Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-05-02 City Council Agenda PacketCity 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. May 2, 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 Study Session 5:00-5:30 PM 1.Safe Routes to School 10-year Anniversary Update Special Orders of the Day 5:30-5:45 PM 2.Proclamation of the City Council Honoring Kathy Durham Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Manager Comments 5:45-5:55 PM Oral Communications 5:55-6:10 PM Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes. REVISED 2 May 2, 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. Minutes Approval 6:10-6:15 PM 3.Approval of Action Minutes for the April 18, 2016 Council Meeting Consent Calendar 6:15-6:20 PM Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members. 4.Approval of the Final Fire Insurance Settlement and Payment to Frank Benest for his Ownership Interest for Property Located at 2257 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California and Approval an Amendment to the Budget in the General Fund 5.Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number C15159225 in the Amount of $60,000 With Municipal Resource Group for Council Appointed Officers Evaluations to add Services and Increase the Total Amount Not-to-Exceed From $123,000 to $183,000 6.Approval of a Contract for the Joint Purchase, Maintenance and use of a Tractor Drawn Trailer Aerial Ladder Truck With the City of Mountain View Fire, With a Purchase Amount Not-to-exceed $630,543 7.Review and Approve Walk and Roll Maps for Addison, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Hoover, JLS Middle, Jordan Middle, Nixon, Palo Alto High, Walter Hays Public Schools and the Monroe Park Neighborhood Action Items Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters. 6:20-6:35 PM 12.Colleagues' Memo From Council Members DuBois, Filseth, Holman and Schmid Regarding the Creation of an Evergreen Parking Permit Program 6:35-8:35 PM 8.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 3 May 2, 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. 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. (Continued from April 18th Meeting) 8:35-8:50 PM 9.Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the 2016-17 Action Plan and Associated 2016-17 Funding Allocations and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Consistent With the Finance Committee’s Recommendation 8:50-9:50 PM 10.PUBLIC HEARING: Updates to the Energy Reach Code: an Ordinance Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt the 2016 California Energy Code, Title 24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations, and Local Amendments 9:50-10:45 PM 11.Initial Polling Results Regarding Feasibility of a Potential City Transportation Tax on Businesses to Raise Funds to Reduce Traffic Congestion, Address the Availability of Parking, and other Transportation Improvement Options 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 May 2, 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 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 3, 2016 Sp. Finance Committee Meeting May 5, 2016 Schedule of Meetings Schedule of Meetings Tentative Agenda Tentative Agenda Informational Report City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2016 Public Letters to Council Set 1 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6786) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Safe Routes to School 10-year Anniversary Update Title: Safe Routes to School 10-year Anniversary Update From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council receive and review the enclosed ten-year anniversary update for the Safe Routes to School Partnership and provide input on the identified ongoing goals for the program. Executive Summary Since the City Council endorsed the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) National Partnership Consensus Statement in February 2006, the local Safe Routes to School partnership between the City, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) has encouraged thousands of school children to walk, bike, carpool, and take transit to school. This report documents the progress of the Safe Routes partnership program since its inception and gives a status report on the Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) grant activities that have been the focus of the program since 2012. In addition, the report provides a summary of potential areas of focus of the partnership for the next 18-month to three-year time horizon, and requests Council input on these goals and projects. Background Some form of bicycle safety for children has been taught to Palo Alto students since the 1950s, when Palo Alto Police officers conducted bike rodeos at local schools. A bike rodeo is an event where children physically participate in bike-riding activities which mimic real-life traffic situations that may occur while riding to and from school; students learn these skills from licensed instructors and volunteers and are able to practice using them in a protected environment. Through the 1970s, most students walked, biked, or took the bus to school, and schools were not designed to accommodate large numbers of children being driven to school. However, as school populations declined through the 1970s, the closure of fourteen schools led to longer school commutes for many students. District budget constraints also contributed to a series of reductions in school bus service. By 1993, Palo Alto saw sharp declines in children walking and biking to school and growing vehicle congestion near schools because many more City of Palo Alto Page 2 parents were dropping off and picking up their students by car every day. In order to address the resulting concerns about school closures and cuts in busing, the City/School Traffic Safety Committee formed in the late 1970s, which included representatives from the City, PAUSD and the PTA. One of its early recommendations was that additional adult crossing guards be established to assist schoolchildren crossing at major intersections on routes where buses were no longer an option. In the late 1980s, an increase in single-occupant vehicle trips to schools and a concern for safety spurred local parents to come together to more formally address road safety for school commutes. A Bicycle Education Task Force piloted bicycle safety education at a few schools, and this model grew to include all of the PAUSD elementary schools. Since 1994, committed PTA volunteers as well as City and School District staff have collaborated to reduce risk to students traveling to school and encourage families to try commute modes other than the solo family car. The encouragement piece of the program made walking and biking a schoolwide celebration. This focus was key in changing the culture away from daily driving by parents. As school populations continued to rebound in the 1990’s, the school district commissioned the first on-site engineering studies to reduce hazards for students accessing the school on foot or on bikes as well as improve circulation for drivers dropping off students. A significant number of recommended changes were implemented. The City’s 1998 Comprehensive Plan incorporated the safety and comfort of children as a priority for street modifications affecting school travel routes. Major studies of school commute safety in both north and south Palo Alto provided the basis for developing a School Commute Corridors Network in 2003 with PTA advocacy and support. In October 2003, the City Council adopted a School Commute Corridors Network map in order to prioritize safety improvements and enhance land use scrutiny on roads that students use to go to and from school (CMR 377:03, Attachment A). At the same time, in the early 2000s, a coalition of national, state and local non-profit organizations, professional groups and state, regional and local government agencies started working to address the decline in walking and biking to school. Their description of the problem and how it could be addressed was contained in the Safe Routes to School National Partnership Consensus Statement. In a sweeping effort to get more children walking and bicycling to schools across America, Congress approved $612 million over five years (FY05-09) for a new federal Safe Routes to School program as part of the federal transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, which was adopted on July 29, 2005 and signed by the President on August 10, 2005. In October 2005, the National Partnership Consensus Statement was endorsed locally by the Executive Board of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, and in February 2006, the PAUSD School Board and the Palo Alto City Council followed suit. (CMR 140:06) (See Attachment B: National Partnership Consensus Statement). The endorsement of the National Consensus Statement by all three governing boards marked the official birth of the Palo Alto Safe Routes to School partnership. The mission of the program has been to reduce risk to students and to encourage more families to walk and bike or use alternatives to driving more often. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Staff is currently working to integrate School Commute Corridors Network map with the newer “Walk and Roll” maps, which were developed between 2012 and 2015 with funding from a Vehicle Emissions Reduction Based on Schools (VERBS) grant from VTA. The Walk and Roll maps highlight preferred routes for students to use on the journey between school and home, and a separate set of plans suggest current and future infrastructure improvements to optimize the safety and usability of these routes. Staff is recommending adoption of these latest maps in CMW #6875, heard this same evening. In March 2016, representatives from PAUSD, the PTA, and city staff came together at a workshop to review the performance of the program over the last decade and to look at opportunities for improvement and further achievement. Several areas identified in the workshop are discussed later in this report, including:  Expanding the encouragement and education program to 7th through 12th grades  Developing programs with new partners, such as health and wellness organizations  Updating partnership policies, and  Improving communications, websites, and marketing As recommended in the 2005 National Consensus Statement, the local Safe Routes to School partnership is organized around what are known as the 5 Es: 1. Encouragement - Using events and activities to promote walking, bicycling, carpooling, and taking the bus or shuttle. 2. Education - Teaching children about the broad range of transportation choices, instructing them in important lifelong safety skills, and launching driver safety campaigns. 3. Engineering - Creating operational and physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding schools, reducing speeds, and establishing safer crosswalks and pathways. 4. Enforcement - Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure drivers obey traffic laws, and initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs 5. Evaluation - Monitoring and researching outcomes and trends through the collection of data. The partners meet monthly at the City/School Traffic Safety Committee meeting, where the group discusses program updates, partner activities and shares information pertaining to school commute safety. The current program activities include the following programs and partners as listed in Figure 1: Figure 1: Safe Routes to School Program Activities, Organized by the Five E’s City of Palo Alto Page 4 Activity Description and Partners Encouragement Activities Fall and Spring Walk and Roll to School Events  Events to encourage families to try walking, biking, carpooling, or transit  Organized by PTA volunteers with PAUSD and City staff support Middle School Back to School Events  Commute planning, bicycle licensing, bike check-ups, and helmet fitting  Organized by PTA Safe Routes volunteers with PAUSD, City, and PAMF support Education K-2 Pedestrian Safety  Pedestrian safety training for all PAUSD K-2nd graders  Organized by City staff, taught by Safe Moves contractor 3rd Grade Bicycle Safety  Three-lesson bicycle safety training for all PAUSD 3rd graders  Organized by City staff and taught by PAUSD teachers and administrators, PAPD, PTA volunteers, Stanford Injury Prevention, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, and The Bicycle Outfitter 5th Grade Bicycle Safety  Bicycle safety assembly for 5th graders entering middle school  Taught by City staff with PAUSD support 6th Grade Bicycle Safety  Bicycle safety assembly for 6th graders in middle school  Taught by PAUSD Teachers or City Staff Parent Class: Bringing Up Bicyclists  Bicycle safety education for parents with elementary- age children  Organized by PTA volunteers, taught by City Staff Middle School Bike Skills  Bicycle safety education for middle school students and parents  Taught by Wheelkids Bicycle Club with support from City Staff Family Biking  Bicycle safety education for families with young children  Taught by Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition with grant funds Engineering Safe Routes to School Projects  Projects on school routes arising from the VERBS grant analysis and from PAUSD or PTA sources  Coordinated by Transportation and Public Works staff Bicycle Boulevard Program  Bicycle Boulevard projects that prioritize improvements for school children, pedestrians, and people on bicycles City of Palo Alto Page 5  Coordinated by Transportation and Public Works staff Complete Streets Projects  Roadway maintenance projects that consider all road users, including people on foot or on bicycles  Coordinated by Public Works staff with Transportation staff input 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Projects  Improvements identified by the community to enhance walking and bicycling  Coordinated by Transportation and Public Works staff Enforcement Adult Crossing Guards  Crossing guards for elementary and middle school students at qualifying intersections  Palo Alto Police Department Traffic Law Enforcement  Enforcement of traffic laws for both drivers and bicyclists  Palo Alto Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program  “Traffic School” for youth with on-bike citations  Palo Alto Police Department with support from Traffic Safe Communities Network (Santa Clara County) Special Campaigns: Operation Safe Passage & Office of Traffic Safety Grant- funded Enforcement Days  Traffic enforcement at schools after summer and winter breaks  Special pedestrian and bicycle enforcement days  Palo Alto Police Department Evaluation Elementary Commute Tallies  Commute mode tallies of all PAUSD elementary students  Organized and compiled by City staff, with assistance from PAUSD teachers Parked Bicycle Counts  Counts of parked bicycles at all PAUSD schools  Organized and compiled by PTA Safe Routes Volunteers Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, April 2016. The Safe Routes program is results-oriented. The number of high school students who bike has grown from a low of about 300 in 2001 to about 1,700 today, a number which represents about 43% of all PAUSD high school students. [See Attachment C: Secondary Bike Count Charts] In addition, half of all PAUSD middle school students bike to school. Across all grades in the school district of 12,246 students, approximately 4,000 students ride a bicycle to get to school, while over 1,200 elementary school students walk to school. The City currently does not have data for the numbers of middle and high school students who walk or take transit to school. Therefore, a very conservative estimate is that approximately 6,000 students are not being driven to school every day. Future goals for the program include improvements in data collection so that more specific education and encouragement efforts can target certain City of Palo Alto Page 6 populations of students (e.g. middle schoolers, high schoolers). This increase in the numbers of students walking and biking to school occurred during a period when the trend in the US is for more driving and less active transportation, and the program’s results have garnered it national attention. VERBS Grant Activities In October 2010, the City submitted an application for funding of non-infrastructure Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program enhancements through the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Vehicle Emission Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) program. The City was awarded a $528,000 grant that, added to the City’s $132,000 local match fund, provided for a $660,000 project that has significantly expanded the City’s Safe Routes to School program. Part of the grant funding was used to contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. (Alta) to assist in the following activities: a) Walk and Roll Maps: Developing comprehensive Walk and Roll Maps of Suggested Routes to School for each of the 17 public schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and for the south Palo Alto neighborhood served by public schools in the City of Los Altos; b) School Safety Transportation Policies: Recommending new school transportation policy guidance for elements such as reduced speed limit zones (15 to 20 MPH) near schools and establishment criteria for adult crossing guards based on data collection and industry- standard best practices; c) Curriculum Updates: Evaluating and updating the existing bicycle safety education curriculum in PAUSD schools; and d) Evaluation: Assessing the impact of the Safe Routes to School program on improving school commute safety as well as reducing peak period congestion and related greenhouse gas emissions. An update on all of these activities has been provided below. A. Walk and Roll Maps of Suggested Routes to School Over the past four years, the Safe Routes to School Partnership worked with residents and PAUSD staff to develop new Walk and Roll maps that highlight the suggested routes to schools with consistent messaging and branding. An analysis of the walking and biking conditions at each school was conducted via observations, field surveys, and meetings with staff, parents, and neighbors. Parent input was solicited via meetings, a school district-wide survey, and school-specific requests for comments via email. Other factors included in the analysis at each school were intersection control, street walkability, and the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Also noted were unsafe driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior, as well as physical infrastructure needs. City of Palo Alto Page 7 On September 9, 2013, (ID# 4040), the council adopted the Walk and Roll maps for ten Palo Alto public schools: Addison, Walter Hays, Palo Verde, Ohlone, Barron Park, Briones, Escondido, Duveneck, Terman Middle, and Gunn High. Maps for the remaining schools are recommended for adoption this evening in CMR #6875. The Walk and Roll maps are supplemented with Safe Route to School plans for near-term signage or marking improvements and long-term capital projects. Many of the Safe Routes signage and striping projects have already been implemented, and several more are planned for 2016 and 2017. In addition to helping to prioritize infrastructure improvements along the school route corridors, the City will be able to use the maps internally to coordinate with other public infrastructure work and utilities services. B. School Safety Transportation Policies Since January 2008, California Assembly Bill (AB) 321 has allowed local jurisdictions through an ordinance or resolution to 1) extend the 25 mph speed limit in school zones from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school grounds and 2) reduce the speed limit to 15 or 20 mph up to 500 feet from the school grounds, under certain conditions. One of the intentions of the law is to enhance the safety of children walking and bicycling to school. If a vehicle is in a collision with a child, a slower moving collision will generally result in a less severe injury or the avoidance of a death. The VERBS-funded contract included analysis of existing school zones to determine which roadways would be eligible for reduced speed limits under AB 321. In addition, Alta evaluated the current siting of adult crossing guards against the placement criteria established by the City of Palo Alto and the standards established by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2012 Edition. The Alta analysis confirmed the validity of the Palo Alto crossing guard warrants and current placements. The Alta recommendations will be considered in concert with the future citywide speed survey recommendations which are being drafted this year. C. Curriculum Updates Together with City staff, Alta updated the in-class bicycle safety curriculum for the 3rd, 5th, and 6th grade bicycle safety education programs, revising teacher guides, presentation materials, videos, bike rodeo resources and parent handouts. In addition, the 6th-grade curriculum now includes the rules about riding safely without texting or wearing headphones and how to use the Walk and Roll maps to find the recommended routes to school. Another focus of this effort was to localize all the curricula to reflect infrastructure that students will encounter on their commutes. Photos of recent infrastructure improvements in Palo Alto, like green bike lanes, sharrows, and high visibility crosswalks now appear in class materials, along with photos of students participating in bike rodeos on PAUSD campuses or demonstrating safer bicycling choices on local streets. City of Palo Alto Page 8 D. Evaluation In order to gather data about commuting habits of children and the impacts of the programs, a pre- and post- Safe Routes to School activity parent survey was required by the VERBS grant, which led to the first online Safe Routes to School parent surveys in the Palo Alto Unified School district. A sample survey from Fairmeadow Elementary is attached. (See Attachment XX: 2012 Fairmeadow Parent Survey.) Following the national model for surveying parents at schools with Safe Routes programs, City staff administered a survey with the help of PAUSD. A baseline survey was conducted in the fall of 2012, and a follow-up survey was conducted in the fall of 2014. By evaluating survey results against classroom tallies and counts of parked bikes at each school (the usual methods used in Palo Alto), staff discovered that the online survey, while providing helpful data, ultimately garnered a biased sample of parents of children who tended to bike and walk more than average. Also, because many of the questions on the National Safe Routes to School survey template were geared towards communities where very few children walk or bike to school, parent frustration with the survey questions was a common refrain in the survey feedback. In addition, the skewed parent sample means that the population of parents who do not use alternative modes of transportation were underrepresented. Given the effort it took to edit and distribute the parent survey and the quality of the data generated, it is unlikely that staff will attempt additional parent surveys based on the national survey template but will instead pursue other avenues to improve data collection. The VERBS grant also included $100,000 to upgrade the City’s ability to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian volumes near schools. In the fall of 2015, the City contracted with a local IoT (internet of things) landscape computing company, VIMOC, to install sensors that enable automated bicycle and pedestrian counts along school commute routes. The networked sensors have been installed and will provide year-round bike and pedestrian count data. In addition, the availability of data that shows seasonal fluctuations will help in the development of new programs to encourage walking, biking, carpooling, and the use of transit. Staff expects that information from the sensors will be available by late spring/early summer 2016. Discussion As a result of the community outreach process around the Walk and Roll map development, City staff have been involved in an extensive amount of follow-up and engagement with the PAUSD and PTA partners and continue to work collaboratively with representatives from the schools on additional projects. For example, in order to take advantage of time-limited Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) funds, City staff successfully acquired grants valued at approximately $30,000 for PAUSD to improve on-campus bicycle parking at three schools. City staff also consults with PAUSD staff on potential infrastructure improvements on school property. Exploration of new directions for the Safe Routes to School partnership was initiated with City of Palo Alto Page 9 stakeholders on March 23rd, 2016, at a workshop held at the Downtown Library. Figure 2 summarizes areas which the group identified as places which could benefit from additional resources. Future areas for expansion include policy updates, education for students in 7th through 12th grades, improved evaluation methods, and outreach to include more health- related partners. Figure 2: SRTS Growth Areas – Suggested for Further Discussion and Implementation by the Partnership as Resources Permit Identified Issue/Task Description Web Presence - Confirm the purpose and content for the City and PTA SRTS websites- determine how best to reach potential volunteers and additional partners - Update content on the City website so that it has downloadable resources and collateral PTA Volunteer Recruitment - Engage new and existing parents with SRTS message of health, safety, and community benefits - Support PTAC in developing a sustainable Safe Routes leadership recruitment model Infrastructure Review Process - Staff to develop a rolling process to evaluate each PAUSD site, identifying issues that affect school commutes and developing potential solutions with input from PTA and PAUSD. Engage principals and key parent stakeholders at each school. Comprehensive Plan Policy Updates - Staff to identify new or modified policies and programs to support the Safe Routes to School mission and TDM goals for Palo Alto Middle School Education - Determine what additional education is needed and how it could be delivered High School Education - Currently there is no high school education. Determine what additional education is needed and how it could be delivered Parent/Adult Education - Since children learn from their parents, determine what additional education is needed and how it could be delivered General Public Education - Work to improve the habits of drivers so that they are more aware and sharing the road appropriately, not texting while driving; etc. Integration with other Transportation Programs - Further integrate SRTS with other transportation programs: Transit promotion with City Shuttle and VTA partners, carpool promotion via Scoop program, Transportation Management Association (TMA) information City of Palo Alto Page 10 Updated Policy Statements - Ensure all SRTS partners have the right policies in the right places. Consider updating SRTS mission statement and including the “Healthy Community” approach. Engage more health and wellness partners to distribute SRTS messages and develop allies to decrease barriers to active transportation. City Staff Resources - Determine if the city has adequate staff resources to support the program, given additional marketing and curriculum needs Overall Communication & Marketing - Determine which additional resources are required for improved communications, marketing, and branding for the program so that it can continue to be a national model Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, April 2016. Planning for the future of the Safe Routes to School program continues. Future tasks include refining the items listed in Figure 2, prioritizing areas for future growth, and determining what kinds of additional resources are needed. Council input on these or other growth areas is requested and will be included in partnership discussions about the future direction of the program. Policy Implications This program is consistent with key transportation goals in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, including giving priority to facilities, services, and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling, and to providing a high level of safety for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. Specific policies and programs include:  Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations, including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations.  Policy T-39: To the extent allowed by law, continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning.  Policy T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of children on school travel routes. This includes program T-45, which calls for providing adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet adopted criteria, and T-46, which encourages the City- sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools. Timeline The Safe Routes to School partnership supports an ongoing, year-round program which includes both engineering and programmatic elements. While enforcement and engineering continue year-round, school-based education, encouragement, and evaluation efforts generally occur in the fall and spring. A timeline of recently completed and upcoming infrastructure projects that reduce risk to students is included in Figure 3. These projects are financed City of Palo Alto Page 11 through various means, including the Street Maintenance Program, the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan Implementation Program, and the Safe Routes to School Program and appear in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Figure 3: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline Project School Routes to be Improved Construction Start Churchill Ave Enhanced Bikeway, Phase 0 Palo Alto HS Completed April 2016 Cowper/Coleridge High Visibility Crosswalk Walter Hays Completed April 2016 Cowper/Coleridge Traffic Circle Trial Walter Hays Spring 2016 Georgia Ave High Visibility Crosswalk and Bulb-out Terman MS Gunn HS Summer 2016 Park Blvd Early Implementation, Stanford Ave to Cambridge Ave Jordan MS Palo Alto HS Summer 2016 North California Ave 24-hour Bicycle Lanes Jordan MS Palo Alto HS Summer 2016 Garland Drive Sharrows Jordan MS Summer 2016 Middlefield Road Enhanced Bikeway Connection and Sidewalk Widening Jordan MS Palo Alto HS Summer 2016 East Meadow Drive Enhanced Bikeway Fairmeadow Hoover JLS MS Gunn HS Summer 2016 Overcrossing/Undercrossing Improvements Jordan MS Palo Alto HS Fall 2016 Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Extension Fairmeadow Hoover JLS MS Gunn HS 2017 Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard Briones Terman MS Gunn HS 2017 Park Blvd/Wilkie Way Bicycle Boulevard Barron Park Briones Terman MS Gunn HS 2017 Amarillo Ave-Moreno Ave Bicycle Boulevard El Carmelo Ohlone Palo Verde 2017 Bryant Street Bicycle Boulevard Upgrade Addison El Carmelo JLS MS Jordan MS 2017 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Palo Alto HS Gunn HS Louis Road-Montrose Ave Bicycle Boulevard Fairmeadow JLS MS Gunn HS 2017 Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard El Carmelo Ohone Palo Verde Jordan MS Gunn HS Palo Alto HS 2017 Source: Planning and Community Environment Department, April 2016. Resources The Transportation division has requested an additional 0.5 FTE position to an existing 0.5 FTE position that will support the Safe Routes program in the FY17 budget, which will bring the total number of staff dedicated to the Safe Routes program to 1.5 FTE. The Safe Routes to School CIP is currently recommended to be funded at $150,000 per year for five years (FY2017 to FY2021) for strategic investments in school route safety infrastructure, such as crosswalks, pedestrian flashing beacons, improved signage, and street markings. Environmental Review This agenda item is for the purpose of obtaining City Council input and is not a “project” requiring review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments:  Attachment A: City Council Report of October 23, 2003 - CMR 377:03 (PDF)  Attachment B: National Partnership Consensus Statement (PDF)  Attachment C: Secondary Bike Count Charts (PDF)  Attachment D: 2012 Fairmeadow Parent Survey (PDF) CMR:377:03 Page 1 of 3 TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2003 CMR:377:03 SUBJECT: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROPOSED SCHOOL COMMUTE CORRIDORS NETWORK RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that City Council officially adopt the following: 1.The proposed Palo School Commute Corridors Network (Attachment A) 2.Principles of Designation (Attachment B) 3.Applications of Designation (Attachment B) 4.Criteria for Inclusion (Attachment B) BACKGROUND The School Commute Corridors Network designates a sub-set of Palo Alto’s street system for special consideration in infrastructure improvement and travel safety enhancement. The network comprises a comprehensive and continuous system of travel routes linking residential neighborhoods to all public school sites in Palo Alto. It includes residential collector and arterial streets, existing and proposed (in the draft Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan) bicycle boulevards, off-road paths, and such residential local streets as desirable to ensure continuity of routes and direct access to each school site. The purpose of the School Commute Corridors Network is to give priority for pedestrian and bicycle fa cilities improvements, sidewalk replacement, street re-paving, and other enhancements to travel safety for the most important school commute routes. It is important to note that not all of the street segments on the proposed School Commute Corridors Network are at present optimal for school commuting. Many have intersections, for example, that are currently more challenging than may be desirable for some school age commuters. Others have prevailing traffic speeds that are too high for comfortable cycling or pedestrian crossing. Nevertheless, inclusion of such streets in a comprehensive school commute network signifies the intent to create a future continuous, comprehensive network Attachment A CMR:377:03 Page 2 of 3 of school commute routes accessible to and comfortable for a broad spectrum of school children and their parents and other caregivers. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On May 14, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended to Council the proposed Palo School Commute Corridors Network, Principles of Designation, Applications of Designation, and Criteria for Inclusion. The Commissioners recommended a clarification that preference be given to segments of the School Commute Corridors Network for consideration of undercrossings or overcrossings pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian use only, rather than for motor vehicles. RESOURCE IMPACTS The School Commute Corridors Network would be implemented solely within existing resources allocated for pedestrian and bikeway facilities maintenance and improvements, augmented as appropriate and feasible by external funding from federal, state, and regional transportation grant programs and prospective citywide traffic impact fee proceeds. Within these resource constraints, funds will be allocated for both capital improvements and on- going maintenance required of any transportation facility. It is very important to note that the main resource implication of this proposal is in potential re-prioritization of such as already on-going activities, including sidewalk replacement, street resurfacing and crosswalk enhancement projects in the Infrastructure Management Plan. School commute corridors would be given priority, where it is feasible to do so, for grant funding applications, improvements to crosswalks, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and street resurfacing. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These recommendations support and conform to Comprehensive Plan goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets” and Policies T-40: Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes”, and T-28: Make effective use of the traffic- carrying ability of Palo Alto’s major street network without compromising the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists also using this network.” Council adoption the School Commute Corridors Network comprises a statement of policy for the City of Palo Alto that principal school commute routes be given priority for public investment purposes and be accorded enhanced review as regards proposals for new commercial driveways and other street changes. CMR:377:03 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS A. The proposed Palo School Commute Corridors Network B. Principles and Applications of Designation, and Criteria for Inclusion C. May 8, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission Report D. Minutes of May 8, 2003 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting PREPARED BY: JOSEPH KOTT Chief Transportation Official DEPARTMENT HEAD:______________________________________________ STEVE EMSLIE Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:_______________________________________ EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager cc: Planning and Transportation Commission School Commute Corridors Advisory Panel Safe Routes to School National Partnership Consensus Statement   (as endorsed by the City/School Committee on January 25, 2006)  We believe it is time for a change.  The Problem  In the last 30 years we have seen a loss of mobility among our nation's children that has severely  impacted their personal health and their ability to explore their neighborhoods, even by walking or  biking to school.  Consider these facts:  Within the span of a single generation, the number of children walking and bicycling to school has dramatically declined.  In 1969, approximately 50% of children walked or biked to school, and 87%  of children living within one mile of school did.  Today, fewer than 15% of school children walk or  bike to school. (CDC)  There are more than three times as many overweight children today as there were 25 years ago.  (CDC, NHANES III) As much as 20 to 30% of morning rush hour traffic can be parents driving children to schools.  (Data from local communities) The problems are all related to the fact that many communities lack basic infrastructure ‐ sidewalks,  bike lanes, trails, pathways, and crosswalks‐and are no longer designed to encourage or allow  children to walk and bicycle safely.  Concerns about traffic, crime, and other obstacles keep children  strapped in the back seat of cars which further adds to the traffic on the road and pollution in the air.  The Solution  Communities around the country are organizing Safe Routes to School programs, which have a  common goal to make it  safe, convenient, and fun for children to walk and bicycle to and from  school like their parents did.  While each program is unique, the programs have common objectives  to:  Encourage students, families, and school staff to be physically active by walking and bicycling more often.  Make streets, sidewalks, pathways, trails, and crosswalks safe, convenient, and attractive for walking and bicycling to school. Ensure that streets around schools have an adequate number of safe places to cross and that there is safe and convenient access into the school building from adjacent sidewalks. Keep driving speeds slow near schools, on school routes, and at school crossings. Enforce all traffic laws near schools, on school routes, and in other areas of high pedestrian and bicycle activity. Locate schools within walking and bicycling distance of as many students as possible. Reduce the amount of traffic around schools Attachment B  Use trails, pathways, and non‐motorized corridors as travel routes to schools.   Provide secure bicycle parking at schools.   Teach traffic safety skill routinely in school.     Each community is unique, so every Safe Routes to School program must respond  differently.  Successful programs include some combination or all of the following approaches to  improve conditions for safe walking and bicycling:      Encouragement ‐ Using events and activities to promote walking and bicycling.   Education ‐ Teaching children about the broad range of transportation choices, instructing them in  important lifelong safety skills, and launching driver safety campaigns.   Engineering ‐ Creating operational and physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding  schools, reducing speeds, and establishing safer crosswalks and pathways.   Enforcement ‐ Partnering with local law enforcement to ensure drivers obey traffic laws, and  initiating community enforcement such as crossing guard programs   Evaluation ‐ Monitoring and researching outcomes and trends through the collection of data.  The Partnership  The Safe Routes to School National Partnership is comprised of multiple constituencies at the local,  state, and national levels.  It includes:   Parents   Students   Educators   Government officials   Business leaders   Community groups   Advocates for bicycling and walking   Law enforcement officers   Transportation, urban planning, engineering, and health professionals   Health, conservation, and safety advocates     The Safe Routes to School National Partnership works to support the development and  implementation of programs by:   Setting goals for successful implementation.   Sharing information with all interested parties.   Working to secure funding resources for Safe Routes to Schools programs.   Providing policy input to implementing agencies.   Providing training and resource materials to assist communities in starting a Safe Routes to School  program.   Illustrating the cost effectiveness of Safe Routes to School programs.   Providing training and resource materials to assist communities in starting a Safe Routes to School  program.   Illustrating the cost effectiveness of Safe Routes to School programs.   Providing a unified voice for Safe Routes to School.  Through forming the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, we call on you to join us in giving  children back the sense of freedom and responsibility that comes from walking or bicycling to and  from school.  Together, we can again provide children with the opportunity to know their  neighborhoods, enjoy fresh air and arrive at school alert, refreshed, and ready to start the day.  As  partners in the Safe Routes to Schools National Partnership, we are transforming children's lives and  their communities.       1985 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Gunn 284 180 230 166 240 252 308 447 478 600 633 671 679 750 836 811 830 Paly 553 300 220 160 160 200 234 289 273 377 433 520 582 741 787 758 805 837 845 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 PAUSDHIGHSCHOOLBIKECOUNTS,1985 2015 Gunn Paly 1985 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Gunn 20% 11% 14% 10% 14% 15% 18% 24% 25% 31% 33% 36% 36% 41% 45% 43% 44% Paly 33% 25% 15% 11% 11% 12% 14% 17% 16% 22% 26% 30% 32% 40% 42% 39% 42% 43% 43% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% PAUSDHIGHSCHOOLBIKECOUNTS(%),19852015 Gunn Paly Attachment C spr 1985 fall 1985 1991 1993 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jordan 581 420 370 273 275 290 333 358 364 361 443 495 527 546 624 736 610 633 627 JLS 298 537 290 320 290 191 241 185 200 271 280 319 351 463 456 490 512 533 584 581 Terman 150 151 190 167 210 184 199 236 253 263 275 279 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 PAUSDMIDDLESCHOOLBIKECOUNTS,19852015 Jordan JLS Terman spr 1985 fall 1985 1991 1993 1997 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Jordan 74% 61% 41% 25% 26% 29% 37% 41% 41% 40% 49% 53% 55% 56% 61% 72% 60% 57% 55% JLS 46% 49% 33% 33% 27% 16% 23% 20% 25% 34% 32% 37% 0% 38% 48% 45% 49% 51% 53% 53% 52% Terman 26% 24% 29% 25% 0% 32% 28% 31% 36% 37% 37% 38% 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% PAUSDMIDDLESCHOOLBIKECOUNTS(%),19852015 Jordan JLS Terman City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Program Parent Survey Results February 11, 2013 Attachment D Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I -1 Appendix I. Fairmeadow Elementary School Survey Results Parent Survey Results I-2 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-3 Fairmeadow Elementary School Parent Survey Report Date Collected Fall 2012 Total Surveys:122 Total Students Surveyed:184 Gender n= 184 Gender Count Percent Male 89 48% Female 95 52% Grade n= 185 Note: The 'n' for each question indicates how many respondents answered the question. For questions in the first half of the survey (questions 1 through 20, which ask the same questions for three different students), the 'n' represents all the students for which data was provided; for the second half of the survey (questions 21 through 30), the 'n' represents the number of parents who responded to the question. The questions in the second half of the survey (questions 21 through 30) have been attributed to the first student for which the parent completed the survey. The data in the second half of the survey is not cross-referenced by student for the district-wide responses, but this is reflected in what data are retained for the results by school. 10% 15% 20% 21% 20% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Kinder- garten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Pe r c e n t o f R e s p o n d e n t s Grade Parent Survey Results I-4 | Alta Planning + Design What is the approximate distance from your home to the school? n=185 Number Percent 1/4 mile or less 35 19% 1/4 - 1/2 mile 47 25% 1/2 - 1 mile 42 23% 1 -2 miles 43 23% More than 2 miles 18 10% Total 185 100% On most days, how does this student travel TO school? Mode by day of the week n=121 Day of the Week Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Monday 50 59 73 0 3 0 0 Tuesday 50 61 70 0 2 0 2 Wednesday 47 62 73 0 2 0 0 Thursday 46 55 80 0 2 0 1 Friday 47 59 76 0 2 0 0 Total trips 240 296 372 0 11 0 3 Percent of trips 26%32%40%0%1%0%0% 19% 25% 23% 23% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1/4 mile or less 1/4 - 1/2 mile 1/2 - 1 mile 1 -2 miles More than 2 miles 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Walk Bike Solo Auto – Family Car School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Nu m b e r o f T r i p s Mode Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-5 On most days, how does this student travel FROM school? n=121 Day of the Week Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Monday 40 50 81 1 13 0 0 Tuesday 40 59 72 1 13 0 0 Wednesday 39 55 75 1 14 0 0 Thursday 38 51 79 1 16 0 0 Friday 39 49 82 1 12 0 0 Total trips 196 264 389 5 68 0 0 Percent of trips 21%29%42%1%7%0%0% Mode split TO school Mode split FROM school Mode by day of the week Walk, 26% Bike, 32% Solo Auto – Family Car, 40% School Bus, 0% Carpool, 1% Public Bus/ Shuttle, 0% Other, 0% Walk, 21% Bike, 29% Solo Auto – Family Car, 42% School Bus, 1% Carpool, 7% Public Bus/ Shuttle, 0% Other, 0% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Walk Bike Solo Auto – Family Car School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Nu m b e r o f T r i p s Mode Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Parent Survey Results I-6 | Alta Planning + Design Overall mode split TO and FROM school Day of the Week Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Monday 90 109 154 1 16 0 0 Tuesday 90 120 142 1 15 0 2 Wednesday 86 117 148 1 16 0 0 Thursday 84 106 159 1 18 0 1 Friday 86 108 158 1 14 0 0 Total trips 436 560 761 5 79 0 3 Percent of trips 24%30%41%0%4%0%0% Parked bicycle count 20% Mode split for all trips Mode by frequency of trips 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Walk Bike Solo Auto – Family Car School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Nu m b e r o f T r i p s Mode Friday Thursday Wednesday Tuesday Monday Walk, 24% Bike, 30% Solo Auto – Family Car, 41% School Bus, 0% Carpool, 4% Public Bus/ Shuttle, 0% Other, 0% Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-7 Weekly trips by mode and distance from school Distance Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other 1/4 mile or less 214 55 46 0 0 0 0 1/4 - 1/2 mile 124 166 131 0 2 0 0 1/2 - 1 mile 51 117 192 2 12 0 1 1 -2 miles 24 109 233 0 18 0 3 More than 2 miles 0 75 76 0 9 0 0 Total 413 522 678 2 41 0 4 Mode split by distance from school Distance Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other 1/4 mile or less 68%17%15%0%0%0%0% 1/4 - 1/2 mile 29%39%31%0%0%0%0% 1/2 - 1 mile 14%31%51%1%3%0%0% 1 -2 miles 6%28%60%0%5%0%1% More than 2 miles 0%47%48%0%6%0%0% Total 25%31%41%0%2%0%0% Mode by distance from school 0 50 100 150 200 250 1/4 mile or less 1/4 - 1/2 mile 1/2 - 1 mile 1 -2 miles More than 2 miles Nu m b e r o f T r i p s p e r W e e k Distance from School Other Public Bus/ Shuttle Carpool School Bus Solo Auto – Family Car Bike Walk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1/4 mile or less 1/4 - 1/2 mile 1/2 - 1 mile 1 -2 miles More than 2 miles Pe r c e n t o f M o d e Distance from School Other Public Bus/ Shuttle Carpool School Bus Solo Auto – Family Car Bike Walk Parent Survey Results I-8 | Alta Planning + Design Weekly Miles Traveled by Mode Walk Bike Solo Auto School Bus Carpools Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Morning Trips 76 268 504 1 54 0 2 Afternoon Trips 67 230 396 0 28 0 4 All Trips 144 497 900 1 81 0 5 Percent of Total Mileage 9%31%55%0%5%0%0% How strongly do you agree with the following statements? Biking/Walking to school is… a. n=100 b. n=98 c. n=98 d. n=96 Note:This analysis uses the mode frequency by respondent and assumes the median of the distance from school categories or the respondent-provided 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 a …fun for my student (s) b …important for my student's health c …encouraged by my student's school d …something I wish we did more often Nu m b e r o f R e s p o n s e s Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral/ No Opinion Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Walk Bike Solo Auto – Family Car School Bus Carpool Public Bus/ Shuttle Other Mi l e s Mode Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-9 Yes No In-Class Pedestrian and Bike Safety Education 40%60% Bicycle Rodeos 52%48% Bicycling Education for Parents 50%50% Walk and Roll to School Days 39%61% School Pool program 33%67% Informal Walkpool, Bikepool, or Carpool 46%54% Have you or your child(ren) participated in the following Safe Routes to School events/programs? If you participated in any of the above Safe Routes to School events/programs, did your student(s) walk, bike, or carpool more often after participating? Note: Includes responses from respondents who previously indicated that they had participated in the specific program. 57% 32% 23% 80% 12% 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% In-Class Pedestrian and Bike Safety Education Bicycle Rodeos Bicycling Education for Parents Walk and Roll to School Days Schoolpool Program* Informal Walkpool, Bikepool, or Carpool * Organized walking, biking, or carpooling with other families. 40% 52% 50% 39% 33% 46% 60% 48% 50% 61% 67% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In-Class Pedestrian and Bike Safety Education Bicycle Rodeos Bicycling Education for Parents Walk and Roll to School Days School Pool program Informal Walkpool, Bikepool, or Carpool Yes No Parent Survey Results I-10 | Alta Planning + Design Yes No In-Class Pedestrian and Bike Safety Education 33%67% Bicycle Rodeos 56%44% Bicycling Education for Parents 55%45% Walk and Roll to School Days 31%69% School Pool program 36%64% Informal Walkpool, Bikepool, or Carpool 46%54% If you have participated in any of the above the Safe Routes to School events/programs, do you drive yourself or your student(s) less often for non-school trips? At what grade level would you allow your student to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? 1% 2% 1% 10% 20% 18% 20% 9% 1% 5% 3% 0% 1% 8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Kinder- garten 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 None* 33% 56% 55% 31% 36% 46% 67% 44% 45% 69% 64% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% In-Class Pedestrian and Bike Safety Education Bicycle Rodeos Bicycling Education for Parents Walk and Roll to School Days School Pool program Informal Walkpool, Bikepool, or Carpool Yes No * I would not feel comfortable at any grade Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-11 Do the following concerns limit your student's ability to walk or bike to/from school? Showing percent of "yes" responses compared to "no" responses Yes No Total 33 56 89 33 59 92 28 61 89 51 39 90 38 48 86 47 45 92 47 46 93 32 57 89 13 75 88 21 69 90 40 52 92 15 71 86 7 78 85 53 36 89 18 66 84 49 40 89 3 81 84 6 0 6 Stranger danger (fear of child abduction) Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather Don't know best route to school Other Lack of bike lanes or bike paths Unsafe intersections No crossing guards Lack of bike parking at school Too far from school Driving is more convenient Walking/biking takes too long Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Child's before or after school activities Child has too much to carry Speeding traffic along route Too much traffic along route No adults to walk or bike with 37% 36% 31% 57% 44% 51% 51% 36% 15% 23% 43% 17% 8% 60% 21% 55% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Too far from school Driving is more convenient Walking/biking takes too long Child's before or after school activities Child has too much to carry Speeding traffic along route Too much traffic along route No adults to walk or bike with Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Lack of bike lanes or bike paths Unsafe intersections No crossing guards Lack of bike parking at school Stranger danger (fear of child abduction) Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather Don't know best route to school Parent Survey Results I-12 | Alta Planning + Design Showing percent of "yes" responses compared to "no" responses Yes No Not Sure Total 34 20 12 66 29 24 13 66 33 21 11 65 39 22 9 70 34 18 11 63 43 12 10 65 44 13 10 67 40 16 8 64 33 18 10 61 35 19 8 62 47 14 7 68 37 19 7 63 30 19 9 58 46 16 10 72 33 22 8 63 31 22 8 61 22 23 11 56 7 0 0 7 Don't know best route to school Other Would you allow your student(s) to walk/bike more often if this concern was addressed? Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather No adults to walk or bike with Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Stranger danger (fear of child abduction) Lack of bike parking at school Too far from school Lack of bike lanes or bike paths Child's before or after school activities Child has too much to carry Driving is more convenient Walking/biking takes too long Speeding traffic along route Too much traffic along route Unsafe intersections No crossing guards 52% 44% 51% 56% 54% 66% 66% 63% 54% 56% 69% 59% 52% 64% 52% 51% 39% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Too far from school Driving is more convenient Walking/biking takes too long Child's before or after school activities Child has too much to carry Speeding traffic along route Too much traffic along route No adults to walk or bike with Lack of sidewalks and/or paths Lack of bike lanes or bike paths Unsafe intersections No crossing guards Lack of bike parking at school Stranger danger (fear of child abduction) Violence/crime in neighborhood Bad weather Don't know best route to school Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Alta Planning + Design | I-13 n=4609 Are you interested in participating in any of the following Safe Routes to School activities? I would reduce the number of times I drive my student(s) to school if… 5 7 6 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Volunteer for student events and contests Organize a neighborhood Walking School Bus or Bike Train Help identify traffic safety issues at schools Help with a Walk and Bike to School Day 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% My student wanted to make "greener" choices My student wanted to walk/bike to improve their health My student wanted to compete for prizes in contests My student knew how to walk and bike safely Transit/school buses better served my student's school It was easier to coordinate with other parents/kids Parent Survey Results I-14 | Alta Planning + Design This page intentionally left blank. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6892) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Special Orders of the Day Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Proclamation Honoring Kathy Durham Title: Proclamation of the City Council Honoring Kathy Durham From: City Manager Lead Department: City Clerk Attachments:  Attachment A: Proclamation Honoring Kathy Durham (DOCX) Proclamation KATHY DURHAM Whereas, Kathy Durham proposed endorsement of the 2005 National Safe Routes to School Partnership Consensus Statement by the Palo Alto Council of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA), City Council and Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board of Education, which launched the Safe Routes to School Partnership to “reduce risk to students en route to and from school and to encourage more families to use alternatives to solo driving more often;” and Whereas, Kathy Durham spearheaded PTA advocacy to urge the Palo Alto City Council to provide bicycle safety education, laying the groundwork for the eventual Safe Routes to School Partnership; and Whereas, as a volunteer and City employee, Kathy led the continual effort to find age-appropriate bicycle safety curriculum that addressed the causes of the most common kinds of collisions, which became the standard for middle school bike safety content across Santa Clara County; and Whereas, Kathy Durham was a lead and contributing author of studies that led to school commute safety improvements and to the Board of Education’s inclusion of safe bike and pedestrian access; and Whereas, working with the PTA and PAUSD, Kathy Durham added Encouragement to the School Traffic Safety Toolkit, promoting green transportation choices in the Fall and Spring at all PAUSD schools; and Whereas, Kathy Durham initiated the Pedestrian Safety Program for Kindergarten through second grade, collaborated with the Police Chief on an annual parent education letter, coordinated adult bicycle safety education classes and served on the organizing committee for Bike Palo Alto!, a community event celebrating bicycling for all; and Whereas, in recognition of her 27 years of service to Palo Alto, Kathy received the Bicycle Agency Staff Person of the Year Award from the League of American Bicyclists and was the first recipient of this award. Now, Therefore, I, Patrick Burt, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the City Council do hereby proclaim appreciation to Kathy Durham for her service to Palo Alto’s children and families. Presented: May 2, 2016 ______________________________ Patrick Burt Mayor CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK May 2, 2016 The Honorable City Council Attention: Finance Committee Palo Alto, California Approval of Action Minutes for the April 18, 2016 Council Meeting Staff is requesting Council review and approve the attached Action Minutes. ATTACHMENTS:  Attachment A: 04-18-16 DRAFT Action Minutes (DOC) Department Head: Beth Minor, City Clerk Page 2 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting April 18, 2016 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:02 P.M. Present: Berman arrived at 6:24 P.M., Burt, DuBois, Filseth, Holman, Kniss, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Scharff Closed Session 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. 1A. 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 1. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Council Member Filseth to go into Closed Session for Agenda Item Number 1. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Scharff absent MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to go into Closed Session for Agenda Item Number 1A. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Berman, Scharff absent DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 2 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/18/16 Council went into Closed Session at 5:03 P.M. Council returned from Closed Session at 6:23 P.M. Mayor Burt announced no reportable action. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Minutes Approval 2. Approval of Action Minutes for the April 4, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Berman to approve the Action Minutes for the April 4, 2016 Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Consent Calendar MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman, third by Council Member Schmid to pull Agenda Item Number 3- Approval of the Concept Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements… to be heard at a date uncertain. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Council Member Holman to approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-9. 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 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 3 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/18/16 $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. Resolution 9582 Entitled, “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto 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, 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. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Action Items 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. MOTION: Mayor Burt moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Adopt a goal of 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2030, calculated utilizing the 1990 baseline; and DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 4 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/18/16 B. Direct Staff to return within two months with a process for integration of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) with the Comprehensive Plan Update; and C. Support the general framework of the S/CAP; and D. Support the S/CAP Guiding Principles, which are to be reviewed and formally adopted within six months. MOTION PASSED: 8-0 Scharff absent Council took a break from 9:40 P.M. to 9:48 P.M. 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. Council Member Schmid advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item because he owns real property within the proposed Single-Story Overlay. Council Member Wolbach advised he would not be participating in this Agenda Item because he owns real property within the proposed Single- Story Overlay. Council Members Schmid and Wolbach left the meeting at 9:50 P.M. DRAFT ACTION MINUTES Page 5 of 5 City Council Meeting Draft Action Minutes: 4/18/16 Public Hearing opened at 10:02 P.M. Public Hearing continued to May 2, 2016. Inter-Governmental Legislative Affairs None. Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Council Member Holman reported her attendance at the Cooley Landing ribbon cutting in East Palo Alto on Saturday. The event was well attended, including by numerous elected officials. On Sunday, she attended the Magical Bridge Playground’s first anniversary event. The Magical Bridge Foundation has been formed to support the Playground. Council Member Holman joined close to 600 families at the 11th Annual Blossom Birth and Family Fair on Sunday. Council Member DuBois requested an update from the Local Transportation Funding Committee. Mayor Burt advised that polling results will be shared with the Council. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 11:54 P.M. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6811) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of 2257 Bryant St. Insurance Settlement Title: Approval of the Final Fire Insurance Settlement and Payment to Frank Benest for his Ownership Interest for Property Located at 2257 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California and Approval an Amendment to the Budget in the General Fund From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a pro-rata payment of $205,144.31 plus accrued interest to Mr. Frank Benest from a State Farm Insurance Company settlement. Council has previously authorized the insurance settlement and this related disbursement to Mr. Benest is based on his pro-rate ownership interest in property located at 2257 Bryant Street Palo Alto, California which was damaged in a fire. 2) Amend the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Appropriation Ordinance for the General Fund by: a. Increase the Administrative Services revenue estimate for Other Revenue in the amount of $2,336,704; b. Increase the Administrative Services appropriation in the amount of $285,792; and c. Increase the Budget Stabilization Reserve in the amount of $2,050,912. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is seeking Council approval for the final insurance settlement involving the May 3, 2014 fire which severely damaged property located at 2257 Bryant Street in Palo Alto. The City co- owned this property with Frank Benest, Palo Alto’s City Manager from February 2000 through August 2008. The City and Mr. Benest are co-listed on the property insurance policy. The property was purchased jointly on June 27, 2001 to be used as the primary residence of the City Manager. Presently, the equity ownership of the property consists of 56.8% by the City and 43.2% by Frank Benest and Pamela S. Grady, Co –Trustee of the Benest & Grady Family Trust dated November 13, 1990. City of Palo Alto Page 2 During the past two years, City staff and Mr. Benest worked together to negotiate with State Farm Insurance Company to settle the amount due for the fire damages and evaluated alternatives as to repair and rebuild the structure, sell the property as is or demolish the structure and sell as a single family lot parcel. Mr. Benest and the City agreed to the State Farm settlement in the amount $562,106.18. The property was listed and sold as a single family lot for $2.7 million. The proceeds from the sale of the property were distributed in escrow based on the percentages of ownership by the City and Mr. Benest. The net proceeds from payments from the insurance company for fire damages are being held in a City interest bearing account to be divided based on ownership percentages to complete the settlement with Mr. Benest. BACKGROUND The City of Palo Alto and Frank Benest are joint owners of the property located at 2257 Bryant Street. The City’s recent practice has been to provide a housing subsidy as part of the City Manager’s compensation because the City Charter requires the City Manager to live in Palo Alto. The property was purchased by Frank Benest on June 27, 2001 for his primary residence. Mr. Benest and his family were living on the property until a major house fire severely damaged the property on May 3, 2014. Since the occurrence, City staff has worked with Mr. Benest, the insurance company, contractors, an architect, a structural engineer, and real estate consultants toward the clean-up, rehabilitation, and development of architectural and structural plans, in order to reach a settlement with the insurance company and evaluate alternatives for the use of the property. Additional background information can be found via City Manager Reports 4963, 5891, and 6375. On December 14, 2015, City Council approved the fire insurance settlement and approved the sale of the property to the highest and most qualified bidder. The damaged structure was demolished and the property was sold for $2.7 million. The final settlement amount from State Farm Insurance Company after significant negotiation was $562,106.18. The related expenses totaled to $87,235.08. The net amount is to be divided between the City and Mr. Benest based on ownership rights is $474,871.10 which is held in a City deposit account. (See Attachment A: Insurance payment and expense records) DISCUSSION After Council’s approval of the insurance settlement and sale of the property, the City and Mr. Benest considered the following options for the property: Option A: Rebuild the house as it was before the fire with required Building Code updates Option B: Sell the Property “as is” Option C: Demolish the structure and market the property as a Single Family lot After evaluating the pros and cons of each approach, it was decided that the best course of action was option C. This alternative provided a single family lot in a desirable location of the city and it allowed the purchaser to design and build a new home. The remaining structure was demolished and the property was listed on December 15, 2015 with Dreyfus Sotheby’s City of Palo Alto Page 3 International Realty for $2,495,000. Three offers were received, the best one was selected and final sale price of $2.7 million cash was agreed by all parties. The escrow was closed on March 18, 2016. The City received a net payment in the amount of $1,455,900.72 and an existing loan on the property from the City to Mr. Benest in the amount of $325,284.28 was paid off. (Note Attachment B: Sellers Final Closing Statement) The final State Farm settlement offer equaled $562,106.18. This amount included: clean up and repair expenses such as roof work, asbestos abatement, and costs for rebuilding the structure which incorporate code upgrades, a dwelling extension (garage), landscaping and City permit expenses. The expenses totaled $87,235.08. The net remainder amount of $474,871.10 is to be divided between the City and Mr. Benest based on their percentage ownership of the property. This results in the payment of $205,144.31 plus accrued interest to Mr. Benest. The remainder of the payment will be retained by the City. RESOURCE IMPACT The original equity investment in 2001 totaled $900,000 and the loan from the City to Mr. Benest was for $500,000 for a grand total of $1,400,000. The proceeds from the sale and insurance settlement total $2,050,912. The net return on this investment equals $650,912. The proceeds of $2,050,912 are recommended to be allocated to the Budget Stabilization Reserve and staff will return to Council with future Council for direction on the use of these funds. The final disbarment of funds from fire damage payment will settle all claims by the City of Palo Alto and Mr. Benest regarding this property. City has received the following from the sale and insurance payments Revenues Proceeds from the Sale of Property $1,455,901 Loan Repayment $325,284 Insurance Proceeds* $555,519 Total Revenues $2,336,704 Expenses Mr. Frank Benest Insurance settlement ($205,145) Property Clean-up Expenses* ($80,647) Total Expenses ($285,792) Budget Stabilization Reserve $2,050,912 *Both Insurance Proceeds and Property Expenses are slightly lower than noted in the discussion above as $6,588 in property clean-up costs were paid directly by State Farm Insurance and deducted from the final This action will increase the current FY 2016 Budget Stabilization Reserve to $39.0 million or 21.0% of the FY 2016 Adopted Budget expenditures. Staff plans to bring forward recommendations as part of the Fiscal Year 2017 Proposed Budget process on the use of these funds. City of Palo Alto Page 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation is consistent with Council direction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW None required Attachments:  Attachment A: Insurance Payments and Expense Records (XLSX)  Attachment B: Seller Final Closing Statement_March 2016 (PDF) ATTACHMENT A Revenue and Payment Transactions Expenses Revenue Revenues Payment from State Farm (check number 1 02 694288 J) 1*$52,285.52 Payment from State Farm (check number 1 02 804461 J) 2*$435,635.65 Payment from State Farm (check number 1 02 097388 J) 3*$55,613.45 Payment from state Farm (check numbee 1 02 141559 J) 4*$11,983.83 Interest for the funds in the account Expenses /Payments Ward-Tek (Inv. #34063) $15,431.86 Alliance (Inv. #80899)$30,118.66 Boudreau Plumbing and Heating (Inv. #09-27809)$1,003.00 Protera (Inv # 74746) $375.00 Protera (Inv. #73443) Limited Survey, Site Visit Report, Bulk Asbestos Analysis $735.00 De Jesus and Alatorre Architects, INC (Inv. # 1527)$3,172.00 Alliance (inovice 82256) $394.47 Zonning Plan Check $1,096.00 Building Plan Check Fee $2,922.68 De Jesus and Alatorre Architects, INC (Inv. # 1600)$9,513.68 Fee for Buidling permit $0.00 Genuit Builders $385.00 Demoliton Permit Paid to City Dev Center $532.00 Demoliton Cost paid to Peninsula Demoltion $14,968.00 Total $80,647.35 $555,518.45 Balance in the Account $474,871.10 City's Proceed (City's Ownership Equity Percentage 56.8)$269,726.78 Frank Benest proceed (Frank Benest's Ownership Equity Percentage 43.2%)$205,144.32 Cost Center (for deposits) 47100000 Account 60560 Jon Crase construction Inc (invocie Number 11462) (was paid by State Farm) $522.50 Serve Pro (check number 1 02 694272 J) (was paid by State Farm)$6,065.23 2257 Bryant Street, Palo Alto Frank Benest & City of Palo Alto - Revenue and Payment Charges for Project: PF-15005-080 ATTACHMENT A *All expenses/payments in the total amount of $80,647.35 were paid from revenue lines 1 through 4. Total Payments including two payments that were paid dircly by State Farm $562,106.18 Total expenses including two invoices that were paid dircly by State Farm $87,235.08 Net Proceed to be Divided between Mr. Benest and CPA $474,871.10 Chicago Title Company 917 Alma St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650)324-1984 | FAX: (650)327-7918 FINAL SELLER'S STATEMENT Settlement Date:Escrow Number:CSC-2989-FWPS-2989151433March 18, 2016 Disbursement Date:Escrow Officer:March 18, 2016 Tobi Langford The Qimera Trust U/T/D June 16, 2004Buyer: The Survivor's Trust, established under the Benest and Grady Family Trust UTA dated 11/13/90Seller: 2257 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Decedent's Trust, established under the Benest and Grady Family Trust UTA dated 11/13/90 Seller: 2257 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 The City of Palo AltoSeller: 250 Hamilton Avenue, 4th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Property:2257 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Parcel ID(s): 124-14-021 DEBITS CREDITS$$ FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION Sale Price of Property 2,700,000.00 PRORATIONS/ADJUSTMENTS 03/18/16 to 07/01/16 5,083.44($8,883.69 / 180 X 103 days)County Taxes/124-14-021 at $8,883.69 COMMISSIONS Commission - Listing Agent Dreyfus Sotheby's International Realty 60,750.00 $2,700,000.00 @ 2.2500% = $60,750.00 Commission - Selling Agent Alain Pinel Realtors 67,500.00 $2,700,000.00 @ 2.5000% = $67,500.00 TITLE & ESCROW CHARGES Title - Escrow Fee Chicago Title Company 1,700.00 Title - Notary Janine Dietiker 60.00 Title - Special Courier Fee Chicago Title Company 43.00 Title - Mobile Signing Service Rhett Butler 125.00 Title - Owner's Title Insurance Chicago Title Company 4,151.00 Policies to be issued: Owners Policy Premium: $4,151.00Version: ALTA Homeowner's Policy of Title Insurance 2013 Coverage: $2,700,000.00 RECORDING CHARGES Santa Clara County Transfer Tax ($2,970.00) Chicago Title Company 2,970.01 Palo Alto City Transfer Tax ($8,910.00)Chicago Title Company 4,455.00 PAYOFFS Payoff of First Mortgage Loan ($325,631.42) City of Palo Alto 325,284.28Principal Balance Additional Interest (From 03/01/16 To 03/18/16 @ $20.420000 Per Diem) 347.14 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Natural Hazard Diclosure JCP-LGS Natural Hazard Disclosures 123.95 Seller Proceeds 56.80%The City of Palo Alto 1,455,900.72 Seller Proceeds 8.748%The Survivor's Trust, established under the Benest 158,288.85 Seller Proceeds 34.452%The Decedent's Trust, established under the Benest 623,384.49 Subtotals 2,705,083.44 2,705,083.44 TOTALS 2,705,083.44 2,705,083.44 Page 1 of 2 (FWPS-2989151433/54) March 18, 2016 1:16 PM PCERTIFIED COPY ATTACHMENT B FINAL SELLER'S STATEMENT - Continued Chicago Title Company, Settlement Agent THIS IS A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT(S) BY CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY SAVE THIS STATEMENT FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES Page 2 of 2 (FWPS-2989151433/54) March 18, 2016 1:16 PM PCERTIFIED COPY ATTACHMENT B City of Palo Alto (ID # 6852) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval Contract Amendment for CAO Evaluations Title: Approval of Amendment Number One to Contract Number C15159225 in the Amount of $60,000 with Municipal Resource Group for Council Appointed Officers Evaluations to add Services and Increase the Total Amount Not-to-Exceed From $123,000 to $183,000 From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council adopt Amendment One to Contract C15159225 with Municipal Resources Group (MRG) to add $50,000 to Year 1, $5,000 to Year 2, and $5,000 to Year 3 for annual Council Appointed Officers (CAO) performance evaluations for a new not to exceed amount of $183,000 through June 15, 2018. Staff also recommends a transfer of $20,000 from the City Council contingency account to the City Council Department Budget to provide funding, in addition to $30,000 from the Council department budget, for the costs associated with these activities. Background On June 15, 2015 Council approved Contract C15159225 with Municipal Resources Group to conduct evaluations for the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, and City Clerk. The scope of services authorized MRG to prepare a questionnaire, conduct interviews, prepare reports, facilitate discussions, prepare summaries and review options for compensation. Prior to the contract with MRG, Council used the services of Sherry Lund & Associates. That firm’s service dated back to 2008 with the contract ending on June 30, 2015. On June 15, 2015, Council, based on recommendations from the CAO Committee, entered into a three-year contract with MRG. Discussion As noted in previous staff reports, CAO performance evaluation are a critical tool for assessing employee performance and ensuring that staff is meeting City Council priorities and objectives. Due to the facilitation needs amongst nine City Council members, four CAO’s, and the CAO Committee, the use of an outside consultant has increased efficiency and saved the City costs. City of Palo Alto Page 2 When the original agreement with MRG was negotiated it was anticipated that tools, methodology and the approach MRG uses in other jurisdictions would be used with the City of Palo Alto. As MRG began work with City Council and the Council Appointed Officers, a more tailored approach was desired including development and administration of a customized Direct Report Questionnaire which included qualitative feedback. This approach required development of the questionnaire, extensive meetings with key stakeholders and administration and analysis of qualitative comments and feedback. In addition, when MRG originally submitted their proposal to facilitate the evaluations it had not anticipated conducting a compensation review. Further, due to delays in the start of the initial contract with MRG, much of the evaluation process fell during the preplanned City Council summer break causing additional time to schedule meetings with all City Council members. As a result of the unanticipated work and the addition of compensation review the proposed amendments are required during the three year agreement. Resource Impact Partial funding of $30,000 is available in the City Council department budget. The remaining $20,000 for Year 1, if approved by Council, will be transferred from the City Council Contingency. Year 2 and Year 3 costs will be appropriated as part the Fiscal Year 2017 and 2018 annual budget process. Attachments:  Contract C15159225 Amendment No. 1 with MRG (PDF) 1 Revision April 28, 2014 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. C15159225 BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C15159225 (“Contract”) is entered into April 18, 2016, by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation (“CITY”), and MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, located at 675 Hartz Avenue, Suite 300, Danville, California, 94526 ("CONSULTANT"). R E C I T A L S A. The Contract was entered into between the parties for the provision of the development of a performance evaluation process and to conduct evaluations for four Council appointed officials. B. CITY intends to increase compensation from $123,000.00 by $60,000.00 to $183,000.00 for continuation and addition of services 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 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 One Hundred Eighty Three Thousand Dollars ($183,000.00). The applicable rates and schedule of payment are set out at Exhibit “C-1”, entitled “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 2. 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 “C” entitled “COMPENSATION”. DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C 2 Revision April 28, 2014 SECTION 3. 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: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE GROUP, LLC Attachments: EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C Partner 3 Revision April 28, 2014 EXHIBIT “A” SCOPE OF SERVICES Project Introduction: The City of Palo Alto is seeking to engage a consultant working directly for the City Council to facilitate the annual performance evaluations and compensation adjustment process for its four Council appointed officials (CAO’s), City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and City Auditor. Project Background: The City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney and City Auditor are appointed directly by the City Council and, as such, are reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis in accordance with their individual employment agreements. Such review is necessary in order for Council members to ensure the efficiency of the appointed offices, to provide general feedback on their performance, to set goals for the coming year, and to identify areas of improvement. It is also necessary to review compensation to ensure that the positions are paid appropriately in comparison to the market and their performances. Scope of Work: A. Preparation of Questionnaire: Working with the Council CAO Committee (four members of the City Council) and the CAO’s, Consultant will prepare a questionnaire to be used for interviews. The questionnaires will be distributed to Council Members to fill out a week in advance of their scheduled interview/meeting with the Consultant. The questionnaires shall be designed to be a tool to summarize Council Members’ estimation of the CAO’s attainment of specific goals, as well as their performance in general areas such as communication; key relationships between the CAO and the Council, staff, public, CITY committees and commissions and other government agencies; as appropriate; specific work priorities such as budget, public relations, program management and employee relations; as well as general comment on the CAO’s performance of their duties. B. Conduct Interviews, Prepare Report, Facilitate Discussion, Prepare Summary: CONSULTANT will interview each of the (9) Council Members individually, using the interview questionnaire to gather input and evaluation of CAO performance. CONSULTANT will also interview each CAO to gather their estimation of their performance, achievements and ability to meet their established goals and performance objectives. CONSULTANT will consolidate information from all interviews and prepare a written evaluation/report, which will first be reviewed with the Council CAO Committee and then presented to the entire Council in closed session. After presentation of the evaluation/reports, CONSULTANT will facilitate Council discussion of the results of the interviews and input. CONSULTANT will then facilitate discussion of the evaluation report between each CAO and the Council. C. Review Options for Compensation: DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C 4 Revision April 28, 2014 Prior to conducting the above performance evaluations, the CONSULTANT will research salary survey information and comparisons with salaries in surrounding agencies for each of the CAO positions and review survey results with the CITY’s Human Resource Director. The CONSULTANT will use this information to work with the Council CAO Committee on compensation options to be proposed to the Council and CAO’s. After facilitating the performance evaluation meetings with the Council, CONSULTANT will meet with each CAO to de-brief on Council discussion, and to discuss compensation considerations. The Council CAO Committee will make its salary adjustment recommendations to the full Council. The CONSULTANT will be available as a resource at the meeting with the full Council. The CONSULTANT will also be available as a resource for the Council CAO Committee in its negotiations with individual CAO’s. The CONSULTANT will prepare a complete file for each of the evaluations, including compensation recommendations and actions, for the permanent CITY record. AMENDMENT NO. 1 CONSULTANT to provide the following services: - Create customized Direct Report Questionnaire to include qualitative feedback - Conduct additional meetings with key stakeholders and administer and analyze qualitative questionnaire - Conduct compensation review/study each year of the contract DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C 5 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. The compensation to be paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement for all services described in Exhibit “A” (“Basic Services”) and reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $183,000.00. CONSULTANT agrees to complete all Basic 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. CONSULTANT shall perform the tasks and categories of work as outlined and budgeted below. The CITY’s project manager may approve in writing the transfer of budget amounts between any of the tasks or categories listed below provided the total compensation for Basic Services, including reimbursable expenses, does not exceed $183,000.00. BUDGET SCHEDULE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT Task 1 (Year 1) $90,000.00 City Manager, City Clerk, City Auditor & City Attorney Performance Evaluation Task 2 (Year 2) $45,000.00 City Manager, City Clerk, City Auditor & City Attorney Performance Evaluation Task 3 (Year 3) $45,000.00 City Manager, City Clerk, City Auditor & City Attorney Performance Evaluation Sub-total Basic Services $180,000.00 Reimbursable Expenses $3,000.00 DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C 6 Revision April 28, 2014 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $183,000.00 Maximum Total Compensation $183,000.00 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: A. Travel outside the San Francisco Bay area, including transportation and meals, will be reimbursed at actual cost subject to the City of Palo Alto’s policy for reimbursement of travel and meal expenses for City of Palo Alto employees. B. Long distance telephone service charges, cellular phone service charges, facsimile transmission and postage charges are reimbursable at actual cost. All requests for payment of expenses shall be accompanied by appropriate backup information. Any expense anticipated to be more than $500.00 shall be approved in advance by the CITY’s project manager. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall provide additional services only by advanced, written authorization from the CITY. The CONSULTANT, at the CITY’s project manager’s request, shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT’s proposed maximum compensation, including reimbursable expense, for such services based on the rates set forth in Exhibit C-1. The additional services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY’s 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: 7B490F6F-9B1A-449C-9CA8-6A77E84B325C City of Palo Alto (ID # 6869) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Joint Truck Purchase with Mountain View Fire Department Title: Approval of a Contract for the Joint Purchase, Maintenance and use of a Tractor Drawn Trailer Aerial Ladder Truck With the City of Mountain View Fire, With a Purchase Amount Not-to-exceed $630,543 From: City Manager Lead Department: Fire Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council approve and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with the City of Mountain View for the joint purchase, maintenance, and use of a tractor drawn aerial ladder truck, including a purchase amount not to exceed $630,543.09 over three fiscal years, and an agreement to share in maintenance cost and use for fifteen years. Executive Summary The reserve ladder truck shared by the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFD) and Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) has reached the end of its service life and needs replacement. Since 1997, the PAFD and MVFD have shared a reserve, ladder truck. The cost of the apparatus and maintenance are equally split between both agencies. The reserve ladder truck is used when either PAFD or MVFD’s frontline ladder truck is out of service for maintenance or repairs. Ladder trucks have a service life of 15 to 20 years. The current reserve ladder truck, originally scheduled for replacement in 2013, no longer meets the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines and safety standards. Further, the truck does not meet California and Federal emissions standards. Background Ladder trucks are an integral part of firefighting and rescue operations in jurisdictions such as the City of Palo Alto and Mountain View that serve suburban and urban City of Palo Alto Page 2 populations. Ladder trucks serve many unique purposes that cannot be replaced with alternate apparatus without increasing a life safety risk to the community and firefighters and an increased risk for property destruction. Public safety and insurance industry organizations make recommendations or establish benchmarks for fire department service levels, including types of apparatus, to sustain communities. One major issue the fire service has struggled with is defining levels of service. To address this situation, the International City Managers Association (ICMA) and the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) formed the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). The Insurance Services Office (ISO) measures fire department’s capabilities and sets a Public Protection Classification which insurance premiums are based upon. One key tool in establishing apparatus and service levels is the Standards of Cover (SOC). The SOC evaluates a community’s unique risks using objective, scientific measurements and nationally accepted standards. This comprehensive approach allows the City to match local need (risks and community expectations) with the costs of this service level. Using this information, policymakers can “purchase” the fire and emergency protection (insurance) the community needs and can afford. This includes community defined expectations of service including fire suppression, basic and advanced rescue where the unique features of a ladder truck are especially needed. On emergencies where a ladder truck is needed, if it arrives too late, or not at all, the emergency will continue to escalate drawing more resources into a losing battle. A ladder truck must, if its equipment and crew are to save lives and limit property damage, arrive within a short period of time with adequate resources to do the job. In order to maintain the continuity of protection, timely ladder truck service should be maintained. In 1997 PAFD and MVFD agreed to purchase, operate and maintain one reserve ladder truck to support both departments. This was initiated to lower costs to both agencies while maintaing constant ladder truck service. The original contract expired in 2012, and due to the effectiveness and success of the innovative idea of sharing a aerial ladder truck, both PAFD and MVFD Fire Chiefs requested to continue the shared arrangement. Originally, this ladder truck was scheduled to be replaced in Fiscal Year (FY) 13/14. In the most recent year, the resrve ladder truck was used 56 days, or 15% of the year, by both PAFD and MVFD. Going forward, this reserve ladder truck usage should be expected to remain the same as both PAFD and MVFD operate frontline ladder trucks that are less than five years old. In the original contract, MVFD agreed to store the truck at their fire station. Palo Alto agreed to have their mechanics provide maintenance on the shared ladder truck. In the City of Palo Alto Page 3 new agreement, MVFD agreed to store and maintain the ladder truck, and the PAFD will reimburse MVFD for half the cost of maintenance and repairs. This will allow Palo Alto mechanics to have more time working on PAFD units. In the most recent reported year, it cost $27,601 to maintain and operate the reserve ladder truck. This cost was equally split beteween Mountain View and Palo Alto. Going forward, it is expected that this cost will be less as the replacement ladder truck is new and will be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. This truck will replace a 1998 Spartan Aerial Ladder Truck. In addition to cost savings, there are supplemental advantages for replacing the current shared ladder truck: Shared equipment, maintenance, and hundreds of reduced work-hours related to writing specifications and bidding. Increase rescue and elevated firefighting abilities with a longer ladder; the reach increases from 75 feet to 100 feet e.g. the new Stanford University Hospital and Palo Alto Veterans Affairs Hospital present challenges for the current shared ladder truck. Increase the capabilities of a quick offensive all-risk fire attack and ventilation. It will be able to store additional equipment for vehicle extrication, technical rescue operations and water evacuation. Currently, the shared truck cannot accommodate the full cache of equipment on the frontline unit. Consequently, some tools are not available while the current shared truck is in service. The tractor drawn truck will allow better maneuverability in narrow and dense streets and neighborhoods. In 2014, PAFD and MVFD dropped borders and regulary respond to emergencies in each others jurisdiction. Whichever unit is closer to the emergency responds which has reduced respone times in the boundry drop area by 51 seconds per call. Now that PAFD and MVFD are working together more frequently it is essential that we are accustomed to utilizing the same tools on an emergency. The joint purchase and operational improvements have demonstrated the effectiveness of regionalization and collaboration. And, as a result, PAFD and MVFD commonly cunsult each other when purchasing other equipment for uniformity when responding to emergencies. This purchase is being conducted using a piggyback purchasing process. The ladder truck will be acquired using the specifications for a competitively bid contract issued by the City of San Jose Fire Department (SJFD). SJFD awarded Pierce Manufacturing the contract as the lowest responsible bidder. Additionally, the City of Mountain View has taken the lead for all transactions related to the purchasing of this vehicle. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Impact The total amount of $630,543.09 will be paid incrementally over three fiscal years: 1.May of FY 2016: $303,540.09 2.November of FY 2017: $151,770.13 3.September of FY 2018: $175,232.72 Currently there is $472,311 designated for the reserve truck in the fleet replacement fund. This is sufficient to cover the first two payments. The last payment in FY 18 will be paid out of the Fire Department’s Operating Budget or an alternative funding mechanism. If this request is not approved, both Palo Alto and Mountain View would have to purchase a ladder truck separately to utilize whenever the frontline truck is out of service. The financial impacts to each agency would likely double the cost of the ladder truck. Policy Implications Authorization does not represent any change in policy Environmental Review The approval of this contract is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the purchase of a replacement ladder truck will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. Attachments 1.Proposal for Pierce Fire Apparatus 2.Joint purchase agreement between PAFD and MVFD Attachments: Attachment A: Mountain View PARTIAL PrePay Option - 05 April 16 (PDF) Attachement B: Joint Purchase Agreement with City of Palo Alto (PDF)  Pierce Manufacturing Inc. AN OSHKOSH CORPORATION COMPANY • ISO 9001:2000 CERTIFIED 2600 AMERICAN DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 2017 APPLETON, WISCONSIN 54912-2017 920-832-3000 • FAX 920-832-3208 www.piercemfg.com PROPOSAL FOR PIERCE® FIRE APPARATUS City of Mountain View DATE April 5, 2016 500 Castro Street QUOTE NO. 90405-16 Mountain View, CA 94041 EXPIRES April 29, 2016 SALES REP. Ryan Wright The undersigned is prepared to manufacture for you, upon an order being placed by you, for final acceptance by Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., at its home office in Appleton, Wisconsin, the apparatus and equipment herein named and for the following prices: PARTIAL PRE-PAYMENT AT TIME OF CONTRACT SIGNING # Description Each A One (1) Tractor Drawn Aerial Ladder Truck 1,236,176.00 B Additional discount offered by GSFA per 2/5/16 (12,000.00) C Delete 12 volt "as built" wiring diagrams (8,000.00) D Delete "as built" hydraulic wiring diagrams (415.00) E Delete the bell on the cab (for pricing purposes only) (1,600.00) F DISCOUNT FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT AT CONTRACT SIGNING (51,187.99) G Additional discount #2 offered by GSFA on 3/10/16 (3,353.53) H SUBTOTAL 1,159,619.48 I State Sales Tax @ 8.75% 101,466.70 J TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE 1,261,086.18 PARTIAL PRE-PAYMENT AT TIME OF CONTRACT SIGNING TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 1. The City of Mountain View shall pay $607,080.50 within fifteen (15) calendar days of contract signing and receipt of invoice to Pierce Manufacturing Inc. 2. The City of Mountain View shall pay $303,540.25 one hundred ninety five (195) calendar days after contract signing and within fifteen (15) calendar days of contract signing and receipt of invoice to Pierce Manufacturing Inc. 3. The City of Mountain View shall pay the balance of $350,465.43 for the Product within thirty (30) calendar days of acceptance. 2 4. Proposed delivery timeframe after receipt / acceptance of contract (or purchase order) will not begin until payment of $607,080.50 is received by Pierce Manufacturing Inc. 5. If payment of $607,080.50 is late and if the City of Mountain View elects not to have the delivery extended, $225.00 per calendar day will be deducted from the partial pre-payment discount at time of final invoice. Said apparatus and equipment are to be built and shipped in accordance with the specifications hereto attached, delays due to strikes, war, or intentional conflict, failures to obtain chassis, materials, or other causes beyond our control not preventing, within about 465 to 495 calendar days after receipt of this order and the acceptance thereof at our office at Appleton, Wisconsin, and to be delivered to you at MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA. The specifications herein contained shall form a part of the final contract, and are subject to changes desired by the purchaser, provided such alterations are interlined prior to the acceptance by the company of the order to purchase, and provided such alterations do not materially affect the cost of the construction of the apparatus. The proposal for fire apparatus conforms with all Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regulations in effect at the time of bid, and with all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Guidelines for Automotive Fire Apparatus as published at the time of bid, except as modified by customer specifications. Any increased costs incurred by first party because of future changes in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along to the customers as an addition to the price set forth above. Any Purchase Order (PO) and/or Agreement awarded as a result of this proposal should be made out to Pierce Manufacturing Inc. Unless accepted by April 29, 2016, the right is reserved to withdraw this proposition. Respectfully Submitted, Authorized Sales Representative Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -1- AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AND THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR JOINT PURCHASE, MAINTENANCE, AND USE OF AN AERIAL LADDER FIRE TRUCK This AGREEMENT is dated for identification this ____ day of __________ 2016, by and between the CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California charter city and municipal corporation, whose address is 500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View, California, 94039-7540 (hereinafter ), and the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California charter city and municipal corporation, whose address is 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301 (hereinafter ), also referred to individually as Party and collectively as Parties. RECITALS A. WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Mountain View each require an aerial ladder fire truck (Truck ) for use as a reserve apparatus; and B. WHEREAS, a Truck that meets the requirements of both Parties has been identified with a purchase cost of One Million Two Hundred Sixty-One Thousand Eighty-Six Dollars and Eighteen Cents ($1,261,086.18); and C. WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Mountain View have determined that the joint purchase and use of the Truck will result in a financial savings and will improve fire protection services to each city; and D. WHEREAS, Palo Alto and Mountain View are each empowered and authorized to purchase the Truck and to do all of the other things authorized and agreed to under this Agreement; AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual promises contained herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Purpose and Objectives. a. Purpose. The Parties shall participate jointly in the manner and to the extent hereinafter specified, in the purchase, maintenance, operation, and use of the Truck. The specific purpose for the Truck is to provide an emergency response apparatus, jointly owned, operated, and maintained. The Truck will serve in the capacity of a reserve vehicle (not front-line) for each agency. It will be placed into the front-line service only when the agency s front-line truck is out of service due to such events as routine maintenance, mechanical failures, extended repairs, etc. Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -2- b. Objectives. The objectives of this Agreement are to raise the efficiency of each Party with respect to maintaining fire truck company capabilities at emergency incidents by providing adequate equipment to perform such tasks; to reduce overall costs through a joint purchase and use of equipment and shared maintenance costs. 2. Commencement and Termination of Agreement. a. Effective Date and Termination Date. This Agreement shall become effective on May 1, 2016. This Agreement shall terminate fifteen (15) years following the effective date of this Agreement, unless sooner terminated by withdrawal of either Palo Alto or Mountain View, as provided in Sections 2.b. and 2.c. b. Withdrawal from the Agreement. Either Party may withdraw from this Agreement upon not less than one (1) year s written notice to the other Party that the option to withdraw from this Agreement is being exercised. Such notice shall specify a termination date to be effective to coincide with the end of the next fiscal year. c. Failure to Appropriate Maintenance Funds. In the event the governing body of either Party declines to appropriate the funds required by this Agreement to be paid for the continued maintenance, insurance, supplemental equipment, and operation of the Truck, such action shall constitute an election by that Party to withdraw from this Agreement and shall require that Party to give the other Party the one (1) year s written notice of the election to withdraw from this Agreement. d. Force Majeure. No Party hereto shall be liable for any failure to perform as required by this Agreement, or any amendment hereto to the extent such failure to perform is caused by any reason beyond the control of such Party, including, but not limited to: strikes, labor disturbances or labor disputes of any character, failure of any governmental approval required for full performance, riots, civil disorders or commotions, war, acts of aggression, floods, earthquakes, acts of God, or similar occurrences; provided that such Party shall exercise its best efforts to provide the best possible alternative performance and to prevent the foregoing occurrences from obstructing full performance. Such occurrences shall not cause the termination of this Agreement and shall not affect this Agreement except as provided in this paragraph. e. Reimbursement Upon Early Termination. If either Party to this Agreement withdraws from the Agreement, that Party shall not be entitled to reimbursement of any funds previously paid pursuant to this Agreement. Further, in the event of early withdrawal, any moneys owing and unpaid shall be paid by such Party. Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -3- f. Disposition of Assets. Upon termination of or withdrawal from this Agreement, the Truck, all equipment therefor, and all personal property acquired with, or traceable to, money provided by the Parties hereto shall be liquidated and the proceeds distributed equally between the Parties or the nonterminating Party shall have the option to purchase the other Party s share of the Truck and any equipment utilized and functionally necessary to the Truck; the purchase price shall be established by professional appraisal. At any time during the duration of this Agreement, if agreed to by the other Party, either Party may choose to purchase the other Party s share of the Truck and any equipment utilized and functionally necessary to the Truck; the purchase price shall be established by professional appraisal. 3. Administration of Agreement. a. Decision-Making Authority. This Agreement memorializes the joint effort of the Parties to carry out the purposes and objectives set forth herein; and no separate entity shall be created hereby, nor shall there be created a board of directors. Decisions concerning the equipping, use, and maintenance of the Truck shall be made by consensus of the City Managers of Palo Alto and Mountain View upon the advice of their respective Fire Chiefs and pertinent staff. b. General Purchase. Mountain View shall be the general administrator for the purchase and as such maintain records of such expenditure. (1) Act as depository of any and all moneys received from any source for the implementation of this Agreement. In this regard, the Mountain View Finance and Administrative Services Department shall be responsible upon and official bond for the safekeeping and disbursement of all said moneys, provided that Mountain View may self-insure for this liability. c. General Administration and Operations. Palo Alto and Mountain View will share the use of the Truck. Mountain View will maintain the Truck and supplemental equipment. In connection therewith, Mountain View shall maintain records of all revenues and expenditures incurred in connection with the maintenance and operation of the Truck and supplemental equipment in auditable form and available to Palo Alto upon request. d. Accounting. Each Party shall be strictly accountable for all funds received by it and shall maintain adequate records of all receipts and disbursements pursuant to this Agreement. In addition thereto, each Party shall maintain such additional records relating to the establishment, ownership, maintenance, operation, and use of the Truck and equipment thereof, as is appropriate. Each Party shall have the right, at any reasonable time, to inspect and examine the books and other records of Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -4- each other Party insofar as they relate to the Truck. The Parties agree that accounts maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall not accrue interest. e. Limitation of Financial Obligation. No Party shall have the power or the authority to incur any obligation pursuant to this Agreement in excess of the amount apportioned therefore by the budget or otherwise specifically authorized by the Parties. 