls which of course we’ve talked about before. I’m kind of going to focus here on 26 the importance of slab on the ground because that’s something that’s often overlooked. Secondarily in 27 order to work in community they have no second story when they were built. They are closed to the 28 street, In other words you don’t see big glass windows on the street, and they have a six foot fence 29 beside them and around them. A six foot fence. That was a very important characteristic I remember 30 when I was growing up in Eichlers as a child. 31 32 Where do some of these design ideas come from? In 1949 Phillip Johnson built this building called the 33 Glass House. This sort of idealized those ideas that Steve Jobs and Walter Isaacson talked about and 34 that Doug Engelbart and his children have mentioned to me about the importance of Eichlers. The idea 35 that you see here is the same ones we’ve been talking about: slab on the ground, flat roof, glass walls. 36 The glass of course brings the outside inside. This is the thing that people talk about Eichlers. This is an 37 example from 1951. Again a very, this is a new way of thinking about these, when Joe Eichler started 38 thinking about these houses. 39 40 So where did Joe get his ideas from? Well, he didn’t get them from these folks. He actually had gotten 41 them a little earlier because he lived in a Frank Lloyd Wright house. He got, he pulled them from Frank 42 Lloyd Wright’s Usonian house concept which had these characteristics. And Usonian houses were also 43 designed to be built in community. This is the first Usonian house, a Jacobs house, 1939. You’ll see also 44 essentially a glass wall. It doesn’t look quite as modern as the ones we’ve been looking at. It’s built 10 45 years earlier, but you had the concept of the glass wall and how it allows nature to come into the house. 46 Look at how small that room really is. Square footage is less important in a house when nature comes 47 into the house. This house is also a model for Joe Eichler because it cost $5,000 to build. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Going back we see some more of those characteristics that I mentioned: slab on the ground, flat roof, a 1 glass wall allowing visual access to nature. For privacy since this house is in a housing development 2 unlike the two that I showed before which are in private estates there’s a six foot fence. It goes from 3 around the front and extends around the backyard. Because this house is in a community there is no 4 second story. 5 6 What’s key about the slab and why do I keep mentioning that? Living in a house like this is registered to 7 the grade level. In other words, that’s where you walk. This includes the view over the six foot fence so 8 every inch above grade is important in terms of where the house starts. They start on the ground. 9 Wright taught architects to be very conscious of how we live in his houses. He was very involved with 10 what you see as a person in the house taking into account the size of the human body, the scale. 11 Building houses to this modulus requires a kind of pact with the neighbors. You’ll notice up in the upper 12 left hand side you can just see a little bit of another house that’s also in the same neighborhood. This 13 one, the Jacobs house we’re looking at, was the first Usonian house so this is not a Usonian house, but 14 it’s in community with it. 15 16 What kind of front does the Jacobs house or Usonian house show to the neighbor? It’s a closed front. 17 This is again a typical Eichler touch, typical Frank Lloyd Wright touch. This inheritance is the reason that 18 you don’t tend to get Eichlers, you don’t get an Eichler neighborhood by driving down the street. In fact 19 in Palo Alto in the Eighties many of them were kind of wrecks from the outside. Even today there’s 20 typically one of those in every tract. Then you might presume that they’re pretty awful inside, but that’s 21 not necessarily the case because this is the block of the private life that allows the other life, the open 22 life, to exist in the back. 23 24 So the elements that I’ve been speaking about have made their way into Eichlers. I’m just going to add a 25 few more. There’s no attic, there’s no basement, there’s no second story. There’s a slab on the ground, 26 there’s a flat roof, there’s a glass wall, and a six foot fence closed off to the street. All of our houses 27 share these elements. They jointly allow for the maximum freedom of light, of extension of private life 28 to the garden, to the fence, and to the sky. Eichlers are placed in community in such a way that they 29 preserve this for others. So because they are placed in community it’s crucial that Eichlers all in one 30 tract be under one SSO all limiting any two-story intrusions. Our neighbors over the back fence have the 31 greatest impact on the function of our houses in community. 32 33 On the next slide we’re going to take another look at our community. This is looking at it the other way 34 from the south. This is using the Apple Maps with the three-dimensional (3-D) effects turned on. You 35 can kind of see especially if you squint at it how our houses are distinct from the houses around it. This 36 defines the tract and defines the SSO. They’re flat. Other houses stick out. Our houses are uniform. 37 Others are many styles and do not seem to care about each other. 38 39 As you saw from the picture of Greer Park North our tract as well was built before the others. So the 40 other houses don’t really interact with each other, but our houses are all designed together to work 41 together. They were picked from a group of designs designed for Joe Eichler by Anshen and Allen and 42 other architects and they were placed in the tract by professionals in Joe’s company so that they tended 43 to interact minimally with each other making use of sunlight and other forms of openness. 44 Consequently in our neighborhoods going along with the idea of a zone change is the idea that intrusion 45 of other types of houses really is not tolerated because of the various natures that we’ve just talked 46 about. Excluding houses also from our tract would harm, from the SSO, would harm the whole tract. 47 Eichler houses placed in community make community for the people who live in them. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Royal Manor is such a welcoming committee, community. Anyone moving here will tell you that after a 1 few months that the neighborhood is very special. We have one 90 year old resident who bought the 2 house in the Fifties when the tract was built who doesn’t want to move away because of her neighbors. 3 Everyone keeps an eye on each other. You see this community spirit and network pride and 4 neighborhood pride during the many events organized in during the year which, some of which are 5 pictured here. There are block parties on Janice way which include the surrounding streets. There’s a 6 Fourth of July parade on Kenneth Way open to everyone in the Palo Verde neighborhood. We have a 7 Turkey Trot on Lewis. There’s barbeques at the Eichler Club. And because of our devotion to minimal 8 design one of the most popular events is the City garage sale. We all need to get rid of stuff in order to 9 make room for family or open space. 10 11 There’s a sense of togetherness, a sense of identity created by the fact that we all live in Eichler houses 12 and we value our community. We have young families. We have a completely diverse ethnic 13 background, which is an inheritance that we have from Joe. We have seniors and we have 14 multigenerational households. We even have one household which has four generations. By contrast 15 from other Eichler neighborhoods which have suffered even one two-story teardown we hear of people 16 in those neighborhoods giving up and going away. We don’t want this for our neighborhood. 17 18 These are some other images to give you an idea of the inside of the house, which I have put in here 19 because I didn’t think that we had really gotten a sense for that in our presentations. I would encourage 20 you all to go to YouTube and check out the four minute trailer for a movie called People in Glass Houses. 21 This really tells you what’s going on in Eichlers today that are very modern, vibrant communities 22 especially with houses that are renewed. Many of our houses have been, owners have taken on 23 architects sometimes stripping them down to the studs and rebuilding them back again. It’s something 24 that we call Eichlers 2.0. 25 26 It’s often asked if Eichler homes can meet the needs of 21st Century families. The answer is absolutely. 27 Through modeling, remodeling and upgrading Eichlers can be enhanced through modern high-end 28 fixtures and appointments and can be seen in numerous, this can be seen in numerous remodels in 29 Royal Manor. The open floor plan in the common areas makes it easy to change around how these 30 things work, where we put various aspects of our lives in relation to the sun out the window, the new 31 garden that we’re planting. It’s also less expensive and ecofriendly to remodel a house rather than to 32 tear it down. 33 34 Eichlers were designed for families. Royal Manor was built during the World War II baby boom and 35 houses had three and four kids in the Sixties and Seventies. Today families have fewer kids, but often 36 more generations. They can live together easily in an Eichler. Due to the open floor plan and inside 37 outside design more people can comfortably live in an Eichler than in a similar house of a different 38 design, similar size house different design. As parents change into empty nesters and then senior 39 citizens it’s easy for them to age in place. This is a tremendous advantage for the people in our 40 neighborhood and many of us look forward to aging in place with community and family members 41 growing, moving in with us. We know this is pretty frustrating for people in the real estate business 42 because we ain’t moving. 43 44 Finally I wanted to leave you with some of the expressions of support that we’ve gotten from the 45 neighborhood. There’s certainly a lot more and they, some of those are represented in the packets that 46 Amy has of voices of people who have written letters supporting our SSO and we hope that you do too. 47 Thank you. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Willits. With that I think let’s open it up to public comment. We have a lot of 1 speakers so we’re going to have three minutes per speaker and if you wouldn’t mind lining up behind 2 the person as you’re called so we can go through these. 3 4 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So we have 14 speaker cards and I think that I just got a 5 comment from Amy that Mr. Feghhi would like to speak first although he wasn’t on the at the 6 beginning. Is this right? 7 8 Sia Masuni: Sorry, Jalil had to leave unfortunately. He lives in a Stockton Place, 3385 and he was 9 strongly opposed SOO application based on the fact that Stockton Place doesn’t belong to that 10 neighborhood and he believed that this should be the owner’s decision. 11 12 Vice-Chair Fine: Thank you. And you were I’m sorry, you were… 13 14 Mr. Masuni: I’m Sia Masuni I’m one of the neighbors, his neighbors on Stockton. 15 16 Vice-Chair Fine: Ok, thank you. So with this we’re going to continue along this sequence you received 17 the cards with so Mr. Sia Masuni if I’m reading this right so and followed by Misha Potter. You have 18 three minutes. 19 20 Mr. Masuni: So first of all thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this matter. I live in [94] 21 Loma Verde on the corner of Stockton and Loma Verde and I strongly oppose this SSO application based 22 on a number of reasons. First of all, I think there are a number of people who already removed their 23 signature and I believe their level of support is right now below the 70 percent. The 70 percent is the 24 guideline that the City of Palo Alto has approved for this kind of application and with the number of 25 people who have removed and changed their mind I think definitely the level of support is not there so 26 I’d want you guys to definitely pay attention to that fact. 27 28 Second, I believe that Stockton Place and Loma Verde they are not in this neighborhood. If we get out 29 of our house everything around us is almost non-Eichlers. We, the neighborhood that we share is 30 basically Vernon Terrace and the Stockton Place. And only 10 houses in those two streets are Eichlers. 31 The rest are non-Eichlers. They are not part of this application either, which means they can be [a lot of] 32 whatever they want after this is passed. Whatever community gathering they have or whatever 33 happens, again we are not part of this. 34 35 In addition the zoning is different for us. We generally have smaller lots and they [cannot be as much 36 as] the kind of middle part of the Royal Manor can build. In addition Loma Verde has special setback. 37 They have a special setback of 24 feet which limits how much we can build also. We have an easement 38 in the back as well. So not only something front, but something in the back. Plus as you know this 39 whole area is in flood zone, which means we cannot build basements either. For houses like us which is 40 in a corner lot we have double constraints because now we have setbacks from Stockton [unintelligible] 41 by from Loma Verde. We have easements in the back. Because of the location of some of the trees in 42 the neighborhood I have, I’m more limited of trying to move the place of the parking or garage or 43 anything like that. Our situation the damage we have from SSO application is just very, very great. 44 45 I want to mention something kind of close with that. We are not builders, we are not in the business of 46 flipping houses and some of these was mentioned in the application that people are afraid that some 47 people will come here and build to the maximum [unintelligible] this. We came here to raise our family, 48 sorry just a few more seconds? Raise our family and we bought this place not only based on the land, 49 the house that’s there, but the land that it has and the potential for building. With the current 50 City of Palo Alto Page 7 guidelines I can build up to 3,000 sf on this land. If SSO passes with everything we tried to calculate with 1 the help of Amy French and some of the other staff here for me it cannot go beyond 1,800 sf. It is a 2 great damage to my property. I bought it with the hope that I can raise my family here. I have 3 multigenerational family and if you need a place I’m hoping that I can build a second story and use my 4 land. If this passes basically this is taking away the house that I bought because I cannot use it for the 5 purpose that I bought it. Thank you very much. 6 7 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. We have Misha Potter followed by Zoe Danielson. 8 9 Misha Potter: I am actually in very much in support of this (interrupted) 10 11 Zoe Danielson: He asked for Zoe Danielson. That’s me. 12 13 Vice-Chair Gardias: No, no, followed. So Misha Potter followed by Zoe Danielson so thank you. 14 15 Ms. Potter: I’m very much in support of this measure. When I moved to Palo Alto I discovered an Eichler 16 neighborhood and I knew immediately that’s where I wanted to live. This is a fabulous neighborhood. 17 We are very much of a community and part of it was because we could live in these beautiful glass 18 houses and also be part of this larger community. 19 20 I have lived in two Eichlers actually in this Royal Manor tract. Both of them have been extensively 21 renovated including my current one which has two master bedroom suites. They had their mother-in-22 law living with them. So it is possible to expand them. I had somebody else here actually has six 23 member, family members who live in that house including a dog and they’ve managed to build, rebuild 24 their Eichler so they have five bedrooms, an office, and three bathrooms. So remodeling an Eichler is 25 very possible to expand it to, for a growing family. 26 27 I wanted to talk about also the privacy that three-fourths of our houses are glass. As soon as you go into 28 a two-story unless I can build a 16 foot fence you’re going to be looking into my house from [every]. I 29 understand that you have the right to build up, but I also have the right of privacy in my own home 30 without having to put curtains on every single window and having them shut at all times. 31 32 And finally I know that some people may be concerned about individuality. If you walk through the 33 neighborhood people have individuality on their homes. No two, the Eichlers look generally alike, but 34 you can tell personal stamps that going through that way. So I’d like to support it for that measure. 35 36 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. Zoe Danielson followed by Patty Schafer. 37 38 Ms. Danielson: Hello, my name is Zoe Danielson. I have lived on Thomas Drive since 1979. I would like 39 to tell you that we put a second story on our house already so there’s nothing you can do to us now. 40 We don’t have a hot dog in this barbeque. I have made the effort to come to this Council [Note-41 Commission] to say that stealing other people’s property rights is stealing. Stealing is not ethical. It is 42 not ok for a group of people to come together and all agree that somebody else is going to lose their 43 property rights. 44 45 Our second story home was created by my husband and our friends. We hired an architect to supervise 46 our friends and family members to create this home for our four children. Our bathrooms in the original 47 home were so small that our four children couldn’t even stand in them. It cost $400 a month to heat an 48 Eichler in the winter because it has so many glass walls that you will no longer approve my family or any 49 other to replace an Eichler with an Eichler. We cannot build, so now we cannot build second stories, we 50 City of Palo Alto Page 8 cannot add on because of the fact that we are in a flood zone, and we would have to raise the level of 1 the house to 10 feet above the flood plain. If people don’t listen and they go ahead and ask for this they 2 are going to be back here whining at you again because people are tearing down the Eichlers and 3 putting more suitable houses that are energy efficient in their place. And my point is that what they’re 4 trying to do is they’re just trying to make me and the other people who have been there who have put 5 two-story houses on with great care and tried in every way possible; for example, we planted Eugenia 6 bushes so that we wouldn’t look in on our neighbors. 7 8 I don’t think these people will achieve their goal of having everything stay the same as it is today forever 9 by this application. I urge you to turn it down in fairness to those people who would like to have a larger 10 family or have relatives move in and their needs. The first purpose of a house is to serve the needs of 11 the people living inside it, not the people living across the street. 12 13 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. 14 15 Patty Schafer: Hi, my name is Patty Schafer (interrupted) 16 17 Vice-Chair Gardias: Just a moment. We have to be followed by Majan Yaha-Natenajat if I’m reading this 18 correctly. Thank you, sorry. 19 20 Ms. Schafer: Ok. We have lived on Stockton Place for over 20 years and I propose that our block be 21 allowed to secede from Royal Manor. We have never really been part of it. We’re not even in the same 22 zone. I just heard there were parades and block parties there. We don’t know about them. Our block 23 parties are with Vernon Terrace which joins our street and curves back around to Loma Verde. My 24 neighborhood preparedness leader is across the street in Sterling Gardens. There the houses are of a 25 variety of styles including three with two stories. I’ve always been glad that I look out at them instead of 26 seeing the same houses over and over. Maybe one day we can return the favor. 27 28 The fact is 78 percent of homeowners on Stockton Place do not want the SSO. The Planning and 29 Transportation Commission (PTC) staff report as I read it discusses this briefly on Pages 6 to 9. The 30 report says that you could recommend to exclude us from the SSO boundary without any additional 31 public notice. The report also indicates that there may be concerns that excluding Stockton Place from 32 the SSO would erode support for it from our backyard abutting neighbors. Well that may very well be a 33 possibility it is not a valid reason to force our inclusion. Our block is overwhelmingly against the SSO and 34 it’s only right that we be excluded. Thank you. 35 36 I have an email from somebody. Could I read that to you? She couldn’t make it. This is from Kay 37 Smolin, Palo Verde neighborhood. I do not want a two-story limit on my house at 24, no 3428 Greer 38 Road. I still have hopes of making the house comfortable for our aging [need] bigger bathrooms and 39 wider doorways need more room to turn a wheelchair in. Again house materials: pipes, heating, 40 electrical, all indicate a great expense to correct. Who would want to buy an aging house at a large price 41 unless they could expand? Kay Smolin. Thank you. 42 43 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. Just a second. Do we have the record of this email in our 44 documents? 45 46 Ms. Schafer: I could send it to you. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. French: Through the chair? Yes, we received that at 7:03 this evening. I was up making copies of 1 the ones that I received prior to the start of this public hearing and you have those at places, but this is 2 the only one that came after the public hearing. 3 4 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. 5 6 Majan Yaha-Natenajat: Ok, my name is Marjan (interrupted) 7 8 Vice-Chair Gardias: Just a moment. You will be followed by Howard Shay. 9 10 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: Ok. My name is Marjan and I’m here two recommendations. One for the Planning 11 Committee [Note-Commission] and one for Amy French which is part of the staff. So the first 12 recommendation which is for Planning Committee [Note-Commission] is that take Loma Verde and 13 Stockton Place out of SSO application. Take a look at them on the map and you will know why this is 14 true. The second recommendation is for Amy French as part of the staff committee. And that 15 recommendation is please, please send postcards to verify level of support instead of collecting 16 signatures. And I will walk through why. 17 18 Many signatures in the application are invalid. Staff must verify the level of support by postcards. Here 19 are a list of neighbors that took back their signatures in the past few days and they told us that, some of 20 them told us that they signed the application when they were in a block party and they were distracted 21 by their children. Someone approached them and asked for signatures and they just signed. And here 22 are some other reasons for voiding the signatures. The first one is misinformed about proposal. The 23 next one is pushy signature collectors. Someone we have their email [unintelligible] for the record and 24 it’s sent to Amy French as well. So someone said they came to their door three times and she was in a 25 meeting and finally she gave up, she was like ok, here is my signature. Here you go. And the next one is 26 avoiding confrontation. Our neighbor who was here and he left he told us that he just signed it because 27 he didn’t want to become enemies with his neighbors. So they came to him and he was like ok I will sign 28 because he thought that there will be voting later. He didn’t know that his signature is going to be 29 counted as evidence of support for SSO application. 30 31 So here are some more examples of misinformation. Saying SSO won’t impact house value by showing 32 charts beyond controlled input factors. They were comparing Green Meadow to Palo Verde or they 33 were comparing Green Meadow to Ventura. How does that compare, right? Everyone knows a little bit 34 of data science and everyone knows what multiple variables in a test means. So you can’t tell those 35 things attached to the applications are meaningless and they were just there to kind of push their idea 36 to other people. The signatures collected did not fully explain the implication of application, which was 37 banning two-story in the neighborhood. I’m going to read part of the email that someone sent as part 38 of this. So a resident of 3466 Kenneth Drive they took back their signature and they said as background 39 we were misinformed about the details of the drive particularly the two stories restriction. We do 40 believe in the aesthetics of the neighborhood, but we don’t believe in two-story ban. 41 42 I’m going to ask for more minutes because I don’t believe that they should be allowed to have a 43 presentation and us not be allowed to do any presentations here. So people who signed thought there 44 will be a voting later. Signature collectors never responded back to people’s email asking for further 45 information. Again I have evidence of that on another email sent from one of the properties on Kenneth 46 Drive. We only talked to a few, but we bet that there are many more signatures that are invalid. We are 47 busy individuals. We cannot go door to door like the applicants did so we don’t know about the rest, 48 but we are sure there are much more. These were just part of the people we knew and that’s what they 49 told us. Staff must verify the level of support by postcards, not by signatures. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 The next thing is to Planning Commission, Palo Verde is not Los Arboles. Palo Verde is different. First of 2 all the signatures currently on the application based on our calculation after those houses were out it’s 3 around 67 percent, which is much less than 70 percent. There is no rounding here, right? So it is less so 4 it should be considered less. The next thing is there are 202 houses in that boundary. How can you put 5 the same blanket on all the houses? And there is a 24 feet setback on Loma Verde and the next 6 difference is the zoning is not R-1(7000) which is the larger zoning. The next thing is that Palo Alto, Palo 7 Verde is in the most severe flood zone. We are paying a lot of money for the flood insurance already. 8 And here is again Loma Verde is not Janice [really]. So Loma Verde and Stockton are different from rest 9 of proposed boundary and I’m going to show you why. (interrupted) 10 11 Vice-Chair Gardias: So excuse me ma’am. 12 13 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: Yes. 14 15 Vice-Chair Gardias: Just how much time would you like to more? 16 17 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: I just have like five more slides. 18 19 Vice-Chair Gardias: So (interrupted) 20 21 Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director: Though Chair. I’d recommend that I mean in the order of… for fairness 22 I mean the applicant submitted an application. Your rules provide that the applicant gets 15 minutes to 23 speak along with a 3 minute rebuttal and then subsequent speakers get 5 minutes which you have the 24 authority to reduce to 3 minutes which is what you have done. I would be concerned that if we allowed 25 additional speakers time that’s an opportunity that you got to extend to the rest of the speakers. 26 27 Chair Fine: I agree and we really appreciate your comments. We did give you an extra minute. This item 28 will still go to City Council at which point I encourage you to write them, provide the same figures and 29 information and show up at that meeting as well whatever happens here tonight, but thank you very 30 much. 31 32 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: Ok, thank you. 33 34 Vice-Chair Gardias: But just if I may, right, just for our record, right, since you presented, right, I think 35 that it would be in your interest, right, and also in our interest to pretty much verify the documentation 36 that you shared with us which we couldn’t see unfortunately. Sorry, it’s just too far for my eyes. 37 38 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: Sure, so that’s why I think it’s unfair that the people who are pro can present, but 39 we cannot present and I’m just going to show you the last. 40 41 [Unintelligible-Multiple speakers arguing about whether she should show slides or not] 42 43 Chair Fine: I’m sorry. You can pass those to us up here as can anyone else in the audience. We’ll take a 44 look at them. 45 46 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: Ok, ok, thank you. 47 48 Chair Fine: Thank you for your time. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. Thank you. And also the email that you wanted to share if it’s 1 possible just to have it forwarded it to (interrupted) 2 3 Ms. Yaha-Natenajat: It is already sent to Amy French. 4 5 Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok, thank you very much. So we have Mr. Howard Shay followed by Bill Fouseman. 6 You have three minutes. 7 8 Howard Shay: Hello, thanks for your time. I live on 1038 Loma Verde and my wife and I moved in in 9 2012. And when we moved in we picked an Eichler house because my wife and I both liked it very 10 much. And one of the things that we noticed is that our neighbors on both sides have a two, second 11 story add on. And our plan is basically to live in the neighborhood, have kids, and as the kids get older 12 and need more space we would build a very similar add on. Not a tear down, but just an add on that’s 13 similar to our neighbors for similar reasons. We have a setback and we actually have an easement on 14 the back and our lot is basically a 6,000 sf lot which is very dissimilar from the other lots in the center of 15 this Royal Manor boundary. Plus across the street on Loma Verde none of the houses that we see day to 16 day are actually Eichlers. 17 18 So now we recently actually had two, a twins and we have in-laws living with us who really adore, adore 19 them and like spending time with them. So we actually do need the space and we do plan to build an 20 add on and we are actually very disappointed that we could not plan for this, it kind of caught us by 21 surprise, and to make things worth both our neighbors actually signed and actually I feel that is very 22 unfair because they had only something to gain and nothing to lose. And I think that is pretty much it. 23 Thank you. 24 25 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. William Fouseman followed by David Hammond. You have 26 three minutes. 27 28 Bill Fouseman: Hi, my name is Bill Fouseman. I live on Greer Road near Kenneth in this Royal Manor 29 section of town. I’ve lived in the house we currently own for about 30 years. I actually purchased it in 30 about 1989. I’m in a unique position because I am one of the people, one of the 10 people who did sign 31 for the SSO and I do live in a two-story house. 32 33 I have a rather unfortunate second story addition that was built in about 1967 by the prior owner of the 34 house and frankly I’m embarrassed by it. It looms over my neighbor’s house. It is completely not in 35 keeping of the aesthetic of midcentury modern architecture of this neighborhood and frankly it looks 36 pretty bad. In fact it looks so bad that an article published in the Palo Alto Weekly about two years ago 37 about this neighborhood in which they unfortunately said there have been some other houses built in 38 this neighborhood and here is an example of not an Eichler and it was actually a picture of my house. 39 Fortunately they corrected it, but and we’re not too defensive about it. So I really want to strongly urge 40 with the growing interest in aesthetics about midcentury modern houses the issues about privacy, 41 people know what they’re getting when they buy an Eichler. It’s a quite special thing. They are quite 42 precious houses that must be preserved and as an owner as one of the unfortunate revised Eichlers I 43 strongly support the SSO. Thank you. 44 45 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. We have David Hammond followed by Pat Hanley. You have 46 three minutes sir. 47 48 David Hammond: Yes, thank you, Chairman Fine and the rest of the Council or Commission members. 49 My name is David Hammond. I actually lived in Greer Park North which you approved or which was 50 City of Palo Alto Page 12 approved actually has gone into effect just this last week after the second hearing and the time. Just 1 wanted to comment knowing how difficult it is, was for us with 72 houses to get near 70 percent just 2 wanted to comment on how the folks that organized this petition and so forth how hard they have 3 worked and really a Herculean effort to come up with 70 percent and I support them. Thank you very 4 much. 5 6 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So we have Pat Hanley followed by Soo Lin Chan. 7 8 Pat Hanley: Hello, my name is Pat Hanley. I live at 3493 Kenneth Drive. I purchased my house in 1973. 9 Of course I love the neighborhood. I won’t go over all of the features that drew me to purchasing an 10 Eichler. I absolutely love the glass wall concept and the privacy in my backyard. I do not have two 11 stories on either side of me. I also had the great privilege of teaching at Palo Verde Elementary School 12 for 28 years so I know the families very well and the sense of community is amazing. One of my 13 concerns, I know Sunnyvale and we are not Sunnyvale, but they in all their Eichler communities do not 14 allow second stories and I imagine there are other communities, I haven’t checked with Cupertino, but 15 of the 12 and I think there are 12 SSO communities now in Palo Alto I would just suggest none of them 16 to my knowledge have petitioned to have that SSO overlay removed. So obviously those communities 17 are very, very happy and there are quite a few of them. 18 19 My concern is the type of house that is now being built on the corner of Louis and Clara. The two-story 20 there is very large and I don’t know what the setbacks are, but there’s very little space going down Clara 21 between the back of the house and the fence next door. I would suggest it might only be six feet. But 22 that type of house with the new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations if that 23 were to be built next to me would have a significant negative impact on my light and my privacy. So I 24 just strongly recommend and support the SSO petition for Royal Manor. 25 26 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. So we have Soo Lin Chan followed by Shrupa Beeswatz. 27 28 Soo Lin Chan: I’m vehemently opposed to a SSO. I live at 3469 Greer and I have lived there for 40 years. 29 And so I understand what a sense of community is and I just if they were, I’m in the flood zone so if they 30 should raise the house five feet I would have no sunshine and they would be looking into all my 31 bedrooms and bathrooms. And so I think if you want a bigger house buy, don’t buy an Eichler. And so 32 being here for this many years and then I want to give my sons my house because they have two 33 children and having this sense of community is important and my family has been here since 1888 and 34 so we want to have a sense of community and belonging for where we are. And if you’re new here then 35 you may not have that. So thank you. 36 37 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. So we have Shrupa Beeswatz followed by Bencut Dokeyparty. 38 39 Shrupa Beeswatz: Hello everyone. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. My name is 40 Shrupa. I live on Stockton Place like a couple of other people who spoke earlier. And we are very new 41 to this place. We just moved in like literally some days ago. So I don’t think I have the context that most 42 other people are talking about, but I would say we have, we bought the Eichler home so we have an 43 Eichler on Stockton. We absolutely love the home. We have no desire to rebuild or expand or build any 44 kind of like two-story home, but in spite of all of that we are very opposed to the ban just because when 45 I walk out of my home today I already do see non-Eichler two-story homes. It hasn’t been bothering me 46 and I generally strongly believe that people should be able to do with their houses what makes sense to 47 them and a lot of people talked about being able to expand their homes to live more comfortably and I 48 definitely wouldn’t wish my neighbors not being able to do that. Thank you. 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So Bencut Dokeyparty please and followed by Padma Kotha. 1 2 Bencut Dokeyparty: Good evening, my name is Bencut. We bought our house in 2000. We are in the 3 Royal Manor. When we purchased our house we looked around Palo Alto and decided to buy in this 4 area because it is not having a SSO. At that time Green Meadow and a few areas had this overlay. What 5 we felt is we were paying so much money and we need to have the right to build if our needs grow in 6 future. That was the reason we purchased in this area even though it’s more expensive than other areas 7 at that time. 8 9 This overlay is going to take away our right to build what we want. We already have rules, regulations in 10 place to do anything to our house even just to add a room let alone second story. I think we should just 11 use that regulations and [unintelligible] to provide the needed privacy for the neighbors rather than 12 taking away the right of the people who purchased over the last however many years. 13 14 The second point I want to make is it’s going to reduce our value because people who are trying to buy 15 will not like these restrictions because they’re paying astronomical prices here and I know they will not 16 like to have the restrictions when there are other houses within Palo Alto have no restrictions. They 17 would go into those areas and they will not come to SSO areas and it’s going to reduce our value of the 18 house. So for those reasons I strongly oppose this SSO. Thank you. 19 20 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So we have next Padma Kotha followed by Jason Trendale. 21 22 Padma Kotha: Hi, I’m a resident of 3391 Greer Road. We’ve been living there for more than a decade. 23 Our immediate neighbors the ones, our neighbors who live behind us and who live beside us got an 24 exception from the City and they have extended their homes. This is after we bought our home. So I 25 believe that allowing only single story will make it into a horizontal concrete jungle. We’ll not have any 26 green space and privacy as such. You can keep the Eichler spirit, the harmony, in place, but then when 27 you start restricting the second floor you are going to have less green space and then less space for your 28 family. 29 30 And also I thought that this would come up for voting again. We so we didn’t know that was the final 31 vote when we signed. So keeping these issues in mind I’m not for an SSO. I would suggest people 32 having [unintelligible] and not all Eichler homes have flat roofs. Our own home has a sloping roof. So 33 probably you can change the angle. You can make the angle of the roof a little bit more angular so it can 34 still maintain your privacy though you have a second story home. And definitely if you have a bigger 35 family you want your kids to play so you need more open space. So I’m for more open space and 36 privacy can be handled with design issue, keeping design in mind. So still, by still maintaining the Eichler 37 spirit I believe a second family, a second story home will not affect the lifestyle of our neighbors so we 38 should not restrict it to a single story tract. Thank you. 39 40 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. And we have final card unless there will be another one, Mr. Jason 41 Trendale. 42 43 Jason Trendale: Hi, thank you. I’m representing 3225 Stockton Place. Like others I don’t believe that 44 this street, this block, and these Eichlers should be included in this tract. It should be downsized. I hear 45 a lot of un-neighborly attitude in this room and I can see why this is a polarizing topic of discussion. I 46 would like to easily, I could easily spend your time just saying why these houses don’t fit that 47 neighborhood. I mean the house across the street was built by the owner. There’s, there’s lots of two-48 story houses. It’s not something which fits in this overlay, but in my experience in Palo Alto over more 49 than 40 years is living in this house. Living in a SSO zone and having kids where that’s two blocks away 50 City of Palo Alto Page 14 from every single school level there is except for say, High School. It’s also living Professorville next to a 1 house which the Planning Department had knocked down, historic house, and having a two-story home 2 built next to my house where suddenly there’s something looking into my backyard and [unintelligible] 3 my swimming pool. So I can see both sides of this and I think one of the things which the City should 4 focus on and which Councilwoman Downing [Note-Commissioner] spoke to when talking about the 5 alleyways is how can we design buildings so that they look out and have a purpose which fits our 6 community? And it’s not that difficult. It doesn’t take a genius although you had a room full of people 7 who fit that bill in architecture to set a casement for a window placement and end lighting which fits 8 code and allows a second story to be added without a view of the neighbor. And as some people have 9 mentioned, one, two, three, four houses away is a house which affects your backyard, the notification 10 requirements which we have don’t even cover that. 11 12 So while it may sound like I’m saying hey, this overlay is a great idea I think it’s a terrible idea. I think 13 you’re right in front of the Flag and sometimes we forget the Constitution exists, but this is one thing 14 where we have some rights and I think that the people who bought their houses who’ve signed this they 15 talk about pressure and or people who may not be here don’t know this is even happening are just miss 16 and uninformed or they need to work together and I’d really like to see that happen, but I think that 17 Stockton needs to be excluded from this and I think this needs to be rethought, at least continued until 18 people can maybe think hey, there’s a way to do this which doesn’t involve stopping other people from 19 building something on. And I know this process takes a long time as Ms. French can attest regarding the 20 405 Lincoln property so as far as this goes thank you for your time and I hope that you take that all the 21 people who spoken and the owners which retracted their names from Stockton into consideration and 22 remove that area because Stockton and Vernon are really that one community. They do not fit in this 23 overlay. Thanks a lot. 24 25 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you Mr. Trendale. So this concludes public hearing. We have no more 26 speaker cards. 27 28 Chair Fine: So thank you for everyone who showed up tonight. It’s great to get all this feedback. I think 29 these are the most comments I’ve ever seen on a single item probably because this is the largest SSO yet 30 that the City has dealt with. 31 32 Just to frame the conversation as we bring it back to the Commission. Our purview here is to 33 recommend approval or deny the request or change the boundary. If we make the boundary smaller 34 there is no new noticing requirement. If we enlarge the boundary there is a noticing requirement. With 35 that let’s open it up for a round of questions. Commissioner Downing. 36 37 Commissioner Downing: Sure. So a question for staff. So can you walk us through the process for what 38 happens when someone submits an SSO request for us? When they submit signatures what happens 39 with that? How do we verify them? 40 41 Ms. French: Those signatures as you have in your packet are checked against the data that the City has 42 on record. Obviously I don’t have, I can’t compare a signature with a signature on file with the 43 Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) let’s say. I don’t have that capability, but I do verify that the 44 owner is the listed owner on our data system for that address. 45 46 Commissioner Downing: Ok. So I realize that this is not really within staff control, it’s a matter of how 47 that particular ordinance is written, but I do think that there seems to be a fair point raised in that when 48 people come knocking on my door and ask me to sign petitions I don’t generally assume that I’m signing 49 away rights by doing that. I generally assume that I’m only going to be signing away rights when I get a 50 City of Palo Alto Page 15 formal government notice with government stationary on top. So I don’t know how we handle that or 1 kind of how we can fix that because that does sound disconcerting to me. 2 3 Mr. Lait: So I’ll just so… Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director. I’ll say that nobody has signed away any right. 4 I mean what the signature did was generate a conversation and filing of an application for consideration 5 by this Commission and ultimately by the City Council at a public hearing, but your comment is well 6 taken. Perhaps there are things that we need to look at in the way that the ordinance is drafted about 7 how we might go about collecting those signatures or getting that threshold point vetted out a little bit 8 further. 9 10 Commissioner Downing: I think that would be useful because I think that the last time we heard an SSO 11 and the last time that there was a neighborhood in that SSO who did not want to be part of that SSO we 12 did try to exclude them and the Council’s response to that they disagreed with the view that you just 13 espoused and they disagreed with our view as well which was that when people get this level of 14 signatures they have a right to be heard, not that they have an automatic right to receive the SSO. The 15 Council did not appreciate that view. And so in light of that I am extraordinarily concerned that when 16 Council receives these signatures they really do believe that people are signing away their rights. They 17 don’t believe that people are asking for the issue to be heard. So I think that is an important issue. 18 19 Chair Fine: Vice-Chair. 20 21 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So in the same, in the same spirit I think that in this 22 presentation there is a number of the addresses and I believe that we need to verify this against the 23 applications and double check if the it seems to me that some of them they are already on the list of 24 those that non-signees, but there may be some others that maybe signed and so we would need to 25 verify this to make sure that this is addressed. 26 27 Ms. French: May I? Through the Chair? All of the correspondence that I’ve received including the recent 28 7:03 email I have gone back and looked against the original application with the signatures and so I do, I 29 do have a current count if you will of support based on my checking against these. So we did get two 30 new supporters through and it is in the packet that you have at places and on the back table. Within the 31 last two days we did get three people that had formerly been a signature of support now saying they do 32 not support it. So again they met the requirements of the zoning code to submit an application for 33 consideration. What it is today is something different than what came in. It’s the process, and it is not 34 over tonight. It keeps going. That’s what you’re asked to do is forward something to the Council and 35 we’ll see what the support is at the Council, but again they met the requirement for submission and 36 consideration. 37 38 Vice-Chair Gardias: Right, but all I’m asking is pretty much just to verify if that is [does] reconciles with 39 the (interrupted) 40 41 Ms. French: It does. 42 43 Vice-Chair Gardias: This does? 44 45 Ms. French: What I heard tonight is yeah, there’s nobody that I’d heard this evening at the podium that 46 is different. I’ve been checking them against the map that I have on the support and non-support. 47 48 Vice-Chair Gardias: Very good. Ok, thank you very much. That was, that was very quick, right? So we 49 can just go to the substance then and just I have some other questions. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 Man [off mike]: If you can actually announce the percentage in support because right now 2 [unintelligible]. 3 4 Mr. Lait: So through the Chair. So Vice-Chair has the floor right now and I believe the Vice-Chair is 5 asking questions of staff. 6 7 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you very much. So like to follow up on the original development because 8 there is when you look at the map that you presented there is a R-1 and R-1(7000) lots. So R-1 those are 9 the smaller lots. So my question is what was rationale? Was this, was this truly developed at the same 10 time? Was it one tract at the time it was developed or there were just two separate developments and 11 then those two areas differ which of course would impact somehow treatment of Stockton and Loma 12 Verde? 13 14 Ms. French: So to answer that this is all one original tract. They were built as the applicants mentioned 15 at the same time, the late Fifties. I don’t have the exact years, but he did and I looked at that in our 16 system to verify that. I don’t know at what point the zoning to different zone districts were put forward. 17 I didn’t do that research to know when that took place, but the tract, the building of the tract was done 18 at the same time. 19 20 Vice-Chair Gardias: Ok. Thank you. So I maybe somebody else. I will prepare next questions. Thank 21 you. 22 23 Chair Fine: Commissioner Waldfogel. 24 25 Commissioner Waldfogel: I just had my questions answered from, yes. So nothing, nothing right now. 26 27 Chair Fine: Ok, I’ll go for a little bit here. So as we discussed in the pre-Commission meeting yesterday 28 the level needed to get a hearing is at the time of application submittal. Is that correct? 29 30 Ms. French: Yes, to be considered a complete application and eligible for the process of getting to the 31 Planning Commission. Yes. And they met that at the time of application and at the time of the notice to 32 the paper of this hearing and even up until last week. 33 34 Chair Fine: And since then where did the level of support drop to and where is it currently? 35 36 Ms. French: It’s gone down and up and down within the last two days or I should say five days. So it’s 37 currently at 69 percent and it was yesterday at 71 percent. So we had three, three changes of votes just 38 on Kenneth Drive just today. 39 40 Chair Fine: Ok. A few other unrelated questions. What’s the fence limit in these neighborhoods 41 actually? I know someone mentioned about a six foot fence that’s part of the style, but is there a limit 42 in the code at the moment? 43 44 Ms. French: One can place an extra foot of lattice along the rear property line, but as one comes forward 45 on the lot there can be no fence taller than six feet forward of the front of the house. 46 47 Chair Fine: Ok. Then just to get to it I’m pretty concerned about some of the process actually to, to get 48 to this. I think it is clear that you need 70 percent, but the City is really made it unclear about how you 49 get there. And from the number of speakers tonight I counted 12 opposed and four in support. I know 50 City of Palo Alto Page 17 there are more people in the audience who didn’t speak and those folks who were opposed were very 1 passionate about this and they tended to be concentrated along Loma Verde, Stockton, and in the R-1 2 district. That says something and I think we cannot ignore it. 3 4 I’m also particularly concerned that a number of people changed their vote one way or the other and 5 although we are supposed to consider this at the time of application I think it’s incumbent upon this 6 Commission to consider that this is a democratic process and we do need to consider how that works 7 out. I just don’t think we’ve done a very good job of process here. I want to echo Commissioner 8 Downing that maybe the City should provide explicit instructions on collecting signatures. Somebody 9 mentioned postcards that that the City sends out. That’s not a bad idea. I know that’s an additional 10 administrative cost and it would have to be written up in the code, but that seems like a good idea from 11 my perspective. 12 13 And then just to talk about some things we brought up before, it’s 70 percent to pass this, it’s 70 14 percent to overturn it. Our former colleague on this Commission, Commissioner Michael, mentioned 15 many times that he thought that was backwards. That if it’s 70 percent to pass this it should be 30 16 percent to overturn it. In a way we’re essentially privileging current owners at the expense of any future 17 owners who may have different preferences. I want to pass it back to the Commission for more 18 comments. Commissioner Waldfogel. 19 20 Commissioner Waldfogel: Thank you. So I’m just looking at the packet and in particular the signature 21 pages in the packet. It starts on Page 30 something. And this looks, this looks fairly unambiguous to me. 22 I mean if somebody rang my doorbell and showed me this piece of paper I think I would take it seriously 23 and consider whether it meant what it said before I signed it. So I think that we have to respect that 24 people had some intent when they saw this piece of paper and signed it. I mean I agree with the 25 comment that the process needs to be clear and transparent that we need to decide when the vote is 26 closed because I’m sure that we’ve all cast votes that we have remorse over, but we do need to clarify 27 that. But at the same time I think we have to respect the process so it looks like the process to the best 28 of our knowledge is people signed a piece of paper and we count the signatures on the piece of paper 29 that they sign. I’m not quite sure what other way that we could, that we could do this at least given the 30 current situation. 31 32 Looking at the map I understand, I mean I understand the difference between the situations on Loma 33 Verde and Stockton. At the same time those conditions bear on the conditions on the streets behind 34 them so it’s hard to separate out the impacts. So it’s a difficult case, but at the same time we do have 35 the only thing that we know for certain is that at the time when a piece of paper was presented to 36 people that we got a certain number of signatures. 37 38 Chair Fine: Commissioner Downing. 39 40 Commissioner Downing: Yeah, I mean I have to disagree with that. I mean I think that given that this 41 particular area is in a flood zone, given that a portion of the people here have easements in the back, 42 have large setbacks in the front, I think that the SSO for some of these folks depending on how the 43 market goes could mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in home value one way or the other. And so I 44 would not expect to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars by signing a petition that a random 45 neighbor brings over to my house while I’m trying to cook dinner and feed my child. So I don’t agree 46 with that. I think that if you’re going to be making such serious decisions about the number one asset 47 that any person, most people in America have, I think it needs to be on government paper. It needs to 48 be an actual letter and a form that the City government sends out. I can’t, I don’t think it should be 49 City of Palo Alto Page 18 based on a petition. I would not closely read that as if it were a contract although that’s exactly how 1 people should be reading this. 2 3 So I do see a really big process issue here and it’s highlighted here because I think in the other SSO’s that 4 we’ve faced we really did have a community that was united and had the same idea about where they 5 wanted to go. And that’s really not the case here. This is a very divided community and I feel very 6 uncomfortable with making this kind of decision knowing that a lot of people did not necessarily know 7 what they were signing. And further [to that] I’m going to be honest here, a lot of the people who came 8 who spoke against and a lot of people who revoked their signatures English is not their first language. 9 Expecting them to read and understand a petition from someone who’s knocking on a door without 10 English being your first language and without any legal counsel I think is a really big problem. 11 12 Chair Fine: Vice-Chair. 13 14 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So I just would like to direct your attention to Page 9 and that is the 15 paragraph under in the middle of the page that starts with “Staff had discussed with the property.” 16 When I’m reading this it just pretty much it implies in some way that pretty much we’re lobbying for SSO 17 and then I think that our position should be neutral here. It just pretty much reads at the end that 18 owner appreciate this information, but has not changed his vote to support the SSO and then when I’m 19 reading this sentence it just pretty much implies that we were, we were trying to convince the owner 20 which should not be our job to pretty much change the position. So that’s, that’s concerning to me and I 21 think that pretty much we could, should have rules that would put us in the neutral position giving that 22 variety of comments. [Please help me] would you like to respond to this? 23 24 Mr. Lait: Yeah, well I’ll just thank you for your comments. I, we certainly strive to be impartial in our 25 reports and give you a fair analysis. I don’t concur with the statements that you’ve made, but I’m happy 26 to have a further dialogue about that because we do want to make sure that we have a fair document. 27 28 Chair Fine: I actually had a question for the applicant. Did you consider excluding Stockton and Loma 29 Verde? 30 31 Mr. Lait: So Chair you’re going to be opening up the public hearing then to? 32 33 Chair Fine: Well, to the applicant. 34 35 Mr. Lait: To open up the… to receive additional public comment? 36 37 Chair Fine: Yes. 38 39 Mr. Lait: Ok, thank you. 40 41 Mr. Willits: And I don’t know. I might note we were told we would have some time for rebuttal. I don’t 42 know if that time has passed or not, but let me just say about Stockton. We did look at Stockton when 43 we started our process we got well into the signature collecting and Stockton and Loma Verde did not 44 look particularly different from any others. Stockton looks quite a bit different now. A number of 45 people have inexplicably all of a sudden changed their perspective on it. The problem that we have is 46 what I tried to emphasize in my presentation is that the house over the back fence is the one that most 47 bothers us. And again the thing that we’re concerned about is the two-story teardown. And the two-48 story teardown over any back fence of an Eichler has a huge effect. And so any, if any of those houses 49 City of Palo Alto Page 19 were to do that it would really impact all the other people on particularly on Thomas cul-de-sac and 1 Kenneth as well as the people on Loma Verde. 2 3 So we did, we have discussed whether or not it made sense to do it, but our feeling is that it’s really 4 important that the whole tract both know what the issues are and I appreciate that during somehow 5 during this process we, we go and talk with the people we feel are the most open to what we’re staying. 6 And frankly the lack of support tonight from the people that you’ve heard from are people that we really 7 had no clue were even there. All we knew was that recently there’s been this diminution of support. So 8 the situation I would say is quite dynamic and from our standpoint we were not aware that there was so 9 much concern there. 10 11 Chair Fine: No, I hear you. I think dynamic is a good way of describing it. Given that would your 12 committee or the neighborhood be willing to explore this with a different boundary perhaps now that 13 you can see some of the different levels of support on Stockton and Loma Verde? I guess another way 14 of putting it is would you still pursue this SSO if those two streets were excluded? 15 16 Mr. Willits: I think Stockton is where the real issue is. We haven’t gotten a sense that there’s a lower 17 than normal shall we say support. Again our focus has been to keep the group whole because again if 18 we give one particular part of an Eichler neighborhood essentially the green light to go out then the and 19 I’ll say during our process I’m going to back up a little bit. During our process and during the discussions 20 that we had with our neighbors from my standpoint and my group we were all quite aware that the 21 people we talked to were very aware that this was essentially a kind of contract. That when an SSO is 22 put in place by the City that essentially neighbors are giving up a right in exchange for all the people in 23 both radius one, radius two, radius three, radius four within the Eichler community giving up that right 24 at the same time. So for some and I think you’ve heard from a couple this evening their perception is 25 that that would be a great financial hardship. For most of us this is a financial win. We give up a right 26 we have all of our neighbors tear up their rights. From looking at it from an option standpoint. 27 28 Chair Fine: So I hear you and I think you’re right about this being a contract among neighbors. I mean do 29 you feel ok now knowing that on Stockton two, only two of nine households support this? 30 31 Mr. Willits: I agree with the fact that this is a bit disconcerting. The voices that aren’t being heard are 32 the voices over the back fence. And perhaps we would be open to something, some way of having a 33 forum or way of somehow having the people on all the sides come together and understand what their 34 issues are. Again as I said this is somewhat new to us and we hadn’t fully looked at that possibility. 35 36 Chair Fine: Ok. 37 38 Mr. Willits: But I would agree with you I think given the nature of strong opposition from some of the 39 people who have spoken and the fact that they seem to be operating from a different fact base than the 40 rest of us are means that there may be a way of having more discussion and making it and getting it 41 resolved. We would feel much more comfortable if the whole tract can go for the reasons that I gave. 42 The interconnectedness of the houses. 43 44 Chair Fine: Thank you very much. Guess we’re going to close the public hearing again. I think do any 45 other Commissioners have other questions or comments? Vice-Chair. 46 47 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. So in the same regards, right, I think we have a gap in SSO regulation 48 because when we follow up on the applicant’s request to apply SSO to certain boundaries the we don’t 49 have a resolution for the boundaries of the district and those boundaries may be already affected with 50 City of Palo Alto Page 20 this what’s going on the other side of the street and I think this may be the case for Stockton Place and 1 probably for Loma Verde because they are facing totally different neighborhood on the other side and 2 then there may, they may just look at this from the perspective of the neighbor with the other people 3 from the other side of the street as opposed to being neighbors with the tract development. So I think 4 this is the first we have a gap in the SSO overlay that we may need to address somehow. Then this gap 5 would have to also relate to the other party because of course this is the applicant and then they would 6 feel they would be affected with the taller houses that would be built on the other side of their fence. 7 So we may need to develop some process that would and some zoning requirements that would allow 8 some of those that feel that boundaries are affected would allow to expand to somehow have larger 9 houses, but then not affect their neighbors that are applicant for the SSO overlay. And we have similar 10 thinking in our zoning regulations because when we have changes between different zones then we 11 have requirements how the development [unintelligible] step up from one zoning to another one so it 12 would be a similar situation. 13 14 Chair Fine: Other comments, questions? So I think at this point we should try to make a Motion and 15 move forward with it. Just to remind my fellow Commissioners our purview here is to recommend 16 approval that the City Council approve this SSO as is. We can deny the request and a question for staff 17 there, if we deny the request this whole process ends, is that correct? Or can it be appealed or what 18 options do the neighbors have and? 19 20 Ms. Silver: Right. It would still be forwarded to Council with your recommendation for denial. 21 22 Chair Fine: Ok, thank you. Or we can change the boundary. So please correct me if I’m wrong; I think 23 the sense on the Commission here is that we either change the boundary a little bit with Loma Verde 24 and Stockton Place and to be clear last time we did that Council wasn’t too happy about it, but it is 25 within our purview here and our job is to consider and make recommendations to City Council on zoning 26 map and zoning ordinance changes. That’s exactly what this is. The other option might be to deny it. 27 So I’m willing to entertain Motions in any of those three areas. 28 29 MOTION #1 30 31 Commissioner Waldfogel: Just to make it easy I’d like to move to approve the staff recommendation. 32 33 MOTION #1 FAILED 34 Chair Fine: So Commissioner Waldfogel has moved that we recommend approval of the staff 35 recommendation to Council. Do we have a second? We don’t have a second. That Motion is off the 36 floor. Do we have another Motion? 37 38 Vice-Chair Gardias: I would like to make a Motion, but before, before I do this do we have an option 39 because we were given option of modifying the boundaries, but we don’t have any option just going 40 between. So is it within our purview, is it within our current mandate to recommend some mitigating 41 factors along certain boundaries? 42 43 Mr. Lait: So the code as I understand it is this is the application for a SSO and we’ve not, let me back up a 44 step. I think where you’re going is with the possibility of some additional development standards that 45 might apply to properties on Stockton or Loma Verde? Ok. So if what we’ve not done before with any 46 of the SSOs that have been adopted is apply additional development standards and I think that is 47 something we can have a conversation about, but I think it begins to get a little bit tricky because we 48 have a section of our code that deals with SSOs and establishes some prescribed standards that would 49 apply to every SSO. And so I think we’d want to think on that a little bit further. I think that you could 50 City of Palo Alto Page 21 also frame in a recommendation that some standards be considered by the Council and then that would 1 also give us some time to think about that as we prepare that report for Council. 2 3 Vice-Chair Gardias: Right, so that was pretty much this is where I was going to so my Motion would be 4 right, if we may do that pretty much we would recommend approval of the staff recommended and 5 applicant submitted SSO, but with providing with developing mitigating factors along the boundaries of 6 the, of this overlay and then returning to the Commission to review those for final approval. 7 8 Mr. Lait: So I mean I think that would I mean that’s going to take some time to come up with some 9 standards about what that might be. I mean there’s a number of options just off the top of my head 10 that one could explore whether they’re precise development standards or there’s an additional I mean 11 we already have the Individual Review (IR) process that would apply to any second story home. And so 12 one might question whether that might be a sufficient safeguard which is one that contemplates privacy 13 as one of the issues. So my concern is that if the Commission put us, sent us down that path that that 14 would extend the processing time of this application and I think I mean it sort of begins to take on its 15 own policy project at that point and I guess I would encourage the Commission to if that’s your interest 16 have a conversation about that and maybe forward that on to the Council as part of your 17 recommendation, but I’m open to a continued dialogue about that as I continue to think about it. 18 19 MOTION #2 20 21 Vice-Chair Gardias: And then I totally agree, right? I mean from time to time like we have with your 22 omnibus review that we just did at the end of the last year, right, we just stamp across on some 23 regulations that we may improve and maybe this is one of those that we may somehow look into again 24 from this specific perspective. It just pretty much gives us a lesson so we should just take a look at this 25 see if there is existing regulations are provide mitigating factors. They may not, right? So in this respect 26 we would have to just develop new zoning restriction or recommendation just to provide some 27 mitigation factor for those that live along Stockton. 28 29 So with this I would like to just move a Motion to approve this staff submitted SSO overlay for this 30 district with the requirement that staff will provide, will propose the mitigating factors for the 31 boundaries for the overlay and return to the Commission to review. 32 33 Chair Fine: So there’s a Motion on the floor to approve the staff recommendation with staff directed to 34 look into development standards that may mitigate some of the, can you repeat that second part? 35 36 Vice-Chair Gardias: That would provide mitigating factors for the properties along the boundaries of the 37 SSO overlay. 38 39 Chair Fine: Do we have a second? 40 41 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’m not… can you just clarify what that means precisely? Are we talking about 42 Stockton/Loma Verde in or out? I mean the other place where there are boundaries is on Vernon 43 Terrace. So what are we actually talking about right now? 44 45 Vice-Chair Gardias: Yeah, so we pretty much we’re talking about just providing some sort of regulation 46 that would allow owners to expand their properties to somehow relate to the properties outside the 47 boundaries and then pretty much it would be any boundary, but of course we would just apply it to a 48 specific boundary where we would just be voting for approval. So the recommendation would be for all 49 City of Palo Alto Page 22 the boundaries because the situation may occur anywhere, but we would apply it for some selected 1 boundaries where this applies. 2 3 SECOND 4 5 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’ll second that Motion. 6 7 Chair Fine: Alright, so we do have a Motion on the floor (interrupted) 8 9 Mr. Lait: So I’m sorry, Chair. If I may? Before a vote? 10 11 Chair Fine: Sure. 12 13 Mr. Lait: So you have an opportunity to have a deliberation of course between I mean there’s a Motion 14 and a second on the floor and I guess there’s a couple of things. One is I think there are some 15 implications here that I’d like to think through a little bit more. And if I can see that map again? I don’t 16 like to sort of do this on the fly, but there’s a lot of boundaries there and I think that there’s a lot of 17 that’s going to be difficult for us to put together and come back to you in light of the different work 18 program that we have here. I mean if I’m understanding the Vice-Chair’s Motion at boundary issues 19 we’re to come up with a proposed mitigating factors that would presumably address the height, scale, 20 bulk of a possible two-story building and privacy related issues upon the one-story, the SSO properties 21 that are abutting it. And as I look at the map that’s if we’re not coming up with a uniform standard 22 we’re looking at every property individually to think about what that standard would be and that’s just 23 not feasible. And so that gets me back to the existing processes that we have in place and the existing 24 process that we have in place is the IR. So if the Commission is asking us to come back and think about 25 mitigating factors I think that the existing process that we have the IR process would be the mitigating 26 factor an existing program that works and it doesn’t require us to go through an elaborate analysis of 27 the boundary properties particularly when how many of these do we have now? SSOs? Yeah. 28 29 Ms. French: 12, 14 now with the two recently adopted. 30 31 Mr. Lait: So we have 14 SSOs in the City and then this would be the first one that would have its own 32 unique set of standards. I have some concerns about that. 33 34 Chair Fine: Thank you. I appreciate that. I think staff does have a valid concern. Just for my colleague’s 35 sake if we do approve this as is, but we require mitigation standards I’m not just knowing how the City 36 operates the long and short of it is that the SSO will be approved by Council, right? The development 37 standards may not be developed and we actually haven’t solved that issue if we see one there of these 38 [unintelligible] properties creating second stories. That said there is a Motion and a second. Would you 39 care to speak to it? 40 41 Commissioner Waldfogel: I’d just like to comment that I think that if the IR process worked to 42 everyone’s satisfaction that I don’t’ think we would see a petition with 70 percent approval give or take 43 [unintelligible] what day we decide the vote is actually countable. So I mean it’s possible that we could 44 have a better IR process than we have today that takes privacy more into account than it does, but I 45 suspect that that, that the weakness of that process today is one of the reasons why we see this petition 46 in front of us. So that’s why I’m supporting this Motion in some form. 47 48 Mr. Lait: So Chair I don’t know if there’s an opportunity for me to respond to that? 49 50 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Fine: Please. 1 2 Mr. Lait: Thank you. So thank you for the comments about the IR program. As you may or may not 3 know of course we are undergoing a study of that program. We do have a consultant on board who is 4 interviewing people and we are anticipating making some reforms based on those reports from that 5 program. So I hope that where there are failings of the IR program perhaps on both sides of the aisle on 6 that that we can make some changes to improve that and get a better product for everybody. 7 8 And so it just a last other sort of pitch I guess to the Commission as you consider the Motion I want to I 9 go back in my mind to the last… first of all I want to say I think there’s a lot of great comments that are 10 being made and I am not advocating one way or the other for how this goes, but I do think that we have 11 an application that was filed. It did meet the submittal requirements. I think applicants are probably 12 looking for an opportunity to have a conversation before the Council. This suggestion on the Motion I 13 think is one that’s noteworthy. My concern is that it keeps us here at… staff doing additional work and 14 research and coming back to the Planning Commission as opposed to advancing it on to the City Council. 15 16 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 17 18 Chair Fine: Thank you. So I’d like to propose a Friendly Amendment. I agree with the general Motion 19 that we can move this forward to Council. I’m just trying to provide some context here. Thank you for 20 that comment about what you just made. I think the problem here is that our options are kind of 21 limited. We can deny this application, say no. We can say yes it’s good as is or we can change the 22 boundaries which I think inherently changes this whole process particularly for the people right next to 23 the areas that we remove. I think Council had a lot of issues when we did that last time and rightfully so. 24 I think they also had issue with the fact that we were redistricting in a way and we were removing 25 properties to reach another threshold of votes. I think that’s problematic too even though I think for 26 this application they’re, it’s much more contentious. There are a lot of people who showed up tonight 27 against this and I think it’s very clear that they’re coming from a certain subset of properties along the 28 border. 29 30 So my Friendly Motion to the, my Friendly Amendment to the Motion to move this forward would be 31 that Council strongly look, strongly explore the possibility of removing Loma Verde and Stockton Place 32 properties given their diminished level of support and furthermore that Council look into ways that staff 33 and the City can do this process better in the future whether that is mailing out cards, providing a 34 boilerplate form for folks to explain to their neighbors what this is about. I think the committee here 35 had some great intentions and they did a true faith effort to actually get this passed in their 36 neighborhood and get the level of support. Nonetheless there were some neighbors who were not 37 satisfied by it. So my Friendly Amendment is 1) for Council to strongly consider removing Loma Verde 38 and Stockton Place, those properties, and 2) to explore ways in which this SSO process can be more 39 efficiently and effectively done by neighborhoods that come down the pipe. 40 41 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 42 43 Vice-Chair Gardias: I accept the Friendly Amendment. 44 45 Commissioner Waldfogel: I will too. 46 47 Chair Fine: Ok. 48 49 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Vice-Chair Gardias: So the Motion, proposed Motion would pretty much read that the Commission 1 approves submitted SSO overly for Royal Manor tract and strongly… 2 3 Chair Fine: Strongly encourages Council to consider removing Stockton Place and Loma Verde Avenue 4 properties. 5 6 Vice-Chair Gardias: Thank you. 7 8 VOTE 9 10 Chair Fine: And Council consider methods to do this process better in the future. So we do have the 11 Motion as amended. I’m going to put it to a vote in a minute, but I just want to say one thing to 12 everybody out in the audience, thank you all for showing up. All of your feedback is very important to 13 us. The presentation was extremely helpful. And whatever happens with this I encourage you all to 14 show up in these numbers at the Council meeting. Council will listen to you as well. They will consider 15 both sides of this issue or all three sides; however you want to look at it. 16 17 With that if there are no other comments let’s put this to a vote. All in favor? All against? None. So 18 this passes four to nothing. Thank you all very much for showing up. 19 20 MOTION PASSED (4-0-__________, recused/absent?) 21 ATTACHMENT G 18.12.100 Regulations for the Single Story Overlay (S) Combining District (a) Applicability of District: The single-story height combining district may be combined with the R-1 single family residence district or with any R-1 subdistrict. Where so combined, the regulations established by this section shall apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by Section 18.12.040. All applicable provisions of that section shall otherwise govern development in the combining district. (b) Site Development Regulations: For sites within the single-story height combining district, the following site development regulations shall apply in lieu of the otherwise applicable site development regulations of Section 18.12.040: (1) The maximum height shall be 17 feet, as measured to the peak of the roof; provided, in a special flood hazard area as defined in Chapter 16.52, the maximum height is increased by one-half of the increase in elevation required to reach base flood elevation, up to a maximum building height of 20 feet. (2) There shall be a limit of one habitable floor. Habitable floors include lofts, mezzanines and similar areas but exclude basements and exclude attics that have no stairway or built-in access. Lofts and mezzanines include any space above the first floor in excess of five feet (5') from the floor to the roof above. (c) Application for a Single Story (S) Combining District (1) Application to create or remove a single-story overlay district may be made by an owner of record of property located in the single-story overlay district to be created or removed. (2) Application shall be made to the director on a form prescribed by the director, and shall contain all of the following: (A) A written statement setting forth the reasons for the application and all facts relied upon by the applicant in support thereof. (B) A map of the district to be created or removed that includes the address location of those owners whose properties are subject to the zoning request. Boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made features (including, but not limited to, roadways, waterways, tract boundaries and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood or development. For creation of a single-story overlay district, the area shall be of a prevailing single story character, such that a minimum of 80% of existing homes within the boundaries are single story. (C) For creating a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by: (i) 70% of included properties; or (ii) 60% of included properties where all included properties are subject to recorded deed restrictions intended to limit building height to a single story, whether or not such restrictions have been enforced. For the removal of a single-story overlay district, a list of signatures evidencing support by 70% of included properties, whether or not deed restrictions intended to limit the building height to single story apply. "Included properties" means all those properties inside the boundaries of the district proposed to be created or ATTACHMENT H removed. The written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state that the signer is indicating support for a zone map amendment that affects his or her property. One signature is permitted for each included property, and a signature evidencing support of an included property must be by an owner of record of that property. (D) Such additional information as the director may deem pertinent and essential to the application. (3) An application for creation or removal of a single-story (S) overlay district made in accordance with this subsection (c) shall be processed in accordance with Chapter 18.98. (Ord. 5373 § 9 (part), 2016; Ord. 4869 § 14 (Exh. A [part]), 2005) OPPONENTS OF ROYAL MANOR SSO ATTACHMENT I ATTACHMENT J Public Comments received in response to Courtesy Notice Card Mail-out PIERCE & SHEARER -------··-·-·-·-··-·-·-·-·--· LLP VIA U.S. MAIL Amy French Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org ANDREW F. PIERCE Email: apierce@pierceshearer.com March 30, 2016 Cara Silver Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: cara.silver@cityofpaloalto.org Re: Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay Rezoning Application Dear Amy and Cara: Thank you for meeting with a group of the homeowners opposed to the single-story overlay for the Royal Manor neighborhood on Tuesday, March 22, 2016. As we discussed, we have some thoughts about the legality and merits of the application that my clients would like to have included in the City Council packet. We have serious questions to whether the single story overlay application was ever compliant with the requirements for a valid application. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.12.l 00, entitled Regulations for the Single Story Overlay Combining District states that an application for creating a single-story overlay district "shall contain ... a list of signatures evidencing support by: (1) 70% of included properties ... the written statement or statements accompanying the signatures must state that the signer is indicating support for zone map amendment that affects his or her property." In addition, the regulations state that "boundaries shall correspond with certain natural or man-made features (including, but not limited to, roadways, waterways, tract boundaries, and similar features) to define an identifiable neighborhood or development." Section 18.12.100(c)(2)(B). The map produced by the proponents does not comply with the latter requirement because one existing two-story home was excluded from the proposed zone. It is clearly within all relevant boundaries including, as Ms. French acknowledged at our meeting, the tract boundary. Therefore, the 70% calculation should be based on 203 homes not 202. This means the total level of support required by the ordinance to commence an application would be 143. It appears that at the time of the Planning Commission hearing the application only had support of at most 141 households. The level has since declined to 129. The ordinance does not state that support from 69% is required -it states 70%. Woodside Corporate Center• 2055 Woodside Road, Suite 110 •Redwood City, CA 94061 Tel: 650.843.1900 •Fax: 650.843.1999 www.pierceshearer.com Page2 We are also concerned that the signers were not correctly informed of what they were signing. The initial information sent to neighbors, which was included in the Planning and Transportation Commission packet on pages 25-31 stated, in answer to question 5 in the FAQ's that, "The city will send postcards to all affected homeowners, asking if they support or oppose a single-story overlay. If someone does not return their card it counts as a a NO vote." The residents were led to believe that they were agreeing to put the issue to a neighborhood vote. It is quite different to sign a petition that is preparatory to a neighborhood-wide vote, and simply gets the matter on the ballot, than it is to sign something that will not be subject to such a plebiscite. If a neighbor asks you to sign something it is much easier to agree to do so if you think there will be a later vote, especially if you do not support, or have no position about the proposal. Although a later, corrected, version of the FAQ was prepared, the city has received emails (see Attachment A) indicating that some individuals did not receive the subsequent FAQ. Thus not only was the threshold of 70% not met but it appears that some people signed under a misapprehension as to what they were signing, which further indicates there was never sufficient support, as required by the code. Staff is now aware that many people have withdrawn their support and we understand current support level is down to 129, far below the required 143. Under these circumstances we do not believe the city can go forward with the application without risking subsequent challenge if it is adopted. On a less technical note, we also believe the city should carefully consider the long term effect of the single-story overlay. The proposed zone is in an area where lots are small, and in a flood plain where homeowners may not expand downward. The city could end up freezing the properties with square footages that are far below those that families have been seeking in Palo Alto. The fact that a well-organized minority can obtain support from the existing owners does not mean it is good public policy to dictate to people 10 or 20 years from now that they cannot build a conventional moderate sized home on their lots. Sincerely, PIERCE & SHEARER, LLP tL--J r; p Ad: Andrew F. Pierce AFP/jb Enclosure Subject: Fwd: Royal Manor SSO - From: To: Date: Nana Murugesan (narayanan.murugesan.wg09@wharton.upenn.edu) venkatd@yahoo.com; Sunday, February 28, 2016 5:05 PM ----------Forwarded message ---------- From: Nana Murugesan <narayanan.murugesan.wg09@wharton.upenn.edu> Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 5:03 PM Subject: Royal Manor SSO - To: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Ms. Amy French, We are writing to you to express concern about the process being followed for Royal Manor community's SSO application. We bought our home (3492 Janice Way) just about nine months back -though we knew that there was a potential SSO application in the works, we were promised that there will be a proper process which would include a ballot. However, we recently learned that signatures collected publicly in a block party are being taken into account instead of a ballot! If that is the case, we would like to reguest that our signature be withdrawn. We signed at the block party to show our support for community sentiment to go to ballot for SSO (and certainly didn't think our signature would be wrongfully used in lieu of a legal ballot). As recent residents with two young children and aging parents who moved here with a long-term mindset, we want to make sure that we have the flexibility to expand our home sufficiently in the coming years. Therefore, we would like to fully lmderstand the ramifications of SSO for our particular lot and house before we make a decision. Thank you very much, and we look forward to your guidance and leadership as we address this very important issue for our neighborhood. Narayanan Murugesan & Sridevi Narayanan 3492 Janice Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:William O. Faustman Ph.D. <faust2@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Richard Willits Subject:Support for Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay Though I had an opportunity to formally address the Planning Commission last month to explain my support for the Royal Manor Single‐Story Overlay (SSO), I will unfortunately be out of town on 4/18/16 and unable to attend the City Council meeting on the issue. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views. I have lived at 3458 Greer Road since 1989 and strongly support the proposed SSO. My home is one of the few Eichler homes with a second story addition, a feature added by the former owner in the 1960's. I must admit that I am embarrassed by this rather ugly addition which looms over adjacent yards. Privacy and the ongoing architectural integrity/consistency of this neighborhood are values dear to me. The architecture of these houses is unique (open glass walls, yards with relatively low fences) and their esthetics is especially destroyed by two‐story houses (thus, a bit of my own personal embarrassment). When I attended the planning committee meeting there were several comments made by opponents to the SSO that were drastically different than my experience with this process and I wanted to briefly address these issues. 1) Unlike claims of some opponents, there was absolutely no pressure to sign the petition supporting the SSO. 2) The entire process was absolutely transparent, with a full explanation of the purpose and ramifications of the petition. I greatly appreciate you providing this opportunity for me to express my support and I hope the Council passes this SSO as they have other SSO applications in the recent past. William Faustman, Ph.D., C.Psychol., AFBPsS Clinical Professor (Affiliated) Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University School of Medicine 1 Ellner, Robin From:Sue Thiemann <thiemann@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Richard Willits Subject:yes to Royal Manor SSO I am unfortunately out of town on April 18th and therefore unable to voice my support for the Royal Manor SSO at the City Council meeting but as a resident of the tract I appreciate this opportunity to communicate it now. Long before Nature Deficit Disorder was recognized, Joseph Eichler understood that exposure to nature improves both physical and emotional well‐being. He used walls of glass to provide a constant connection with the outdoors. A two‐ story house among Eichlers, by depriving neighbors of privacy, destroys that casual contact with nature. Curtains must be kept closed, meals moved inside, clothes donned to visit the garden before breakfast. Once added, a second story won't be removed, and the automatic exposure to nature originally provided by an Eichler is gone forever. Property value ‐‐ in the true sense of the word "value" ‐‐ is sadly diminished. Even in the purely monetary sense of the phrase, property value is more a function of neighborhood desirability (realtors' "location, location, location") than it is of house size, and an architecturally coherent neighborhood is more desirable than one marred by looming McMansions. Palo Alto has many neighborhoods with large houses, but few with the architectural consistency of this tract, and ‐‐ as the council has recognized in other cases ‐‐ such neighborhoods are treasures worth preserving. Eichlers were built for families with kids. Some insist they are now inadequate because times have changed. Yes, times have changed ‐‐ and they will change again. The belief that a bathroom should be the size of a bedroom and a bedroom the size of a living room is giving way to the realization that compact houses are easier to care for and nicer to live in. An Eichler can be remodeled without adding a second story. I certainly want children in my neighborhood, and I also want them to have what I had as a child growing up in an Eichler: a yard where no one but my own family could see me, and a house open to that yard. A single two‐story house will deprive many, both children and adults, of that experience. Architects are now focused on making better use of space rather than just increasing it, reflecting an awareness of the growing need to conserve resources of all kinds. Architectural fashions are always changing, but there is good reason for the recent enthusiasm for Mid‐ century Modern design. It is a style that recognizes something eternal in our species: the need for contact with the natural world, a need now recognized as essential to well‐being. A neighborhood of single‐story Eichlers satisfies this need. One with even a few two‐ story houses will deprive many people of that essential pleasure. I hope the council will protect the neighborhood as a whole over the objections of a few by passing this SSO. Thank you for your time. Sue Thiemann 3458 Greer Road Palo Alto 1 Ellner, Robin From:French, Amy Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 6:23 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:Fwd: Support for Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay From: "William O. Faustman Ph.D." <faust2@stanford.edu> Date: March 30, 2016 at 8:05:51 PM PDT To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: "Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org" <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Richard Willits" <rwillits@gmail.com> Subject: Support for Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay Though I had an opportunity to formally address the Planning Commission last month to explain my support for the Royal Manor Single‐Story Overlay (SSO), I will unfortunately be out of town on 4/18/16 and unable to attend the City Council meeting on the issue. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views. I have lived at 3458 Greer Road since 1989 and strongly support the proposed SSO. My home is one of the few Eichler homes with a second story addition, a feature added by the former owner in the 1960's. I must admit that I am embarrassed by this rather ugly addition which looms over adjacent yards. Privacy and the ongoing architectural integrity/consistency of this neighborhood are values dear to me. The architecture of these houses is unique (open glass walls, yards with relatively low fences) and their esthetics is especially destroyed by two‐story houses (thus, a bit of my own personal embarrassment). When I attended the planning committee meeting there were several comments made by opponents to the SSO that were drastically different than my experience with this process and I wanted to briefly address these issues. 1)Unlike claims of some opponents, there was absolutely no pressure to sign the petition supporting the SSO. 2 2) The entire process was absolutely transparent, with a full explanation of the purpose and ramifications of the petition. I greatly appreciate you providing this opportunity for me to express my support and I hope the Council passes this SSO as they have other SSO applications in the recent past. William Faustman, Ph.D., C.Psychol., AFBPsS Clinical Professor (Affiliated) Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University School of Medicine 1 Ellner, Robin From:French, Amy Sent:Saturday, April 02, 2016 7:40 AM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:FW: Royal Manor Single-Story overlay proposal Here is another email. From: Beth Marer-Garcia [mailto:bethmarergarcia@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 8:59 PM To: French, Amy Subject: RE: Royal Manor Single-Story overlay proposal 4/1/16 Dear Ms. French and council members, I have serious concerns Regarding the Royal Manor Second-Story overlay issue. I live in Royal Manor and have read the informational letter and seen the signature petition both in person and reviewed the documents and summaries online at cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pin/default.asp. As I understood the informational letter; any signature on that document would serve simply as a basic show of support, and if at least 70% of the neighbors signed the petition only then could the second-story application process begin. Whereas I appreciate the “door-to-door” process of collecting signatures as a primary step, objectively speaking such an informal collection is subject to misrepresentation and misinformation by each party, and the signature document allowed for, and accepted only one signature, which is unfair and incomplete because it does not allow each and every property owner to offer his or her opinion/vote. For the council to actually rule on this critical matter without formal consideration, seems irresponsible and could very well put the city of palo alto and our tax dollars at risk of litigation. Therefore in the matter of single-story overlay, I strongly suggest that city provide for and require a proper and formal vote, in which every single property owner (as listed per deed) be given full voting rights as a matter of democracy. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Beth Marer-Garcia 2 3452 Kenneth Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:David Hanzel <davidkhanzel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 03, 2016 6:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Support for Royal Manor SSO City Council Members, As a child I grew up in an Eichler in San Rafael (Marin County), my childhood home on Wakerobin Lane is now protected by a EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES OVERLAY DISTRICT (-E/A) which limits all development to a single habitable floor with a maximum height of 17 ft; nearly identical to Palo Alto's SSO. Our family moved to Palo Alto 25 years ago and purchased our Eichler home, 988 Loma Verde Ave, in 1994 because we value the MidCentury Modern design, indoor/outdoor living and the unique Eichler community. I strongly support Royal Manor's SSO application to extend the same protection my childhood home has to our Palo Alto home. I also wish to protect my light, my privacy and my property values. Thank you very much for your consideration, David -- David Hanzel davidkhanzel@gmail.com 650.388.0452 Zoning info https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14ZO_DIVIIIOV DIRE_CH14.14EIALHOOVDIA 1 Ellner, Robin From:Jeffrey Peters <jeffreypeters@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 10:40 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:French, Amy; David Hanzel Subject:Royal Manor SSO To whom it may concern: My wife and I would like to voice our support, once again, for Single‐Story Overlay status for the Royal Manor Eichler tract. We understand and accept that Palo Alto is quickly changing in character. But we do still value our privacy. The neighbor behind us recently made a single‐story expansion which probably approaches the limits of what would be approved, and it feels quite invasive. I don’t even want to THINK about the total loss of privacy we would have experienced if they had instead constructed the largest two story home that would “fit” in their large cup‐de‐sac lot. Please help us out to conserve some modicum of the “good life” we hoped for when we invested in a home in Palo Alto! Thank you for your consideration, Jeffrey Peters Viviana Mur 990 Loma Verde Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:French, Amy Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 6:31 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:Fwd: SSO Supporter Another one... Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Liz Sain <lizsain13@gmail.com> Date: April 4, 2016 at 3:14:53 PM PDT To: <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: SSO Supporter People, We want no second story for our Eichler homes! They were designed to insure privacy and that's what we cherish. Add your second stories in towns that don't care, and allow anything to be built. Pahrump, Nevada, anyone? Please don' destroy our Eichler roof lines! Sincerely, Grace Sain, 998 Loma Verde St. Palo Alto, CA 94303 1 Ellner, Robin From:French, Amy Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 6:30 PM To:Peter Gioumousis Cc:Ellner, Robin Subject:Re: Royal Manor Thank you ‐ but the meeting at Council is on April 18th, not this evening's Council meeting. Robin may be able to attach this email to the report to council that goes out in a packet this week. Sent from my iPad > On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Peter Gioumousis <pgiou@znet.com> wrote: > > I am just writing to say that I will not be able to make it tonight, > but that I support the single story overlay. If anyone built a a two > story house near us, it would impact our sunlight, and our privacy. > Our houses have a lot of windows, so it would be like living in a > fishbowl if our neighbors had second stories. Our lots are fairly > small, so we would get even less sun if we were to have two story > buildings nextdoor. Some people have said that the value of their > property would be dimished by taking away their right to put up a > second story. I would have thought that having your rights to sun, and > privacy protected would enhance the value of your property. However, > people who have studied it, say that both ideas are wrong, and that it does not make any difference. > > Thanks > > Peter Gioumousis > > > 1 Ellner, Robin From:John Potter <johnfpotter@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 06, 2016 8:50 AM To:Council, City; French, Amy; Ellner, Robin Subject:In Support of the Royal Manor SSO Hello, I own 3421 Greer Road and I previously rented 3407 Janice Way. These are both houses in the Royal Manor Tract. I am in favor of the Royal Manor SSO for the following reasons: 1) While I appreciate that everyone has rights on their own property, I feel I have rights too. My house is 2/3 glass windows and I see no way that a two story house would not look directly into my side yards, backyard, and house giving me no privacy at all. I don't think there are ways to architect around that. Already with my fence at regulation height, in the winter, I can look out of any window and see the roof line of every house adjacent to me. These houses are very close together to begin with; making them two stories would only make that lack of privacy worse. 2) It has been mentioned that these houses cannot accommodate large families. Both of the houses that I have lived in have been renovated successfully while remaining a one story Eichler. My current house had a 2nd master suite added for in-laws. I also have been in other renovated Eichlers including one that has 2 adults and 4 teenagers (and pets) living in it comfortably. When many of these houses add second floors, they lose valuable floor space and have to create strange floor plans to squeeze in extra rooms. 3) There has been talk that when the petition was first circulated, people signed it without understanding what it was. I feel that the people circulating the petition made it very clear what it was for. I do not understand how anyone could have misunderstood what they were signing. In fact, I read all the material given to me before signing it. That was available to everyone. 4) The homeowners on Stockton and Loma Verde have asked to be excluded based on the fact that the houses across the street are not Eichlers. While I understand their position, I cannot agree with it. It is one thing to look across the street at a house and see a different house, it is entirely a different matter to have two-stories next door and behind you which is what would happen if they were excluded from this SSO. Houses across the street do not look into my property, my next door neighbors and the houses behind me do. 5) Finally, I know that this provision would not stop people from tearing down the Eichlers and building new one story structures. However, I want to add that would really be a shame. These houses are unique, well-known, and worth preserving. Many people buy these houses *because* they are Eichlers. When I moved to California, I knew that I wanted to live in one because they were unlike anything anywhere else. I hope this measure will help keep most of the Eichlers intact. Thank you for your consideration, John Potter -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Potter 3421 Greer Road, Palo Alto (415) 846-8021 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 Ellner, Robin From:Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 10:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Keene, James; Ben Lerner Subject:Yes on Royal Manor Overlay! Dear City Council and Staff, For 35 years, I’ve been enjoying my Eichler backyard with the goldfinches, titmice, towhees and the camellias, maple and orange tree which were here before me. My living room, dining room and master bedroom look out on trees and sky. The sun lights and warms different parts of the house as it moves across the sky in its daily pattern. This interaction, this blending of indoors and outdoors, is what I treasure about our neighborhood and my house on its meandering lot at the end of a cul de sac on Thomas, which shares a backyard fence with three separate homes on Stockton. This neighborhood of single story homes on small lots — Eichlers —allows privacy and views of the sky and trees in the distance, not the neighbors. Our backyards are small, cozy and private. Two story structures would overwhelm these small lots. My small lot of 6400 square feet, my house of 1800 square feet would be put in a canyon, a constant shadow. Instead of sun lighting my rooms as the day goes on, I would have to use electric lights all day and put up curtains for privacy. Here are photos showing the two homes at 3375 and 3385 Stockton from my backyard as well as from my kitchen — the center of my home. Imagine what that view from the kitchen would be if these homes doubled in size and height? Please include these Stockton houses in the Royal Manor Single Story Overlay and please, pass our overlay request. Respectfully, Stepheny McGraw 3303 Thomas Drive Palo Alto,Ca 94303 650-856-0296 2 3 1 Ellner, Robin From:Nisha Thatte-Potter <nthattepotter@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:09 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:Fwd: Support of the Royal Manor SSO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nisha Thatte-Potter <nthattepotter@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:07 PM Subject: Support of the Royal Manor SSO To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Hello, I own 3421 Greer Road and I previously rented 3407 Janice Way. These are both houses in the Royal Manor Tract. I am in favor of the Royal Manor SSO for the following reasons: 1) While I appreciate that everyone has rights on their own property, I feel I have rights too. My house is 2/3 glass windows and I see no way that a two story house would not look directly into my side yards, backyard, and house giving me no privacy at all. I don't think there are ways to architect around that. Already with my fence at regulation height, in the winter, I can look out of any window and see the roof line of every house adjacent to me. These houses are very close together to begin with; making them two stories would only make that lack of privacy worse. I am not a lawyer, but in property law there is a concept of Riparian right. This pertains to water rights and allows those living on a waterway the right to the surface water but not the right to block it so that others cannot use it. I feel that this can be compared with my right to live without having the sky and sun being blocked by a two story building. 2) It has been mentioned that these houses cannot accommodate large families. Both of the houses that I have lived in have been renovated successfully while remaining a one story Eichler. My current house had a 2nd master suite added for in-laws. I also have been in other renovated Eichlers including one that has 2 adults and 4 teenagers (and pets) living in it comfortably. When many of these houses add second floors, they lose valuable floor space and have to create strange floor plans to squeeze in extra rooms. 3) There has been talk that when the petition was first circulated, people signed it without understanding what it was. I feel that the people circulating the petition made it very clear what it was for. I do not understand how anyone could have misunderstood what they were signing. In fact, I read all the material given to me before signing it. That was available to everyone. 4) The homeowners on Stockton and Loma Verde have asked to be excluded based on the fact that the houses across the street are not Eichlers. While I understand their position, I cannot agree with it. It is one thing to look across the street at a house and see a different house, it is entirely a different matter to have two-stories next door and behind you which is what would happen if they were excluded from this SSO. Houses across the street do not look into my property, my next door neighbors and the houses behind me do. 2 5) Finally, I know that this provision would not stop people from tearing down the Eichlers and building new one story structures. However, I want to add that would really be a shame. These houses are unique, well- known, and worth preserving. Many people buy these houses *because* they are Eichlers. When I moved to California, I knew that I wanted to live in one because they were unlike anything anywhere else. I hope this measure will help keep most of the Eichlers intact. Thank you for your consideration, Nisha Thatte-Potter 3421 Greer Road 1 Ellner, Robin From:Geri M Wilson <gerimw@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 11:04 PM To:Ellner, Robin Subject:Fwd: Support for Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Geri Martin Wilson <gerimw@comcast.net> Date: April 5, 2016 at 10:58:34 PM PDT To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org, balerner@yahoo.com Subject: Support for Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, We are writing to express our strong support for the Single Story Overlay of the Royal Manor neighborhood. Though we attended the Planning Commission meeting last month to show our support, we will unfortunately be out of town and unable to attend the City Council meeting on this issue on April 18th, so we would like to express our support via this letter. We moved into our house at 3444 Greer Rd over 18 years ago. We loved the open Eichler design with the floor to ceiling windows that make the outdoors a part of your living space. We loved that even with these large open and airy windows, Eichlers in our development were carefully placed to allow maximum privacy from ones neighbors. We did find find however, that as our children grew, our house was a bit cramped for our large family of 6. When we decided to update and expand our Eichler to a 5 bedroom, 3 bath arrangement, to accommodate our 4 growing children, we found we had several single story design options to choose from- each in keeping with the original Eichler feel, without invading our, or our neighbor’s, privacy. Our family of 6 has lived very comfortably in our remodeled single story Eichler, enjoying the open feel, without having visibility into our neighbor’s houses or yards. If however, one of our neighbors were to build a second story next to, or behind us, it would destroy the aesthetics and privacy that we worked so carefully to preserve in our Eichler remodel. We would also like to note in this letter, that when we attended the Planning Committee meeting, there were accusations by the opposition to the SSO that signatures may have been accrued in a less than transparent manner. We would like to clarify that this was not at all our experience, nor that of our neighbors that we spoke to. Information was disseminated in a clear, well presented manner. Questions were addressed and answered completely. We felt no pressure in making our decision to support the SSO. We hope that though we are unable to attend the upcoming City Council meeting, that the council considers our input and support for the SSO in the Royal Manor 2 neighborhood. Our hope is that the Council passes the SSO in Royal Manor as they have for other recent Eichler SSO neighborhood applications. Thank you, Geri Martin Wilson & Bryan Wilson ATTACHMENT K Public Comments to Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/31/2016 9:02 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:William O. Faustman Ph.D. <faust2@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 8:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Richard Willits Subject:Support for Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay Though I had an opportunity to formally address the Planning Commission last month to explain my support for the Royal Manor Single‐Story Overlay (SSO), I will unfortunately be out of town on 4/18/16 and unable to attend the City Council meeting on the issue. I appreciate this opportunity to express my views. I have lived at 3458 Greer Road since 1989 and strongly support the proposed SSO. My home is one of the few Eichler homes with a second story addition, a feature added by the former owner in the 1960's. I must admit that I am embarrassed by this rather ugly addition which looms over adjacent yards. Privacy and the ongoing architectural integrity/consistency of this neighborhood are values dear to me. The architecture of these houses is unique (open glass walls, yards with relatively low fences) and their esthetics is especially destroyed by two‐story houses (thus, a bit of my own personal embarrassment). When I attended the planning committee meeting there were several comments made by opponents to the SSO that were drastically different than my experience with this process and I wanted to briefly address these issues. 1) Unlike claims of some opponents, there was absolutely no pressure to sign the petition supporting the SSO. 2) The entire process was absolutely transparent, with a full explanation of the purpose and ramifications of the petition. I greatly appreciate you providing this opportunity for me to express my support and I hope the Council passes this SSO as they have other SSO applications in the recent past. William Faustman, Ph.D., C.Psychol., AFBPsS Clinical Professor (Affiliated) Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University School of Medicine City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/5/2016 3:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Chuck Thomas <cethomas3493@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 11:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Support for Royal Manor Single-Story Overlay City Council Members: As a resident on Kenneth Drive, I support the application of the residents of this subdivision to establish height restrictions on new building in the area. The construction of Eichler homes was designed to give maximum visibility to the out of doors, but construction of two-story homes adjacent to original Eichlers makes the feature a privacy problem. Please approve the desire of a majority of the community who wish to maintain the profile and integrity of our Eichler neighborhood. Sincerely, Charles E. Thomas 3493 Kenneth Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/4/2016 12:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:David Hanzel <davidkhanzel@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, April 03, 2016 6:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Support for Royal Manor SSO City Council Members, As a child I grew up in an Eichler in San Rafael (Marin County), my childhood home on Wakerobin Lane is now protected by a EICHLER AND ALLIANCE HOMES OVERLAY DISTRICT (-E/A) which limits all development to a single habitable floor with a maximum height of 17 ft; nearly identical to Palo Alto's SSO. Our family moved to Palo Alto 25 years ago and purchased our Eichler home, 988 Loma Verde Ave, in 1994 because we value the MidCentury Modern design, indoor/outdoor living and the unique Eichler community. I strongly support Royal Manor's SSO application to extend the same protection my childhood home has to our Palo Alto home. I also wish to protect my light, my privacy and my property values. Thank you very much for your consideration, David -- David Hanzel davidkhanzel@gmail.com 650.388.0452 Zoning info https://www.municode.com/library/ca/san_rafael/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14ZO_DIVIIIOV DIRE_CH14.14EIALHOOVDIA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/5/2016 3:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stepheny McGraw <stepheny@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 10:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Keene, James; Ben Lerner Subject:Yes on Royal Manor Overlay! Dear City Council and Staff, For 35 years, I’ve been enjoying my Eichler backyard with the goldfinches, titmice, towhees and the camellias, maple and orange tree which were here before me. My living room, dining room and master bedroom look out on trees and sky. The sun lights and warms different parts of the house as it moves across the sky in its daily pattern. This interaction, this blending of indoors and outdoors, is what I treasure about our neighborhood and my house on its meandering lot at the end of a cul de sac on Thomas, which shares a backyard fence with three separate homes on Stockton. This neighborhood of single story homes on small lots — Eichlers —allows privacy and views of the sky and trees in the distance, not the neighbors. Our backyards are small, cozy and private. Two story structures would overwhelm these small lots. My small lot of 6400 square feet, my house of 1800 square feet would be put in a canyon, a constant shadow. Instead of sun lighting my rooms as the day goes on, I would have to use electric lights all day and put up curtains for privacy. Here are photos showing the two homes at 3375 and 3385 Stockton from my backyard as well as from my kitchen — the center of my home. Imagine what that view from the kitchen would be if these homes doubled in size and height? Please include these Stockton houses in the Royal Manor Single Story Overlay and please, pass our overlay request. Respectfully, Stepheny McGraw 3303 Thomas Drive Palo Alto,Ca 94303 650-856-0296 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/5/2016 3:22 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/5/2016 3:22 PM 3 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/31/2016 4:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sue Thiemann <thiemann@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Richard Willits Subject:yes to Royal Manor SSO I am unfortunately out of town on April 18th and therefore unable to voice my support for the Royal Manor SSO at the City Council meeting but as a resident of the tract I appreciate this opportunity to communicate it now. Long before Nature Deficit Disorder was recognized, Joseph Eichler understood that exposure to nature improves both physical and emotional well‐being. He used walls of glass to provide a constant connection with the outdoors. A two‐ story house among Eichlers, by depriving neighbors of privacy, destroys that casual contact with nature. Curtains must be kept closed, meals moved inside, clothes donned to visit the garden before breakfast. Once added, a second story won't be removed, and the automatic exposure to nature originally provided by an Eichler is gone forever. Property value ‐‐ in the true sense of the word "value" ‐‐ is sadly diminished. Even in the purely monetary sense of the phrase, property value is more a function of neighborhood desirability (realtors' "location, location, location") than it is of house size, and an architecturally coherent neighborhood is more desirable than one marred by looming McMansions. Palo Alto has many neighborhoods with large houses, but few with the architectural consistency of this tract, and ‐‐ as the council has recognized in other cases ‐‐ such neighborhoods are treasures worth preserving. Eichlers were built for families with kids. Some insist they are now inadequate because times have changed. Yes, times have changed ‐‐ and they will change again. The belief that a bathroom should be the size of a bedroom and a bedroom the size of a living room is giving way to the realization that compact houses are easier to care for and nicer to live in. An Eichler can be remodeled without adding a second story. I certainly want children in my neighborhood, and I also want them to have what I had as a child growing up in an Eichler: a yard where no one but my own family could see me, and a house open to that yard. A single two‐story house will deprive many, both children and adults, of that experience. Architects are now focused on making better use of space rather than just increasing it, reflecting an awareness of the growing need to conserve resources of all kinds. Architectural fashions are always changing, but there is good reason for the recent enthusiasm for Mid‐ century Modern design. It is a style that recognizes something eternal in our species: the need for contact with the natural world, a need now recognized as essential to well‐being. A neighborhood of single‐story Eichlers satisfies this need. One with even a few two‐ story houses will deprive many people of that essential pleasure. I hope the council will protect the neighborhood as a whole over the objections of a few by passing this SSO. Thank you for your time. Sue Thiemann 3458 Greer Road Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Daphne Dembo <dembodaphne@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Ben Lerner Subject:in support of the Royal Manor SSO Dear City Council,, We are long time Palo Alto residents: our 3 kids attended public schools here K-12, we have been donating to the school district and to the Mitchell Park library renewal project. We are proud to call this city our home. Over the years we have remodeled our house to accentuate its Eichler features. The last change was designed by a local architect (KC Marcinik) who preserved its original design. Needless to say - we kept all changes to one story. We strongly support the SSO Initiative for our neighborhood (Royal Manor) as it will preserve its intimacy, and maintain its attractiveness to families who care about good education coupled with privacy and the Californian outdoors lifestyle. We are rarely involved with local politics. Please see this letter as a strong endorsement from the silent majority. We see our future in this city and we will do everything we can to ensure our kids will find Palo Alto appealing as well. Thank you for your consideration - Amir and Daphne Dembo Thomas Dr., Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Anne Hanzel <anne_hanzel@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 9:47 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Royal Manor SSO Dear City Council, When we looked for a home in Palo Alto 22 years ago one of our criteria for our home was easy access to the outdoors for our family to enjoy excellent weather and the environment around our house. Our Eichler with large windows and sliding doors has been a perfect design and although a neighbor has recently placed an addition very near our fence we still have sky and trees around us. We have a long rectangular lot and a second story addition would diminish our daylight and privacy and enormously decrease our quality of life as well as our property values so I support the SSO for Royal Manor. Thank you for your consideration, Anne Hanzel City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Nisha Thatte-Potter <nthattepotter@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:08 PM To:Council, City; French, Amy Subject:Support of the Royal Manor SSO Hello, I own 3421 Greer Road and I previously rented 3407 Janice Way. These are both houses in the Royal Manor Tract. I am in favor of the Royal Manor SSO for the following reasons: 1) While I appreciate that everyone has rights on their own property, I feel I have rights too. My house is 2/3 glass windows and I see no way that a two story house would not look directly into my side yards, backyard, and house giving me no privacy at all. I don't think there are ways to architect around that. Already with my fence at regulation height, in the winter, I can look out of any window and see the roof line of every house adjacent to me. These houses are very close together to begin with; making them two stories would only make that lack of privacy worse. I am not a lawyer, but in property law there is a concept of Riparian right. This pertains to water rights and allows those living on a waterway the right to the surface water but not the right to block it so that others cannot use it. I feel that this can be compared with my right to live without having the sky and sun being blocked by a two story building. 2) It has been mentioned that these houses cannot accommodate large families. Both of the houses that I have lived in have been renovated successfully while remaining a one story Eichler. My current house had a 2nd master suite added for in-laws. I also have been in other renovated Eichlers including one that has 2 adults and 4 teenagers (and pets) living in it comfortably. When many of these houses add second floors, they lose valuable floor space and have to create strange floor plans to squeeze in extra rooms. 3) There has been talk that when the petition was first circulated, people signed it without understanding what it was. I feel that the people circulating the petition made it very clear what it was for. I do not understand how anyone could have misunderstood what they were signing. In fact, I read all the material given to me before signing it. That was available to everyone. 4) The homeowners on Stockton and Loma Verde have asked to be excluded based on the fact that the houses across the street are not Eichlers. While I understand their position, I cannot agree with it. It is one thing to look across the street at a house and see a different house, it is entirely a different matter to have two-stories next door and behind you which is what would happen if they were excluded from this SSO. Houses across the street do not look into my property, my next door neighbors and the houses behind me do. 5) Finally, I know that this provision would not stop people from tearing down the Eichlers and building new one story structures. However, I want to add that would really be a shame. These houses are unique, well- known, and worth preserving. Many people buy these houses *because* they are Eichlers. When I moved to California, I knew that I wanted to live in one because they were unlike anything anywhere else. I hope this measure will help keep most of the Eichlers intact. Thank you for your consideration, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 4 Nisha Thatte-Potter 3421 Greer Road City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Geri Martin Wilson <gerimw@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; balerner@yahoo.com Subject:Support for Royal Manor Single Story Overlay Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, We are writing to express our strong support for the Single Story Overlay of the Royal Manor neighborhood. Though we attended the Planning Commission meeting last month to show our support, we will unfortunately be out of town and unable to attend the City Council meeting on this issue on April 18th, so we would like to express our support via this letter. We moved into our house at 3444 Greer Rd over 18 years ago. We loved the open Eichler design with the floor to ceiling windows that make the outdoors a part of your living space. We loved that even with these large open and airy windows, Eichlers in our development were carefully placed to allow maximum privacy from ones neighbors. We did find find however, that as our children grew, our house was a bit cramped for our large family of 6. When we decided to update and expand our Eichler to a 5 bedroom, 3 bath arrangement, to accommodate our 4 growing children, we found we had several single story design options to choose from- each in keeping with the original Eichler feel, without invading our, or our neighbor’s, privacy. Our family of 6 has lived very comfortably in our remodeled single story Eichler, enjoying the open feel, without having visibility into our neighbor’s houses or yards. If however, one of our neighbors were to build a second story next to, or behind us, it would destroy the aesthetics and privacy that we worked so carefully to preserve in our Eichler remodel. We would also like to note in this letter, that when we attended the Planning Committee meeting, there were accusations by the opposition to the SSO that signatures may have been accrued in a less than transparent manner. We would like to clarify that this was not at all our experience, nor that of our neighbors that we spoke to. Information was disseminated in a clear, well presented manner. Questions were addressed and answered completely. We felt no pressure in making our decision to support the SSO. We hope that though we are unable to attend the upcoming City Council meeting, that the council considers our input and support for the SSO in the Royal Manor neighborhood. Our hope is that the Council passes the SSO in Royal Manor as they have for other recent Eichler SSO neighborhood applications. Thank you, Geri Martin Wilson & Bryan Wilson City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Regina Smith <reginaabsmith@gmail.com> on behalf of Regina Smith <reginasmith@talktalk.net> Sent:Wednesday, April 06, 2016 4:13 AM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Richard Willits Subject:Fwd: Royal Manor Eichler SSO zone change Dear City Council Members, Following is a letter I wrote to the planning commission in February as an Eichler homeowner in Palo Alto’s Royal Manor area. I would like this letter, which states my very strong support for the SSO zone change, to be considered at the City Council meeting on April 18th. Thank you, Regina Smith (3407 Janice Way) Begin forwarded message: From: Regina Smith <reginasmith@talktalk.net> Subject: Royal Manor Eichler SSO zone change Date: 10 February 2016 16:44:33 GMT To: Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org, Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org Cc: Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com>, Katie Renati <windkatie@gmail.com> Dear Ms. French, I am writing in support of the SSO initiative which would prevent the replacement of Eichler homes with two story houses. I know this is a very late response, since the hearing is tonight. I’m late partly because I presently am living in Oxford, England, and I have not been as up-to-date with this movement as I would have liked. I have now owned my Eichler home in the Royal Manor neighbourhood for nearly 44 years. It is a corner house on a very big lot, and it would be a prime location for a BIG expensive rebuild. I am therefore not writing this out of self-interest, but with an admiration for a very supportive community and with a very strong aesthetic appreciation for Eichler designs. That these homes have withstood the challenges of time is demonstrated by the great interest in "mid-century modern” architecture in both the U.S. and in England. What makes the Eichler developments even more interesting is that the architects thought not only about individual houses, but about the neighbourhood and its families as a whole. That worked! And that is why the SSO initiative is so important. The unique character of Eichler neighbourhoods is very well known (even here in England!) and needs to be protected. As one who see this issue from a distance, I feel that the sense of community and also of architectural integrity are particularly endangered in Silicon Valley. The spirit of Eichler owners and importantly the inspiration of Eichler designs (i.e. Steve Jobs/Apple) are legendary and certainly embody an aspect of Palo Alto that should be preserved. Big replacement houses City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 7 scattered in this Eichler neighbourhood would be disruptive to privacy, to the architectural aesthetics, and possibly to the feeling of community. Please give your support to this initiative. With appreciation, Regina A. Smith (3407 Janice Way) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:24 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:John Potter <johnfpotter@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 06, 2016 8:50 AM To:Council, City; French, Amy; Ellner, Robin Subject:In Support of the Royal Manor SSO Hello, I own 3421 Greer Road and I previously rented 3407 Janice Way. These are both houses in the Royal Manor Tract. I am in favor of the Royal Manor SSO for the following reasons: 1) While I appreciate that everyone has rights on their own property, I feel I have rights too. My house is 2/3 glass windows and I see no way that a two story house would not look directly into my side yards, backyard, and house giving me no privacy at all. I don't think there are ways to architect around that. Already with my fence at regulation height, in the winter, I can look out of any window and see the roof line of every house adjacent to me. These houses are very close together to begin with; making them two stories would only make that lack of privacy worse. 2) It has been mentioned that these houses cannot accommodate large families. Both of the houses that I have lived in have been renovated successfully while remaining a one story Eichler. My current house had a 2nd master suite added for in-laws. I also have been in other renovated Eichlers including one that has 2 adults and 4 teenagers (and pets) living in it comfortably. When many of these houses add second floors, they lose valuable floor space and have to create strange floor plans to squeeze in extra rooms. 3) There has been talk that when the petition was first circulated, people signed it without understanding what it was. I feel that the people circulating the petition made it very clear what it was for. I do not understand how anyone could have misunderstood what they were signing. In fact, I read all the material given to me before signing it. That was available to everyone. 4) The homeowners on Stockton and Loma Verde have asked to be excluded based on the fact that the houses across the street are not Eichlers. While I understand their position, I cannot agree with it. It is one thing to look across the street at a house and see a different house, it is entirely a different matter to have two-stories next door and behind you which is what would happen if they were excluded from this SSO. Houses across the street do not look into my property, my next door neighbors and the houses behind me do. 5) Finally, I know that this provision would not stop people from tearing down the Eichlers and building new one story structures. However, I want to add that would really be a shame. These houses are unique, well-known, and worth preserving. Many people buy these houses *because* they are Eichlers. When I moved to California, I knew that I wanted to live in one because they were unlike anything anywhere else. I hope this measure will help keep most of the Eichlers intact. Thank you for your consideration, John Potter -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John Potter 3421 Greer Road, Palo Alto (415) 846-8021 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/6/2016 9:25 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Richard Willits <rwillits@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:24 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Ben Lerner Subject:Royal Manor PTC presentation, Introduction and Architecture Section Attachments:Royal Manor PTC SSO - Background.pdf; ATT00001.htm Attached please find a subset of the presentation given by the applicant group at the PTC meeting 2/10/16 regarding the Royal Manor SSO application. This section gives some architectural and planning background that will not be included in the presentation to Council April 18th. The slides have been printed with the speaker’s text, so that one can quickly get the gist of the presentation. ROYAL MANOR EICHLER NEIGHBORHOOD Single Story Overlay Good Evening, Commissioners. My name is Rich Willits. I live in Royal Manor and I am a member the Palo Alto Eichler Association. The Applicant committee has asked me to speak for them, so I will take the 15 minutes, and spearhead the rebuttals. Thank you for taking the time to consider this issue which entertains, and invigorates your fellow Palo Altans who live in those Mid-Century Modern houses called Eichlers. I also want to thank you for approving the two SSOs which we have brought previously before you. Both were, of course, unanimously approved by the Council. I also want to thank staff for their support of these applications, and particularly Amy French, who has thoughtfully and judiciously helped the community come to where we are now. Because you have looked at SSOs before, and because of the thorough report that Amy has created, and as ours is little different from the others, I hope I can take the analysis to a deeper level than we have presented before, so that you can further consider the issue of SSOs, and have a better idea of where we see Eichler Communities going in relation to the rest of Palo Alto. Before getting into that, I want to briefly highlight information covered in Amy’s report about the Royal Manor SSO. ●Large Eichler tract in Palo Alto, 202 original houses built by Joe Eichler ●Built in 1957-1958 ●Community Anchors are Palo Verde Elementary School & Eichler Swim Club ●Greer between Louis, Loma Verde, and Stockton Place. Our branching streets are Kenneth, Thomas, & Janice Way. ●No house ever torn down ●10% with 2-story additions done in the 1970s-80s ROYAL MANOR EICHLER TRACT Royal Manor Here you see Royal Manor at the orange arrow, in the SE corner of the Palo Verde Neighborhood. We are a large tract, all Eichlers, build in the late 50’s. Our local anchor institutions are Palo Verde School, and the Eichler Swim and Tennis Club. This is what our neighborhood looks like from the air. Eichler Swim & Tennis Club Palo Verde Elementary School Here we are looking SE. 101 South is in the upper left corner. You see Palo Verde School is across the street, and the Eichler Club is over the creek. ●Large Eichler tract in Palo Alto, 202 original houses built by Joe Eichler ●Built in 1957-1958 ●South Palo Alto near Palo Verde Elementary & Eichler Swim Club ●No house ever torn down ●10% with 2-story additions done in the 1970s-80s ●We have come together to protect our neighborhood ROYAL MANOR EICHLERS Royal Manor Royal Manor is a cohesive Eichler Tract. None of the houses has been torn down. A few have had second stories added on top. Royal Manor Meets SSO Requirements ●Contiguous Neighborhood of Existing Homes designed as Single-Story ●Houses of the same age and architectural style, on moderate-sized lots ●Overwhelming Majority (70%) of residents signed application for SSO The reason we and our neighbors signed the SSO application is that none of us wants a two-story tear-down to happen over the fence from us, right next to our house, or even 3 or 4 houses away from us. We are all affected by any two story. This is why we choose the protection of the SSO, as opposed to the IR process, which has proven ineffective at protecting our neighborhoods. Now I want to explain why Eichler neighborhoods are particularly sensitive to this point. 2-Story Tear-Down 808 Richardson The 2-Story Tear-Down refers to an Eichler which the owner plans to tear down in order to build a 2-story house. Usually, the resulting houses are not even in mid-Century Modern Style. Everything about them is in violation of the character of Eichler neighborhoods. An example: The house on the left is the original 808 Richardson, a lovely Eichler in good shape. The building at right, seen from Frank Ingle’s house next door, is what became of 808. Building new 2-story houses is blocked by SSO’s, which is what we want. We consider them to be out of character with the neighborhoods. We found as we talked to our neighbors, that even currently existing second story additions continue to roil our neighborhoods. There is a hate it, want it, tension, even though it’s impractical to build them with current codes. I think you will understand this more fully if we look at what Eichlers provide, and how they relate to each other in community. But first, why is this important to the way people live in Silicon Valley? Eichlers Inspire Steve Doug In first few pages of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, he notes that growing up around Eichlers in the 60’s influenced Steve’s ideas about design and simplicity. These houses think different. Most of the ideas that Steve would put into Macs originated with Doug Englebart, who created those ideas from 1962-1968, while living, and raising a family, on Janice Way, in our tract. Doug threw all those great ideas, like the mouse, hypertext, word processing, dynamically linked libraries, windows, etc. out to the world at an event in 1968 now called The Mother of All Demos, which started the personal computer industry. Doug asked the question what happens when we build computers that wait on us, rather than the other way around? Where did these ideas of living in a revolutionary way come from? In The Beginning Here is South Palo Alto in the early 50’s. The Greer Park Tract, which you have already protected, is the development in the middle. Royal Manor will be built in the open area to the left. What we notice is that the Eichlers formed a community planned to relate well to each other. They could be, and are, different from other houses. What were the basic concepts of these houses, and their communities? EICHLER HOUSE DESIGN ELEMENTS ●Slab on Ground ●Flat Roof ●Glass Walls ●No 2nd Story ●Closed to Street ●6 Foot Fence Here are the elements (read) Where did these things come from? how did they get wrapped into Joe Eichler’s houses? THREE ELEMENTS OF OPENNESS This experience of indoor-outdoor living so crucial to Jobs and Englebart is idealized in Philip Johnson’s Glass House of 1949. In this revolutionary house, you see the three elements: a slab on the ground, high flat roof, glass wall. Outside is Brought Inside The Glass brings the outside inside, as in this 1951 house by Mies Van der Rohe. These two houses on private estates set an ideal for the glass. To get slab floor, flat roof and glass walls to work in a tract house, Joe Eichler pulled from Frank Lloyd Wright’s Usonian House concept, which had these same characteristics, and was designed for low cost, and to be built in community. In Frank Lloyd Wright’s first Usonian House, in 1939, you can see the glass wall, and how it allows nature to come into the house. Look at how small that room really is. Square footage is less important, when nature comes into the house. This first Jacobs house cost $5k to build. Wright has the Magic Combination Pulling back, here you see all the elements: Slab on the ground, Flat roof, and Glass Wall allowing visual access to nature. For privacy, there is a 6’ fence, which goes from the front, and extends all around the back yard. Because this house is in community, there can be no second story. What is key about the slab? Living is registered to the grade level, including the view over the 6’ fence. Wright taught architects to be very conscious of how we live, in his houses. He was very involved with what you would see, taking into the account the size of the human body. Building houses to this modulus requires a kind of pact with the neighbors. Notice the house across the street. Since this is the first Usonian House, Jacobs house has to live in community with others. So what kind of front is presented to that house across the street? CLOSED FRONT The Usonian House presents a closed front. This inheritance is the reason you won’t fully understand Eichlers by driving down the street. In the 80’s many of our Eichlers were wrecks. Even today, there is one such in every tract. One might presume they are awful inside. But looks can be deceiving. Even those with fixed-up fronts convey little of the indoor living they provide. The life, the living, is toward the back. EICHLER ELEMENTS No Attic No Basement No Second Story Slab on Ground Flat Roof Glass Wall 6’ Fence Closed to the Street [Read Slide] All our houses share these elements. They jointly allow for the maximum of freedom, of light, of extension of private life to the garden, to the fence, and to the sky. Eichlers are placed in community in such a way that they preserve this for each other. So it is crucial that … Our Tract, One Eichler Community Our whole Eichler tract must be under one SSO. In the next slide, our community stands out as a whole. [Read point One] Our neighbors over the back fence have the greatest impact on the functioning of our homes in community. [Read point two] In this view of our tract, we are looking NW. This image is from Apple Maps with the 3D effect turned on. Notice how our houses are distinct from regular houses. They are flat, others stick up. Ours are uniform. Others are of many styles and do not need to care about each other. Our designs were picked from a set of designs which were designed, at the same time, to work together, and they were placed in the tract by professionals, again to work together. Our houses only work in community. Intrusion of other types of houses is not tolerated. Excluding houses in our Tract from an SSO harms the whole. Eichler Homes, placed in community, make community for the people who live in them. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6715) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Annual Utilities Efficiency Programs Report for FY 2015 Title: Informational Report on the City of Palo Alto Utilities Demand Side Management Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2015 From: City Manager Lead Department: Utilities This memo and the attached report present the achievements of Demand Side Management (DSM) programs implemented by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) during Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. This is for the Council’s information and no action is required. Executive Summary The FY 2015 DSM Annual Report provides updates on the achievements of CPAU’s electric, natural gas, and water efficiency programs, as well as locally-sited solar photovoltaic (PV), solar water heating program and green power programs. The DSM Report also provides updates on various customer outreach and research and development initiatives that are related to achieving savings in electric, gas and water. CPAU exceeded its electric, natural gas and water efficiency goals for FY 2015. Savings are attributable to the expansion of CPAU’s energy efficiency program portfolio through third-party administered programs. For water conservation programs, CPAU partners with Santa Clara Valley Water District to provide both water audits and rebates to encourage water savings. In response to the California drought, customers focused on water efficiency in FY 2015 and savings were 240% higher than in FY 2014. Background As a municipal utility that delivers electric, gas and water utility services to customers in its service territory, CPAU is subjected to state laws that govern resource conservation and related expenditures. Key legislation that affects CPAU includes: Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 (1996) requires publicly owned electric utility (POUs) to establish a public benefit charge of 2.85% of revenue to fund any or all of the following “public benefit” programs: • Cost-effective, DSM services to promote energy-efficiency and energy conservation. City of Palo Alto Page 2 • New investment in renewable energy resources and technologies consistent with existing statutes and regulations that promote those resources and technologies. • Research, development and demonstration programs in the public interest which advance science or a technology not being adequately provided for by competitive and regulated markets. • Services for low-income electricity customers such as targeted energy-efficiency installations. Senate Bill (SB) 1037 (2005) requires each POU, in procuring energy, to first acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective, reliable and feasible. AB 2021 (2006), as amended by AB 2227 (2012), requires POUs to develop annual electric efficiency targets over ten years based on all potentially achievable cost-effective energy savings, update the goals every four years, and provide annual reports to their customers and the California Energy Commission. CPAU adopted its first ten-year electric and gas efficiency targets in 2007 and has since updated these goals twice with the last update completed in December 2012. SB 1 (2006) requires all POUs to adopt, implement and finance a solar initiative program to encourage the installation of residential and commercial solar energy systems. AB 1470 (2007) requires each POU providing gas service to retail end-use gas customers to adopt, implement and finance a solar water heating system incentive program. SBx7-7 (2009) requires water suppliers to reduce the state average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. This requirement is incorporated in the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted by California’s urban water suppliers including Palo Alto. Discussion CPAU offers incentive programs to customers to encourage energy and water efficiency as well as installation of customer-owned renewable generation. During FY 2015, CPAU exceeded its electric, gas, water efficiency goals. CPAU’s Solar PV program is also on track to meet its program goal of installation of 6,500 kilowatts (kW) by 2017. CPAU’s Solar Water Heating (SWH) Program made slight progress in achieving its goal of 30 installed systems per year since low gas prices make the return on investment for SWH systems unattractive. The table below summarizes CPAU’s FY 2015 goals and achievements. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Goals versus Achievements Resource FY 2015 Savings Goals (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved Electricity 0.60% 0.65% 6,063 MWh Gas 0.50% 0.92% 229,373 therms Water 0.91% 1.54% 68,227 CCF Customer side Renewable Program Goal FY 2015 Achievement Cumulative Achievement through FY 2015 Solar Electric (PV)* 6,500 kW, by 2017 814 kW 5,877 kW since 2008 Solar Water Heating 30 systems/year 15 systems 58 systems since 2008 * Solar PV System goal is over a 10-year period (2008-2017) In addition to customer incentives, CPAU runs a variety of customer outreach campaigns and educational workshops to promote conservation and efficiency programs. Ongoing activities include utility bill inserts, home energy and home water reports, email newsletters, and training workshops on numerous energy and water efficiency topics. CPAU also uses social media (Twitter/Facebook/NextDoor) to promote its programs and services to customers. CPAU has a number of pilot programs in place, including: the linkAges Connect program, partnering with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Innovation Center, uses passive signals in the home, such as electricity, gas, and water data from advanced metering infrastructure, to allow family caregivers to remain updated on the well-being of their senior family members; a Commercial Benchmarking pilot program to assist 22 businesses with using the US EPA’s Portfolio Manager online energy management tool; and the Program for Emerging Technologies, which provides opportunities for local businesses to partner with CPAU or its customers to pilot test new technologies. The attached DSM Report provides details about CPAU’s FY 2015 DSM programs including costs and resource savings by program and by end use, description of customer outreach efforts, and research and development initiatives that are underway. Attachments: Attachment A: Demand Side Managment Report for FY2015 (PDF) Demand Side Management Annual Report Resource Efficiency and Sustainable Energy Programs ATTACHMENT A The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is the only city-owned utility in California that operates its own utilities including electric, fiber optic, natural gas, water and wastewater services. We have been providing quality services to the citizens and businesses of Palo Alto since 1896. MISSION: To provide safe, reliable, environmentally-sustainable and cost effective services. VISION: We deliver extraordinary value to our Customers. VALUES: Honesty/Integrity: We exhibit honesty and integrity when we model good behavior and a strong work ethic; communicate with honesty, sincerity and respect for one another; share all knowledge and create transparency; and follow-through at all levels. Teamwork: We promote teamwork at CPAU by communicating clearly and respectfully while proving to be dependable and respectful and exhibiting a positive attitude. Accountability: We demonstrate this value by taking responsibility for our actions; being clear about our vision, direction and expectations; following through on work tasks; and being a results-oriented and accountable employee. Quality of Service: We each contribute to achieving quality of service by being responsive to customers’ needs and customer-focused, having a can-do attitude, and striving for excellence by operating a safe and reliable system. Fiscal Year 2015 3 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 4 1 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ......................................................................................... 10 2 GAS EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 13 3 WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS ............................................................................................. 16 4 SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................. 19 5 CUSTOMER OUTREACH & COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................... 23 6 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION ....................................................................... 27 7 FUTURE PLANS ...................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 33 APPENDIX B: FY 2015 ACHIEVEMENTS BY DSM PROGRAM ............................................................. 39 APPENDIX C: HISTORICAL DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES ............................................................. 40 APPENDIX D: FY 2015 SMART ENERGY RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM RESULTS ........................................ 41 APPENDIX E: FY 2015 LOW INCOME RESIDENTIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (REAP) RESULTS ............. 42 APPENDIX F: SB 1037 ELECTRIC DSM REPORT TO CEC...................................................................... 43 APPENDIX G: EXAMPLES OF CUSTOMER OUTREACH EVENTS .......................................................... 44 APPENDIX H: CITY POLICIES/PLANS AND STATE MANDATES IMPACTING DSM PROGRAM GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................................ 46 4 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) is pleased to present the Demand Side Management (DSM) Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. CPAU is committed to supporting environmental sustainability through efficient consumption of electric, gas and water resources, promoting distributed renewable generation, and modifying consumer demand through incentives and education. CPAU accomplishes these goals by delivering a wide range of customer programs and services described in this report. This annual report provides updates on: Electric and natural gas energy efficiency (EE) program achievements and expenditures Water conservation program achievements and expenditures Locally-sited solar photovoltaic and solar water heating program achievements and expenditures Voluntary green energy programs Customer outreach initiatives Research and development-related initiatives Future plans DSM GOALS and ACHIEVEMENTS CPAU offers incentives and education programs for customers to encourage energy and water efficiency, customer-owned renewable generation and enrollment in voluntary green energy programs. Table ES.1 summarizes the FY 2015 goals and achievements. As shown, the achievements for electricity, gas and water efficiency all exceeded the goals set for FY 2015. The solar photovoltaic (PV) program is on track to meet its goal, but the solar water heating achievements are short of the goal since the cost of a solar water heating system is difficult to cost justify, especially with low natural gas prices. Table ES.1: Goals versus Achievements Resource FY 2015 Savings Goals (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved (% of load) FY 2015 Savings Achieved Electricity 0.60% 0.65% 6,063 MWh Gas 0.50% 0.92% 229,373 therms Water 0.91% 1.54% 68,227 CCF Customer side Renewable Program Goal FY 2015 Achievement Cumulative Achievement through FY 2015 Solar Electric (PV)* 6,500 kW, by 2017 814 kW 5,877 kW since 2008 Solar Water Heating 30 systems/year 15 systems 58 systems since 2008 * Goal over a 10-year period 2008-2017 DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES Table ES.2 summarizes the total DSM program expenditures over the last three years. 5 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table ES.2: Electric, Gas, Water DSM Program Expenditures FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Electric DSM programs $3.2 million $3.2 million $2.4 million Gas DSM programs $0.7 million $0.7 million $0.59 million Water DSM programs $0.4 million $0.4 million $0.81 million PV Partners $1.0 million $1.3 million $1.1 million Solar Water Heating Program $62,000 44,00062,000 $67,000 $190,000 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES $5.4 million $5.7 million $ 5.1 million ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY AS A RESOURCE CPAU is committed to identifying and achieving all cost-effective energy and water efficiency measures (i.e. those that are less expensive than supply-side resources). Since the adoption of the electric Carbon Neutral Plan starting in 2013, electric EE no longer contributes to the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. However, many electric EE measures still remain a cheaper resource than carbon-neutral electric supplies. Table ES.3 summarizes the cost of efficiency1 to the utility over the last three years compared to the projected cost of supply resources. The projected future supply cost of gas dropped 36% in FY 2015 from a projected supply cost of $0.69 in FY 2014 as gas supply costs decreased. Concurrently, there was a drop in large commercial gas projects in FY 2015. This resulted in less gas savings, resulting in a higher cost per therm saved. The cost of water efficiency measures increased in FY 2015 due to a desire to increase water savings during the ongoing drought and the State-mandated urban potable water use reduction. In order to meet local water restrictions, CPAU and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) doubled the landscape rebates, resulting in a program that was very popular, but cost slightly more than the cost of future water supplies. Table ES.3: Actual Efficiency Costs versus Projected Supply Costs Cost of Efficiency Cost of Future Supply FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 3-yr average Water $/CCF $ 2.97 $3.12 $4.61 $3.57 $4.55 Gas $/therm $ 0.40 $0.43 $0.72 $0.53 $0.44 Electric $/kWh $0.061 $0.043 $0.042 $0.049 $0.069 1 The cost of efficiency to the utility includes the administration cost of the program as well as any rebates paid out. When measures are selected to be included in CPAU’s efficiency portfolio, cost-effectiveness is evaluated using the “Total Resource Cost” test that compares the cost of the measure, any installation costs and the administrative cost of the program to the cost of new supplies. 6 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAST YEAR In Spring of 2015, Utilities Marketing Services* which had been a part of the Utilities Customer Support Services Division, became a part of the Utilities Resource Management Division. The goal for this merger was to enhance integrated portfolio planning which includes purchasing electric, water and natural gas commodity and providing demand-side management services. This reorganization allows more effective and efficient incorporation of energy efficiency, water conservation, and program management into CPAU’s resource portfolios. *Utilities Marketing Services (UMS) renamed Utility Program Services (UPS) on January 1, 2016 Third-party EE programs account for a significant portion of CPAU’s reported energy savings. Most of these third-party EE program contracts are awarded for a 3-year term. CPAU issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for third-party EE Programs in June 2014 to solicit EE implementation and management services from vendors to administer and implement innovative and cost-effective energy efficiency programs targeting residential and commercial customers. Seven contracts were approved by Council in May 2015 (Staff Report 5707): 1. ClearResult Consulting, Inc. for the administration of the Home Efficiency Genie program which provides residential in-home energy assessment and phone-based energy efficiency advisory services; 2. Eagle Systems International, Inc. DBA Synergy Companies in a not-to-exceed amount of $540,000 for the administration of the Residential Energy Assistance Program, which provides no cost, direct installation EE services to prequalified residential customers that are eligible based on financial or medical needs; 3. Eagle Systems International, Inc. DBA Synergy Companies in a not-to-exceed amount of $450,000 for the administration of the MultiFamily Residence Plus+ Program, which provides no cost, direct installation of EE measures to multifamily residences with 4 or more units; 4. Ecology Action of Santa Cruz, in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,950,000 for the administration of the SMB (Small & Medium Business) Energy Edge Program, which provides turnkey direct installation of EE measures to commercial customers; 5. Ecology Action of Santa Cruz, Enovity, Inc. and BASE Energy, Inc. in a combined not-to- exceed amount of $2,775,000 across a total of three contracts), to provide building energy performance optimization services to large commercial and industrial customers. In April 2014, the City announced its intent to compete for the Georgetown University Energy Prize, a national competition that aims to challenge communities across the U.S. to dramatically rethink their energy use. On January 14, 2015 CPAU was selected as one of the 50 communities in the U.S. to compete in the semi-final round. The competition stretches over a two year period between January 2015 and December 2016, with a $5 million prize to be awarded to the winner of the competition. The Home Water Report and Home Energy Report programs were delivered to 13,000 water customers and 20,000 energy customers during FY 2015. Participants in these comparison programs saved over 27 million gallons of water, along with 1.6 million kWh and 146,000 therms. 7 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report In January 2015, CPAU launched PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) which provides an opportunity for residential and commercial participants to reduce or eliminate GHG emissions related to their natural gas usage. PAGG is the first Green-e Climate certified gas offset program offered by a municipal utility, and the first to be offered to individual community members. Since the launch of the program, PAGG has grown to over 900 participants. The Peninsula SunShares program was launched in May 2015. This group-buy program was initiated by Foster City and included 12 other cities located in San Mateo County. Vote Solar, the program administrator, facilitated the selection of two qualified solar contractors for residential solar installations through a competitive selection process. The program offered discounted PV installations that were 25% lower than Palo Alto’s average residential before- rebate price and 13% lower than the after-rebate price. The enrollment period ended in August 2015. The entire program resulted in over 800 kilowatts (kW) in new solar installations across the Bay Area. Palo Alto led the region in the number of enrollments with an estimated 28% of total participation. Fifty-four Palo Alto residents signed contracts to install 236 kW of solar systems. Installations will continue into the spring of 2016. Program results will be included in the FY 2016 DSM report. During FY 2014 and 2015, CPAU completed installation of advanced electric, gas and water meters at 375 residential customers’ homes as part of the CustomerConnect pilot program. Participating customers have access to the CustomerConnect Portal, a web-based platform which displays hourly interval data for gas, water and electric consumption. As part of this pilot program, 150 homes will be on a Time-of-Use (TOU) electricity rate. This pilot is scheduled to continue through 2016. During FY 2015, CPAU launched a Commercial Benchmarking pilot program with GreenTraks, Inc. to assist 22 businesses with using the US EPA’s Portfolio Manager online energy management tool. Each building is benchmarked against similar buildings based on its energy usage using an Energy Star rating of 1 to 100. The goal of the pilot is to help a mixture of small, medium and large commercial customers benchmark their building and determine the best ways to remove barriers and encourage more customers to use Portfolio Manager. CPAU provides a grant to the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) of $50,000 each year for the implementation energy and water efficiency educational programs from Public Benefits funds. During FY 2015, this CPAU grant supported various activities including: Canoeing in the San Francisco Bay to teach students about its water ecosystem Installation of rain barrels at an elementary school The Lawrence Hall of Science presented their “Engineer and Invent” assembly to a middle school Theatreworks went to an elementary school to teach students about “Playing with Science” A Green Team at a middle school purchased a bicycle blender to make pedal powered smoothies During summer 2015, five large commercial customers participated in the Summer Peak Demand Response (DR) Pilot Program. Through this program, CPAU offers monetary incentives 8 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report to key account customers to reduce their electric usage when called upon by CPAU during high load periods in the summer. Total demand reduction ranged between 0.6 MW to 1 MW per called event. CPAU completed a report2 documenting results from the advanced lighting system pilot project in the Palo Alto City Hall underground parking garage, which was carried out from January through March 2014 through the Program for Emerging Technologies. The report estimated energy savings potential of up to 72%, with an estimated payback of within a decade for retrofitting the entire Palo Alto Civic Center parking garage using advanced lighting technologies. EXPECTED HIGHLIGHTS FOR FY 2016 In February 2016 CPAU launched a new residential online energy and water portal with Nexant (replacing the Home Energy Report (Opower) and Home Water Report (WaterSmart) where customers can log in and view their gas, electric and water consumption, see how they are doing compared to similar homes and have access to all efficiency and savings programs, in one location. Also starting spring 2016, as part of the Georgetown University Energy Prize competition, the City is hosting a behavioral science energy savings lottery among all residents. Each resident that reduces gas or electric use compared to the previous year will be eligible for lottery tickets. At the end of the competition, winners will be drawn from the lottery. In October 2014, City Council approved and accepted a total of $75,000 in funds from SCVWD under the 2014 Safe, Clean Water Priority Grant Program (Staff Report 5025). The funds will used by CPAU to support its Business Water Report Pilot Program and Real Time Water Use Monitoring Pilot Program. Staff issued RFPs for the two pilot program’s marketing, administration and implementation and in June 2015, WaterSmart was selected as the vendor for the Business Water Reports Pilot Program and National Meter & Automation, Inc. (NMAAI) was selected for the Real Time Water Use Monitoring Pilot Program. Both pilots are expected to launch in early 2016. On November 13, 2015 CPAU hosted the Building Carbon Zero California Conference at Lucie Stern Community Center. Palo Alto was selected as the site for Passive House California’s 5th Annual Conference, as Palo Alto is home to the largest California cluster of Passive Houses – considered to represent today’s highest energy standard, reducing a building’s energy consumption by up to 80%. Combined with renewable energy systems such as solar, passive homes make zero net energy buildings one step closer to reality. In August 2015, City Council approved an Electrification Work Plan (Staff Report 5961). The goal is reduction of GHG Emissions through switching from natural gas using appliances to electric appliances. Installation of Heat Pump Water Heaters (HPWH) has been selected as a good candidate for single family homes. A pilot program designed to facilitate the installation of HPWHs will be launched in early 2016. 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44783 9 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report CPAU is working on ways to leverage distributed energy resources (DER) such as electric vehicles (EVs), EV chargers, thermostats, PV systems, and storage systems already at customer homes and businesses. A pilot program to enable grid connectivity of such DER systems is planned to commence in 2016. CPAU is currently developing two solar program offerings: a community solar program and a solar donation program. Community solar programs (aka shared solar) typically enable an electric utility’s customers to buy or lease solar panels in a centralized solar PV array and receive regular credits for electric output via their utility bills. In a solar donation program, participants would contribute funds towards building solar PV systems on schools and other non-profit facilities. These two program offerings will allow many more members of the community to “go solar” and to help achieve the goal of meeting 4% of the City’s energy needs from local solar by 2023. Staff is working with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Innovation Center to deploy a research pilot called "linkAges Connect" on Palo Alto's utility distribution systems. "linkAges Connect” uses passive signals from advanced utility metering infrastructure to allow family caregivers to remain updated on the well-being of their senior family members. Changes in daily routines of seniors are often an indication of shifts in health status and regular utility usage patterns can be an additional mode of communication that signals whether all is well with a senior family member who is living alone. 10 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 1 ELECTRIC EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 1.1 Electric Efficiency Savings versus Goals City Council approved CPAU’s first Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Portfolio Plan in April 2007, which included annual electric and gas efficiency targets between 2008 and 2017, with a 10-year cumulative savings target of 3.5% of the forecasted energy use. As mandated by California law, the electric efficiency targets were updated in 2010, with the ten-year cumulative savings goal doubling to 7.2% between 2011 and 2020. Since then, increasingly stringent statewide building codes and appliance standards have resulted in substantial energy savings (e.g. as of January 1, 2013, incandescent bulbs between 40W to 100W can no longer be sold). However, energy savings in these “codes and standards” improvements are excluded from meeting CPAU’s EE program goals. An updated set of Ten-Year Electric Efficiency Goals, adopted by City Council in December 2012, revised the ten-year cumulative electric efficiency savings to 4.8% between 2014 and 2023. CPAU’s electric efficiency savings goals and achievements as a percentage of the City’s energy usage are shown in Table 1 below. The increasing electric savings in the past few years is attributed to the expansion of CPAU’s electric efficiency program portfolio through third-party administered programs. In FY 2015, CPAU achieved electric savings of 0.65% of load through its customer efficiency programs, which is slightly below the previous year due to the startup of new programs and the focus on water efficiency during the California drought. These savings exclude electric savings from transformer upgrade projects and the City’s LED streetlight conversion, which reduced energy usage by another 0.09%, or 796 MWh. Cumulative EE savings since 2006 are about 6.5% of the FY 2015 electric usage. Table 1: Electric Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (MWh) FY 2008 0.25% 0.44% 4,399 FY 2009 0.28% 0.47% 4,668 FY 2010 0.31% 0.53% 5,270 FY 2011 0.60% 0.58% 5,497 FY 2012 0.65% 1.31% 12,302 FY 2013 0.70% 0.85% 8,074 FY 2014 0.60% 0.86% 8,218 FY 2015 0.60% 0.65% 6,063 1.2 FY 2015 Electric Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment Non-residential customers account for 81% of CPAU’s electric sales, and non-residential efficiency program savings represent about 76% of CPAU’s total electric efficiency savings, as shown in Figure 1. Non-residential comprehensive energy savings covers a variety of EE measures including variable speed pumps on fans, chiller upgrades, air handler unit optimization, and other system fine-tuning such as updating HVAC system schedule and temperature setbacks. The energy 11 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report savings estimation methodology for the Home Energy Report program has been updated, resulting in a slightly higher average per household savings. In FY 2015, the Home Energy Report program accounted for 22% of the total electric EE savings. Figure 1: Composition of Net Electric Efficiency Savings in FY 2015 (Total saving of 6,063 MWh, 0.65% of annual load) 1.3 FY 2015 Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures The largest fraction of expenditures in the electric efficiency budget is for third-party administered contracts and rebates. Other expenses include in-house salaries, marketing, and customer education. Funding for electric efficiency programs came primarily from the mandated Public Benefit (PB) Charge, which is set at 2.85% of the customer retail rate. The majority of the PB funding is spent on efficiency programs; however, some also goes to renewable energy projects, research and development projects and low income efficiency programs. Supplemental funding for efficiency programs comes from supply funds. The bottom of Table 2 below shows the funding split for electric EE programs between PB charges and supply funds for FY 2015. Table 2 also shows the split of electric efficiency program expenditures by customer rebates, third-party contract administration, and other expenses, which include in-house staffing, marketing and communication expenses. State law requires evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) of the reported electric efficiency savings by an independent consultant. The EM&V contract cost is included in Table 2. Appliances 0.72% Res. Lighting 1.02% Home Energy Report 22.31% Res. Others (Pool Pump, Water heater, etc.) 0.69% Res. Refrigeration 0.91% Non-Res. Cooling 31.18% Non-Res. Processes 0.49% Non-Res. Comprehensive 7.19% Non-Res. Lighting 35.49% 12 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table 2: FY 2015 Electric Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Programs delivered by CPAU staff Residential Smart Energy Rebates $35,000 - $40,000 $75,000 Residential New Construction $22,000 - $20,000 $42,000 ,000 Non-Residential Com. (CAP) Rebates $125,000 - $80,000 $205,000 Non-Residential Schools Grant - $45,000 $2,000 $47,000 All EM&V, Marketing & Other - $79,000 $230,000 $309,000 Programs delivered by third-party administrators Residential Refrigerator Recycling* $3,000 $12,000 $2,000 $17,000 Residential Low Income (REAP)* $61,000 $18,000 $30,000 $109,000 Residential Home Energy Reports - $58,000 $25,000 $83,000 Non-Residential Enovity Large Business $222,000 $280,000 $60,000 $562,000 Non-Residential Hospitality* $164,000 $22,000 $15,000 $201,000 Non-Residential Right Lights Plus $174,000 $400,000 $58,000 $632,000 Non-Residential New Construction $95,000 $32,000 $20,000 $147,000 TOTAL $901,000 $946,000 $582,000 $2,429,000 Sources of Funds Public Benefit Charges $1,828,000 Supply Funds $599,000 * These are “direct-install” programs, whereby the program administrator installs efficient equipment at the customer site at no cost to low income residents or with small co-pays from small business customers. Direct install programs typically target hard-to-reach customers. For direct install programs, payments to the third-party vendor are assumed to be 80% direct customer rebate and 20% contract administration. Figure 2 shows the historical annual electric efficiency savings and annual electric efficiency program expenditures. Note that in FY 2012 a large commercial customer completed a significant EE project. Figure 2: FY 2008 to FY 2015 Electric Efficiency Savings and Expenditure - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $ Th o u s a n d s Ac h i e v e d E E s a v i n g s a s % o f lo a d EE program expenditures ($)Net EE savings achieved 13 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 2 GAS EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 2.1 Gas Efficiency Savings versus Goals In parallel with the development of ten-year electric goals, the City Council adopted CPAU’s first set of gas efficiency targets in 2007 to reduce gas consumption by 3.5% between 2008 and 2017. In 2010, Council increased the gas efficiency targets to reduce use by 5.5% between 2011 and 2020. Similar to the electric side, the potential for gas efficiency savings has been reduced due to recent changes to California’s appliance standards and building codes. The ten- year gas efficiency goals were last updated in December 2012, with a cumulative gas efficiency target to reduce gas use by 2.85% between 2014 and 2023. CPAU’s gas efficiency savings goals and achievements as a percentage of sales are shown in Table 3. CPAU has continued to expand its gas efficiency program portfolio in the past several years, with the majority of gas savings delivered through third-party administered programs. Gas efficiency savings in FY 2015 exceeded the annual savings goal. Cumulative gas efficiency savings since 2006 is about 2.8% of the FY 2015 gas usage. Table 3: Gas Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (therms) FY 2008 0.25% 0.11% 35,057 FY 2009 0.28% 0.29% 146,028 FY 2010 0.32% 0.35% 107,993 FY 2011 0.40% 0.55% 164,640 FY 2012 0.45% 0.74% 220,883 FY 2013 0.50% 1.13% 327,077 FY 2014 0.50% 1.20% 337,079 FY 2015 0.50% 0.92% 229,373 2.2 FY 2015 Gas Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment Non-residential customers account for 55% of the CPAU’s gas sales, and in FY 2015 gas efficiency savings in the non-residential segment represent about 24% of CPAU’s total gas savings. The energy savings estimation methodology for the Home Energy Report program has been updated, resulting in a slightly higher average per household savings. In FY 2015, the Home Energy Report program accounted for 65% of the total gas savings. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of gas savings in FY 2015 by end use. 14 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 3: Composition of Natural Gas Efficiency Savings in FY 2015 (Total saving of 229,373 therms, 0.92% of annual load) 2.3 FY 2015 Gas Efficiency Program Expenditures The largest fraction of expenditures for gas EE in FY 2015 is for third-party administered contracts and rebates. Gas efficiency programs are primarily funded from the Gas Public Benefit charge, which is set at 1% of the gas utility’s revenue. Additional funding is provided from supply funds if needed. As reflected in Table 4 below, gas efficiency programs in FY 2015 were funded only from PB charges. Table 4 also shows the split of gas efficiency program expenditures by customer rebates, third-party contract administration, and other expenses, which include in- house staffing, marketing and communication expense. Although not required by state law, CPAU conducts EM&V of its gas efficiency savings through an independent consultant. The EM&V contract cost is included in Table 4. Home Energy Report 64.9% Res. Clothes Washers 3.6% Res. Measures 3.3% Res. Insulation (SF & MF) 6.4% Non-Res. Insulation 8.4% Non-Res. HVAC/Controls 13.5% 15 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Table 4: FY 2015 Gas Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Programs delivered by CPAU staff Residential Smart Energy Rebates $13,000 - $20,000 $33,000 Residential New Construction $22,000 - $15,000 $37,000 Non-Residential ReResidential Com. Rebates (CAP) - - $10,000 $10,000 All EM&V, Marketing & Other - $28,000 $50,000 $78,000 Programs delivered by third-party administrators Residential Low Income (REAP)* $86,000 $18,000 $20,000 $124,000 Residential Home Energy Report - $58,000 $15,000 $73,000 Non-Residential Enovity Large Bus $30,000 $28,000 $10,000 $68,000 Non-Residential Hospitality* $133,000 $20,000 $10,000 $163,000 Non-Residential Right Lights Plus - - - - Non-Residential Residential New Construction - - $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL $284,000 $152,000 $155,000 $591,000 Sources of Funds Public Benefit Charge $591,000 Supply funds $0 * These are “direct-install” programs, whereby the program administrator installs efficient equipment at the customer site at no cost or with a small co-payment from the customer. Figure 4 compares annual gas efficiency savings and annual gas DSM expenditures. Gas efficiency savings have been on an upward trend, with a slight dip this year due to low gas prices, as CPAU continues to expand its gas efficiency portfolio through third-party program administrators. Figure 4: FY 2008 to FY 2015 Gas Efficiency Savings and Expenditures - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $ Th o u s a n d s Ac h i e v e d E E s a v i n g s a s % o f L o a d EE program expenditures ($)Actual EE savings as % of load 16 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 3 WATER EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 3.1 Water Efficiency Savings versus Goals The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan includes a per capita water use reduction goal of 20% by 2020 from a historical benchmark period (average use between years 1995 and 2004). CPAU’s water savings goals and achievements as a percentage of sales are shown in Table 5. Note that participation in water efficiency rebate programs during FY 2015 increased dramatically due to the California drought and the Governor’s Executive Order (B-36-15) mandating water conservation. Table 5: Water Savings versus Goals Year Annual Savings Goal (% of load) Savings Achieved (% of load) Savings Achieved (CCF) FY 2008 0.34% 0.72% 39,323 FY 2009 0.34% 0.98% 52,983 FY 2010 0.34% 1.35% 68,948 FY 2011 0.90% 0.47% 23,409 FY 2012 0.91% 1.09% 55,067 FY 2013 0.91% 0.53% 26,513 FY 2014 0.91% 0.64% 32,325 FY 2015 0.91% 1.54% 68,227 3.2 FY 2015 Water Efficiency Savings by End Use and Customer Segment During FY 2015, residential savings represented almost 85% of total water savings, with the majority of these savings attributed to the Home Water Reports and the Landscape Rebate Program. Plumbing upgrades such as the installation of faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads and high efficiency toilets also contributed to these savings. The commercial water rebates offered to customers include water efficient landscape conversions, irrigation hardware replacements, weather-based irrigation controllers and clothes washers. Similar rebates were also offered on the residential side. In response to California’s drought conditions, Palo Alto joined the SCVWD in April 2014 to double the rebate available for converting turf grass to low water using landscape through the end of 2014. Figure 5 shows the breakdown of water savings achieved in FY 2014 by end use. Note that savings customers achieved due to behavioral changes or appliance upgrades prompted by CPAU’s drought awareness messaging by customers who did not seek a rebate are not accounted for in these achievements. 17 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 5: Composition of Water Efficiency Savings in FY 2015 (Total saving of 68,227 CCF, 1.54% of annual load) 3.3 FY 2015 Water Efficiency Program Expenditures CPAU partners with the SCVWD to provide residential and commercial water conservation programs which include free water audits to residential customers, landscape surveys, rebates for landscape conversions, irrigation hardware, clothes washers, high efficiency toilets and urinals. The payment to SCVWD includes customer rebates as well as various program expenditures. CPAU also offers an additional energy efficiency rebate to customers for high efficiency clothes washers. Table 6 shows program expenditures by customer rebates, third-party contract administration and other expenses, which includes in-house staffing, marketing and communication expenses. Res Showerheads & Aerators 7% Res Clothes Washers 3% Residential Landscapes 20% Res High Efficiency Toilets 4% Home Water Report 55% Non-Res. High Efficiency Toilets 1% Non-Res. Other (Clothes Washers,Urinals) 0.1% Non-Residential Landscapes 10% 18 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Th o u s a n d s $ Ac h i e v e d w a t e r s a v i n g s a s % o f l o a d Water efficiency program expenditures ($)Actual water savings as % of load Table 6: FY 2015 Water Efficiency Program Expenditures Customer Class Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost Programs delivered by CPAU staff Residential Washing Machines* $1,000 - $5,000 $6,000 $ 14,000 $ 14,000 14,000 All Marketing & Other - - $150,000 $150,000 Programs delivered by Santa Clara Valley Water District Residential High Efficiency Toilets - $16,000 $5,000 $21,000 Residential Landscape Rebates - $120,000 $25,000 $145,000 Residential Water Wise House Calls - $19,000 $10,000 $29,000 All Irrigation Hardware Upgrade - $8,000 $10,000 $18,000 Non-Res High Efficiency Toilets** - $8,000 $5,000 $13,000 Non-Res Washing Machines - $200 - $200 Non-Res Landscape Rebates - $266,000 $40,000 $306,000 Programs delivered by WaterSmart Residential Home Water Reports - $72,000 $45,700 $117,700 TOTAL $1,000 $509,200 $295,700 $805,900 Notes: * For washing machine rebates, the customer receives $75 from water, $25 from gas, and $25 from electric budgets. The SCVWD reimburses CPAU 50% for the water portion of the residential washing machine rebates. The reported figure represents CPAU’s share of the water portion of the rebate. ** This is a direct install program, whereby the program administrator installs efficient equipment at the customer site at no cost to, or with a small co-pay from, the customer. Figure 6 compares the historical annual water efficiency savings and annual water efficiency program expenditures. Figure 6: FY 2008 to FY 2015 Water Efficiency Savings and Expenditures 19 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 4 SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS 4.1 Overview of Sustainable Energy Programs CPAU offers a variety of programs to encourage residents and non-residents to improve the environmental impacts associated with their gas and electric consumption. Customer-side renewable generation programs are available to support the installation of both solar electric photovoltaic (PV) and solar water heating (SWH) systems. Voluntary green energy programs support investments in renewable electricity and carbon offsets that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4.2 Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System Installation Achievements versus Goals CPAU has offered customer incentives for local solar PV since 1999, and increased the PV rebate budget in 2007 as mandated by SB 1. These customer-side generation systems are not included in CPAU’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) supply requirements. Table 7 shows the number of PV systems installed and the capacity in kilowatts (KWs) from FY 2008 through FY 2015. Table 7: Customer-Side Photovoltaic (PV) Systems Program Achievements Year PV Systems Installed Achieved PV Installations in kW Res Non-Res Res Non-Res FY 2008 112 6 326 217 FY 2009 43 9 152 1,037 FY 2010 52 2 205 15 FY 2011 44 3 187 298 FY 2012 48 4 186 248 FY 2013 47 4 203 54 FY 2014 104 7 498 1,357 FY 2015 93 9 436 378 CPAU offers incentives for PV system installations through the PV Partners Program. Palo Alto’s share of the state-wide goal established by SB1 is 6.5 MW of PV between 2008 and 2017. Prior to 2008, 185 PV systems were installed for a total of 665 kW. As of June 30, 2015, the total capacity of all Palo Alto PV systems was 6.5 MW, generating about 1% of the City’s annual energy needs. The residential PV rebate funds were fully reserved in August 2014. Residents continue to install solar without the rebate largely due to the continued decrease in solar installation costs and the recent extension of the 30% Federal Tax Credit. 4.3 Solar Water Heating (SWH) System Installation Achievements versus Goals CPAU began offering rebates to residential and commercial customers to install SWH systems in 2008. The SWH rebate program was mandated by AB 1470 (2007) and is administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy, which also administers SWH rebate programs in the San Diego area. As shown in Table 8, the number of SWH systems installed has been consistently below target, especially since FY 2013 when the retail gas rate decreased 20% from the previous 20 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report year, which reduced the cost-effectiveness of SWH systems. Unlike PV systems, the cost for SWH systems has not decreased over time. This is partly because there are fewer SWH system installers than PV installers. The SWH equipment is most cost effective in multi-family buildings where most of the installations in FY 2015 occurred. Table 8: Customer-Side Solar Water Heating Systems Program Achievements versus Goals Year SWH Systems Goal SWH Systems Installed FY 2009 30 7 FY 2010 30 17 FY 2011 30 10 FY 2012 30 1 FY 2013 30 1 FY 2014 30 11 FY 2015 30 15 TOTAL 58 4.4 FY 2015 Customer Renewable Program Expenditures The PV Partners program is administered by CPAU staff, whereas the SWH program is administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy. CPAU contracts with third-party vendors to conduct PV system inspections. CPAU also contracts with a third-party vendor to maintain an online PV rebate application system. Table 9 lists the customer renewable program expenses by customer rebates, contract administration, and other expenses, which include in-house staffing, marketing and communication expenses. Table 9: FY 2015 Customer Renewable/Sustainable Energy Program Expenditures Program Name Customer Rebates Contract Costs Other Expenses Annual Cost PV Partners (Res) $189,000 $28,000 $50,000 $267,000 PV Partners (Bus) $983,000 $3,000 $50,000 $1,036,000 Solar Water Heating (Res) $129,000 $30,000 $5,000 $164,000 Solar Water Heating (Bus) $18,000 $10,000 $5,000 $33,000 PaloAltoGreen (Electric)* - $11,000 $10,000 $21,000 PaloAltoGreen Gas* - $3,000 $25,000 $28,000 Marketing & Other - - $200,000 $200,000 Total $1,319,000 $85,000 $345,000 $1,749,000 * Note: PaloAltoGreen (Electric) and PaloAltoGreen Gas program expenses do not include the costs to purchase the electric Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) and gas offsets which are paid by the program participants. 21 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 4.5 PaloAltoGreen The PaloAltoGreen (PAG) program was launched on Earth Day 2003 to give customers the option to voluntarily reduce GHG emissions associated with their electricity use. Participants paid an additional charge per kWh to cover the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) so that their electric use would be supplied with 100% renewable energy. In June 2014, City Council terminated the PAG program for residential customers since the electric supply became 100% carbon neutral and customers no longer needed the program to eliminate the GHG emissions associated with their electricity use or to receive 100% renewable energy supplies. PAG is still available for commercial customers who wish to be recognized under the U.S. EPA Green Power Leadership program or to earn Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Power credits. Non-residential customers can choose to participate at 100% renewable energy for $0.002 kWh or purchase monthly increments of 1,000 kWh blocks for $2 per block. 4.6 PaloAltoGreen Gas In April 2014, City Council approved the establishment of the voluntary PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program. PAGG provides the opportunity for residential and commercial customers to reduce or eliminate the impact of GHG emissions associated with their gas usage, through the purchase of certified environmental offsets. In December 2014, the City soft launched PAGG by first inviting all historical PAG (electric) customers via direct mail to be the first to have the opportunity to enroll. In January 2015, the City fully launched PAGG to all non-residential and residential customers. PAGG is the first Green-e Climate certified gas offset program offered by a municipal utility, and the first to be offered to individual community members. In April 2015, Council approved new program goals as part of the Earth Day Report. The program’s goal for 2020 is to achieve subscription of 20% of natural gas customers, representing approximately 10% of gas load and 16,000 metric tons of GHG emission reduction. As of December 2015, PAGG has grown to over 900 participants. Figure 7 shows the number of PAGG program participants and fraction of the City’s gas load that they represent since the program was launched through the end of 2015. Note that City-owned facilities contribute the largest proportion of the program’s participation in terms of volume of sales. 22 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Figure 7: PaloAltoGreen Gas Participation 23 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5 CUSTOMER OUTREACH & COMMUNICATIONS Utility Program Services and Utilities Communications develop a range of marketing outreach pieces and implement campaigns to promote the gas, electric, and water efficiency programs and services offered to all CPAU customers. Promotional methods include community outreach events, print ads in local publications, utility bill inserts, messaging on the bills and envelopes, website, email blasts, videos for the web and local cable television channels, Home Energy Reports, Home Water Reports and the use of social media (Twitter/Facebook/NextDoor/Videos). While print materials such as bill inserts, local magazine ads and webpages still feature prominently, CPAU is turning its outreach emphasis to social media, the Web, online videos and cable TV for more engaging and dynamic content. Regular email newsletters are delivered to residents and non-residents, as well as targeted emails and outreach for specific groups, such as neighborhood and youth organizations. Educational materials and brochures are regularly developed and updated for distribution at outreach events in new customer welcome packets and for the general public at City facilities such as the Development Services Center, libraries and community centers. CPAU provides fun and practical promotional items such as keychains, night lights, sponges, shower timers, pens, magnets and sunglasses to the public to spread awareness about resource efficiency and renewable energy. Much of Communication’s focus and marketing efforts in FY 2015 centered around California’s severe drought. CPAU was tasked with adopting water use restrictions in response to the State’s emergency drought regulations. To assist with customer education and enforcement of these water use restrictions, CPAU developed bill inserts, ads for the local newspapers and magazines, a new drought video to air on local Comcast channels and specific materials for customer groups like hotels and restaurants. Staff participated in many community tabling events as well as neighborhood, school, and business group meetings to talk with the public about the drought regulations and opportunities for water use efficiency. Additionally, CPAU’s continued free water use efficiency workshops, which focus predominantly on sustainable landscaping, were tailored to address specific drought conditions. 24 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.1 Drought Related Marketing Materials 25 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.2 Drought Related Marketing Materials 26 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 5.3 Marketing Materials for Some of Our New Programs: PaloAltoGreen Gas Efficiency Programs and Rebates TimeBank Peninsula Sunshares Georgetown University Energy Prize 27 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 6 RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION 6.1 Demand Response Pilot Program The Demand Response (DR) Pilot Program is designed to help participating large commercial customers reduce their electricity use on days when demand is high, which helps reduce Palo Alto’s annual peak electricity demand. Through the program, CPAU offers monetary incentives to participating customers who are able to reduce their electrical usage when called upon by CPAU during high load periods in the summer months (between May 1st and October 15th.) The DR Pilot Program’s incentive payments share the savings between the utility and program participants. The participants were able to reduce their aggregated demand between .6 to 1 MW per event and a total of 10,312kWh were saved during the four DR events. Though a relatively small program, over the past 3 years, this voluntary demand response program has become an integral part of the CPAU’s effort to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel generation and to lower purchase cost. This program also helps participating customers meet their corporate sustainability goals. The program was approved by Council to run until the end of summer of 2015, but CPAU hopes to seek Council approval to continue to offer this program on a permanent basis. CPAU is also working on ways to leverage distributed energy resources (DER) such as EVs, EV chargers, thermostats, PV system, and storage systems already at customer homes and businesses. A pilot program to enable grid connectivity of such DER systems in planned to commence in 2016. 6.2 Program for Emerging Technologies The CPAU Program for Emerging Technologies (www.cityofpaloalto.org/UTLInnovation) provides the opportunity for local businesses to submit proposals to CPAU for review and potential pilot testing. The goal is to find and nurture creative products and services that will manage and better use electricity, gas, water, and fiber optic services. From its inception in June 2012 through July 2014, the Program for Emerging Technologies received 45 applications. Here are several PET pilot programs which began in FY 2015: linkAges Connect: Using Utility Data to Help Seniors and their Caregivers Staff has been working with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Innovation Center to evaluate the technical feasibility of deploying a research pilot called "linkAges Connect" on Palo Alto's utility distribution systems. "linkAges Connect” uses passive signals in the home, such as electricity, gas, and water data from advanced metering infrastructure, to allow family caregivers to remain updated on the well-being of their senior family members. Since changes in well-established daily routines of seniors are often an indication of shifts in health status, regular utility usage patterns can be an additional mode of communication that signals all is well with a senior family member who is living alone. Staff is currently working with two volunteer households to test the technical feasibility of the PAMF proposal, which, if successful, will lead to a pilot scale deployment. 28 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Enabling High Penetrations of Renewables on the Electric Distribution System A research team from the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University submitted an application for federal funding for a proposed research program developing an open-source unified data analytics platform that will enable the integration of high penetrations of renewables on the electric distribution system. Through PET, CPAU submitted a letter of support for their application and this area of research, the outcomes of which would facilitate the City reaching multiple strategic sustainability goals, including meeting 4% of our energy needs from local solar by 2023. Energy Efficient Software for Data Centers Staff is currently working with TSO Logic to identify a third-party host site to demonstrate their energy efficiency software for data centers. Their software solution focuses on IT workload and creating visibility into the server environment, application performance, and energy consumption. Past case studies have demonstrated up to 50% energy savings. Advanced Lighting Systems for Retrofitting Parking Garages Staff completed a report documenting results from the advanced lighting system pilot project in the Palo Alto Civic Center underground parking garage, which was carried out from January through March 2014. The pilot project was a partnership with Enlighted Inc and Next Lighting. The report quantified the energy savings potential demonstrated in the pilot, along with providing an estimated lifetime cost/benefit analyses for retrofitting the entire Palo Alto Civic Center parking garage. Results from the pilot project strongly support retrofitting the Civic Center underground parking garages with LED lamps and advanced lighting controls. The demonstrated energy savings from the pilot was 72% in the most energy efficient scenario, which led to an estimated payback period of within a decade. Furthermore, stakeholders representing parking garage users strongly supported the City's efforts to modernize the lighting system and increase efficiency in municipal buildings. Distributed Solar on Street Light Poles Staff conducted a 6-month pilot project in partnership with Petra Systems to demonstrate their solar-on-a-light-pole technology in Palo Alto. In November 2014, Solar photovoltaic (PV) modules were installed on nine City-owned street light poles along El Camino Real and connected with CPAU's distribution grid to deliver clean renewable energy to the community. Additional benefits of the system include providing a platform for monitoring the solar production and street light operations with real-time data posted online. The community is encouraged to submit any feedback about the pilot systems to CPAU. At the conclusion of the pilot, the vendor’s PV modules will be removed and CPAU staff will provide a summary report of findings. Carbon Calculator and Reporting Tools for Cities and Small Businesses The City is currently finalizing two pilot projects with Measurabl using their innovative "Turbo- Tax-style" software tools for easy calculating, reporting, and benchmarking of sustainability- related information. One pilot will focus on the City government, and the second will focus on small businesses in Palo Alto. 29 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Product for Customer-Side Demand Management Staff validated a customer-side demand management product from AutoGrid and its potential to benefit CPAU and our customers. CPAU and AutoGrid presented the product, which forecasts customers' monthly peak demand, giving them a chance to shave energy consumption during a few peak hours each month, at a Key Account facilities managers meeting. AutoGrid is currently soliciting participation for a solar project. 6.3 Pilot Project for Building Energy Management System in Small/Medium Commercial Buildings Staff has been coordinating with the Omaha Public Power District to implement an energy efficiency/demand response pilot program which has been funded by a grant through the American Public Power Association’s (APPA’s) Demonstration of Energy Efficiency Developments (DEED) Program. The purpose of the pilot program is to gain hands-on experience and validate the cost, ease of installation and usability while assessing the energy efficiency savings and demand response functionalities of a building energy management system for small to medium- sized commercial buildings. The building energy management system allows building owners to monitor and control building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment through a web-based application. Energy usage data has been logged for two downtown commercial buildings since summer 2014. Pilot results from multiple APPA member utilities participating in this DEED project will be compared to better estimate the energy savings potential from such building energy management systems. 6.4 CustomerConnect Advanced Meter and Time of Use Rate Pilots The CustomerConnect Pilot Program is designed to evaluate changes in energy and water use for residential customers provided with advanced meters and equipment to view their energy and water consumption through an online portal. The objectives of the pilot are to: • Gauge residential customer interest in and experience and satisfaction with using advanced meters and associated engagement tools; • Quantify the change in residential customer energy and water use through efficiency and conservation measures as a result of the customer engagement tools; • Evaluate the impact of the programs on utility costs and revenues; • Quantify residential customer bill impacts; and • Gain insight into the costs and benefits of implementing full-scale advanced meter-based residential customer services. During FY 2014 and FY 2015, CPAU successfully installed advanced meters at over 375 residential customer homes. These customers now have access to the CustomerConnect Portal, a web-based platform which displays hourly interval data for gas, water and electric consumption. As part of this pilot program, 150 homes will be on a Time-of-Use (TOU) pilot electricity rate which is designed to encourage residential customers, particularly those with electric vehicles (EVs), to shift electric usage to less expensive night hours. The CustomerConnect pilot program will continue through 2016 at which time a full evaluation will be conducted. 30 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 7 FUTURE PLANS In FY 2016, CPAU will engage in several new campaigns and programs and will continue to promote energy efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy generation through a variety of marketing and media channels. 7.1 Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP) In April 2014, the City announced its intent to compete for the Georgetown University Energy Prize. The Georgetown University Energy Prize is a two-year energy saving competition amongst communities with a population between 5,000 and 250,000 residents for a chance to win a $5 million prize. Palo Alto was selected as a semifinalist in December 2014 and is currently competing with 50 other communities to reduce electric and natural gas consumption in the residential, multi- family, municipal, and schools sectors for two years (January 2015 through December 2016) compared to the baseline years of 2013-2014. As of December 2015, CPAU was ranked 17th. Final judging will be based on reductions in energy use, innovation of approach, quality of community outreach, sustainability and replicability. Complimentary to GUEP, in February 2016, CPAU is launching a new residential online energy and water portal with Nexant (replacing OPower and WaterSmart) where customers can log-in and view their gas, electric and water consumption, see how they are doing compared to similar homes and have access to all efficiency and savings programs. Also starting in spring of 2016, as part of GUEP, the City is hosting a behavioral science energy savings lottery among all residents. Each resident that reduces gas or electric use, compared to CY2013 and CY2014, will be eligible for lottery tickets. At the end of the competition, winners will be drawn from the lottery. The portal will host each customer’s lottery ticket accruals as well as show individual reduction goals, savings tips and efficiency program information. Both the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Duke University Data Analytics Research Department are assisting CPAU with the experimental design and evaluation for the lottery competition. This program is expected to have a significant impact on energy savings and meets one of the attributes that the GUEP judging is based on—innovation of approach. More information about the lottery and the Georgetown competition can be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/Georgetown. 7.2 Water Grants and Water Pilots CPAU received grant funding from the SCVWD to pursue two water conservation pilot programs targeting commercial customers. The programs have been selected through an RFP process with an expected program start date in the third quarter of FY 2016. Real-Time Water Use Monitoring Pilot for Commercial Customers In 2012, the City implemented a Real-Time Water Use Monitoring pilot with select large commercial customers to actively engage them in water reduction and minimize water loss. The pilot deploys a simple, relatively low cost technology that enables standard water meters to track consumption similar to a smart water meter. A wireless device attached to the water meter transmits real-time data to a cloud-based software platform. Customers securely log 31 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report into a web portal to view water usage data on a minute interval basis and can find out about water leakage or other anomalies in water use and address these issues before they become maintenance and billing misfortunes. Over a two-year period, the total water use among pilot participants was reduced by approximately 8%. Through grant funding from SCVWD, the City will launch a larger Real-Time Water Use Monitoring pilot covering 100 city facility meters and 24 business customer sites. Pilot customers will be able to access real-time water consumption data through wireless sensors installed on the water meters. The pilot is expected to launch in early 2016 and will run for two years. Business Water Reports Pilot Program Through grant funding from SCVWD, the City will launch a Business Water Reports pilot to engage small to medium businesses in the hospitality and food service industries to actively manage water use. The key objectives of the Business Water Reports are to communicate water use and potential ways to reduce water consumption, and to motivate behavior change. The pilot is expected to launch in early 2016 and will run for two years. 7.3 2015 Update to the Urban Water Management Plan CPAU is required to update its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) every five years under the California Urban Water Management Planning Act. The UWMP describes the City’s water system, supply sources, and demand-side (water efficiency) measures. The UMWP must include a plan for compliance with the Senate Bill x7-7 (2009) that mandates a statewide per capita water use reduction of 20% by the year 2020. The 2010 UWMP was approved by Council in June 2011. The 2015 UWMP is due to the California Department of Water Resources by June 30, 2016. 7.4 Drought Awareness and Water Conservation Campaigns Continued drought conditions beyond FY 2015 mean that a great deal of outreach will focus on water use efficiency, particularly in areas where customer water use tends to be the highest, such as in landscape irrigation. Marketing materials will promote the landscape turf grass conversion and irrigation hardware rebates while reminding customers to protect the health of trees, which represent a long-term investment in the City’s urban canopy. 7.5 Capturing Additional Energy Savings through the new Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance In April 2015, City Council approved revisions to the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which includes the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code requiring new construction projects to exceed California’s building energy efficiency standards (“2013 Title 24 Standards”) by 15%, i.e. a building’s energy consumption must be 15% less than standard design. The Energy Efficiency Reach Code took effect in September 2015. CPAU will coordinate with Development Services to report the energy savings attributed to the Green Building Ordinance. CPAU is currently investigating different ways to educate, assist and encourage residents and non-residents to adopt green building principles and energy efficient systems when planning remodeling or new construction projects. 32 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report 7.6 Local Solar Plan In April 2014, Council approved the Local Solar Plan with a goal to increase the installation of local solar PV systems to provide 4 percent of the City’s total energy needs by 2023. The plan identifies a set of strategies and initiatives to promote solar in a cost-effective and sustainable manner by accelerating solar adoption in Palo Alto. Specifically, the plan includes the development of: (a) a Community Solar Share program that targets customers who do not have good solar access or cannot support solar at their own premise due to size or home/business ownership status, (b) a Community Solar Donation program that targets customers who want to contribute toward solar for the benefit of a community-based organization, such as local schools, and (c) a Solar Group Discount program designed to drive down the cost of local solar ownership by leveraging the purchasing power of the community. Staff is working to develop the new programs in the Local Solar Plan, but the timelines for implementation depend upon negotiations with vendors who will administer the programs. Supporting strategies include developing community education and demonstration projects, reducing internal system and institutional barriers to lower the “soft” costs associated with the adoption of PV systems, and supporting innovative solar technologies through CPAU’s Program for Emerging Technologies. 7.7 Smart Grid Pilots and Next Steps Smart grid related pilot programs will continue through FY 2016. Staff plans to develop recommendations on next steps on smart grid implementation by the end of 2016. One such smart grid pilot is Conservation Voltage Regulation (CVR). Based on the voltage sensing technology of the advanced electric meters in the 375 homes participating in the CustomerConnect pilot, staff is exploring the feasibility of how to optimally operate the distribution feeders by lowering service voltage to save energy. A system is being evaluated to monitor the voltages at the end of electrical feeder lines until the end of 2016, which will help develop implementation and operating strategies to harness the conservation potential of CVR. 33 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX A: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The programs offered by CPAU are designed to assist all customer groups to achieve savings on electricity, natural gas and water in cost-effective manners. Programs are designed to achieve results through a wide variety of both common and more innovative, harder to reach technologies. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS Smart Energy Program This program is a comprehensive energy efficiency incentive program for residential customers. The City gives rebates to residents who install energy efficient measures and equipment in their homes or on their property. Among these are insulation, water heaters, clothes washers, refrigerators, pool pumps and power strips. Due to federal minimum manufacturing standards for appliance efficiency, the number of appliances meeting rebate qualifying standards dropped significantly during FY2015. Compared to FY 2014, CPAU paid out 45% less in rebates under the Smart Energy Program. CPAU projects that this downward trend will continue. www.cityofpaloalto.org/SmartEnergy Educational Programs and Workshops A variety of educational programs and workshops are held throughout the year. Typically, residential workshops on water and energy programs occur in the spring near Earth Day and in the “Summer Workshop Series.” Due to the continuing drought, many of FY 2015’s workshops focused on water efficiency on topics such as Tree Care in a Drought, Designing and Installing a Native Garden, and Greywater Systems. These workshops drew record high attendance of approximately 100 attendees per event. In addition, customers receive timely E-newsletters on a variety of efficiency matters. www.cityofpaloalto.org/workshops Home Energy Reports CPAU provides City residents with individualized reports comparing their home energy use with neighbors in similarly sized homes with the assistance of the contractor Opower. Approximately 20,000 residents receive the Home Energy Report by mail once every quarter. A web portal also offers tips and suggestions on reducing electric and natural gas usage. This program ended in the summer of 2015 and will be replaced with a new portal where residents can have access to all water, gas and electric usage data, programs and reports in one location. Refrigerator Recycling Program Palo Alto offers a $35 rebate to residents who recycle old, operational refrigerators with our partner JACO Environmental which offers free pick-up and proper recycling services. In late November 2015, JACO Environmental went into receivership and shut down its operations. Utilities staff is looking for a new program vendor and is working with the City Attorney’s office to terminate this contract. Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) The City provides weatherization and equipment replacement services to low-income residents, at no cost. The program provides LED lighting, heating system upgrades as well insulation for walls and roofs and weather-stripping for doors and windows. www.cityofpaloalto.org/LowIncome 34 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Residential New Construction Rebate Program CPAU’s Residential New Construction Program has offered financial incentives to residents exceeding both the State and local building energy standards when constructing a new home. Rebates were offered to projects exceeding Title 24 energy efficiency standards by at least 20%. This program was terminated on July 1, 2014 when the Title 24 2013 Standards became effective. However, due to the slow nature of construction projects, for projects permitted prior to July 1, 2014, CPAU has continued to pay rebates as projects reached completion. Currently, CPAU is collaborating with the City’s Development Services Department and is looking into developing an updated Residential New Construction Program which is aligned with the City’s Green Building Ordinance and Electrification Work Plan. PAMF TimeBank CPAU and ZeroWaste joined forces with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to offer a free neighbors helping neighbors become more energy and water efficient and reducing waste program which utilizes PAMF’s existing TimeBank portal. Palo Alto has trained some residents to be CPAU Ambassadors to share information about our programs and offer free services such as installing faucet aerators and LED lightbulbs. This program replaced the free audits offered to CPAU customers by volunteers through the Green@Home Program with Acterra. Home Efficiency Genie Launched in June 2015, CPAU now offers a comprehensive home energy and water assessment with the assistance of contractor ClearResult. Residents can call the ‘Genie’ to get free utility bill reviews and phone consultations. For a fee, residents also have the option to receive an in- depth home assessment which includes air leakage testing, duct inspections, insulation analysis, energy modeling and a one on one review of assessments reports with an energy expert. This package is also followed up with guidance and support throughout home improvement projects. Water Efficiency Programs Since 2002, the City has partnered with SCVWD to promote and cost-share in a wide range of water conservation programs to encourage residents and businesses to reduce water usage. These programs include free indoor and outdoor water audits, as well as rebates for a wide range of water conservation measures (including toilets, urinals, clothes washers, laundry to landscape graywater systems, landscape conversions, irrigation hardware upgrades, weather based irrigation controllers and commercial ice machines.) CPAU also offers free workshops on water efficient landscaping and indoor water use efficiency throughout the year. In the spring and summer of 2015, free drought related workshops drew in attendance of over 100 participants per class. Staff frequently presents to schools and neighborhood and community groups about Palo Alto’s water resources and best practices for water efficiency. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Water o Water Wise House Call Through SCVWD, the City has been offering this free water audit to residential customers in both single‐family and multi‐family dwellings. The survey includes a review of customer water use history, water meter check for leak detection assistance, and thorough evaluation of indoor and outdoor water use. A technician provides each customer with free low‐flow showerheads, faucet aerators, toilet dye tablets, and/or 35 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report toilet flappers when needed. The landscape survey includes an evaluation of the entire irrigation system, catch‐can test for distribution uniformity, and site‐specific recommendations including changes to the irrigation schedule. Over 300 customers participated in this program in FY 2015. o The Landscape Rebate Program (LRP) Provides rebates for various irrigation hardware upgrades, including rain sensors, high efficiency nozzles, dedicated landscape meters, and weather-based irrigation controller, as well as landscape conversion rebates that encourage residential and commercial customers to replace high water using landscape with low water using landscape. In response to the severe drought conditions, in 2014 the City and SCVWD doubled the LRP rebate for a limited time period, resulting in a spike in the number of LRP applications during FY 2015. Between commercial and residential customers, a total of 365,236 sq. feet of turf was removed through the LRP program in FY 2015 – ten times the previous year. o Home Water Report Launched in the November 2013, single family residents began receiving Home Water Reports with the assistance of contractor WaterSmart. This program is similar to the Home Energy Report but focuses on a home’s water usage and how a customer’s usage compares to neighbors with similar lot sizes and family demographics. A control group of approximately 3,000 residential accounts has been established to benchmark results of the program and to date, approximately 13,000 homes receive a water report by mail once per quarter. Annual water savings is estimated at approximately 1.9%. This program ended in the summer of 2015 and will be replaced with a new portal where residents can have access to all water, gas and electric usage data, programs and reports in one location. Peninsula SunShares The Peninsula SunShares program was launched in May 2015. This group-buy program was initiated by Foster City and included 12 other cities located in San Mateo County. Vote Solar, the program administrator, facilitated the selection of two qualified solar contractors for residential solar installations through a competitive selection process. The program offered discounted PV installation prices that were 25% lower than Palo Alto’s average residential before-rebate price and 13% lower than the after-rebate price. The enrollment period was scheduled to end in August 2015. Solar system installations were expected to start in the fall of 2015 and continue into spring 2016. Program results will be included in the FY 2016 DSM report. 36 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report BUSINESS CUSTOMERS Commercial Advantage Program Business customers are offered rebates for many types of equipment, including lighting upgrades, wall and ceiling mounted motion sensors, boilers, pipe insulation, variable frequency drives, computer power management software, night covers for refrigerated display cases, anti-sweat heater controls for coolers/freezers, auto-closers for cooler doors, window film, and custom electric and natural gas saving projects. www.cityofpaloalto.org/CommercialAdvantage Commercial and Industrial Energy Efficiency Program (CIEEP) Designed for the large commercial customer, CIEEP offered highly effective building commissioning services using third-party contractors Enovity and Wildan Energy Solutions. This assistance included reviewing lighting and heating/cooling systems and their operating specifications. Customers then obtained rebates for replacing chillers, building control systems, linear fluorescent lighting, occupancy sensors, boilers and insulation. During its 4 year duration (3 years + 1 year extension), the program saved 12,423,000 kWh and 1,295 kW, as well as 120,483 therms. The program’s success rested primarily on the relationship between the Key Account Manager and the customer. When the program ended on 6/30/2015, CPAU rolled out another 3 year program for commercial customers, adding additional vendors to boost participation. The goal of the revamped CIEEP is to not hinder EE efforts due to yearly budget constraints. As a result, the program has a $2.7 million dollar budget until 6/30/2018 to be shared by Enovity, Base Energy and Ecology Action. www.cityofpaloalto.org/CIEEP Laboratory (Lab) Efficiency This program, implemented by third-party administrator Willdan Energy Solutions, targets research facilities and labs to provide assistance with reviewing systems and their operating specifications for potential savings opportunities, as well as implementing the recommended retrofits. This program ended December 2014. The design model of this program did not generate enough savings to continue with the program. A revamped program model was rolled into the new program cycle.www.cityofpaloalto.org/CommercialPrograms Business New Construction Program Building owners and architects who are planning a Commercial New Construction project in Palo Alto can have their plans reviewed and modeled by an energy engineering consultant at no charge. The consultant will look for ways to increase the energy efficiency of the project above Palo Alto’s Green Building Ordinance and process and verify their rebate if the customer is more efficient than the ordinance by at least 5%. www.cityofpaloalto.org/CommercialPrograms Hospitality Program Rebates and assistance are offered to hotels through the third-party administrator Synergy on a variety of efficiency measure installation, including lighting, HVAC tune-ups, exit signs and combination occupancy sensors and system operating controls for lighting, air conditioning and plug loads that reduce power use when rooms are unoccupied. This program ended June 2015 and was updated with a new program called Multi-Family Plus, also with Synergy, at the beginning of FY2016. www.cityofpaloalto.org/CommercialPrograms 37 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Right Lights+ This program, provided by the third-party administrator Ecology Action, assists small businesses with implementing efficient measures. Small business customers were able to request onsite audits and efficiency rebates on a variety of lighting, sensors and commercial kitchen upgrades, in addition to door gaskets, LED exit signs, vending machine controls, strip curtains for coolers and freezers, as well as customized projects. This program ended June 2015. Starting FY 2016 this program was upgraded into a more comprehensive small/medium commercial program called Empower SMB. www.cityofpaloalto.org/CommercialPrograms Commercial and Industrial Water Efficiency Program CPAU partners with the SCVWD to provide non-residential customers with free landscape irrigation audits, direct installation of high-efficiency toilets and urinals. Rebates are available for clothes washers, facility process improvements, landscape conversions, irrigation hardware upgrades and weather-based irrigation controllers. CPAU staff also provides free indoor water use surveys and efficiency opportunity evaluation. www.cityofpaloalto.org/water Landscape Survey and Water Budget Program Through SCVWD, the City provides landscape irrigation survey, water budget and customized consumption reports for customers with large landscape sites. The service is provided by Waterfluence. The water budget for each landscape site is derived based on the amount of irrigated area, type of plants, type of irrigation system and real-time weather monitoring. Monthly reports documenting a site’s irrigation performance are distributed to site managers, landscapers, HOA board members and other relevant parties, as approved by utility account holders. Through a web portal, customers can access site-specific recommendations, verify water budget assumptions and request a free landscape field survey from an irrigation expert. This program has been in place since 2012 and to date, there are 132 large landscape sites covered under this program. PaloAltoGreen This highly successful program enabled residents and businesses that were willing to pay a small premium for 100% renewable energy. In June 2014, Council terminated PaloAltoGreen for residential customers since the City’s electric supplies are 100% carbon neutral. Commercial customers can still participate in this program by enrolling in the PaloAltoGreen 100% option or by purchasing blocks in 1,000 kWh increments. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pagbiz Palo Alto Clean Local Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program Palo Alto CLEAN is a feed-in tariff program for local solar installations to sell local renewable generated electricity directly to CPAU at a fixed price for a 20- or 25-year contract term. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/PAClean 38 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report ALL CUSTOMERS PV Partners CPAU has offered incentives for local solar photovoltaic (PV) installations since 1999, and increased the PV rebate budget in 2007 as mandated by CA Senate Bill SB1. Residential rebates were fully reserved in August 2014, but funds for non-residential PV systems remained through June 30, 2015. This program is for systems interconnected behind the customer’s electric meter and receive the net metering billing required by SB1. www.cityofpaloalto.org/PVPartners Solar Water Heating CPAU began to offer rebates to residential and commercial customers that install solar water heating (SWH) systems in 2008. The SWH rebate program was mandated by CA AB 1470 and is administered by the Center for Sustainable Energy, which also administers SWH rebate programs in the San Diego area. Incentives are limited to solar water heating for domestic use and solar water heating systems for pools, spas, or space heat are not eligible. www.cityofpaloalto.org/SWH PaloAltoGreen Gas In April 2014, City Council approved the establishment of the voluntary PaloAltoGreen Gas (PAGG) program. PAGG provides the opportunity for residential and commercial customers to reduce or eliminate the impact of GHG emissions associated with their gas usage, through the purchase of certified environmental offsets. PAGG is the first Green-e Climate certified gas offset program offered by a municipal utility, and the first to be offered to individual community members. www.cityofpaloalto.org/pagg 39 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX B: FY 2015 ACHIEVEMENTS BY DSM PROGRAM Table B.1: FY 2015 Achievements by Efficiency Program No. of Electric savings (gross) Gas savings Water savings Program Applications kWh/yr % Therms/yr % CCF/yr % RES- REAP (low income) 84 69,409 0.9% 8,930 4.0% - - RES – Smart Energy 1,106 92,831 1.2% 5,407 2.5% RES- SCVWD Water programs - - - - - 23,052 34% RES- Home Energy Report - 1,604,2 72 20.1% 146,156 66.0% - - RES- Home Water Report - - - - - 37,287 55% RES- New Construction 18 18,589 0.2% 8,043 3.6% - - RES- Refrigerator Recycling 96 59,460 0.7% - - COM- Business New Construction 1 473,100 5.9% - - - - COM- Commercial Advantage 12 1,128,7 56 14.1% - - - - COM- Right Lights+ 48 1,478,8 24 18.5% - - - - COM- Enovity Large Business 7 2,222,8 00 27.8% 30,320 13.7% - - COM- Hospitality Program 13 44,209 0.6% 18,887 8.6% - - COM- SCVWD Water Program numerous 91 - 3,556 1.6% 7,888 12% GEN- T&D Upgrades 796,157 10.0% - - - Efficiency Total 7,988,498 100% 221,299 100% 68,227 100% Table B.2: FY 2015 Achievements by CPAU’s Solar Programs Program Installations kW kWh/yr % Therms/yr % PV Installations- Residential 93 436 654,150 39% N/A N/A PV Installations - Commercial 9 378 566,850 61% N/A N/A Solar Water Heating - Single Family Residential 1 0 0 0 178 2% Solar Water Heating - Multi-Family Residential Low-Income 10 0 0 0 6,627 82% Solar Water Heating - Commercial 4 0 0 0 1,269 16% Solar Programs Total 117 814 1,221,000 100% 8,074 100% 40 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX C: HISTORICAL DSM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES The chart below shows expenditures by type of DSM program (efficiency, low-income research, renewable, etc.) from FY 2009 through FY 2015. Expenditures in FY 2015 were lower than other years due to third party program transitions and negotiations for numerous new contracts, as referred to in the highlights section of the Executive Summary. Figure C.1 DSM Expenditures for Electricity, Gas, and Water by Year and Function 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2013 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009 R&D Efficiency Renewable Energy Low Income Admin $ Millions 41 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX D: FY 2015 SMART ENERGY RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM RESULTS Measures Number of Measures Installed Total Rebate kWh/yr Saved (gross) Therms/yr Saved Air Source Heat Pump 1 $200 119 0 Attic Insulation R-30 2 $450 884 282 Attic Insulation R-38 9 $1,479 4,392 1,410 Combination Space Heat/Hot Water System 3 $1,200 0 495 Clothes Washer – CEE Tier 3 239 $ 29,875 52,102 1,601 Flat Roof Insulation – R-19 1 $150 00 80 89 Gas Furnace 7 $1,400 0 308 Gas Tankless Water Heater (0.82 EF or greater 3 $450 0 141 Gas Tankless Water Heater (0.90 EF or greater) 3 $600 0 180 LED Holiday Lights 1 $0 7 0 LED Light Bulb Switch 40 Watt Equivalent 271 $0 5,149 0 LED Light Bulb Switch 60 Watt Equivalent 544 $0 15,232 0 Refrigerator 19 $1,300 3,705 0 Smart Power Strip 6 $60 144 0 Solar Attic Fan 2 $50 170 0 Variable Speed Pool Pump 6 $800 10,266 0 Wall Insulation 5 $1,000 450 720 Water Heater-Gas Storage Tier 8 $640 0 184 Whole House Fan 1 $50 131 -3 Total 1,131 $39,704 92,832 5,407 42 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX E: FY 2015 LOW INCOME RESIDENTIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (REAP) RESULTS Measures Number of Measures Installed Dollars Spent kWh/yr Saved (gross) Therms/yr Saved Attic Access Weather-stripping 15 lin. ft. $407 29 15 Attic Insulation 20,061 sq. ft. $21,924 10,372 3,330 Caulking MFR Windows etc. 298 lin. ft. $8,293 298 157 Caulking SFR Windows etc. Caulking SFR Windows etc. 55 lin. ft. $1,721 55 29 Door Weather-stripping 307 $28,121 921 1,228 Duct Test & Seal 18 $7,725 2,250 432 Education 59 $4,425 0 0 Faucet Aerator 358 $2,112 0 1,432 Furnace Replacement 5 $8,700 0 220 Hourly Rate Add. Work 48 $3,114 0 0 Low Flow Showerhead 190 $7,410 0 1,444 NGAT Testing 190 $16,150 0 0 Occupancy Sensor 1 $66 144 0 Outlet Gaskets 2,283 $4,520 0 0 Programmable Thermostat 5 $366 0 380 Refrigerator Replacement 11 $9,065 2,145 0 Repair Furnace, Water Htr, Fridge 1 $1,300 30 12 Repair Minor Wall 4 $380 0 0 T8 De-lamp Conversion 1 $47 552 0 Water Heater Replacement 1 $1,800 0 23 Air Source Heat Pump 5 $21,564 595 0 LED 60 Watt Equivalent 13 $59 364 0 LED Labor Only 1,838 $8,271 51,464 0 LED R-30 28 $784 140 0 LED R-40 10 $360 50 0 Total N/A $158,684 69,409 8,702 43 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX F: SB 1037 ELECTRIC DSM REPORT TO CEC The information below will be included with a California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) report to the California Energy Commission (CEC). The report, required by state law (SB 1037), shows the success of CPAU’s efficiency programs in reducing electric consumption; this report does not include natural gas or water programs. Efficiency programs are the highest priority resource used by the electric utility. The programs are also required to be cost-effective, which (by State definitions) means that the programs must achieve a Total Resource Cost (TRC) score of at least 1.0. Table F.1 shows an overall TRC of 1.16. Note that these savings do not capture the gas and water savings that the EE programs also produced (e.g. saved hot water from replacement of clothes washers and dishwashers). Table F.1: CEC Required Submission on Electric Energy Efficiency Results Program Sector (Used in CEC Report)Category Units Installed Gross Coincident Peak Savings (kW) Gross Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Gross Lifecycle Energy Savings (kWh) Net Coincident Peak Savings (kW) Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Net Lifecycle Energy Savings (kWh) Net Lifecycle Gas Savings (MMBtu) Net Lifecycle GHG Reductions (Tons) Utility Incentives Cost ($) Utility Mktg, EM&V, and Admin Cost ($) Total Utility Cost ($) Utility ($/kWh) Appliances Res Clothes Washers 239 52,102 573,122 16,152 177,668 $29,875 $1,281 $31,156 $0.22 HVAC Res Cooling 3 301 4,320 84 1,210 $100 $18 $118 $0.13 Appliances Res Dishwashers Consumer Electronics Res Electronics HVAC Res Heating 40 3,023 29,059 2,395 22,890 $200 $1,028 $1,228 $0.07 Lighting Res Lighting 2,713 73,246 731,884 58,597 585,507 $60 $20,962 $21,022 $0.04 Pool Pump Res Pool Pump 6 10,266 102,660 6,160 61,596 $800 $448 $1,248 $0.02 Refrigeration Res Refrigeration 126 65,310 379,200 45,932 268,443 $4,660 $18,367 $23,027 $0.10 HVAC Res Shell 548 36,041 560,642 25,814 388,131 $47,017 $9,748 $56,765 $0.20 Water Heating Res Water Heating Comprehensive Res Comprehensive 57,221 1,604,272 1,604,272 1,604,272 1,604,272 $71,068 $71,068 $0.05 Process Non-Res Cooking HVAC Non-Res Cooling 72 425 2,242,525 31,121,275 340 1,794,020 24,897,020 $227,780 $680,134 $907,914 $0.05 HVAC Non-Res Heating Lighting Non-Res Lighting 1,095,340 304 2,552,898 30,579,314 244 2,042,318 24,463,451 $283,522 $610,818 $894,340 $0.05 Process Non-Res Motors Process Non-Res Pumps Refrigeration Non-Res Refrigeration HVAC Non-Res Shell Process Non-Res Process 2 1 35,048 525,356 1 28,038 420,285 $8,939 $13,131 $22,070 $0.07 Comprehensive Non-Res Comprehensive 2 60 517,309 6,207,708 51 439,713 5,276,552 $258,867 $79,169 $338,036 $0.08 Other Other SubTotal 1,156,312 790 7,192,341 72,418,812 635 6,063,494 58,167,025 $861,820 $1,506,172 $2,367,993 $0.05 T&D T&D 2,291 191 796,157 12,717,323 191 796,157 12,717,323 $111,342 $111,342 Total 1,158,603 982 7,988,498 85,136,136 827 6,859,651 70,884,349 $861,820 $1,617,515 $2,479,335 EE Program Portfolio TRC Test 1.16 PAC Test 1.79 Excluding T&D Resource Savings SummaryPalo Alto Cost Summary 44 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX G: EXAMPLES OF CUSTOMER OUTREACH EVENTS 45 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Water Conservation 46 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report APPENDIX H: CITY POLICIES/PLANS AND STATE MANDATES IMPACTING DSM PROGRAM GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION CITY POLICIES/PLANS Title Description Resolution No. 9402 Local Solar Plan (April 2014) Staff Report 3706 Program for Emerging Technology (April 2013) Resolution No. 9322 Carbon Neutral Plan for Electric Supply (March 2013) Staff Report 3358 Update of Ten-Year Energy Efficiency Goals for 2014 to 2023 (December 2012) Resolution No. 9241 LEAP, the Long-term Electric Acquisition Plan (April 2012) Staff Report 2552 GULP, the Gas Utility Long-term Plan (April 2012) Staff Report 1688 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011) Staff Report 1538 Approval of new and expanded efficiency programs for FY 2011-13 (May 2011) CMR 211:07 Climate Protection Plan (2007) STATE MANDATES AB 802 (2015) Requires utilities to maintain records of the energy usage data of all buildings to which they provide service for at least the most recent 12 month period and, upon the request and authorization of the owner (or owner's agent), provide aggregated energy usage data to the owner in the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager. AB 1164 (2015) Prohibits cities and counties from enacting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation prohibiting the installation of drought tolerant landscaping, synthetic grass, or artificial turf on residential property. AB 1236 (2015) Obliges cities and counties to adopt an ordinance, with certain specific elements, creating an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. For a city the size of Palo Alto, the ordinance must be passed by September 30, 2017 SB 350 (2015) The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 sets targets for utilities of 50% renewable electricity retail sales and double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas, both by 2030. The law grants compliance flexibility for POUs that achieve 50% or more of retail sales from certain large hydroelectric power. AB 2188 (2014) Requires a city and/or county to adopt an ordinance creating an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. 47 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report Executive Order Due to continued water shortages, on January 17, 2014, the Governor proclaimed a State of Emergency and directed state officials to take all necessary actions to make water immediately available. Part of the proclamation included a 20 percent water reduction goal. On April 1, 2015, the Governor issued an Executive Order (B-36-15) mandating the State Water Resource Control Board impose restrictions leading to a 25 percent reduction in potable water use through February 28, 2016. SB 1420 (2014) Added to the UWMP a reporting on distribution system water loss. SB 73 (2013) The California Clean Energy Jobs Act, an initiative approved by the voters as Proposition 39 at the November 2012 statewide general election, establishes a Job Creation Fund with an annual budget of $550M to create clean energy jobs, including funding energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installations in public schools, universities, and other public facilities. The Job Creation Fund will be funded for four years, beginning in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. AB 2514 (2010) Mandates a local publicly owned electric utility to determine appropriate targets, if any, for the utility to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems and to adopt an energy storage system procurement target, if appropriate, to be achieved by the utility by December 31, 2016, and a second target to be achieved by December 31, 2021. AB 758 (2009) Requires the California Energy Commission, in collaboration with the California Public Utilities Commission and stakeholders, to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy savings in the state’s existing buildings. SBx7-7 (2009) The Water Conservation Bill of 2009 requires water suppliers to reduce the statewide average per capita daily water consumption by 20% by December 31, 2020. To monitor the progress toward achieving the 20% by 2020 target, the bill also requires urban retail water providers to reduce per capita water consumption 10% by the year 2015. AB 1103 (2007) Requires electric and gas utilities maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service and that by January 1, 2009, upon authorization of a nonresidential building owner or operator, an electric or gas utility shall upload all of the energy consumption data for the specified building to the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager in a manner that preserves the confidentiality of the customer. This statute further requires a nonresidential building owner or operator disclose Energy Star Portfolio Manager benchmarking data and ratings, for the most recent 12-month period, to a prospective buyer, lessee, or lender. Enforcement of the latter requirement began on January 1, 2014. 48 of 48 FY 2015 Demand Side Management Annual Report AB 1470 (2007) Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. Requires the governing body of each publicly owned utility providing gas service to retail end-use gas customers, to adopt, implement, and finance a solar water heating system incentive program. SB 1 (2006) The California State Legislature enacted SB 1 to encourage the installation of 3,000 megawatts (MW) of photovoltaic (PV) solar energy by the year 2017. SB 1 requires all publicly owned utilities to adopt, finance and implement a solar initiative program for the purpose of investing in and encourage the increased installation of residential and commercial solar energy systems. CPAU’s share of the state goal is 6.5 MW. In 2007, CPAU increased the PV Partners program funding to meet SB1 requirements AB 2021 (2006) Requires the CEC on or before November 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, in consultation with the commission and local publicly owned electric utilities, to develop a statewide estimate of all potentially achievable cost-effective electricity and natural gas efficiency savings and establish statewide annual targets for energy efficiency savings and demand reduction over 10 years. AB 1881 (2006) Requires cities and counties to implement a Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance which is “at least as effective as” the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Ordinance in reducing landscape water use. Requirements include enforcing water budgets, planting and irrigation system specifications to meet efficiency criteria. SB 1037 (2005) Requires each local publicly owned electric utility, in procuring energy, to first acquire all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective, reliable, and feasible. Also requires each local publicly owned electric utility to report annually to its customers and to the (CEC) its investment on energy efficiency and demand reduction programs. AB 1890 (1996) Requires electric utilities to fund low-income ratepayer assistance programs, public purpose programs for public goods research, development and demonstration, demand- side management and renewable electric generation technologies AB 797 (1983) The Urban Water Management Planning Act (AB 797) requires all California urban water retailers supplying more than 3,000 acre feet per year or providing water to more than 3,000 customers to develop an UWMP. The plan is required to be updated every five years and submitted to the Department of Water Resources before December 31 on years ending in 5 and 0. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6799) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 4/18/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Business Registry Info Report Title: Informational Report Regarding Business Registry Including Preliminary Analysis for 2015 Data Set From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Executive Summary On February 29, 2016, the first year of the City’s new Business Registry Certificate (BRC) program came to an end, and the data set for the 2015 Business Registry year was closed. After the first year of City’s new Business Registry Certificate (BRC) program, 2,605 businesses are fully registered. A complete listing is available on the City’s Open Data Portal at www.cityofpaloalto.org/registrylist. A preliminary analysis of the data is discussed in detail below, and included as Attachment 1. Background In November 2014, the Council adopted Ordinance #5279 creating a business registry certificate (BRC) requirement. The Council’s intention was that the program be online, simple to use, and be hosted using the City’s existing permit management system (Accela) to pave the way for future integration with other city permits/ processes. The ordinance requires all businesses1 operating in a fixed place of business2 in the City to obtain a BRC. To obtain a certificate, businesses must complete a City questionnaire, which is available online through the City’s website, and pay a flat $50 fee3. Home-based businesses and transitory businesses (such as general contractors whose corporate office is located outside of the city) are exempt from the ordinance. Based on Council direction, non- profit corporations (in fixed places of business within Palo Alto) are not exempted from the BRC. The related staff 1 4.60.020 (a) “Business” means any commercial enterprise, trade, calling, vocation, profession, occupation, or means of livelihood, whether or not carried on for gain or profit. 2 4.60.020 (c) “Fixed place of business” means a place of business located in the city boundaries and occupied for the particular purpose of conducting business. 3 In 2016, a $1 state-mandated fee was added. City of Palo Alto Page 2 report (including Ordinance #5279) is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44100 Over the winter of 2014-2015, Staff worked with vendors and consultants to build a working business registry online tool that would be ready as quickly as possible for the public launch. After an intensive internal development and testing phase, in March 2015, the City launched the Business Registry Website (https://registermybusiness.cityofpaloalto.org) and corresponding informational page: www.cityofpaloalto.org/businessregistry. Prior to the program launch, staff developed administrative guidelines to regulate the administration of the program, establishing the general rules and data management and reporting approach. As the program evolved, certain refinements were made to the guidelines, and it remains a “living” document. Throughout the year, staff implemented an outreach campaign to educate the business community about the new registry requirement. Staff reached businesses via multiple methods including fliers, letters, emails, advertising, social media, online and print media, and in-person contacts with individual businesses and through the Chamber of Commerce and other business associations. A User’s Guide was made available which offered a page-by-page explanation of the website. A Frequently Asked Questions document was also made available. Both of these documents have been updated over time. Establishing the initial list of businesses subject to the BRC (BRC Subject List) was difficult. This was due to several factors, including education and outreach required for a new requirement, and the dynamic nature of business activity, with many businesses starting, moving and closing during 2015. As a result of a great deal of work, ultimately culminating in a physical survey, staff culled the list from over 200,000 initial business listings to the final 2015 status of 2,797. Staff expects that this number will continue to be dynamic over time. This is due to several factors, including: 1. The Council has adopted new exemptions for the 2016 BRC year that now apply to some firms previously registered. 2. A number of commercial addresses are not yet associated with an active business. This could represent an omission, or may be because a property is vacantl,under construction or otherwise not subject to the business registry. 3. Some businesses have multiple entities essentially incorporating the same people (or operate under multiple names). Based on the ordinance, these businesses are required to complete only one registration, listing all of their business entities. 4. Some businesses currently on the list are not subject to the Business Registry. 5. Some businesses currently on the list will close, or move. 6. New and relocating businesses are not currently on the list, but will need to be added. Given the Council and public interest in the data from the BRC, data has been released regularly via the city’s Open Data portal which is now updated at www.cityofpaloalto.org/registrylist . City of Palo Alto Page 3 In early 2016, the Council adopted an updated ordinance that further exempted very small non- profits and businesses, and religious organizations with no ancillary businesses on site. Council also approved a staff plan to upgrade the software for the 2016 Business Registry to improve user functionality and reporting capabilities. In March 2016, the Council authorized a Management Analyst position at the Development Center. Half of the focus for the new position will be dedicated to administering the BRC program. After a selection process, the staff member was selected in late March, and will begin administering the day-to-day activities of the BRC immediately. Discussion As part of this report (and included as Attachment 1), staff is releasing a preliminary 2015 data analysis, including a breakout for key business areas throughout the City. As the report shows, 93% of business subject to the registry complied. Overall, 2,605 businesses registered, accounting for 74,351 employees. 954 downtown businesses registered representing 15,641 employees. This includes registered businesses in the University Avenue, South of Forest Area (SOFA) 1 & 2, University Avenue Transit Station, and Downtown North and Professorville areas. Other report highlights include: 32,403,891 Square Feet of Commercial Overall Office: 384 Square Feet per Employee (SF/Emp)4 Overall Office: 394 SF/Emp Downtown Retail: 296 SF/Emp Overall Retail: 275 SF/Emp Downtown Restaurant: 136 SF/Emp Overall Restaurant: 125 SF/Emp Downtown Although the data is interesting, several qualifiers must be noted. The data is based on self- reported figures that have been through only a basic level of staff analysis/ quality control. Although some errors related to multiple registrations were removed, additional errors are likely to be included in the data set. However, with 93% of businesses registered (and likely a larger percentage of the overall employment), the data is representative of the businesses in Palo Alto required to register. As resources allow, staff will continue to explore ways to refine the quality of the data set, and look for methods to further analyze the data and provide more useful information. Staff expects that as reporting functionality improves with the updated software, and the data set grows with more years of data, the information will be more valuable as a resource for informing City decisions. 4 Overall mean of total gross square footage reported divided by total number of employees. The total range varied greatly, with about 88 companies overall under 100 square feet per employee (42 downtown). City of Palo Alto Page 4 Staff is also exploring a confidential data sharing agreement with the new Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA). This would allow the TMA to have access to the granular data in order to further their efforts to create valuable and measurable programs to decrease Single-Occupancy-Vehicle travel in Palo Alto. The responsibilities for administering the current BRC program are cyclical and include outreach, invoicing, customer service, coordination with software vendors on technical issues, and data reporting. In addition to half-focus from the new Management Analyst, staff anticipates the continued need for limited support from the Permit Center Manager, policy interpretation and interdepartmental coordination from the City Manager’s Office, and legal assistance and direction from the City Attorney’s Office, as well as the need for part-time support for customer service peaks in order to maintain current service levels. In short, with the departure of the economic development manager, staff will be challenged to transition and reprioritize responsibilities in an effort to maintain the existing level of service for the BRC. Any increase in service levels, enhancements to reporting capabilities, or changes to the current BRC system will result in a corresponding need for resources. Staff will continue to monitor program revenues and expenditures to ensure that the program meets the Council’s revenue- neutral goals for the annual administration costs. Resource Impact As stated above, in the FY 2016 Midyear Budget report a 1.0 Management Analyst was added to the Development Center budget. Half of this position will support the BRC program. Also stated above, Any increase in service levels, enhancements to reporting capabilities, or changes to the current BRC system will result in a corresponding need for resources. Attachments: BRC Analysis_Summary_2-29-16 (PDF) Total Number of Employees (All Locations)74,351 Total Businesses Registered (Primary Locs)2605 Secondary Locs 355 Total (all Locs)2960 Total Businesses Subject to Business Registry 2797 Registration Total (%)93% Total Businesses Registered (Primary Locations Dtn)954 Secondary Locs 95 Total (All Loc Dtn)1049 Total Businesses Subject to Business Registry (Downtown)1023 Registration Total Downtown (%)93% Palo Alto BRC Totals BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee NOTE Office 1050 25063 2538 18093 9614382 383.6085864 Retail 307 6555 205 4079 1939506 295.8819222 Eating & Drinking 203 4273 115 1193 582416 136.3014276 Services 338 5089 317 5124 1903867 374.1141678 Lodging 29 956 50 1968 1382518 1446.148536 Healthcare 424 11673 179 13965 5395066 462.183329 Auto-Related 46 530 10 1216 650829 1227.979245 Manufacturing & Processing 53 12314 126 12543 4645961 377.2909696 Education 65 5509 5 6285 2508033 455.2610274 Other 90 2389 140 3849 3781313 1582.801591 Total 2605 74351 3685 68315 32403891 435.8232035 Other includes: Accessory Use, Agriculture, Communications, Multi-Family, Public, Public Assembly, Recreation, Recycling, Single-Family, Storage/ Warehouse, Transportation, and "Unknown" Califorrnia Avenue Area (Including El Camino) BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 157 1202 279 283 331733 275.984193 Retail 23 215 85 25 86144 400.6697674 Eating & Drinking 36 604 29 213 103983 172.1572848 Services 79 353 109 93 92449 261.8951841 Healthcare 86 243 38 84 117049 481.6831276 Other 18 93 8 33 27003 290.3548387 Total 399 2710 548 731 758361 279.8380074 Other includes: Accessory Use, Agriculture, Auto-Related, Communications, Education, Lodging, Manufacturing, Public, Public Assembly, Recreation, Recycling, Single-Family, Storage/ Warehouse, Transportation, and Unknown/NA Downtown BRC Totals Business Registry Data Analysis (as of February 29, 2016)** Registered 93% Unregistered 7% BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 435 6045 1896 2380 2382451 394.1192721 Retail 85 1654 102 474 453278 274.0495768 Eating & Drinking 87 2204 64 211 275234 124.8793103 Services 104 1163 85 1055 425317 365.7067928 Lodging 8 491 45 636 558547 1137.570265 Healthcare 189 2237 98 2222 1296755 579.6848458 Other 46 1847 167 2056 1467556 794.5619924 Total 954 15641 2457 9034 6859138 438.5357714 Other includes: Accessory Use, Agriculture, Auto-Related, Communications, Education, Manufacturing, Public, Public Assembly, Recreation, Recycling, Single-Family, Storage/ Warehouse, Transportation, and Unknown/NA El Camino Real BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 85 812 21 1119 296310 364.9137931 Retail 30 152 1 226 72435 476.5460526 Eating & Drinking 33 692 2 634 95034 137.3323699 Services 43 418 1 289 164972 394.6698565 Lodging 19 462 3 1332 817821 1770.175325 Healthcare 35 471 3 399 281907 598.5286624 Auto-Related 8 96 0 373 284682 2965.4375 Other 10 52 0 60 35689 686.3269231 Total 263 3155 31 4432 2048850 649.3977813 Embarcadero/ East Bayshore Area BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 138 2843 59 2433 1207034 424.5634893 Retail 11 283 0 95 103861 367 Manufacturing/ Processing 13 144 100 203 121776 845.6666667 Auto-Related 5 189 0 357 82200 434.9206349 Services 22 126 5 168 68462 543.3492063 Other 36 561 110 796 342588 610.6737968 Total 225 4146 274 4052 1925921 464.5250844 Other includes: Education, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Eating & Drinking, Recycling, Public/Public Assembly, and Unknown Park Ave/ Fry's Area (not including Fry's) BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 28 1128 100 664 283794 251.5904255 Retail 7 81 0 50 29530 364.5679012 Other 19 138 8 107 46553 337.3405797 Total 54 1347 108 821 359877 267.169265 Other includes: Education, Public Assembly, Manufacturing, and Unknown/ NA San Antonio/ Charleston/ East Meadow Circle/ Fabian Way BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 83 3701 7 3978 1403293 379.1659011 Retail 18 141 2 238 135974 964.3546099 Eating & Drinking 3 77 0 85 15250 198.0519481 Services 26 153 0 186 63113 412.503268 Healthcare 19 98 4 107 44974 458.9183673 Auto-Related 18 172 0 262 123030 715.2906977 Education 11 274 0 746 250121 912.850365 Manufacturing/ Processing 19 431 0 504 282240 654.8491879 Other 7 53 8 42 33100 624.5283019 Total 204 5100 21 6148 2351095 460.9990196 Other Includes: Accessory Use, Communications, Lodging, Transportation, and Unknown/ NA Stanford Research Park (including El Camino) BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 94 8633 170 6062 3390157 392.6974401 Retail 4 1673 0 1831 184806 110.4638374 Eating & Drinking 6 117 0 95 19230 164.3589744 Services 24 1977 117 2086 786150 397.6479514 Healthcare 5 801 0 872 275145 343.5018727 Manufacturing/ Processing 11 11627 0 11816 4206094 361.7523007 Other 8 4148 0 4705 1766964 425.9797493 Total 152 28976 287 27467 10628546 366.8051491 Other includes: Accessory Use, Agriculture, Auto-Related, Communications, Education, Lodging, Public, Public Assembly, Recreation, Recycling, Single-Family, Storage/ Warehouse, Transportation, and Unknown/NA Stanford Shopping Center BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Retail 78 1871 8 936 669986 358.0897916 Eating & Drinking 9 240 0 10 21524 89.68333333 Other 7 366 0 254 94204 257.3879781 Total 94 2477 8 1200 785714 317.2038757 Other includes Healthcare and Services Stanford University Medical Center BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Healthcare 34 7036 1 9814 2252119 320.0851336 Offices/Services 7 16 0 8 4622 288.875 Total 41 7052 1 9822 2256741 320.0143222 Town & Country BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 13 78 4 16 17197 220.474359 Retail 39 298 7 120 80947 271.6342282 Eating & Drinking 17 308 0 1 27493 89.26298701 Other 7 80 0 22 16057 200.7125 Total 76 764 11 159 141694 185.4633508 Other includes Healthcare, Services, and Unknown/NA All Other Areas BUSINESSES TTL_EMPLOYEE_COUNT TTL_LEASED_PARKING TTL_PROVIDED_PARKING TTL_SQUARE_FOOTAGE Square Ft Per Employee Office 26 542 14 971 304851 562.4557196 Retail 15 177 0 70 63845 360.7062147 Eating & Drinking 14 261 20 72 38569 147.7739464 Services 30 536 0 981 252044 470.2313433 Healthcare 47 785 17 407 1147113 1461.290446 Education 27 814 0 761 715142 878.5528256 Other 33 339 0 1437 1990424 5871.457227 Total 192 3454 51 4699 4511988 1306.308049 Other includes: Multi-Family, Single-Family, Recreation, Public/ Public Assembly, Agriculture, and Unknown/NA