4. Purchase, Maintenance, and Use of Truck. a. Purchase. Palo Alto and Mountain View shall each contribute one-half toward the cost of acquiring one (1) Truck described as follows: One (1) Pierce Arrow XT tractor-drawn trailer truck with a one hundred foot (100 ) mid-mounted aerial ladder. The contribution of each Party for the initial purchase (Pre-Payment Agreement with Pierce see Attachment No. 1, Proposal for Pierce Fire Apparatus, dated April 5, 2016) of the Truck shall not exceed Six Hundred Thirty Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Three Dollars and Nine Cents ($630,543.09) based on the following quote from the manufacturer: Apparatus Cost $1,159,619.48 8.75% Sales Tax 101,466.70 TOTAL $1,261,086.18 Palo Alto shall pay its share of the purchase price to Mountain View within thirty (30) days after receiving and approving a billing statement from Mountain View, which shall be issued upon execution of the purchase agreement for the Truck. b. Ownership. The Truck shall be jointly owned and registered in the names of Palo Alto and Mountain View, and each Party shall take title in equal shares. c. Maintenance of Equipment. Mountain View shall perform all maintenance for the Truck. Palo Alto shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the maintenance costs for the Truck, in quarterly payments, within thirty (30) days of receiving and approving a quarterly billing statement submitted by Mountain View. d. Repairs. Mountain View shall perform all repairs for the Truck. Palo Alto shall pay fifty percent (50%) of the costs of any repairs for the Truck within thirty (30) days of receiving and approving a billing statement submitted by Mountain View. Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -5- In the case of an accident resulting in damage to the Truck or its equipment, the Party in possession of the Truck when the accident occurred shall be financially responsible for repair to the Truck or equipment caused by the fault of the Party in possession at the time of the accident. That Party in possession shall be entitled to recover damages caused by the other Party to this Agreement or by persons not party to this Agreement whose fault caused or contributed to the need for repairs. If the Truck or any of its equipment is destroyed or damaged for reasons not attributable in whole or in part to the fault of either Party to this Agreement, then the Parties agree to share equally the financial responsibility to repair the Truck or equipment as well as the costs (including attorney fees and other litigation expenses) incurred by Mountain View in recovering damages from any person whose fault contributed to the damage. In the event that the cost to repair the Truck equals or exceeds the salvage value of the Truck, as established by professional appraisal, the Parties will salvage the Truck rather than effectuate the repairs and will divide the proceeds equally. e. Physical Damage Insurance. Mountain View shall maintain physical damage insurance on the Truck. The premium shall be paid by Mountain View and Palo Alto shall reimburse Mountain View for fifty percent (50%) of the premium within thirty (30) days of receiving and approving a billing statement for the premium submitted by Mountain View. f. Liability/Property Damage Insurance. Each Party is self-insured for public liability and property damage. Either Party may elect to maintain liability/ property damage insurance. 5. Equipment. a. Present Equipment. Palo Alto and Mountain View shall provide supplemental equipment for the Truck that is presently in their respective inventories, consisting of various tools and rescue equipment, upon delivery of the Truck from the manufacturer. That supplemental equipment shall be inventoried and shall be returned to the donating Party upon termination of this Agreement to the extent that it still exists. b. Procedure for Acquiring Equipment. Following the initial purchase of supplemental equipment necessary to render the Truck operational, Palo Alto shall purchase additional or replacement supplemental equipment identified and agreed by their respective City Managers as being desirable for the operation of the Truck. Mountain View agrees to reimburse Palo Alto for its equal share of this cost of supplemental equipment within thirty (30) days after being billed therefor. c. Use of Equipment. Each Party shall be entitled to equivalent use of the equipment for training purposes and emergency operations under terms established by Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -6- the Fire Chiefs of Palo Alto and Mountain View (Fire Chiefs ) in operational protocols supplementary to this Agreement. 6. Training. a. Training Standards. The Parties to this Agreement shall, through operational protocols jointly established by their Fire Chiefs, develop standardized training procedures, operations, and training materials for the use of the Truck. b. Training Exercises. Joint training exercises in the use of the Truck may be conducted under operational protocols jointly established by the Fire Chiefs; provided, however, that in the conduct of such joint training exercises, each Party will be responsible for the personnel costs and obligations associated with the staff which it assigns to the training operation, including, but not limited to, base salary, overtime salary, and fringe benefits, Workers Compensation, retirement, etc., and the employees of each Party shall not be deemed special employees of the other Party for purposes of Workers Compensation. 7. General Provisions. a. Notices. All notices required or given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed sufficiently given if in writing and if either personally served upon or mailed by registered or certified mail to the Clerk of the governing body of this receiving Party. b. Settlement of Disputes. Should any dispute arise in connection with this Agreement, the City Managers of the Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute and, if unsuccessful, shall employ professional mediation (sharing the costs equally) in a further extent to resolve the dispute. If those measures do not resolve the dispute, judicial review in the Santa Clara County Superior Court may be requested by either Party. c. Modification of Agreement. No term, provision, or condition of this Agreement shall be altered, amended, or departed from or be held or construed to have been waived except by the unanimous agreement and consent of the City Councils of Palo Alto and Mountain View. d. Indemnification. Except as otherwise provided herein, each Party agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless to the Parties, their officers, agents, and employees from any and all demands, claims, or liabilities of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage, or any other loss caused by or arising out of the performance or failure to perform the obligation assumed under this Agreement. Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -7- e. Standing to Enforce Agreement. This Agreement is entered into solely for the mutual benefit of the signatory Parties and not for the benefit of any resident or other person or entity. No person or entity not a Party hereto shall have any right to enforce this Agreement or bring any action as a consequence of this Agreement arising out of a failure or omission on the part of any of the Parties to provide the services described herein. f. Supplement to Other Agreement. This Agreement is intended to supplement rather than supplant any agreements or arrangements between the Parties for automatic aid or mutual aid in the emergencies requiring fire protection, fire suppression, or first-responder medical care into the area covered by this Agreement. g. Joint Powers Provisions. This Agreement shall not be construed to create any joint powers entity under the provisions of Government Code § 6500, et seq. Notwithstanding the provisions for allocation of loss or liability provided therein, the provisions of this Agreement for loss allocation shall govern. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// Attachment 1 KC/7/ATY 011-04-05-16AG-E -8- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement, dated ____________________ for identification, between the City of Mountain View and the City of Palo Alto for the joint purchase, maintenance, and use of an aerial ladder fire truck, is executed by Mountain View and Palo Alto. Mountain View : CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, a California charter city and municipal corporation By: City Manager By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fire Chief FINANCIAL APPROVAL: Finance and Administrative Services Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney : CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California charter city and municipal corporation By: City Manager By: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fire Chief FINANCIAL APPROVAL: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Attachment: 1. Proposal for Pierce Fire Apparatus, dated April 5, 2016 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6875) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Approval of Final Set of Walk and Roll Maps Title: Review and Approve Walk and Roll Maps for Addison, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Hoover, JLS Middle, Jordan Middle, Nixon, Palo Alto High, Walter Hays Public Schools and the Monroe Park Neighborhood From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the final set of Walk and Roll Maps developed by the Safe Routes to School program for nine Palo Alto public schools and the Monroe Park neighborhood (Attachment B). Background Since the City Council endorsed the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) National Partnership Consensus Statement in February 2006, the local Safe Routes to School partnership between the City, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), and the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC) has encouraged thousands of school children to walk, bike, carpool, and take transit to school. Between 2012 and 2015 the City has worked with PAUSD and the PTA partners to finalize a set of Walk and Roll Maps, which identify the best routes for children to walk and bike to and from school. The Walk and Roll Maps highlight preferred routes for students to use on the journey between school and home, and a separate set of plans suggest current and future infrastructure improvements to enhance the safety and usability of these routes. On September 9, 2013, (CMR ID# 4040), Council adopted Walk and Roll Maps for ten Palo Alto public schools: Addison, Walter Hays, Palo Verde, Ohlone, Barron Park, Briones, Escondido, Duveneck, Terman Middle, and Gunn High (see Attachment A). This report recommends that the Council adopt the final set of these maps for the remaining schools. Discussion In October 2010, the City submitted an application for funding of non-infrastructure Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program enhancements through the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Vehicle Emission Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) program. The City was awarded a City of Palo Alto Page 2 $528,000 grant that, added to the City’s $132,000 local match fund, provided for a $660,000 project that has significantly expanded the City’s Safe Routes to School program. Part of the grant funding was used to contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. to assist in the following activities: a) Walk and Roll Maps: Developing comprehensive Walk and Roll Maps of Suggested Routes to School for each of the 17 public schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and for the south Palo Alto neighborhood served by public schools in the City of Los Altos; b) School Safety Transportation Policies: Recommending new school transportation policy guidance for elements such as reduced speed limit zones (15 to 20 MPH) near schools and establishment criteria for adult crossing guards based on data collection and industry- standard best practices; c) Curriculum Updates: Evaluating and updating the existing bicycle safety education curriculum in PAUSD schools; and d) Evaluation: Assessing the impact of the Safe Routes to School program on improving school commute safety as well as reducing peak period congestion and related greenhouse gas emissions. An update on items b, c, and d is provided in CMR ID# 6786, heard this same evening. Walk and Roll Maps Update Over the past four years, the Safe Routes to School Partnership worked with residents and PAUSD staff to develop new Walk and Roll Maps that highlight the suggested routes to schools with consistent messaging and branding. An analysis of the walking and biking conditions at each school was conducted via observations, field surveys, and meetings with staff, parents, and neighbors. Parent input was solicited via meetings, a school district-wide survey, and school-specific requests for comments via email. Other factors included in the analysis at each school were intersection control, street walkability, and the Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Also noted were unsafe driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior, as well as physical infrastructure needs. Development of the maps is the first significant effort to designate school routes for priority infrastructure improvements since the adoption of the School Commute Corridors Network in 2003. Staff is working to update the existing School Commute Corridors Network based on the new Walk and Roll Maps for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update. Maps are attached for the remaining schools (El Carmelo, Fairmeadow, Hoover, Nixon, JLS Middle, Jordan Middle, and Palo Alto High) and the Monroe Park neighborhood. (The Santa Rita/Monroe Park map is designed to match the existing Santa Rita Elementary School Safe Routes map.) In addition, due to a school boundary change, two additional schools, Addison and Walter Hays, have received updates to their Walk and Roll Maps, and these are also included in this report. These remaining Walk and Roll Maps are attached, including one City of Palo Alto Page 3 sample back page of the maps that is the same for each school (see Attachment B). The back side of the maps contains safety tips for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. The Walk and Roll Maps are supplemented with Safe Route to School plans for near-term signage or marking improvements and long-term capital projects. Many of the Safe Routes signage and striping projects have already been implemented, and several more are planned for 2016 and 2017. In addition to helping to prioritize infrastructure improvements along the school route corridors, the City will be able to use the maps internally to coordinate with other public infrastructure work and utilities services. Timeline The Safe Routes to School program is an ongoing, year-round program, and the Walk and Roll Maps will be used to ensure that ongoing public safety improvements are coordinated with the school commute routes. Resources Adoption of the Walk and Roll Maps has no resource impact. Environmental Review The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301. Attachments:  Attachment A: Adoption of 2013 Walk and Roll Maps ID4040 (PDF)  Attachment B: 2016 Walk and Roll Maps (PDF) City of Palo Alto (ID # 4040) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 9/9/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Back to School with Walk and Roll Maps Title: Approval of Walk and Roll to School Maps for the Safe Routes to School Program for Public Schools From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Walk and Roll Maps developed by the Safe Routes to School program for ten of the Palo Alto public schools. Executive Summary Over the past year the Safe Routes to School Partnership Program worked with residents to develop new Walk and Roll maps that highlight the suggested routes to schools for the community. Historically, suggested route to school maps were prepared by the Parent Teacher Associations of the individual schools. Through the VTA-funded VERBS grant program, the City has started to develop Walk and Roll maps for the community with consistent messaging and branding for Palo Alto. The Walk and Roll maps are also supplemented with Safe Route to School plans for near-term signage/marking improvements and long-term capital projects. In advance of the 2013-14 school year, the Safe Routes to School program has released the first 10 of 17 Walk and Roll maps for Palo Alto Schools. Elementary schools with completed Walk and Roll maps include: Addison, Walter Hays, Palo Verde, Ohlone, Barron Park, Briones, Escondido, and Duveneck. Terman Middle School and Gunn High School have also completed the map development process. Maps for the remaining schools and the Monroe Park neighborhood are in process or will be complete before the end of the current school year. Walk and Roll maps may be viewed online at: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes. Attachment A City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background The City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Program grew out of a community partnership with the Palo Alto Unified School District and Palo Alto Council of PTAs to reduce risks to students on their commutes to school and to encourage more families to walk, bike or choose other alternatives modes to driving more often. Since 1994, committed PTA volunteers as well as City and School District staff have collaborated to improve the safety of students traveling to school. This program aligns with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets. Under this goal, the Safe Routes to School effort is part of Program T-46 regarding educational programs for the safe use of bicycles and City-sponsored bicycle education programs in the public schools. Furthermore, Policy T-40 is supported by this program by prioritizing the safety and comfort of school children in street modification projects that affect school travel routes. In the Spring of 2012, the City of Palo Alto initiated an expanded Safe Routes to School program, with funding from a $528,000 two-year Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (VERBS) grant from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The project will enhance the City's Five E's approach to Safe Routes to School programming: Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluation. The VERBS grant will allow the City to evaluate the existing conditions for students traveling to school, assess current education programs, develop new encouragement tools, explore policy changes to improve school commute safety, and map suggested routes for walking and bicycling to school for all 17 PAUSD schools. More information may be viewed at the Safe Routes website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes. Discussion Beginning in the spring of 2012, the Safe Routes program staff began a process to partner with each Palo Alto Unified District school and associated PTA to develop Walk and Roll maps of suggested routes to school for pedestrians and bicyclists. An analysis of the walking and biking conditions at each school was conducted via observations, field surveys, and meetings with staff, parents, and neighbors. Parent input was solicited via meetings, a school district-wide survey, and school-specific requests for comments via email. In addition, the Gunn High School map was developed with student survey and interview data. Other factors included in the analysis at each school were intersection control, street walkability, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Also noted were unsafe driver, City of Palo Alto Page 3 pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior, as well as physical infrastructure needs. Using the analysis of conditions at each school, staff has also generated a list of recommended improvements to the area near each campus. Safe Routes to School funds have been identified to implement near-term improvements such as signage and markings and a bid package for construction will be released this Fall. Staff is also coordinating improvement with the Resurfacing Program to build long-term capital facilities such as pedestrian ramps at intersections, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2012 implementation program for building of Bicycle Boulevard networks and other facilities to improve school commutes for students. The ten completed Walk and Roll maps are attached including one sample back page of the maps that is the same for each school. The routes have been designed and approved by the City’s Chief Transportation Official based on the input received above and based on additional technical expertise from a traffic consultant retained by the City through the VTA grant funding. The back side of the maps contains safety tips for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. Environmental Review This project is exempt under Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act as it involves minor modifications, such as signage, wayfinding and striping, to existing right of ways. Attachments:  Attachment A: Final Addison Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment B: Final Ohlone Walk and Rol Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment C: Final Palo Verde Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment D: Final Walter Hays Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment E: Barron Park Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment F: Briones Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment G: Duveneck Elementary Walk and Roll Map (map only) (PDF)  Attachment H: Escondido Elementary Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)  Attachment I: Terman Middle Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)  Attachment J: Gunn High Walk and Roll (map only) (PDF)  Attachment K: SAMPLE BACK OF MAP - Final Ohlone Walk and Roll Map (PDF) One Mile 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile Heritage Park Palo Alto High School å å & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & I 0 1/8 1/4 Miles Caltrain AddisonElementarySchool San MateoCounty Santa ClaraCounty Bry a n t S t r e e t We b s t e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Hamilton Avenue Gu i n d a S t r e e t Hal e S t r e e t Ever e t t A v e n u e Bo y c e A v e n u e Ad d i s o n A v e n u e Lin c o l n A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcad e r o R o a d Al m a S t r e e t 21 (6) 22 (7)22 (7) 7 (2) 8 (3) 21 (6) 16 (5) 10 (3) 14 (4) 19 (6) 24 (7) 34 (10) 34 (10) 6 (2) 9 (3) 8 (2) Addison Elementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Ped/Bike Crossing Street/One-Way Street Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks andOpen Space Caltrain Station Est. Walking TIme (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked Crosswalk County/CityBoundary Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian-Only Access Bicycle-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop Caltrain Mid d l e e l d R d We b s t e r S t Linc o l n A v e Add i s o n A v e Addison Elementary School Addison Elementary School & & & & Inset See Inset The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & && One Mile 1/2 Mile 1 /4 M i l e Rinconada Park Greer Park Hoover Park Seale Park OhloneElementary School Jordan Middle School Lo u i s R o a d R o s s R o a d Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t 10 1 F r e e w a y Oregon Express w a y Embar c a d e r o R o a d G r e e r R o a d M i d d l e e l d R o a d Colorado Avenue Loma Verde Avenue Clara Drive Hea t h e r L a n e Amarillo Avenu e California Aven u e California A v e n u e N e w e l l R o a d C o w p e r S t r e e t Moreno Avenu e Seale Avenue S a n d r a P l a c e 7 (2) 15 (5) 45 (13) 14 (4) 18 (5)15 (5) 6 (2) 10 (3) 10 (3) 8 (2) 33 (10) 23 (7) 17 (5) 15 (5) 9 (3) 33 (10)0 1/41/8 MilesI OhloneElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes & Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est.Walking Time (Biking Time) XX (X) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& County/City Boundary The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. G(& & & L o u i s R o a d Colorado Avenue G r e e r R o a d Amarillo Avenu e Lawrence Lane V a n A u k e n C i r c l e Sycamore Drive Ohlone Elementary School OhloneElementarySchool Inset See Inset O n e M i l e 1 /2 M i l e 1 /4 M i l e & & & & & & & && & & & & & & & & &Mitchell Park Greer Park Hoover Park Seale Park Jordan Middle School Ohlone Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School Stanford Middle School L o u i s R o a d R o s s R o a d R o r k e W a y 10 1 F r e e w a y M i d d l e e l d R o a d Oregon Expressw a y C o w p e r S t r e e t Colorado Avenue G r e e r R o a d East Meadow Drive Loma Verde Avenue Ames Avenue S t o c k t o n P l a c e Amarillo Avenue 36 (7)28 (6) 13 (3) 20 (4) 9 (2) 18 (4) 18 (4) 6 (1) 16 (3) 7 (1) 7 (1) 14 (3)8 (2) 0 1/41/8 Miles I Palo Verde Elementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) XX (X) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes &G( Palo Verde Elementary School Palo Verde Elementary School L o u i s R o a d R o r k e W a y Ames Avenue Am e s C o u r t Greer Road Inset See Inset 0 1/41/8 MilesI O n e M ile 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile & & && & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & Rinconada Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park J. Bowden Park Walter Hays Elementary School Jordan Middle School Palo Alto High School AddisonElementary School Duveneck Elementary School Bry a n t S t r e e t Embarcad e r o R o a d Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Sea l e A v e n u e Oreg o n E x p r e s s w a y Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Low e l l A v e n u e Cole r i d g e A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Calif o r n i a A v e n u e Melv i l l e A v e n u e Gu i n d a S t r e e t Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Ne w e l l R o a d Channing AvenueHa r r i e t S t r e e t We b s t e r S t r e e t Embarcad e r o R o a d 9 (3)7 (2) 9 (3) 18 (6) 17 (5) 10 (3) 9 (3) 7 (2) 14 (4) 28 (8) 36 (10) 35 (10) 25 (8) 22 26 (8) 20 (6) 19 (6) 7 (2) 49 (15) Walter HaysElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes & Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) XX (X)Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) Suggested Route (Walking Only) School All-Way Stop& Walter Hays Elementary SchoolWalter Hays Elementary School RinconadaPark Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Hopkins Avenue Embarcad e r o R o a d Ne w e l l R o a d Ful t o n S t r e e t Gu i n d a S t r e e t && Inset See Inset IIPark Boulevard Alma Street Ha n o v e r S t r e e t Ma t a d e r o A v e n u e Ba r r o n A v e n u e Ke n d a l l Av e n u e Lo s R o b l e s A v e n u e Pa g e M i l l R o a d LagunaAvenue Ch i m a l u s D r i v e La P a r a Av e n u e La Donna Street El CentroStreet Cu r t n e r A v e n u e Ve n t u r a A v e n u e Mi l i t a r y W a y Whitsell Avenue El Camino Real Ma r g a r i t a A v e n u e MagnoliaDrive Bol P a r k P a t h Pa r a d i s e W a y Ha n s e n W a y Po r t a g e A v e n u e La m b e r t A v e n u e Ol i v e A v e n u e El CaminoWay Barron ParkElementarySchool Gunn High School BolPark BoulwarePark 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile 6 (2) 9 (3) 9 (3) 19 (6) 19 (6) 0 1/41/8 Miles Barron ParkElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way StopXX (X)& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Barron Park Elementary School Barron ParkElementary School Josina Avenue Ke n d a l l Av e n u e Ba r r o n A v e n u e Inset See Inset 7 (2) 6 (2) 17 (6) 19 (6) 7 (2) 9 (3) 8 (3) 17 (6) I Or m e Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Enc i n a G r a n d e Clem o Ge o r g i a A v e n u e L o s P a l o s A v e n u e Wil k i e W a y Par k B o u l e v a r d Cha r l e s t o n Roa d Edle e A v e n u e Am a r a n t a Don a l d Driv e Coul o m b e May b e l l A v e n u e Ara s t r a d e r o Roa d Jam e s R d Ca m p a n a Bake r Geo r g i a Pom o n a A v e n u e Rickey s Lane Deod a r Stree t F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y B o l P a r k P a t h El C a m i n o R e a l Al m a S t r e e t Los Altos-Palo A l t o Bike Path Mi r a n d a A v e n u e Arroyo Court Para d i s e W a y La D o n n a W. M e a d o w D r i v e 1 /2 M i l e 1/4 Mile BrionesElementarySchool Terman Middle School Gunn High School Barron Park Elementary School Monroe Park Monroe Park Robles Park Briones Park Terman Park 0 1/41/8 Miles BrionesElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Multi-use Path & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route(Walking Only)Pedestrian Beacon Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Briones Elementary School BrionesElementary School Am a r a n t a A v e n u e Geo r g i a Ave n u e Or m e S t r e e t May b e l l A v e n u e Coul o m b e Driv e Inset See Inset 7 (2) 7 (2) 14 (5) 6 (2) 8 (3) 9 (3) 17 (6) 17 (6) 16 (5) 20 (7) Rinconada Park Eleanor Pardee Park DuveneckElementarySchool Walter Hays Elementary School Jordan Middle School Lo u i s R o a d Gr e e r R o a d Ce n t e r D r i v e Li n c o l n A v e n u e Hig h w a y 1 0 1 Hamilt o n Aven u e Oreg o n A v e n u e Pitma n A v e n u e He a t h e r L a n e Dan aAven u e St a n l e y W a y Wi l d w o o d L a n e Pat r i c i a Lan e St . F r a n c i s Dr i v e ChanningAvenue Ne w e l l R o a d AlesterAvenue HamiltonAvenue Embarcad e r o Road Edgewood D riv e 1 / 2 M i l e 1 / 4 M i l e 0 1/41/8 Miles DuveneckElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route(Walking Only) The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Duveneck Elementary School DuveneckElementary SchoolAles t e r A v e n u e Dan a A v e n u e H a m i l t o n A v e n u e ChanningAvenue He a t h e r La n e Inset See Inset 1/2 M ile 1 /4 M i l e 1 M i l e I I I I I I I II I I I I I I II I Co l l e g e A v e n u e Hanover Street HarvardStreet Ca l i f o r n i a Av e n u e El Camino R e a l Ash Street Yale Street Ca m b r i d g e A v e n u e Escondido Road Pin e H i l l Roa d Bowdoin Street Pa g e M i l l R o a d Park Boulevard Alma Street Ash Street St a n f o r d A v e n u e Birch Street Williams Street Ca l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Castilleja Avenue CaltrainPath CaliforniaCaltrainTunnel Oberlin Street El Camino Real E s pla n ada Way St a nf o r d Ave n ue Birch Street Par k B o u l e v a r d Olmstead R o a d Co l l e g e A v e n u e 10 (3)14 (5) 24 (9) EscondidoElementary School Lucille NixonElementarySchool Werry Park Weisshaar Park Cameron Park CollegeTerraceLibrary Bowden Park Peers Park Palo AltoHigh School StanfordUniversity 0 1/41/8 Miles 6 (2) 5 (2) 9 (3) 8 (3) EscondidoElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X)Marked Crosswalk Vehicle BarrierCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path I The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Escondido Elementary School EscondidoElementary School St a n f o r d A v e n u e Ro s s e L a n e Ru n n i n g F a r m L a n e EscondidoRoad HanoverStreet Bowdoin Street I Inset Se e I n s e t I 9 (3) 6 (2) 8 (2) 16 (5) 16 (5) 18 (5) 16 (5) 25 (8) 38 (11) Gunn High School Briones Elementary School Barron Park Elementary School TermanMiddle School 1/2 M ile 1/4 Mile Terman Park BrionesPark 1 Mile RoblesPark BolPark MonroePark Par k B o u l e v a r d May b e l l Ave n u e Los R o b l e s A v e n u e G e o r g i a A v e n u e Wi l k i e W a y Mon r o e Driv e El C a m i n o Way Don a l d Driv e Am a r a n t a Ave n u e Clem o Aven u e L o s P a l o s A v e n u e Lag u n a A v e n u e Jam e s Road El C a m i n o R e a l Los A l t o s A v e n u e Glen b r o o k Driv e Cesan o Court Foo t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y B o l P a r k P a t h Al m a S t r e e t La D o n n a A v e n u e Mata d e r o A v e n u e Mac l a n e Stre e t Ara s t r a d e r o Roa d Char l e s t o n Road W. M e a d o w Driv e Ven t u r a A v e n u e Rickey s Lane Deod a r Stree t Los Altos-Palo Alto Bik e P a t h Para d i s e W a y M i r a n d a A v e n u e Miranda Avenue ArastraderoBike Path I 0 1/41/8 Miles TermanMiddle School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Pedestrian Beacon Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Terman parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes TermanMiddleSchool TermanMiddleSchool Pom o n a A v e n u e Ara s t r a d e r o R o a d Donald Drive Pom o n a A v e n u e Ara s t r a d e r o R o a d Donald Drive Ter m a n D r i v e Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Pa t h Ter m a n D r i v e Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Pa t h Inset See Inset II I 6 (2) 8 (3) 16 (5) 12 (4) 24 (8) 25 (9) 26 (9) 27 (10) 13 (5) 26 (9) Mitchell Park Terman Park Bol Park Robles Park BrionesPark Ramos Park Boulware Park MitchellParkLibrary Monroe Park GunnHighSchool TermanMiddleSchool BrionesElementarySchool Barron Park Elementary School JLSMiddleSchool HooverElementary School CubberleyCommunityCenter El CarmeloElementarySchool FairmeadowElementarySchool Park B o u l e v a r d Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Bry a n t S t r e e t Mata d e r o Ave n u e Miran d a Avenu e Fo o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y May b e l l Ave n u e Los R o b l e s A v e n u e W i l k i e W a y Mon r o e Drive H i l l v i e w A v e n u e Ge o r g i a Av e n u e F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Aras t r a d e r o Roa d Los A l t o s A v e n u e Jam e s Road Char l e s t o n Road Sha s t a Driv e Meado w Drive Creekside Drive D u n c a n Pl a c e N e l s o n D r i v e Nel s o n Dri v e Ma c k a y Dri v e Cesa n o Cour t Los Altos-Palo Alto Bike Path M i r a n d a A v e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l Arastra d e r o B i k e P a t h Arastra d e r o R o a d Don a l d Driv e El C a m i n o Way Wil k i e W a y Mac l a n e Stre e t Para d i s e Way Lag u n a A v e n u e B o l P a r k P a t h El C a m i n o R e a l Han o v e r Stre e t Pag e M i l l Roa d Al m a S t r e e t Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Mayv i e w Aven u e Ro s s R o a d Am a r a n t a A v e n u e Carlson 1 Mile 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile Scheduled to open Fall 2013 0 1/41/8 Miles Gunn High School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Bicycle Parking Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path VTA Bus Stop Pedestrian Beacon Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Gunn parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes For more information on VTA Route 88, 22, or 522 schedule and fares, stop by the Student Activities Office or go to www.vta.org. GunnHigh School Foot h i l l E x p r e s s w a y B o l P a r k P a t h Gunn HS Path Arastrad e r o Road Miran d a A v e n u e StudentActivitiesCenter StudentActivitiesCenter Library SpangenbergTheatreSpangenbergTheatre BowGymBowGym Library TitanGymTitanGym GunnHigh School Mir a n d a Av e n u e StanfordResearch Park Inset See Inset Suggested Routes Ohlone Elementary WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL Parents: Help your student learn how to share the road safely. Help your child choose the best walking or cycling route - it may not be the same way you would drive in a car! Children who regularly practice safe walking and biking skills when young are more likely to make safer choices as teenagers. Obey adult crossing guards. They are there to help you cross congested intersections safely. Wear your helmet and buckle it every time. It’s the law. To best protect your brain, your helmet must fit properly: snug and level on your head, just above your eyebrows. Be predictable. Avoid crashes as well as traffic tickets by following the same rules of the road that apply to car drivers when riding your bike. This includes obeying ALL stop signs and traffic signals, as well as yielding to pedestrians. Be alert. Watch out for drivers turning left or right, or cars coming out of driveways. Avoid doors being opened in front of you by riding out of the door zone. Be alert. Look for cars from all directions before entering the street - including from behind you. Cross at corners. This is where drivers expect you. Don’t assume drivers see you! Make eye contact - especially at intersections and driveways. Slow down in school zones. The safe speed may be below the 25 mph speed limit. Be aware of school commute routes. Children walking or biking to school help reduce traffic congestion - give them a brake and use extra caution. Young children think drivers can stop instantly and may not be able to judge speed or distance of vehicles moving toward them. Obey “No Right Turn on Red” signs where posted at school intersections. This allows students to cross safely without cars turning through the crosswalk. Yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Avoid making U-turns and other unsafe maneuvers. Never double park. Avoid blocking red curbs or disabled access ramps. Make sure your child gets out of your car on the curb side, not near traffic. Use booster seats to make adult seat belts safer for children younger than 8 years old or under 4’-9” tall. Set a good example by following instructions of crossing guards. Try to carpool whenever possible to help reduce traffic congestion near schools. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2156 Bike Safely Drive Safely Walk or Skate Safely BIKELANE check all directions One Mile 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile Heritage Park Johnson Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park Scott Park Palo AltoHigh School å å HomerTunnel EmbarcaderoUnderpass & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & I 0 1/8 1/4 Miles Caltrain AddisonElementarySchool San MateoCounty Bry a n t S t r e e t Bry a n t S t r e e t Pal o A l t o Ave n u e We b s t e r S t r e e t Linc o l n A v e n u e Cha n n i n g A v e n u e Hamilton Avenue Ham i l t o n A v e n u e Gu i n d a S t r e e t Hal e S t r e e t Chaucer Street Ever e t t A v e n u e Bo y c e A v e n u e Ad d i s o n A v e n u e Li n c o l n A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Se n e c a S t r e e t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Fife Ave Univ e r s i t y A v e n u e Lytt o n A v e n u e Fore s t A v e n u e Hom e r A v e n u e University Avenu e El C a m i n o R e a l Embarcad e r o R o a d Al m a S t r e e t 21 (6) 22 (7)22 (7) 7 (2) 5 (1) 12 (4) 16 (5) 6 (1) 14 (4) 19 (6) 24 (7) 34 (10) 34 (10) 6 (2) 9 (3) 8 (2) AddisonElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Ped/Bike Bridge or Tunnel Street/One-WayStreet Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks andOpen Space Caltrain Station Est. Walking Time(Biking Time)XX (X) Marked Crosswalk County/City Boundary Crossing GuardLocation Pedestrian-OnlyAccess Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop Pedestrian Beacon Caltrain Mid d l e e l d R d We b s t e r S t Linc o l n A v e Add i s o n A v e Addison Elementary School Addison Elementary School & & & & Inset See Inset The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Attachment B 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile 15 (5)23 (7)28 12 (4) 17 (5) 18 (5) 18 (5) 22 27(8) 13 (4) 16 (5)9 (3)9 (3) 4 (1) 5 (1) 6 (2) 6 (2)6 (2) 13 8 7 (2) 4 (1) 9 (3) 43 (13) Ro s s R o a d Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Colorad o A v e n u e Loma Verde A v e n u e El Carmelo Avenue El Dorado Avenue Oregon Expressway Co w p e r St r e e t Br y a n t S t r e e t Colorad o Avenue El Verano Avenue Webste r Street Marion Avenue Moreno Avenue Mi d d l e e l d R o a d El CarmeloElementarySchool Hoover Park Matadero Creek New STOP signs and crosswalksto be installedFall 2013 0 1/41/8 Miles El Carmelo Elementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way StopXX (X) Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use PathPedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes El CarmeloElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool El Carmelo Avenue Loma Verde Avenue El Carmelo Avenue Br y a n t S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Inset See Inset 9 12 (3) 9 (3) 12 (4) 6 (2) 16 (5) 21 (6) 21 (6)18 (6) 33 (10) 29 19 (6) 19 (10) 27 (12) 17 (5) 26 (8) 13 (4) 6 (2) Mitchell Park Ramos Park JLSMiddleSchoolFairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementarySchool Palo VerdeElementarySchool Cubberley Community Center 1 / 4 M il e 1 / 2 M il e Lo u i s R o a d R o s s R o a d Br y a n t S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Wa v e r l e y St r e e t Co w p e r S t r e e t Ki p l i n g S t r e e t Fabia n R o a d Creekside Shasta Al m a S t r e e t San Anto n i o R o a d Charl e s t o n Road East M e a d o w Drive Du n c a n Ne l s o n Ma c k a y Mayview Ave Mi d d l e e l d R o a d South Cour t Ne l s o n El Verano Avenue Louis R o a d MitchellParkLibrary Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Caltrain & & & & Wa v e r l e y P a t h 0 1/41/8 Miles Fairmeadow Elementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes & & Mi d d l e e l d Ro a d So u t h C o u r t East Me a d o w Drive Alger D r i v e Wa v e r l e y P a t h MitchellPark C o w p er StreetB r y a n t Street FairmeadowElementarySchool FairmeadowElementarySchool Mitchell ParkLibrary Inset See Inset 38 (11) 32 (9) 24 (7)35(11) 19 (6)21 (6) 41 (12) 39 (12) 22 (7) 21 (6) 20 (6) 22 13 26 (8) 14 (4) 15 (4) 33 (10) 31 (9) 21 (6) 14 (4) 14 (4) 24 (7) 15 (4) 5 (2) 13 (4) 15 (5) 23 (7) 19 (6) Charles t o n - A r a s t r a d e r o Mitchell Park Robles Park Ramos ParkMitchellParkLibrary JLSMiddleSchool FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool Palo VerdeElementarySchool Cubberley Community Center 1/4 Mile 1 / 2 M il e 1 Mile Ro s s R o a d Pa r k B o u l e v a r d Co w p e r S t r e e t Ki p l i n g S t r e e t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t Br y a n t S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Fabia n S t r e e t Creekside Drive ShastaDrive Al m a S t r e e t Du n c a n Pl a c e Red wood Circle Ne l s o n Dr i v e Ma c k a y Dri v e Loma Verde Avenue San Anto n i o A v e n u e Charl e s t o n Road East Me a d o w Drive Mayview Ave Louis R o a d East Meadow Drive El C a m i n o Wa y Los Robles Avenue CharlestonRoad Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Ne l s o n Dri v e El Verano Avenue Wi l k i e W a y JamesRoad Maclane Street Mi d d l e e l d R o a d 0 1/41/8 Miles Wa v e r l e y P a t h Hoover Elementary SchoolWALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route(Walking and Biking) Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route(Walking Only) Multi-use Path Pedestrian and Bicycle Access The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Charles t o n R o a d C a r l s o n Court HooverElementarySchool HooverElementarySchool Wa v e r l e y P a t h Inset See Inset I I I I I I I II I 5 (2) 5 (2) 17 (5) 36 (11) 22 (6) 39 (12) Dish Area 1/2 M ile 1 /4 M il e 1 Mile EscondidoElementarySchool NixonElementarySchool Tolm a n D riv e St a nf o rd Av enue Stanford Avenue Peter Coutts R oa d R ai m undo W a y Bo w d o i n S t r e e t Campus D r i v e College Avenue California AvenueCalifornia Avenue E s c o n d i d o R o a d Galvez M a l l S e r r a S t r e e t Ju n i p e r o S e r r a B o u l e v a r d Page Mill Road Santa Ynez St Pin e Hill Rd Ha n o v e r S t Santa Fe AveSono m a Terr Espla nada Way Me a r s C o u r t Camp u s D r i v e M a y eld Ave Maye ld Ave Alvarado Row Cowell Lane Cedro Way Ge r o n a R o a d StanfordUniversity 0 1/41/8 Miles NixonElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way StopXX (X)& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Nixon Elementary School NixonElementary School Tolman Drive Ryan Ct Ryan Ct Stanfo r d A v e Pete r C o u t t s D r i v e Me a r s C o u r t Inset See Inset 0 1/41/8 MilesI O n e M il e 1 / 2 M il e 1 / 4 M i l e & & && & & & & & && & & & & & & & & & & && & & & & Rinconada Park Hoover Park Eleanor Pardee Park J. Bowden Park Peers Park Gamble Garden Walter Hays Elementary School Jordan Middle School Palo Alto High School Addison Elementary School Duveneck Elementary School Br y a n t S t r e e t Embarc a d e r o R o a d M i d d l e f i e l d R o a d Sea l e A v e n u e Ore g o n E x p r e s s w a y Chu r c h i l l A v e n u e Low e l l A v e n u e Col e r i d g e A v e n u e Add i s o n A v e n u e Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e Gar l a n d D r i v e Mel v i l l e A v e n u e Me l v i l l e A v e n u e G u i n d a S t r e e t Cali f o r n i a A v e n u e N e w e l l R o a d Lo u i s R o a d Pa r k B o u l e v a r d Channing Avenue Harker Avenue Parkinson Avenue Ha r r i e t S t r e e t Ce d a r St r e e t W e b s t e r S t r e e t Embarc a d e r o R o a d 9 (3) 7 (2) 9 (3) 18 (6) 17 (5) 10 (3) 9 (3) 7 (2) 14 (4) 28 (8) 36 (10) 35 (10) 25 (8) 22 26 (8) 20 (6) 19 (6) 7 (2) 49 (15) 17 (5) 17 (5) 23 (7) Walter HaysElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents to walk or bike with students and use this mapping tool to explore options for commuting from home to school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate route based on their knowledge of conditions on the route between home and school and the experience level of their child. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Enrollment Area Traffic Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) Suggested Route (Walking Only) School All-Way Stop Pedestrian Beacon Walter Hays Elementary School Walter Hays Elementary School Rinconada Park Rinconada Park Mi d d l e f i e l d R o a d Hopkins Avenue Embarc a d e r o R o a d Ne w e l l R o a d Fu l t o n S t r e e t G u i n d a S t r e e t && Inset See Inset 17 (5) 27 37 (11) 46 (14) 47 (14) 32 (9) 22 21 (6)13 12 (3) 36 (11) 28 (8) 61 (18) 47 (14) 37 (11) 38 50 (15) 59 (18) 68 (20) 26 (8) 21 (7) 18 34 Baylands Preserve Mitchell Park Greer Park Hoover Park Seale Park Ramos Park Cubberley Community Center MitchellPark Library JLSMiddleSchool FairmeadowElementarySchool HooverElementarySchool El CarmeloElementarySchool OhloneElementarySchool Palo VerdeElementarySchool Ro s s R o a d Co w p e r S t r e e t Ki p l i n g Gr e e r R o a d We s t B a y s h o r e R o a d Br y a n t S t r e e t Louis R o a d Colorado Avenue Loma Verde Avenue Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t East Meado w D r i v e Charle s t o n Road Mayview Ave San Anton io R o a dMa c k a y Shasta Nel s o n Du n c a n Mid d l e e l d R o a d Ev e r g r e e n Ar b u t u s Creeksi d e Fabia n R o a d Driftwood Aspen Alm a S t r e e t El Verano Mi d d l e e l d Ro a d Wa v e r l e y P a t h 1/2 Mile 1/4 Mile 1 M i l e Caltrain Matadero C r e e k 0 1/41/8 Miles For more information on the free Crosstown Shuttle schedule, stop by the Student Activities Office or go to www.cityofpaloalto.org/shuttle JLS Middle School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Enrollment Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time)XX (X) Marked CrosswalkCrossing Guard Location Bicycle Parking Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge or Tunnel Crosstown Shuttle Stop Suggested Route(Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages JLS parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Wa v e r l y A v e n u e B i k e P a t h Mi d d l e e l d Ro a d East Me a d o w D r i v e Br y a n t S t r e e t Alger Dr i v e Wa v e r l e y P a t h R o o s e v e l t C i r c l e MitchellPark JLSMiddleSchool JLSMiddleSchool C o w per Street Mitchell ParkLibrary B r y a n t Street Inset See Inset I I I Caltrain Caltrain 14 (5) 5 21 (6) 10 (3) 28 (8) 19 (6) 38 (11) 64 (19) 68 (20) 5 (2) 14 (5) 32 (9) 34 (10) 59 (18) 48 (15) 45 (14) 14 (4) 11 (3) RinconadaPark El Camino Park Pardee Park PeersPark KelloggPark JohnsonPark J. BowdenPark CogswellPlaza ScottPark LyttonPlaza 1/4 Mile 1/2 Mile 1 Mile JordanMiddle School DuveneckElementarySchool Walter HaysElementarySchool Br y a n t S t r e e t Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Seale Avenue N California Ave Hig h S t r e e t Ra m o n a S t r e e t Lo u i s R o a d H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Gr e e r R o a d Churchill Ave Coleridge Avenue Oregon Expressway Ne w e l l R d Ca s t i l l e j a A v e n u e C h a n n i n g A v e P a r k i n s o n A v e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l Melville Avenue Heath e r L a n e Everett Avenue Gu i n d a S t r e e t Garland Dr Linco l n A v e n u e We b s t e r S t r e e t Al m a S t r e e t HomerTunnel EmbarcaderoUnderpass Cal AveUnderpass Br y a n t S t r e e t Homer Avenue Channing Avenue N California Ave Pa r k B l v d Stanford Cambridge Newell RdEmb a r c a d e r o R o a d Co w p e r S t Wa v e r l e y S t r e e t We b s t e r S t r e e t AddisonElementarySchool Palo AltoHighSchool 0 1/41/8 Miles JordanMiddle School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle ParkingSuggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop XX (X) Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Vehicle BarrierI Pedestrian Beacon The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Jordan parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Ne w e l l A v e N California Avenue JordanMiddleSchool JordanMiddleSchool N CaliforniaAvenue Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Garland Avenue Inset See Inset 59 (23) I I I I II III I I 25 (11) 32 (12) 20 (8) 10 (5) 25 (10) 39 (15) 25 (9) 32 (12) 1 Mile 1/2 M ile 1/4 M il e Rinconada Park El Camino Park Hoover Park Pardee Park Peers Park Seale Park Kellogg Park Johnson Park Bowden Park Scott Park Cogswell Plaza Lytton Plaza JordanMiddle School El CarmeloElementary School OhloneElementary School Walter HaysElementary School Escondido Elementary School DuveneckElementary School Palo Alto HighSchool ColeridgeAvenue Lo u i s R o a d Ro s s R o a d Melville Avenue Pa r k B l v d Co w p e r S t r e e t Gr e e r R o a d Colorad o A v e n u e Ha n o v e r S t r e e t H a m i l t o n A v e n u e Homer Ave Channing Ave ChurchillAvenue Br y a n t S t r e e t Em e r s o n S t r e e t Oregon Expressway Garland Drive Al m a S t r e e t Newe l l R o a d Mi d d l e e l d R o a d Stanford Ave Olm s t e a d R d El C a m i n o R e a l CambridgeAvenue Everett Avenue C h a n n i n g A v e n u e Ya l e S t Ca s t i l l e j a A v e Cal AveUnderpass California Avenue Em b a r c a d e r o R o a d Lytton Avenue Mi d d l e e l d R o a d EmbarcaderoUnderpass HomerTunnel Palm Dr i v e A r b o r e t u m R o a d Ca m p u s D r i v e California Avenue Pa r k B l v d Serra Street Es c o n d i d o R d Hi g h S t r e e t Gu i n d a S t r e e t Page Mill Road StanfordUniversity AddisonElementary School 0 1/41/8 Miles Palo Alto High School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES & Attendance Area Trac Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop XX (X) & Suggested Route (Walking Only) Multi-use Path Construction Zone Bus Stop Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages Palo Alto High School parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the different routes and the experience level of their student. See www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes for more info. Please refer to www.paly.net for construction-related updates. For more information about bus and trail connections, see: • VTA Routes 22 and 522: www.vta.org • SamTrans Routes 280 and 281: www. samtrans.com • Marguerite shuttle: http://transportation. stanford.edu/marguerite/ • City of Palo Alto Embarcadero and Crosstown Shuttles: www.cityofpaloalto.org/shuttle • Stanford’s off-road paths: http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_ transportation/midpen-bike-map.html Churchill Avenue StudentCenterStudentCenter Palo AltoHigh SchoolPalo AltoHigh School El C a m i n o R e a l Al m a S t r e e t EmbarcaderoRoad HaymarketTheater VikingStadium Quad Library HaymarketTheater VikingStadium Quad Library Stanford University Hi g h S t r e e t Embarcadero Underpass Inset See Inset The City of Los Altos encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the diff erent routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: Santa Rita Elementary School SUGGESTED ROUTES Enlargement Map Parks and Open Space Attendance Area Marked Crosswalk Flashing Crosswalk Traffic Signal Suggested Walking &Biking Route School Crossing GuardLocation All-Way Stop& Bicycle Parking Sidewalk Multi-use Path Pedestrian & BicycleAccess Existing Bikeway Half-mile and Mile Zones (Road Network) .!!! .!!! !"$ !"$ !"$ Ara s t r a d e r o R d Pine Ln Dix o n W a y W E l C a m i n o R e a l Mi l l e r A v e n u e Sevilla Dr W Portola Ave Yerba Buena Ave Ch e r r y A v e Sa n t a R i t a A v e Loucks Ave Yerba Santa Ave Mi r a n d a D r Del M e d i o A v e Ces a n o C o u r t Mon r o e D r i v e F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Lo s A l t o s A v e Sa n A n t o n i o R d San A n t o n i o R d Briones Park MonroeMini Park Del MedioPark TermanMiddleSchool Egan Junior HighSchool Santa RitaElementarySchool 1 5 M IN / 4 M I N 2 9 M I N / 9 M I N N 00.20.4 Miles ! Pine Lane Van Buren Street Lo s A l t o s A v e n u e Sa n t a R i t a A v e n u e To r w o o d L a n e Santa RitaElementarySchool Santa Rita Elementary School SUGGESTED ROUTES Enlargement Map Parks and Open Space Attendance Area Marked Crosswalk Flashing Crosswalk Traffic Signal Suggested Walking &Biking Route School Crossing GuardLocation All-Way Stop& Bicycle Parking Sidewalk Multi-use Path Pedestrian & BicycleAccess Existing Bikeway Half-mile and Mile Zones (Road Network) .!!! .!!! !"$ !"$ !"$ Ara s t r a d e r o R d Pine Ln Dix o n W a y W E l C a m i n o R e a l Mi l l e r A v e n u e Sevilla Dr W Portola Ave Yerba Buena Ave Ch e r r y A v e Sa n t a R i t a A v e Loucks Ave Yerba Santa Ave Mi r a n d a D r Del M e d i o A v e Ces a n o C o u r t Mon r o e D r i v e F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y Lo s A l t o s A v e Sa n A n t o n i o R d San A n t o n i o R d Briones Park MonroeMini Park Del MedioPark TermanMiddleSchool Egan Junior HighSchool Santa RitaElementarySchool Ave 1 5 M IN / 4 M I N Ce 2 9 M I N / 9 M I N N 00.20.4 Miles ! Pine Lane Van Buren Street Lo s A l t o s A v e n u e Sa n t a R i t a A v e n u e To r w o o d L a n e Santa RitaElementarySchool *Routes current as of 11/2015 Suggested Routes JLS Middle School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL Share the road safely with all other users, no matter how you choose to get to and from school. Use extra caution near younger students walking or biking to school. Obey adult crossing guards. They are there to help everyone cross congested intersections safely. Be predictable. Obey ALL stop signs and traffic signals. Never ride wrong way. The best way to avoid crashes as well as traffic tickets is to follow the same rules of the road as apply to car drivers. Be alert. Watch out for drivers turning left or right, or coming out of driveways. Avoid car doors opening in front of you by riding out of the door zone. Yield to pedestrians. Wear your helmet and buckle it every time. It’s the law. To best protect your brain, your helmet must fit properly: snug and level on your head, just above your eyebrows. Be visible. Use a bright headlight and taillight at night. Avoid texting, phone calls, or music while biking. Be alert. Look for cars coming from all directions before entering the street - including from behind you. Cross at corners and crosswalks. This is where drivers expect pedestrians. Don’t assume drivers see you. Make eye contact before crossing intersections. Slow down and use extra caution in school zones and along commute routes! Signal your turns and yield to pedestrians. Help reduce traffic congestion near JLS and neighboring schools by carpooling with a neighbor and avoiding the last minute rush whenever possible. Obey adult crossing guards and “No Right Turn on Red” signs posted at designated school intersections. This allows students to cross safely without cars turning through crosswalks. Don’t make U-turns and other unsafe maneuvers that put other road users at risk. When dropping off or picking up your student, follow school guidelines and always ensure that he/she exits or enters the car from the curb side. Never double park, block access ramps or stop where prohibited. Avoid texting, phone calls and other distractions when driving. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2156 Bike Safely Drive Safely Walk or Skate Safely BIKELANE check all directions We welcome volunteers to help with Safe Routes to School events and programs at this school! Contact your PTA or email saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org. New Street Marking! Cyclists should ride down the center of this “sharrow” symbol to stay outside the “door zone” on streets without bike lanes. Sharrows also remind drivers to watch for cyclists. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6891) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 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. (Continued from April 18th Meeting) From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Continue the subject public hearing and take one of the following actions: (1) Adopt the proposed Single Story Overlay Ordinance, or (2) Reject the proposed Single Story Overlay Ordinance, or (3) Adopt a revised ordinance for a reduced Single Story Overlay boundary, or (4) Provide other direction to staff including direction to assess level of property owner support for the proposed or a modified boundary. Background On April 18, 2016, the City Council initiated a public hearing to consider an applicant initiated amendment to the zoning code and map that would establish a single story overlay zone to certain properties in the Royal Manor Tract. The meeting was continued to May 2. Attached is City of Palo Alto Page 2 the prior staff report, which includes an ordinance that may be considered for adoption. The attached report has background information and analysis. Attachments:  Attachment A: April 18 SSO Council Report (ID 6467) (PDF) 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 ATTACHMENT A 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(7 000) P F PC-3693 R -1(8 000) R O L M PC-3726 R -1 R O L M T Chris tin e Driv e 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 Tali s man Driv e 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 Th oma s Driv e Kenneth Drive Loma Verde Ave nue C liftonCour t ux Drive Cou r t Bayshore Freeway Bayshore Freeway yshore Freeway West Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road We Kenneth Drive Barron Creek Barron Creek Dr y Cr ee k 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 3432 3428 3422 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 344 0 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 StoryCombining DistrictRoyal 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 Th oma 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 Mo ra ga Ct Greer Road Maddux Drive vieve Ct Da vid Ct Bayshore Freeway yst Bayshore Road East Bayshore Road West Bayshore Road Ke nneth Drive Barron Creek ek W est B aysh ore A rea E ast Meadow Circle 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 33 3 3 32 4 7 86932 6 3 32 7 1 881 875 882 886 888 32 4 6 32 9 0 883 88933 1 0 33 3 0 874 880 886887 33 0 2 33 0 7 978 33 1 3 32 6 1 32 6 3 32 7 5 32 9 9 33 2 5 33 2 4 33 1 8 33 1 2 33 0 6 940 920 910 892 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 8 314 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 33 6 0 33 7 0 878 35513550 3540 33 3 0 33 3 6 33 4 2 33 4 8 33 5 4 33 6 3 33 5 7 33 4 9 33 4 1 33 6 9 33 7 5 33 4 9 3355 3 3 6 0 3366 3458 33 8 5 3450 3 2 3 6 3248 967 959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 319 8 3202 317 3 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 33 3 1 3330 33 2 5 3320 33 1 9 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 3184 3176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 330 9 33 01 33 4 3 3360 3370 3350 33 3 7 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 34 6 9 3436 34 4 4 3440 3465 33 9 5 34 0 5 34 1 5 34 2 5 34 3 5 34 4 5 3455 3492 3498 34 8 8 34 8 2 34 7 0 34 7 6 34 6 4 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 34 7 5 34 8 1 34 8 7 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 3 4 58 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 0 8 6 1076A 1076B 1068 1070 1072 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3493 3489 3485 3 4 5 8 3469 3477 346 3 345 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 4 8 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 3583 1060 102 0 1 0 4 0 103 6 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 5 10 8 5 10 69 1051 1041 1057 1059 1053 103 5 102 5 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 331 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 325 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 344 9 3 4 4 43435 3422 3441 3 4 4 0 3 4 3 6 3418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 346 6 3418 345 2 3460 340 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 314 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 32 92 31 7 1167 1132 3285 3 29 9 33 0 0 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 Th oma 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 Mo ra ga 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 aysh ore A rea E ast Meadow 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 33 3 3 324 7 86932 6 3 32 7 1 881 875 882 886 888 32 4 6 32 9 0 883 88933 1 0 33 3 0 874 880 886887 33 0 2 33 0 7 978 33 1 3 32 6 1 32 6 3 32 7 5 32 9 9 33 2 5 33 2 4 33 1 8 33 1 2 33 0 6 940 920 910 892 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 6 314 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 33 6 0 33 7 0 878 35513550 3540 33 3 0 33 3 6 33 4 2 33 4 8 33 5 4 33 6 3 33 5 7 33 4 9 33 4 1 33 6 9 33 7 5 33 4 9 3355 3 3 6 0 3366 3458 33 8 5 3450 3 2 3 6 3248 967 959 3260 983 3249 3244 3269 3224 3167 319 8 3202 317 3 3192 3179 3191 3197 3201 975 3340 33 3 1 3330 33 2 5 3320 33 1 9 3310 3300 984 3264 3284 3272 991 999 3241 3184 3176 3209 3217 3225 3210 3218 3226 3273 3233 330 9 3 3 0 1 33 4 3 3360 3370 3350 33 3 7 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 34 6 9 3436 34 4 4 3440 3465 33 9 5 34 0 5 34 1 5 34 2 5 34 3 5 34 4 5 3455 3492 3498 34 8 8 34 8 2 34 7 0 34 7 6 34 6 4 3452 3446 3440 3428 3434 3422 34 7 5 34 8 1 34 8 7 3439 3433 3427 3384 3390 3378 3372 3480 3427 3448 3 4 58 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 10 9 6 10 8 6 1076A 1076B1068 1070 1072 1052 3481 3469 3473 3477 3493 3489 3485 3 4 5 8 3469 3477 346 3 345 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 4 8 3491 3483 3466 3470 3474 3478 3482 3583 1060 102 0 1 0 4 0 103 6 1 0 5 0 1 0 1 5 10 8 5 10 69 1051 1041 1057 1059 1053 103 5 102 5 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 331 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 325 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 344 9 3 4 4 43435 3422 3441 3 4 4 0 3 4 3 6 3418 3414 3427 3413 3421 3410 3406 346 6 3418 345 2 3460 340 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 31 60 3136 3124 3125 3137 314 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 32 92 31 78 1167 1132 3285 32 9 9 33 0 0 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_DIVIIIOVDIRE_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 # 6683) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG Allocations Title: Finance Committee Recommends Adoption of the 2016-17 Action Plan and Associated 2016-17 Funding Allocations and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Consistent with the Finance Committee's Recommendation From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff and the Finance Committee recommend the City Council: 1. Adopt the attached funding Resolution allocating CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan and as described in this report; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2016/2017 CDBG application and 2016/2017 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and 3. Authorize staff to submit the 2016/2017 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2016 deadline. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is the principal Federal program providing localities with grants to devise innovative and constructive neighborhood approaches to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in their communities through “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.” HUD requirements include preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a City of Palo Alto Page 2 Consolidated Plan, to address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining identified objectives. An Action Plan is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded in that year that implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. Currently, the CDBG program is guided by the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 4, 2015. The 2016/2017 Action Plan is due to HUD no later than May 15, 2016. The draft 2016/2017 Action Plan (Attachment B) was made available for public review from March 17, 2016 through April 15, 2016. Staff and the Human Relations Commission’s CDBG funding recommendations were presented at a public hearing before the Finance Committee on April 5, 2016, at which time the Finance Committee unanimously recommended City Council approval The programs and projects proposed for funding in the first year Action Plan are summarized in the resolution (Attachment A) approving the use of CDBG funds for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Background On February 16, 2016 HUD released the CDBG entitlement grant allocation amounts for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. The final allocation for Palo Alto is $441,253, representing a slight decrease compared to last year’s allocation of $442,460. 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan HUD regulations require the City to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years to guide the CDBG program. The current 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan was adopted by Council on May 5, 2015. The Consolidated Plan is designed to help entitlement grantees assess affordable housing and community development needs. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, Planning & Community Environment staff coordinated with the County of Santa Clara and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and community development needs across the region and strategies to meet those needs. The Consolidated Plan consists of a needs assessment and market analysis which serves as the strategic plan that identifies priority needs of the City to help guide the distribution of CDBG funding. Review by Human Relations Commission and Finance Committee The CDBG selection committee, comprised of three members of the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and staff, met on February 25, 2016 to discuss the applications and make recommendations for funding for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. On March 10, 2016 the HRC considered the funding recommendations of the selection committee at a public hearing, as recorded in the HRC meeting minutes (Attachment C). Staff and the HRC’s CDBG funding recommendations, as outlined in CMR No. 6583 (Attachment D), were presented at a public hearing before the Finance Committee on April 5, 2016. After taking public comment, the Finance Committee voted 4-0 to recommend to Council adoption of the recommendations, as recorded in the Finance Committee meeting minutes (Attachment E). Discussion Palo Alto’s CDBG program continues to be directed towards expanding and maintaining existing City of Palo Alto Page 3 affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities and choices, maintaining and improving community facilities, and providing support services for targeted low-income groups, including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. Moreover, the CDBG program places a high priority on expanding the goal of creating economic opportunities for low-income persons. Seven programs are recommended for funding that provides supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. In addition, the funding recommendations include one multi-family housing rehabilitation project and funding to cover the cost of administering the City’s CDBG program. All of the proposed projects for Fiscal Year 2016/2017, as presented in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan, address these priorities identified in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Timeline Funding recommendations made by the City Council will be incorporated into the final 2016/2017 Action Plan. The final 2016/2017 Action Plan will be submitted to HUD, along with the appropriate forms and certifications, by the May 15, 2016 deadline. Resource Impact Several measures have been taken to ensure there would be no direct General Fund subsidy for the administration of the CDBG Program. These include streamlining the program to reduce staffing needs and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency of the program. Staff recovery in Fiscal Year 2016/17 from the CDBG entitlement grant is $65,000. For Fiscal Year 2016/2017, staff is requesting a total of $77,310 in the Administration budget from the CDBG allocation. The total staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant proposed for Fiscal Year 2016/2017 is 0.36 full time equivalency, or approximately $65,000. The balance, $12,300, would be used for publication costs, office supplies, and to cover potential costs associated with consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program Administration. While the Fiscal Year 2016/2017 amount is not sufficient to cover the full cost of one full time equivalency position, it does cover the full staffing needs of administering the CDBG program. The staff person assigned to administer the CDBG program also administers the City’s housing programs at .64 FTE. It should be noted that the General Fund does not recover any overhead from the CDBG program and supports the program with cost for departmental managerial oversight and internal support functions. Policy Implications All of the applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2016/2017 are consistent with the priorities established in the City’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, the recommendations and priorities are consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental City of Palo Alto Page 4 Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. Prior to commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each particular project. Attachments:  Attachment A: Resolution CDBG FY16-17 (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft FY 2016/2017 Action Plan (PDF)  Attachment C: Human Relations Commission Excerpted Minutes of March 10, 2016 (PDF)  Attachment D: Finance Committee Staff Report, April 5, 2016 (PDF)  Attachment E: Finance Committee Excerpt Minutes of April 5, 2016 (PDF) ATTACHMENT A 160404 jb 0131516 1 Resolution No. ____ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving The Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2016/2017 R E C I T A L S A. On May 4, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council approved and adopted a document entitled “Consolidated Plan” which identified and established the Palo Alto housing and non-housing community development needs, objectives and priorities for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2020. B. The 2016/2017 Action Plan, the annual funding update to the Consolidated Plan, was subjected to public review and commentary during the period from March 17, 2016 through April 15, 2016. C. The potential uses of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were evaluated in light of the needs and objectives identified in the Consolidated Plan and reflected in the recommendations and comments of the Human Relations Commission and other interested citizens. D. Under the CDBG program, the highest priority is given to activities which will benefit persons with low and moderate incomes. E. The City Council and the Finance Committee of the City Council have held publicly noticed public hearings on the proposed uses of the CDBG funds for fiscal year 2016/2017. F. CDBG funds allocated to the City for fiscal year 2016/2017 are proposed to implement the programs described in this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. The uses of CDBG funds for fiscal year 2016/2017 are hereby approved and authorized for the following programs: Name of Program Amount 1. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program. Advocate for the rights of seniors and disabled residents in long term care facilities. $ 5,012 2. LifeMoves – Opportunity Services Center. Provide comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service day drop-in center for critical homeless services. $ 35,592 3. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Resident Support. Provide in-house SRO Service Coordinator for support counseling, employment assistance and crisis intervention. $ 22,983 ATTACHMENT A 160404 jb 0131516 2 4. Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services. Assist low-income individuals and families in search for affordable, accessible housing. $ 5,012 5. YWCA of Silicon Valley – Domestic Violence Services. Provide crisis intervention, emergency shelter, comprehensive case management, counseling/ therapy, children’s play therapy and legal services $ 8,020 6. Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services. Provide fair housing services including complaint investigation, counseling, advocacy and community education $ 30,941 7. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment – CDBG Program Administration. $ 77,310 8. MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Garden Rehabilitation. Make site improvements for increased site accessibility, water conservation and property sustainability. $ 278,825 9. Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program. Provide comprehensive support services for homeless/ unemployed to secure employment. $ 290,723 TOTAL $ 754,418 SECTION 2. The total amount set forth under Section 1 of this resolution represents the proposed allocation of $441,253, in CDBG funds from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for fiscal year 2016/2017, $100,000 in anticipated program income for fiscal year 2016/2017 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and a total of $213,165 in prior year resources (Downtown Streets, Inc., FY 2015 - $6,784; CDBG Administration, FY 2015 - $6,656; Opportunity Center, FY 2015 - $1,779; City of Palo Alto Microenterprise Assistance Program, FY 2014 - $150,000 and $47,946 in FY 2015 excess program income). SECTION 3. The City staff is hereby authorized to submit the 2016/2017 annual Action Plan update and appropriate application forms to HUD for the fiscal year 2016/2017 CDBG funds, and such money shall be spent as set forth in this resolution. The Mayor, City Manager and any other designated City staff or officials are hereby authorized to execute such application forms and any other necessary documents to secure these funds. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign all necessary grant agreements with the program providers set forth in Section 1. SECTION 4. The funding amounts set forth in Section 1 of this resolution are based on final allocation amounts from the Federal Fiscal Year 2016 HUD appropriations; City Staff is authorized to make adjustments increasing or decreasing the funding amounts set forth herein as consistent with the adopted Citizen Participation Plan. ATTACHMENT A 160404 jb 0131516 3 SECTION 5. The City Council hereby finds that the fiscal year 2016/2017 CDBG program authorized under Section 1 of this resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, the Council further authorizes and directs City staff to prepare certifications that may be required, under CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for each project under the fiscal year 2016/2017 CDBG program prior to the release of funds for any such project. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Director of Administrative Services CDBG Coordinator DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2017 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN Annual Update of the City’s Consolidated Plan for the Period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 Public Review and Comment Period: March 17, 2016 – April 15, 2016 Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Director Hillary Gitelman Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner T: 650-329-2561 E: Eloiza.Murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment B FISCAL YEAR 2017 ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary….……………………………..………………………………………………………………………......1 Lead and Responsible Agencies….……………………………..…………………………………………………………..6 Consultation…………………………..….……………………………..…………………………………………………………..7 Public Participation............................................................................................................... 10 Expected Resource................................................................................................................ 12 Annual Goals and Objectives……………………………………….………………………………………………………15 Projects………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Geographic Distributions…………………………………………….……………………………………………………….24 Affordable Housing……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………….25 Public Housing……..……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………….26 Homeless and Other Special Needs……………………………………………………………………….…………….28 Barriers to Affordable Housing……..……………………………………………………………………….…………….28 Other Actions........................................................................................................................34 Program Specific Requirements.............................................................................................37 APPENDICES Appendix A: Application for Federal Assistance Form SF-424 Appendix B: Certifications Appendix C: Public Hearing Advertisement Appendix D: Public Comments Annual Action Plan 2016 1 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs. CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. A total of $754,418 is available for funding projects and programs during the 2016 Program Year which correlates with the City Fiscal Year 2017. The City anticipates receiving $441,253 from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. In addition, the City will also reprogram $213,165 in previous year resources, and $100,000 in anticipated program income. Palo Alto has access to a variety of federal, state, and local resources to achieve its housing and community development priorities. Table 1, Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG Budget, summarizes the uses of the funds proposed during Fiscal Year 2017. Specific funding resources will be utilized based on the opportunities and constraints of each particular project or program. Annual Action Plan 2016 2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) TABLE 1: FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET Applicant Agency Budget Public Services Palo Alto Housing Corporation - SRO Hotels Supportive Services $22,983 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program $ 5,012 InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Center - Drop-In Center $35,592 YWCA/Support Network - Domestic Violence Services $ 8,020 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services $ 5,012 Sub-total $76,619 Planning and Administration Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services $ 30,941 City of Palo Alto Administration $ 77,310 Sub-total $108,251 Economic Development Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program $290,723 Sub-total $290,723 Housing Midpen Housing – Palo Alto Gardens Rehab $278,825 Sub-total Grand Total $754,418 HUD requires that entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of the jurisdiction’s market, affordable housing, and community development conditions. Additionally, entitlement jurisdictions must also submit an Annual Action Plan to report the distribution of federal entitlement program funding over the Consolidated Plan’s five year period that identifies how funding allocations help meet the goals covered in the Consolidated Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to report the City’s performance. The City’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan was approved by Council on May 4, 2015. The five year goals from the Consolidated Plan are listed below. Five Year Goals 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Annual Action Plan 2016 3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan The following provides a brief overview of the results of the Needs Assessment in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan: NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems • Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems • More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens • Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole. Annual Action Plan 2016 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing • The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). • The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. NA-40 Homeless Needs • The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. • As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, with over 90 percent unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation. • Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs • Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City. • Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older. • More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: • Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County. • Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities. • Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Annual Action Plan 2016 5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 3. Evaluation of past performance The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s overall strategies and goals. The performance of programs and systems are evaluated to ensure the goals and projects are addressing critical needs in the community. Palo Alto has historically allocated CDBG funds to activities that benefit LMI persons, with a top priority to increase affordable housing opportunities in the City. However, due to Palo Alto’s expensive housing market coupled with a decrease in CDBG entitlement funds, it is becoming more difficult to create opportunities for affordable housing. As such, during this Consolidated Planning period the City will be focusing on rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock that is in need of repair. Planning Staff will also work closely with subrecipients to leverage resources and create opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The City’s subrecipients are challenged to think creatively about working together to address the needs in our community. 4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Palo Alto encourages citizen participation through the Action Plan process. This includes consulting local organizations, holding public meetings and encouraging public comment during the public review period. A total of three public hearings have been planned in order to allow for public input. The City actively reached out to all applicants and posted updates on the CDBG website. A 30-day comment period from March 17, 2016 through April 15, 2016 gave citizens an opportunity to offer comments on the draft Action Plan. The draft was be posted on the City’s CDBG website and presented at a public hearing to the Finance Committee on April 5, 2016. 5. Summary of public comments A summary of all written comments received during the public comment period will be inserted before the Action Plan is submitted to HUD. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City accepts and responds to all comments that are submitted. Annual Action Plan 2016 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency PALO ALTO CDBG Administrator PALO ALTO Planning and Community Environment Department HOPWA Administrator HOME Administrator HOPWA-C Administrator Table 2 – Responsible Agencies Narrative (optional) The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s CDBG Coordinator is responsible for the administration of HUD entitlements, which include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds. The Consolidated Plan is a guide for how the City will use its federal funds to meet the housing and community development needs of its populations. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, the City worked collaboratively with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and housing-related needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. The fiscal year 2016/17 Annual Action Plan represents the second year of CDBG funding of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2561 Annual Action Plan 2016 7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 1. Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) During Fiscal Year 2016-17, the City will continue to work with nonprofit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households; private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the City; and other local jurisdictions in carrying out and monitoring regional projects in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. The City will provide technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds and will continue to attend the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meetings. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC's primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. The CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home Leadership Board. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community-wide strategy related to the CoC's work. The County's Office of Supportive Housing serves as the Collaborative Applicant for the CoC, and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. The Office of Supportive Housing is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH). In winter 2015, Destination: Home and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of Annual Action Plan 2016 8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. The City is represented on the CoC by its Human Services Manager. Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components of the Plan action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan's goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS The City of Palo Alto does not receive ESG funds. 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities The City consulted with various groups and organizations as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Table 2, Agencies, groups, organizations who participated in the Consolidated Plan lists all of those parties who participated in the process. Annual Action Plan 2016 9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 1 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting There were no agency types that were not consulted as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3- Other local/regional/federal planning efforts, of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, lists the planning efforts that were considered in preparing the Plan. Annual Action Plan 2016 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation On October 18, 2010, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an amended Citizen Participation Plan that utilizes the Human Relations Commission(HRC), rather than a separate Citizen Advisory Committee, to promote and encourage citizen participation in the planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG Program. The HRC is uniquely positioned to understand and consider the needs of low and very low income persons, members of minority groups, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and residents of neighborhoods where CDBG activities may be undertaken. Thus far the revisions to the Citizen Participation Plan have promoted a more coordinate and effective response by the City to the human service needs in the community. A summary of public participation is outlined in Table 3, Citizen Participation Outreach. The Draft Action Plan was made available for a 30-day comment period to give citizens an opportunity to offer comments. Citizen Partiipation Outreach Sort Or der Mode of Out reach Target of Out reach Summary of response/atte ndance Summary of comments re ceived Summary of co mments not accepted and reasons URL (If applica ble) 1 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The Human Relations Commission will meet on March 10, 2015 to discuss the FY 16/17 funding allocations. Representative s from agencies requesting CDBG funds for FY 16/17 were present. Non-profit agencies discussed their funding request and thanked the City for its continued support. Annual Action Plan 2016 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Or der Mode of Out reach Target of Out reach Summary of response/atte ndance Summary of comments re ceived Summary of co mments not accepted and reasons URL (If applica ble) 2 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The Finance Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on April 5, 2016. A summary will be added after the meeting. 3 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on May 5, 2016. A summary will be added after the meeting. 4 Newspaper Ad Non- targeted/bro ad community A public hearing notice was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 19, 2016. Table 3 – Citizen Participation Outreach Annual Action Plan 2016 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction In Fiscal Year 2017, Palo Alto will allocate approximately $754,418 to eligible activities that address the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. The City received is final allocation amount from HUD on February 16, 2016. Priority Table Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public - federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 441,253 100,000 213,165 754,418 0 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Table 4 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Annual Action Plan 2016 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join Santa Clara County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects are eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of December 31, 2015 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,700,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $763,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below: • Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund: The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with Annual Action Plan 2016 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of December 31, 2015 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,700,000. • Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund: The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of December 31, 2015 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $763,000. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or services. Sixty-five percent of land in the City is open space. Discussion The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-2017 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1, 2016 to June 30 2017 (HUD Program Year 2016). The City’s FY 2017 entitlement amount is $441,253. Additionally, the City estimates approximately $100,000 in program income and an estimated $213,165 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated budget for FY 2016-2017 to $754,418. While U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations are critical, they are not sufficient to overcome all barriers and address all needs that low income individuals and families face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources to successfully provide support and services to the populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) – also programs covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations. Annual Action Plan 2016 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives - 91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $278,825 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Household Housing Unit 2 Homelessness 2015 2020 Homeless Homelessness CDBG: $58,575 Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 531 Households Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020 Non- Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $18,044 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 298 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020 Non-Housing Community Development Fair Housing CDBG: $30,941 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 21 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Table 5 – Goals Summary Annual Action Plan 2016 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Table 6 – Goal Descriptions Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b): Not applicable. Annual Action Plan 2016 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. # Project Name 1 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center 2 Catholic Charities 3 LifeMoves 4 PAHC Management & Services Corporation 5 YWCA of Silicon Valley 6 Project Sentinel 7 City of Palo Alto 8 Downtown Streets Inc. 9 Midpen Housing Table 7 – Project Information Annual Action Plan 2016 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Projects AP-38 Projects Summary Project Summary Information Table 8 – Project Summary 1 Project Name Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $5,012 Description Housing and Emergency Housing Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 persons will be assisted. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Silicon Valley Independent Living Center provides assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing with emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information & referral, and other basic essentials. 2 Project Name Catholic Charities Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $5,012 Description Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Opportunity Services Center Target Date 6/30/2017 Annual Action Plan 2016 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 236 400 persons will be assisted. Location Description Long-term care and skilled nurse facilities located throughout the City. Planned Activities Catholic Charities assists in problem resolution and advocates for the rights of residents of long term care facilities in Palo Alto. The majority of the clients assisted are low-income, frail, elderly, and chronically ill. This program assists these vulnerable, dependent and socially isolated residents receive the care and placement to which they are entitled. 3 Project Name LifeMoves Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $35,592 Description Opportunity Services Center Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons will be assisted Location Description 33 Encina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Activities LifeMoves provides basic necessities for persons who are homeless or at- risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Services Center is a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service, day drop-in center that provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services. 4 Project Name PAHC Management & Services Corporation Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $22,983 Description SRO Resident Support Program Annual Action Plan 2016 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 131 persons will be assisted. Location Description 439 Emerson Street and 735 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Activities Palo Alto Housing Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services for low-income residents of single room occupancy facilities in order to help them maintain housing stability. Activities include financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention and case management. 5 Project Name YWCA of Silicon Valley Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $8,020 Description Domestic Violence Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 45 persons will be assisted Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Support Network for Battered Women, a Division of YWCA will provide individuals and families experiencing domestic violence, the program provides a bilingual domestic violence hotline, an emergency shelter, crisis counseling, legal assistance, court accompaniment, individual and group therapy, support groups, children’s therapy groups, preventative education, safety planning and community referrals. 6 Project Name Project Sentinel Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Annual Action Plan 2016 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Funding CDBG: $30,941 Description Fair Housing Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 21 persons will be assisted Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Project Sentinel will provide community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination, and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing practices. California and federal fair housing laws assure specific protected classes the right to be treated in terms of their individual merits and qualifications in seeking housing. Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the law or their rights. 7 Project Name City of Palo Alto Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Homelessness Strengthen Neighborhoods Fair Housing Economic Development Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Fair Housing Economic Development Funding CDBG: $77,310 Description Planning and Administration Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Annual Action Plan 2016 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Planned Activities Administer the Administrative costs for the overall management, coordination, and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to completion. 8 Project Name Downtown Streets Inc. Target Area Goals Supported Economic Development Needs Addressed Economic Development Funding CDBG: $290,723 Description Workforce Development Program Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 30 jobs will be created for very low income and low income individuals. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team will screen and prepare applicants and will use their community connections to provide training and job opportunities. 9 Project Name MidPen Housing Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Funding CDBG: $278,825 Description Palo Alto Garden Housing Rehabilitation Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 156 housing units for low income seniors. Annual Action Plan 2016 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Location Description 650 San Antonio Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Planned Activities Phase II rehabilitation related costs at Palo Alto Gardens (156 senior/family units). Project activities include: drought-tolerant plants, turf removal, irrigation replacement, adding additional parking spots through reconfiguration and updating building and apartment signage. Annual Action Plan 2016 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds N/A N/A Table 9 - Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction Palo Alto has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds in the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by goal. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 0 Special-Needs 156 Total 156 Table 10 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 156 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 156 Table 11 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households (estimated to be a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance. Additionally, HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. Annual Action Plan 2016 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussions above. Annual Action Plan 2016 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,556 single individuals) and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs In January 2015, a Point in Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters, safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Palo Alto financially contributed to this effort. The next PIT is scheduled for January 2017. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In addressing the Consolidated Plan and the Continuum of Care strategic plans, Palo Alto will provide funding for essential services and operations to local emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities. The facilities provide shelter and services to homeless families with children, single parents with children, single men and women, victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, homeless veterans, and the population living on the street. One example includes the Hotel de Zink rotating shelter, which provides overnight shelter to approximately 15 individuals every night. Annual Action Plan 2016 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded • LifeMoves - Opportunity Services Center: $35,592 The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month. • Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program: $290,723 This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded • Abilities United – Disability Services: Amount Pending This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities. • Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure: Amount Pending The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website Annual Action Plan 2016 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter. • Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets: Amount Pending Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community. • Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program: Amount Pending Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling: $22,893 Provides counseling and case-management services for the low-income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing. Avenidas – Senior Services: Agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area. La Comida de California – Hot Meals for The Elderly: Daily meal program for the elderly. May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Palo Alto residents: Basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low-income Annual Action Plan 2016 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area. Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect: Provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families. SALA – Legal Assistance to Elders: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elders. Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) Introduction The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools. However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices. Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment The City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. Annual Action Plan 2016 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Discussion Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. The City is currently in the process of updating its Commercial and Residential Impact Fee Nexus Studies and the estimated completion date is June 30, 2016. Annual Action Plan 2016 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the needs of underserved populations. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds, such as: • The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides approximately $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit agencies. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. • The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium. Annual Action Plan 2016 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances: • The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund which provides funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • The Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. • The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. • The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided • The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable housing projects to be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2016-2017, these programs will include the following: Annual Action Plan 2016 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. • Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 334 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs. Discussion Please see discussions above. Annual Action Plan 2016 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program requirements. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 100,000 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 100,000 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities 0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income.Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00% Appendix A: Application for Federal Assistance Form SF-424 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 8/31/2016 * 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name: Division Name: Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number: Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision 05/15/2016 B-16-MC-06-0020 City of Palo Alto 94-6000389C 0505207820000 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA: California USA: UNITED STATES 94301 Planning & Comm. Environment Long Range Planning Ms.Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Senior Planner 650-329-2561 650-329-2154 eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 C: City or Township Government U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.218 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The City of Palo Alto's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for Fiscal Year 2017. View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative:* Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date:* b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: 14th 14th Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 06/30/201707/01/2016 441,253.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 213,165.00 100,000.00 754,418.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.James Keene City Manager 650-329-2563 james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Appendix B: Certifications CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing --The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan --It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Anti-Lobbying --To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1.No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2.If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3.It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Authority of Jurisdiction --The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 --It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Signature/Authorized Official Date Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation --It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan --Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan --It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds --It has complied with the following criteria: 1.Maximum Feasible Priority.With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 2.Overall Benefit.The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) _____ , ______(a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; 3.Special Assessments.It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force --It has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws --The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint --Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 35, subparts A, B, J, K and R; Compliance with Laws --It will comply with applicable laws. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING: A.Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Appendix C: Public Hearing Advertisement NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PALO ALTO’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCKGRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM This is to notify the general public and other interested parties that a 30-day public review period of the Draft Annual Action Plan for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, will begin on March 17, 2016 and end on April 15, 2016. The Draft Annual Action Plan describes the activities the City may fund under the 2017 CDBG Program. Collectively these activities are intended to meet Palo Alto’s affordable housing and community development objectives described in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Copies of the Draft Annual Action Plan will be available on March 17, 2016 at the Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, on the City’s website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/advance_planning/cdbg.asp or by calling Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner, at (650) 329-2561. Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed Draft Annual Action Plan during the public review period, or to comment at the public hearings and meetings described below. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS The City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission will hold a Public Hearing on March 10, 2016 to review the Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG funding allocations recommended by the CDBG Human Relations Selection Committee. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto Finance Committee will hold a Public Hearing on April 5, 2016 to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG funding allocations identified in the Draft Annual Action Plan. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The Palo Alto City Council will hold a Public Hearing on May 2, 2016 to adopt the Annual Action Plan and the associated Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG allocations. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. 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: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2550 (Voice) ada@cityofpaloalto.org Appendix D: Public Comments HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Thursday, March 10, 2016 Community Meeting Room Palo Alto Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Alhassani, Chen, Gordon Gray, O’Nan, Savage, Stinger, Stone Absent: Stone Council Liaison: Council Member Wolbach Staff: Minka van der Zwaag, Mary Constantino BUSINESS 2. Recommendations to Finance Committee for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding for Fiscal Year 2017 Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner stated that the purpose of her presentation is to provide a brief overview of the FY2016-17 CDBG allocation process. The City of Palo Alto receives annual funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant. The principle federal program provides grants to improve physical, economic and social conditions primarily for persons of low or moderate income and activities funded through CDBG must be one of three objectives: a.Benefit low and very low income persons; b. Aid in prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and c.Meet other community needs that are particularly urgent for the low income community All of the activities funded by the city meet the first objective. On February 16, 2016 HUD notified the city of their FY2016-17 CDBG entitlement allocation, which was $431,253, a slight decrease over the FY2015-16 grant so the current balance is $442,460 a decrease of $1,207. The total estimated funding available in FY2016-17 is $754,418 which consists of the entitlement grant and an estimated $100,000 in program income and approximately $213,000 in prior year resources. The CDBG program has five funding categories in which to allocate funds: Public Services, Planning and Administration, Economic Development, and Housing and Public Facilities. According to federal regulations, Public Service has a maximum spending of 15% cap on the entitlement grant and 15% of actual program income received during the previous fiscal year so therefore the maximum that can be allocated for Public Services for FY2016-17 is $76,619. Planning & Administration, which includes the administrative costs associated with managing the CDBG program, has a 20% spending cap placed on the entitlement grant and projected program income from the following fiscal year, therefore, the maximum that can be allocated ATTACHMENT C for Planning and Administration in FY2016-17 is $108,000. There is no cap on the other three categories: Economic Development, Housing and Public Facilities. The CDBG program is largely based on a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a Consolidated Plan, to address the priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining identified objectives. The Draft FY2015-20 Consolidated Plan was submitted to Council May, 2015. The primary objectives include the preservation of existing affordable housing units, supporting activities to end homelessness, providing community services to special needs populations, strengthening neighborhoods, promoting e fair housing choice, and expanding economic opportunities for low income households. The City needs to prepare a one-year action plan outlining the activities that will implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. Currently, the CDBG program operates under a two-year funding request cycle and FY2016- 17 is the second year. The HRC Selection Committee consisting of Commissioners Gordon Gray, Savage, and Stinger met on February 25, 2016 and made funding recommendations, which are provided as Attachment C of the staff memo. Ms. Murillo-Garcia stated that she would like to take the opportunity to thank the Commissioners for their support and making the funding recommendations. Ms. Murillo-Garcia added that in terms of the recommendations for Public Services there was approximately an 8 percent reduction of funds available over the current fiscal year so the funding needed to be reduced by 8 percent and Planning and Administration reduced City administration and Project Sentinel by 6 percent because there was 6 percent less available for the next fiscal year. The staff recommendation is to have a public hearing and take public comment and then the approved HRC Selection Committee recommendations for FY2016-17 will go to the Finance Committee. Chair O’Nan stated that she wanted to clarify that there was an 8 percent reduction in Public Services category and a 6 percent reduction in Planning and Administration but the other two categories did not have a reduction. Ms. Garcia-Murillo stated that the reason is that there is a set cap for Public Services at $76,000. Last year the City had $82,000 to allocate because we had more program income so there were more funds to allocate. The cap last year in Planning and Administration $108,000 and the city had $115,000, and the other categories do not have a cap. Chair O’Nan asked why the Micro Enterprise Program (MAP) program was not listed. Ms. Murillo-Garcia replied that due to staffing shortages in the Planning Department they do not have the capacity to operate the program so the City has not been able to use the $150,000 that was allocated in FY2013. The City recommends reallocating the funds in this process and next year during the two-year CDBG process look for a third party administrator to run the program because the City is still interested in providing the program but does not have the staffing capacity right now. Peter Villareal, Director of Housing Development from Mid-Peninsula Housing Development, stated that he addressed the Commission last year regarding Palo Alto Gardens, which is an affordable housing project located off of San Antonio Road. Mid-Peninsula Housing Development is requesting additional funding. Last year they had a request for $500,000, but unfortunately the bids came out higher than anticipated so working with City staff they figured how to split the Scope of Work to work with the funds that were awarded ($392,000) to focus on accessibility and upgrades for the seniors who live at the property and address the water savings. Mr. Villareal stated that he is requesting an additional $300,000 and the staff recommendation is $278,825, even though they welcome any funding. Mid-Peninsula Housing focusses on trying to keep housing affordable for their residents and is trying to take on any public funding to help support the capitol repairs. Chair O’Nan asked in the category of Housing Rehab if it is possible to divert any of the funds from the Micro Enterprise Program. Ms. Murillo-Garcia stated that the funds have already been diverted. The funding is part of the $213,000 that was reallocated. The funding is limited to $754,000 so the only way to provide more funding is to take away funding from another program. Commissioner Stinger stated that the subcommittee looked at the proposals very carefully and the Mid-Peninsula Housing Development packet was well prepared and the subcommittee understands the needs of the program but CDBG supports as many groups as it can and the program is a real service for people who really need it. Mr. Villareal stated he appreciates the Commission’s support because it is his mission to support preserving affordability in Silicon Valley. Commissioner Alhassani asked if the project addresses parking issues. Ms. Villareal replied that the project focused on the interiors first and then there is a component that focusses on improving the parking to make it more efficient by restriping and additional landscape. Commissioner Alhassani asked if there if space for additional units. Mr. Villareal stated that would be a long term goal to look at higher density but right now the project is focusing on preservation. Ms. Wanda Hale, Program Manager for the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, stated that she wanted to thank the Commission for their support of the program over the years and for this opportunity share information about the program. The Ombudsman Program provides support for the most vulnerable people in the community; seniors and the disabled who live in long term care advocating for dignity in rights and healthcare in the facilities. The service is unduplicated because it is the only program that by law has 24-hour access to the residents in the facility and the facility is required to provide information so that people can contact the program. The program was created from the Older Americans Act so the services are free to the residents and families who need the services and program really relies on the cities which the program serves to who help support because the amount of money from the federal and state government is not enough to sustain the program. Living in long term care is not a first choice of anyone and many seniors and the disabled do not have any other option so it puts them in a very vulnerable position so the program provides unannounced visits to facilities to advocate for the residents. The program services the County of Santa Clara and services 13 cities and is made up of 43 volunteers and 3.5 staff who are all trained and licensed. The volunteers receive a nursing home to advocate for and staff receives about 100 nursing homes. The program serves approximately 12,000 people in Santa Clara County. In Palo Alto there are 4 nursing homes, 9 assisted living facilities and 1,000 people living in these residences in Palo Alto. In Palo Alto there is one staff assigned and a couple of volunteers. Even in Palo Alto there is still a lot of elder abuse and most of the work the program does is elder abuse - from financial, physical, verbal, and sexual abuse some of that is initiated by staff in facilities or family members because many families feel entitled to their loved one’s home, but the home should be sold to take care of the parent and not allowing the sale of the home jeopardizes the senior by creating a wrongful eviction from the facility. Ann Marquart from Project Sentinel stated that they are funded by the city to provide fair housing services, investigation and enforcement of civil rights laws and also tenant/landlord counseling and dispute resolution though Human Services Resource Allocation Program (HSRAP). Through the CDBG program Project Sentinel takes in complaints from residents in Palo Alto who believe they are experiencing housing discrimination or from a home sale or any facet of the home maintenance process. For example when a family of four submitted an application to rent a 1,100 square foot property that had a clause limiting the two bedrooms to four people with no more than two children so if the wife got pregnant they would have to vacate the home. Project Sentinel educated the owner of the law and the owner replied that if she had known the law, she would not have rented to them. Project Sentinel wrote a letter clarifying the law and again the owner was not going to withdraw the notice to the family so this is a case a lawsuit was drawn with a resolution. The family was able to remain in place with a promise from the owner she would not increase the rent and the rental agreement clause was changed so there was no longer any discrimination and $4,000 was paid to the family of the children and mandatory trainings for the owner. The most frequent protected category that Project Sentinel receives is in regards to disability and service animals. Philip Dah of LifeMoves formerly InnVision Shelter Network reported on some of the successes with the Opportunity Center and Hotel de Zink. Hotel de Zink is the only shelter in Palo Alto. The shelter sleeps 15 people all year around at different locations and last November worked with the county to increase the capacity to 20 which will end at the end of March, but in speaking with the County the program may be able to continue all year. The County has approved to provide the Opportunity Center a paid Housing Specialist with the sole purpose of looking for housing for clients who come to the Opportunity Center as well as homeless prevention. The people who live at the Opportunity Center have many reasons as to how they lost their previous home such as mental health and income. The Housing Specialist will make sure people keep their housing and stay in there. Since there are no housing opportunities in Palo Alto, a good relationship has been built with landlords in San Jose, Hayward and Oakland and as far as Sacramento to make sure their clients can afford their low income places. In January the County also provided $60,000 to provide emergency rental and utility assistance. Prior to that grant the Opportunity Center only received $16,000 for the year and was able to serve a very small number of people but now the contract is good for the next two years. Chair O’Nan stated that it is very difficult when there are cuts, and she is trying to figure out how to allocate anymore fairly, but when the federal funds are decreased for this cycle there is nothing that can be done. Commissioner Savage made a motion to approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding for Fiscal Year 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Gordon Gray AYES: Unanimous City of Palo Alto (ID # 6583) Finance Committee Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/5/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: FY 2017 CDBG Allocations Title: Recommendations on Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocations (CDBG) and the Draft Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Action Plan From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1.Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan and as described in this report; 2.Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2016/2017 CDBG application and 2016/2017 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and 3.Authorize staff to submit the 2016/2017 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2016 deadline. Executive Summary The City of Palo Alto receives funds annually from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as an entitlement city under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. It is the principal Federal program providing localities with grants to devise innovative and constructive neighborhood approaches to improve the physical, economic, and social conditions in their communities through “the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.” Attachment D City of Palo Alto Page 2 HUD requirements include preparation of a five-year strategic plan of action, referred to as a Consolidated Plan, to address priority housing and community development needs and to set goals for attaining identified objectives. An Action Plan is prepared annually to identify specific projects to be funded in that year that implement the strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 4, 2015. The draft 2016/2017 Action Plan (Attachment B) has been made available for Public review from March 17, 2016 through April 15, 2016. The Finance Committee is being asked to review the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan with funding recommendations. Upon review of the draft plan and funding recommendations, it is requested the Finance Committee make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will review the recommendations of the Finance Committee at a public hearing scheduled for May 2, 2016. Staff will then submit the Action Plan to HUD in order to meet the May 15, 2016 deadline. Background The CDBG program is authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. As an entitlement city under the CDBG program, the City of Palo Alto receives funds annually on a formula grant basis. Palo Alto has historically expended all of its CDBG funds on projects benefiting low- and very-low-income persons. HUD regulations require all CDBG funded activities meet one of the three national objectives:  Benefit low-and very-low-income persons;  Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; or  Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency, or posing a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community. All of the funded projects in Palo Alto meet the first objective of benefiting low-and very-low- income persons. Palo Alto has five primary CDBG program activity areas in which to allocate funds: Public Services, Planning and Administration, Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities. Federal regulations limit the amount that can be spent on Administration and Public Services. The allocations for Administrative activities and Public Services are both proposed to be at the maximum spending cap in Fiscal Year 2016/2017. No more than 20 percent of the City’s entitlement grant and estimated program income for the following year can be spent on Administration. It is estimated that $108,251 will be available for this category for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Similarly, Federal law places a maximum spending cap of 15 percent of the grant allocation and 15 percent of any program income received during the previous fiscal year on Public Services. It is estimated that $76,619 will be available for Public Service activities for Fiscal Year 2016/2017. Public Service activities include services for homeless City of Palo Alto Page 3 persons, housing and emergency services to low income individuals with disabilities, and services to victims of domestic violence. On February 16, 2016, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2015/2016 CDBG Entitlement. The final CDBG Entitlement amount is $441,253. Consolidated Plan The 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan is a 5-year strategic plan of action that addresses priority housing and community development needs. It also sets specific goals for attaining identified objectives. Each year, an Annual Action Plan is prepared to identify specific projects to be funded to implement the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan updates are required by HUD in order for the City to receive federal funding from programs such as the CDBG. Currently the CDBG program is guided by the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan adopted by Council May 4, 2015. Action Plan HUD requires submittal of an Annual Action Plan no later than 45 days prior to the start of the program year, or May 15th of every year, that identifies the specific projects to be funded to implement strategies identified in the Consolidated Plan. The 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan is a five-year strategic plan of action that addresses priority housing and community development needs. CDBG Applications Currently, the CDBG program operates under a two-year funding request cycle. Applications for Fiscal Years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 were made available in November 2014. A notice of CDBG funding availability was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 21, 2014 with completed applications due January 9, 2015. Mandatory pre-proposal conferences were conducted on December 10, 2014 and January 5, 2015 to assist applicants with program regulations and project eligibility questions. Because the City did not receive sufficient funding applications for the housing category during the regular two-year funding process, the City made available applications for multi-family housing rehabilitation projects only in November 2015. A notice of CDBG funding availability for multi-family housing rehabilitation projects was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 20, 2015 with completed applications due January 8, 2016. A mandatory pre-proposal conference was conducted on December 9, 2015 to assist applicants with program regulations. The CDBG applications considered for funding for Fiscal Year 2016/2017 are identified on the attached chart (Attachment A). During this funding cycle the City did not receive any funding applications for public facilities improvement projects. Citizen Participation A Citizen Participation Plan is a required component of the CDBG Program. HUD regulations require CDBG recipient agencies to prepare and implement a plan that provides adequate opportunity for citizens to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and City of Palo Alto Page 4 assessment of the CDBG program. On October 18, 2010 the City adopted an amended Citizen Participation Plan and shifted the CDBG advisory role from a separate Citizens Advisory Committee to the established Human Relations Commission (HRC). In summary, the intention of the new plan was to provide a collaborative link between the CDBG funding process and the Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP). The HRC is now charged with reviewing funding recommendations for the City’s two human service funding sources. A sub-committee comprised of staff and three members of the HRC was established to review both the CDBG and HSRAP funding applications and to provide recommendations to the full commission. While both CDBG and HSRAP are operating on a two-year funding cycle, final CDBG funding recommendations need to be reviewed annually since the budget is contingent upon funding allocations received from HUD. The sub-committee met on February 25, 2016 at City Hall to discuss the Fiscal Year 2016/2017 CDBG budget, reviewed the multi-family housing rehabilitation application received, and recommended funding amounts based on the estimated funds available. On March 10, 2016 the HRC considered the funding recommendations of the subcommittee at a public hearing. Commitment of Funds HUD regulations require that CDBG funds be expended in a timely manner. Specifically, the regulatory requirement is that no more than 1.5 times a jurisdiction’s annual entitlement grant amount remain in the City’s Letter of Credit 60 days prior to the end of the program year. In an effort to reduce the backlog of unspent CDBG funds, HUD employs monetary sanctions against jurisdictions that exceed this timeliness requirement. For this reason, all funding applications are scrutinized to ensure the readiness of the program or project to move forward and expend funds in a timely manner. Discussion Palo Alto’s CDBG program continues to be directed towards expanding and maintaining existing affordable housing supply, promoting housing opportunities and choices, and providing supportive services for targeted low-income groups including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. Moreover, the CDBG program places a high priority to expand the goal of creating economic opportunities for low- income persons. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2016/2017, as presented in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan, address the priority housing and community development needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan. 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan Per HUD requirements, the City is required to prepare a Consolidated Plan every five years. The 2015-2020 plan outlines the following six specific goals: City of Palo Alto Page 5  Affordable Housing: Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households.  Homelessness: Support activities to end homelessness.  Community Services: Support activities that provide community services to low income and special needs households.  Strengthen Neighborhoods: Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods.  Fair Housing: Promote fair housing choice.  Economic Development: Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Palo Alto's CDBG program continues to be directed toward: expanding and maintaining the affordable housing supply; promoting housing opportunities and choices; maintaining and improving community facilities; and providing supportive services for targeted low income groups, including persons who are homeless, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and other special needs groups. All of the proposed projects for CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2016/2017, as presented in the draft 2016/17 Action Plan, address the priority housing and supportive service needs identified in the draft Consolidated Plan. Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Funds Available for Allocation On February 16, 2016, HUD notified the City of its Fiscal Year 2016/2017 CDBG Entitlement amount of $441,253, which is $1,207 less than the current Fiscal Year 2015/2016 allocation. Based on the foregoing, the total amount available for allocation in Fiscal Year 2016/2017 is estimated to be $754,418 as summarized below: $441,253 Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Entitlement Grant $213,165 Reallocated Funds from Previous Years: $ 6,656 – City of Palo Alto CDBG Admin (FY 2015) $ 1,779 – IVSN Opportunity Center (FY2015) $ 6,784– Downtown Streets Inc. (FY 2015) $150,000 – Microenterprise Assistance Program (FY 2014) $ 47,946 – Unprogrammed Excess Program Income (FY 2015) $100,000 Estimated Program Income from Palo Alto Housing Corporation that is generated from loan repayments and rental income in excess of expenses on specific properties acquired or rehabilitated with CDBG funds $ 754,418 ESTIMATED TOTAL AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION Of the $754,418 of CDBG funds anticipated to be available, the total amount is proposed to be used during Fiscal Year 2016/2017. City of Palo Alto Page 6 The following summarizes the calculations for funding limitations that are placed on two funding categories: Maximum Available for Public Services Estimated Fiscal Year 2016/2017 CDBG Entitlement Grant $441,253 Fiscal Year 2015/2016 Actual Program Income Received1 $ 69,541 Public Service Cap (15% of $510,794) $ 76,619 Maximum Available for Planning/Administration Estimated Fiscal Year 2016/2017 CDBG Entitlement Grant $441,253 Estimated Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Program Income $100,000 Planning/Admin Cap (20% of $541,253) $108,251 The difference between the funding caps and the amount proposed to be allocated during Fiscal Year 2016/2017, or $569,548, yields the amount that can be used to fund projects within the other three funding categories; Economic Development, Housing, and Public Facilities. Additional funding can be made available for these activities if less is provided for Administration or Public Services. Fiscal Year 2016/2017 – Funding Requests and Recommendations Palo Alto’s CDBG program is operating under a two-year funding cycle. Funding for Fiscal Year 2016/2017 is contingent upon the CDBG allocation, program income, and any available funds for reallocation. Public Service and Administration Caps have been calculated in accordance with available funds. All of the agencies remain eligible and meet program goals and objectives. A list of the submitted applications and the funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2016/17 is included in Attachment A. On March 10, 2016, the HRC recommended approval of the Selection Committee’s funding recommendations including the adjustments described above. Table 1, Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Funding Recommendations, identifies the applications recommended for funding and the final allocation amounts recommended by the HRC. 1 Actual Program Income received in Fiscal Year 2015/2016 includes $69,541 from Palo Alto Housing Corporation loan repayments. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Table 1: Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Funding Recommendations 2 In accordance with the City’s internal guidelines, CDBG funds for capital projects are typically awarded as interest free loans. Following the HRC’s recommendation, MidPen informed the City that certain bondholder restrictions may prevent it from accepting a loan and requested the City convert the loan to a grant. The City is currently exploring options with MidPen and will provide a status report at the full Council meeting. Applicant Agency FY2016 Final Allocation FY 2017 Funding Request HRC Recommendations Public Services Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Hotels Supportive Services $24,861 $ 42,874 $ 22,983 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman $5,422 $ 6,500 $ 5,012 LifeMoves (formerly InnVision Shelter Network)- Opportunity Services Center $38,499 $ 50,000 $ 35,592 YWCA/Support Network – Domestic Violence Services $8,676 $ 10,000 $ 8,020 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services $5,422 $ 10,000 $ 5,012 Sub-total $82,880 $119,374 $ 76,619 Admin/Fair Housing Services Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services $32,016 $ 32,016 $ 30,941 City of Palo Alto - CDBG Administration $83,686 $ 80,000 $ 77,310 Sub-total $115,702 $112,016 $108,251 Economic Development Downtown Streets Inc. – Workforce Development Program $290,723 $314,100 $290,723 Sub-total $290,723 $314,100 $290,723 Housing MidPen Housing – Palo Alto Gardens Rehab Project2 $392,368 $300,000 $278,825 Sub-total $392,368 $300,000 $278,825 Grand Total $881,673 $845,490 $754,418 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Planning staff has actively taken measures to introduce efficiency in program administration that will result in a less staff intensive program. These include streamlining the administrative procedures to reduce staffing needs, operating under a two-year funding cycle, and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency and reduce on-site monitoring visits. Moreover, staff has identified ways to recover certain personnel costs associated with individual projects that require administration beyond the basic CDBG program administration requirements. These are referred to as project delivery costs and are typically associated with capital outlay projects that require staff to assist with the development of bid documents and assistance with federal procurement requirements. Project delivery costs can be charged to specific projects for managing the project. Project delivery costs can only be charged to capital projects, such as the Midpen Housing Palo Alto Gardens project. For Fiscal Year 2016/2017 this includes reducing CDBG staffing level to a .35 full time equivalency position for basic CDBG administration related activities. The cost for this is approximately $65,000. Staff is requesting additional funding in the CDBG Administration budget in the amount of $12,310 to cover the potential cost associated with consultant contracts which may be used to support CDBG Program administration. The total amount requested for CDBG Administration from the CDBG grant is $77,310. Timeline Funding recommendation made by the Finance Committee will be forwarded to the City Council for review and approval at a public hearing scheduled for May 2, 2016. Subsequently, the adopted Action Plan will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2016. Resource Impact As mentioned above, several measures have been taken to ensure there is no General Fund subsidy for the administration of the CDBG Program. This includes streamlining the program to reduce staffing needs and revised monitoring guidelines to improve efficiency of the program. Currently, staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant is approximately $65,000. The total staff recovery from the CDBG entitlement grant proposed for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 is approximately .35 full time equivalency, or approximately $65,000, thus not further substantially impacting the General Fund. While the amount is not sufficient to cover the full cost of 1.0 full time equivalency position, it does cover the full staffing needs of administering the CDBG program. The staff person assigned to CDBG works on CDBG administration for .35 FTE and the balance of their time, .65 FTE, is spent on affordable housing. Policy Implications All of the applications recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2016/2017 are consistent with the priorities established in the City’s adopted 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Moreover, they are consistent with the housing programs and policies in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review City of Palo Alto Page 9 For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), budgeting in itself is not a project. Prior to commitment or release of funds for each of the proposed projects, staff will carry out the required environmental reviews or assessments and certify that the review procedures under CEQA, HUD and NEPA regulations have been satisfied for each particular project. Attachments:  Attachment A: Fiscal Year 2016/17 CDBG Funding Recommendations (DOCX)  Attachment B: Draft 2016/17 Annual Action Plan (PDF) CITY OF PALO ALTO CDBG APPLICATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2017 AGENCY PROGRAM NAME FY 2016 FINAL FY 2017 REQUEST HRC RECOMMENDATIONS Public Services (15% CAP = $76,619) Palo Alto Housing Corp. SRO Resident Support Program $ 24,861 $ 42,874 $ 22,983 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program $ 5,422 $ 6,500 $ 5,012 LifeMoves (formerly Inn Vision) NetNetwork Opportunity Services Center $ 38,499 $ 50,000 $ 35,592 YWCA/Support Network Domestic Violence Services $ 8,676 $ 10,000 $ 8,020 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Housing and Emergency Services $ 5,422 $ 10,000 $ 5,012 Public Service Total $ 82,880 $ 119,374 $ 76,619 Planning & Administration (20% CAP = $108,251) Project Sentinel Fair Housing Services $ 32,016 $ 32,016 $ 30,941 City of Palo Alto CDBG Administration $ 83,686 $ 80,000 $ 77,310 Planning & Administration Total $ 115,702 $ 112,016 $ 108,251 Economic Development Downtown Streets Workforce Development Program $ 290,723 $ 314,100 $ 290,723 Economic Development Total $ 290,723 $ 314,100 $ 290,723 Housing Midpen Housing Palo Alto Gardens Rehab $ 392,368 $ 300,000 $ 278,825 GRAND TOTAL $ 881,673 $ 845,490 $ 754,418 Funds Available $ 754,418 Available for Public Service (15% Cap) $ 76,619 Available for Planning/Admin (20% Cap) $ 108,251 Available for Economic Development/Housing $ 569,548 Attachment A DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2017 ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN Annual Update of the City’s Consolidated Plan for the Period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 Public Review and Comment Period: March 17, 2016 – April 15, 2016 Prepared by the Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Director Hillary Gitelman Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner T: 650-329-2561 E: Eloiza.Murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment B FISCAL YEAR 2017 ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary….……………………………..………………………………………………………………………......1 Lead and Responsible Agencies….……………………………..…………………………………………………………..6 Consultation…………………………..….……………………………..…………………………………………………………..7 Public Participation............................................................................................................... 10 Expected Resource................................................................................................................ 12 Annual Goals and Objectives……………………………………….………………………………………………………15 Projects………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 Geographic Distributions…………………………………………….……………………………………………………….24 Affordable Housing……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………….25 Public Housing……..……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………….26 Homeless and Other Special Needs……………………………………………………………………….…………….28 Barriers to Affordable Housing……..……………………………………………………………………….…………….28 Other Actions........................................................................................................................34 Program Specific Requirements.............................................................................................37 APPENDICES Appendix A: Application for Federal Assistance Form SF-424 Appendix B: Certifications Appendix C: Public Hearing Advertisement Appendix D: Public Comments Annual Action Plan 2016 1 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Executive Summary AP-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) 1. Introduction The City of Palo Alto (City) is an entitlement jurisdiction that receives federal funding from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The purpose of CDBG funding is to help jurisdictions address their community development needs. CDBG grantees are eligible to use the resources they receive for Public Services, Community and Economic Development, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Public Facilities/Infrastructure, and CIP Housing Rehabilitation. Public Service projects provide social services and/or other direct support to individuals and households in need of assistance. Community and Economic Development projects are focused on assisting businesses and organizations with small business loans, façade improvements, and other initiatives. CIP Public Facilities/Infrastructure projects are those which aim to improve public facilities and infrastructure. CIP Housing Rehabilitation projects are for housing rehabilitation improvements of single and multi-unit housing. A total of $754,418 is available for funding projects and programs during the 2016 Program Year which correlates with the City Fiscal Year 2017. The City anticipates receiving $441,253 from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. In addition, the City will also reprogram $213,165 in previous year resources, and $100,000 in anticipated program income. Palo Alto has access to a variety of federal, state, and local resources to achieve its housing and community development priorities. Table 1, Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG Budget, summarizes the uses of the funds proposed during Fiscal Year 2017. Specific funding resources will be utilized based on the opportunities and constraints of each particular project or program. Annual Action Plan 2016 2 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) TABLE 1: FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET Applicant Agency Budget Public Services Palo Alto Housing Corporation - SRO Hotels Supportive Services $22,983 Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program $ 5,012 InnVision Shelter Network - Opportunity Center - Drop-In Center $35,592 YWCA/Support Network - Domestic Violence Services $ 8,020 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center – Housing and Emergency Services $ 5,012 Sub-total $76,619 Planning and Administration Project Sentinel – Fair Housing Services $ 30,941 City of Palo Alto Administration $ 77,310 Sub-total $108,251 Economic Development Downtown Streets – Workforce Development Program $290,723 Sub-total $290,723 Housing Midpen Housing – Palo Alto Gardens Rehab $278,825 Sub-total Grand Total $754,418 HUD requires that entitlement jurisdictions complete a Consolidated Plan every five years. The Consolidated Plan includes an analysis of the jurisdiction’s market, affordable housing, and community development conditions. Additionally, entitlement jurisdictions must also submit an Annual Action Plan to report the distribution of federal entitlement program funding over the Consolidated Plan’s five year period that identifies how funding allocations help meet the goals covered in the Consolidated Plan and a Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) to report the City’s performance. The City’s 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan was approved by Council on May 4, 2015. The five year goals from the Consolidated Plan are listed below. Five Year Goals 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. Annual Action Plan 2016 3 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 2. Summarize the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan The following provides a brief overview of the results of the Needs Assessment in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan: NA -10 Housing Needs • Twenty-nine percent of households in the City are paying more than 30 percent of their income toward housing costs. • Thirteen percent of households are severely cost burdened and paying more than 50 percent of their income toward housing. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems • Eighty-nine percent of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • Ninety-three percent of Asian households in the 50-80% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to 71 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • More than three-quarters of Hispanic households (78 percent) in the 80-100% AMI category experience housing problems, compared to a nearly half (54 percent) of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems • More than half of Asian households in the 30-50% AMI income category experience severe housing problems in the City, compared to 43 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • More than three-quarters of Asian households (77 percent) in the 50-80% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 40 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. • Forty-five percent of Hispanic households in the 80-100% AMI category experience a disproportionate amount of severe housing problems, compared to 23 percent of the jurisdiction as a whole. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens • Hispanic households experience a disproportionate cost burden, with 27 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 16 percent of the City as a whole. Annual Action Plan 2016 4 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • American Indian, Alaska Native households experience a disproportionate severe cost burden, with 33 percent of households experiencing cost burden, compared to 13 percent of the City as a whole. NA-35 Public Housing • The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). • The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households – this is estimated to be a 10-year wait. NA-40 Homeless Needs • The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city. • As of the 2013 Point in Time Homeless Survey, Palo Alto had 157 homeless residents, with over 90 percent unsheltered and living in a place not fit for human habitation. • Palo Alto clients – those who report that their last permanent zip code was in Palo Alto – represent approximately one percent of the County’s homeless clients. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs • Individuals 65 years of age and older represent 17 percent of the total population of the City. • Thirty-three percent of households in the City contain at least one person 62 years or older. • More than one-quarter of individuals (27 percent) age 65 or older have a disability compared to four percent of the population age 18 to 64, or seven percent of the population as a whole. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs • Residents and stakeholders who participated in the community outreach for the Consolidated Plan identified the following community development needs as high priorities within these three categories: • Public Facilities: increased homeless facilities, youth centers, rehabilitation of senior centers, and recreational facilities throughout the County. • Public Improvements: complete streets that accommodate multiple transportation modes, pedestrian safety, ADA curb improvements, and increased access to parks and open space amenities. • Public Services: food assistance and nutrition programs for vulnerable populations, year-round activities for youth, health care services for seniors and low income families, and services for homeless persons Annual Action Plan 2016 5 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) 3. Evaluation of past performance The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is critical to ensure the City and its subrecipients are implementing activities effectively and that those activities align with the City’s overall strategies and goals. The performance of programs and systems are evaluated to ensure the goals and projects are addressing critical needs in the community. Palo Alto has historically allocated CDBG funds to activities that benefit LMI persons, with a top priority to increase affordable housing opportunities in the City. However, due to Palo Alto’s expensive housing market coupled with a decrease in CDBG entitlement funds, it is becoming more difficult to create opportunities for affordable housing. As such, during this Consolidated Planning period the City will be focusing on rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock that is in need of repair. Planning Staff will also work closely with subrecipients to leverage resources and create opportunities for partnership and collaboration. The City’s subrecipients are challenged to think creatively about working together to address the needs in our community. 4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process Palo Alto encourages citizen participation through the Action Plan process. This includes consulting local organizations, holding public meetings and encouraging public comment during the public review period. A total of three public hearings have been planned in order to allow for public input. The City actively reached out to all applicants and posted updates on the CDBG website. A 30-day comment period from March 17, 2016 through April 15, 2016 gave citizens an opportunity to offer comments on the draft Action Plan. The draft was be posted on the City’s CDBG website and presented at a public hearing to the Finance Committee on April 5, 2016. 5. Summary of public comments A summary of all written comments received during the public comment period will be inserted before the Action Plan is submitted to HUD. 6. Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them The City accepts and responds to all comments that are submitted. Annual Action Plan 2016 6 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 91.200(b) 1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source. Agency Role Name Department/Agency Lead Agency PALO ALTO CDBG Administrator PALO ALTO Planning and Community Environment Department HOPWA Administrator HOME Administrator HOPWA-C Administrator Table 2 – Responsible Agencies Narrative (optional) The City of Palo Alto (City) is the Lead Agency for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs. The City’s CDBG Coordinator is responsible for the administration of HUD entitlements, which include the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). By federal law, each jurisdiction is required to submit to HUD a five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans listing priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds. The Consolidated Plan is a guide for how the City will use its federal funds to meet the housing and community development needs of its populations. For the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process, the City worked collaboratively with the County of Santa Clara (County) and other entitlement jurisdictions in the County to identify and prioritize housing and housing-related needs across the region, and strategies to meet those needs. The fiscal year 2016/17 Annual Action Plan represents the second year of CDBG funding of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2561 Annual Action Plan 2016 7 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l) 1. Introduction Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(l)) During Fiscal Year 2016-17, the City will continue to work with nonprofit organizations in providing programs and services for low-income households; private industry, in particular financial and development groups, to encourage the development of affordable housing opportunities regionally and in the City; and other local jurisdictions in carrying out and monitoring regional projects in a coordinated and cost-effective manner. The City will provide technical assistance to the public service agencies it funds and will continue to attend the Regional CDBG/Housing Coordinators meetings. Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi-sector group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in the County. The CoC's primary responsibilities are to coordinate large-scale implementation of efforts to prevent and end homelessness in the County. The CoC is governed by the Santa Clara CoC Board (CoC Board), which stands as the driving force committed to supporting and promoting a systems change approach to preventing and ending homelessness in the County. The CoC Board is comprised of the same individuals who serve on the Destination: Home Leadership Board. Destination: Home is a public-private partnership committed to collective impact strategies to end chronic homelessness, and leads the development of community-wide strategy related to the CoC's work. The County's Office of Supportive Housing serves as the Collaborative Applicant for the CoC, and is responsible for implementing by-laws and protocols that govern the operations of the CoC. The Office of Supportive Housing is also responsible for ensuring that the CoC meets the requirements outlined under the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH). In winter 2015, Destination: Home and the CoC released a Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County (the Plan), which outlines a roadmap for community-wide efforts to end homelessness in the County by 2020. The strategies and action steps included in the plan were informed by members who participated in a series of community summits designed to address the needs of homeless populations from April to August 2014. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of Annual Action Plan 2016 8 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) homeless persons in the County, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of persons at risk of homelessness. The City is represented on the CoC by its Human Services Manager. Members of the CoC meet on a monthly basis in various work groups to ensure successful implementation components of the Plan action steps. A Community Plan Implementation Team, which includes members of the CoC and other community stakeholders, meets quarterly to evaluate progress toward the Plan's goals, identify gaps in homeless services, establish funding priorities, and pursue an overall systematic approach to address homelessness. Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of HMIS The City of Palo Alto does not receive ESG funds. 2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdiction’s consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities The City consulted with various groups and organizations as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Table 2, Agencies, groups, organizations who participated in the Consolidated Plan lists all of those parties who participated in the process. Annual Action Plan 2016 9 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Table 1 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting There were no agency types that were not consulted as part of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan process. Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Table 3- Other local/regional/federal planning efforts, of the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan, lists the planning efforts that were considered in preparing the Plan. Annual Action Plan 2016 10 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-12 Participation – 91.105, 91.200(c) 1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation On October 18, 2010, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an amended Citizen Participation Plan that utilizes the Human Relations Commission(HRC), rather than a separate Citizen Advisory Committee, to promote and encourage citizen participation in the planning, implementation and assessment of the CDBG Program. The HRC is uniquely positioned to understand and consider the needs of low and very low income persons, members of minority groups, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and residents of neighborhoods where CDBG activities may be undertaken. Thus far the revisions to the Citizen Participation Plan have promoted a more coordinate and effective response by the City to the human service needs in the community. A summary of public participation is outlined in Table 3, Citizen Participation Outreach. The Draft Action Plan was made available for a 30-day comment period to give citizens an opportunity to offer comments. Citizen Partiipation Outreach Sort Or der Mode of Out reach Target of Out reach Summary of response/atte ndance Summary of comments re ceived Summary of co mments not accepted and reasons URL (If applica ble) 1 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The Human Relations Commission will meet on March 10, 2015 to discuss the FY 16/17 funding allocations. Representative s from agencies requesting CDBG funds for FY 16/17 were present. Non-profit agencies discussed their funding request and thanked the City for its continued support. Annual Action Plan 2016 11 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Sort Or der Mode of Out reach Target of Out reach Summary of response/atte ndance Summary of comments re ceived Summary of co mments not accepted and reasons URL (If applica ble) 2 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The Finance Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on April 5, 2016. A summary will be added after the meeting. 3 Public Meeting Non- targeted/bro ad community The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on May 5, 2016. A summary will be added after the meeting. 4 Newspaper Ad Non- targeted/bro ad community A public hearing notice was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 19, 2016. Table 3 – Citizen Participation Outreach Annual Action Plan 2016 12 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Expected Resources AP-15 Expected Resources – 91.220(c) (1, 2) Introduction In Fiscal Year 2017, Palo Alto will allocate approximately $754,418 to eligible activities that address the needs identified in the Consolidated Plan. The City received is final allocation amount from HUD on February 16, 2016. Priority Table Program Source of Funds Uses of Funds Expected Amount Available Year 1 Expected Amount Available Reminder of ConPlan $ Narrative Description Annual Allocation: $ Program Income: $ Prior Year Resources: $ Total: $ CDBG public - federal Acquisition Admin and Planning Economic Development Housing Public Improvements Public Services 441,253 100,000 213,165 754,418 0 CDBG funds will be used for the creation and preservation of affordable rental units, improvements in lower income neighborhoods, and public services that benefit low income and special needs households. Table 4 - Expected Resources – Priority Table Annual Action Plan 2016 13 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds), including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied Entitlement Funds Leverage, in the context of the CDBG and HOME, means bringing other local, state, and federal financial resources to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes. Funds will be leveraged if financial commitments toward the costs of a project from a source other than the originating HUD program are documented. Additionally, the City has recently been approved to join Santa Clara County's HOME Consortium. HOME funds can be used to fund eligible affordable housing projects for acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Starting in FY 2015-2016 developers of affordable housing projects are eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto. If the City receives HOME dollars from its participation in the HOME consortium, the required 25 percent matching funds will be provided from the City’s Affordable Housing Fund, which is comprised of two sub-funds: the Commercial Housing Fund and the Residential Housing Fund. As of December 31, 2015 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,700,000 and the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $763,000. Other Federal Grant Programs In addition to the entitlement dollars listed above, the federal government has several other funding programs for community development and affordable housing activities. These include: the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, Section 202, Section 811, the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) through the Federal Home Loan Bank, and others. It should be noted that, in most cases, the City would not be the applicant for these funding sources as many of these programs offer assistance to affordable housing developers rather than local jurisdictions. County and Local Housing and Community Development Sources There are a variety of countywide and local resources that support housing and community development programs. Some of these programs offer assistance to local affordable housing developers and community organizations while others provide assistance directly to individuals. These resources are discussed below: • Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund: The Commercial Housing fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with Annual Action Plan 2016 14 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. As of December 31, 2015 the Commercial Housing Fund had an available balance of approximately $1,700,000. • Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund: The Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto's Below Market Rate (BMR) housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. As of December 31, 2015 the Residential Housing Fund had an available balance of $763,000. If appropriate, describe publically owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be used to address the needs identified in the plan The City has no surplus vacant land that would be available for the development of housing or services. Sixty-five percent of land in the City is open space. Discussion The City of Palo Alto’s (City) Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-2017 Action Plan covers the time period from July 1, 2016 to June 30 2017 (HUD Program Year 2016). The City’s FY 2017 entitlement amount is $441,253. Additionally, the City estimates approximately $100,000 in program income and an estimated $213,165 in available uncommitted funds from the prior program year, bringing the total estimated budget for FY 2016-2017 to $754,418. While U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocations are critical, they are not sufficient to overcome all barriers and address all needs that low income individuals and families face in attaining self-sufficiency. The City will continue to leverage additional resources to successfully provide support and services to the populations in need. Currently, the City is not eligible to receive direct funding under the HOME Investment Partnership Act (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) – also programs covered under the Consolidated Plan Regulations. Annual Action Plan 2016 15 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Annual Goals and Objectives AP-20 Annual Goals and Objectives - 91.420, 91.220(c)(3)&(e) Goals Summary Information Sort Order Goal Name Start Year End Year Category Geographic Area Needs Addressed Funding Goal Outcome Indicator 1 Affordable Housing 2015 2020 Affordable Housing Affordable Housing CDBG: $278,825 Rental units rehabilitated: 156 Household Housing Unit 2 Homelessness 2015 2020 Homeless Homelessness CDBG: $58,575 Public service activities for Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 531 Households Assisted 3 Strengthen Neighborhoods 2015 2020 Non- Homeless Special Needs Non-Housing Community Development Community Services and Public Improvements CDBG: $18,044 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 298 Persons Assisted 4 Fair Housing 2015 2020 Non-Housing Community Development Fair Housing CDBG: $30,941 Public service activities other than Low/Moderate Income Housing Benefit: 21 Persons Assisted 5 Economic Development 2015 2020 Non-Housing Community Development Economic Development CDBG: $290,723 Jobs created/retained: 30 Jobs Table 5 – Goals Summary Annual Action Plan 2016 16 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Goal Descriptions 1 Goal Name Affordable Housing Goal Description 2 Goal Name Homelessness Goal Description 3 Goal Name Strengthen Neighborhoods Goal Description 4 Goal Name Fair Housing Goal Description 5 Goal Name Economic Development Goal Description Table 6 – Goal Descriptions Estimate the number of extremely low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined by HOME 91.215(b): Not applicable. Annual Action Plan 2016 17 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-35 Projects – 91.220(d) Introduction The Consolidated Plan goals below represent high priority needs for the City of Palo Alto (City) and serve as the basis for the strategic actions the City will use to meet these needs. The goals, listed in no particular order, are: 1. Assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for low income and special needs households. 2. Support activities to end homelessness. 3. Support activities that strengthen neighborhoods through the provision of community services and public improvements to benefit low income and special needs households. 4. Promote fair housing choice. 5. Expand economic opportunities for low income households. # Project Name 1 Silicon Valley Independent Living Center 2 Catholic Charities 3 LifeMoves 4 PAHC Management & Services Corporation 5 YWCA of Silicon Valley 6 Project Sentinel 7 City of Palo Alto 8 Downtown Streets Inc. 9 Midpen Housing Table 7 – Project Information Annual Action Plan 2016 18 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Projects AP-38 Projects Summary Project Summary Information Table 8 – Project Summary 1 Project Name Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $5,012 Description Housing and Emergency Housing Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 20 persons will be assisted. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Silicon Valley Independent Living Center provides assistance for individuals with disabilities and their families to transition from homelessness, health care facilities, unstable or temporary housing to permanent affordable, accessible, integrated housing with emergency assistance, security deposits, rent, information & referral, and other basic essentials. 2 Project Name Catholic Charities Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $5,012 Description Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Opportunity Services Center Target Date 6/30/2017 Annual Action Plan 2016 19 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 236 400 persons will be assisted. Location Description Long-term care and skilled nurse facilities located throughout the City. Planned Activities Catholic Charities assists in problem resolution and advocates for the rights of residents of long term care facilities in Palo Alto. The majority of the clients assisted are low-income, frail, elderly, and chronically ill. This program assists these vulnerable, dependent and socially isolated residents receive the care and placement to which they are entitled. 3 Project Name LifeMoves Target Area Goals Supported Homelessness Needs Addressed Homelessness Funding CDBG: $35,592 Description Opportunity Services Center Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 400 persons will be assisted Location Description 33 Encina Way, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Activities LifeMoves provides basic necessities for persons who are homeless or at- risk of becoming homeless. The Opportunity Services Center is a comprehensive, one-stop, multi-service, day drop-in center that provides critical services for homeless Palo Alto residents. Specifically, the facility provides showers, laundry, clothing, snacks, case management, and shelter/housing referral services. 4 Project Name PAHC Management & Services Corporation Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $22,983 Description SRO Resident Support Program Annual Action Plan 2016 20 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 131 persons will be assisted. Location Description 439 Emerson Street and 735 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Activities Palo Alto Housing Corporation will provide counseling and supportive case management services for low-income residents of single room occupancy facilities in order to help them maintain housing stability. Activities include financial counseling, health maintenance, information and referral, problem solving, employment assistance, crisis intervention and case management. 5 Project Name YWCA of Silicon Valley Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Funding CDBG: $8,020 Description Domestic Violence Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 45 persons will be assisted Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Support Network for Battered Women, a Division of YWCA will provide individuals and families experiencing domestic violence, the program provides a bilingual domestic violence hotline, an emergency shelter, crisis counseling, legal assistance, court accompaniment, individual and group therapy, support groups, children’s therapy groups, preventative education, safety planning and community referrals. 6 Project Name Project Sentinel Target Area Goals Supported Strengthen Neighborhoods Needs Addressed Community Services and Public Improvements Annual Action Plan 2016 21 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Funding CDBG: $30,941 Description Fair Housing Services Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 21 persons will be assisted Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities Project Sentinel will provide community education and outreach regarding fair housing law and practices, investigation, counseling and legal referral for victims of housing discrimination, and analyses for City staff and officials regarding fair housing practices. California and federal fair housing laws assure specific protected classes the right to be treated in terms of their individual merits and qualifications in seeking housing. Unfortunately, some people are not aware of the law or their rights. 7 Project Name City of Palo Alto Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Homelessness Strengthen Neighborhoods Fair Housing Economic Development Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Homelessness Community Services and Public Improvements Fair Housing Economic Development Funding CDBG: $77,310 Description Planning and Administration Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities Location Description Annual Action Plan 2016 22 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Planned Activities Administer the Administrative costs for the overall management, coordination, and evaluation of the CDBG program, and the project delivery costs associated with bringing projects to completion. 8 Project Name Downtown Streets Inc. Target Area Goals Supported Economic Development Needs Addressed Economic Development Funding CDBG: $290,723 Description Workforce Development Program Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 30 jobs will be created for very low income and low income individuals. Location Description Citywide. Planned Activities The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. Downtown Streets Team will screen and prepare applicants and will use their community connections to provide training and job opportunities. 9 Project Name MidPen Housing Target Area Goals Supported Affordable Housing Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Funding CDBG: $278,825 Description Palo Alto Garden Housing Rehabilitation Target Date 6/30/2017 Estimate the number and type of families that will benefit from the proposed activities 156 housing units for low income seniors. Annual Action Plan 2016 23 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Location Description 650 San Antonio Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Planned Activities Phase II rehabilitation related costs at Palo Alto Gardens (156 senior/family units). Project activities include: drought-tolerant plants, turf removal, irrigation replacement, adding additional parking spots through reconfiguration and updating building and apartment signage. Annual Action Plan 2016 24 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-50 Geographic Distribution – 91.220(f) Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and minority concentration) where assistance will be directed Not applicable. The City has not established specific target areas to focus the investment of CDBG funds. Geographic Distribution Target Area Percentage of Funds N/A N/A Table 9 - Geographic Distribution Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 25 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Affordable Housing AP-55 Affordable Housing – 91.220(g) Introduction Palo Alto has identified affordable housing as the primary objective for the expenditure of CDBG funds in the Consolidated Plan. The City will continue to allocate the maximum funding available to activities and projects that meet this objective. While CDBG entitlement dollars are limited, the City does anticipate expending a significant portion of its CDBG funds on the preservation and rehabilitation of affordable housing. A detailed discussion of how HUD entitlements will be used to support affordable housing needs within the City is provided in AP-20, with the number of households to be assisted itemized by goal. One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported Homeless 0 Non-Homeless 0 Special-Needs 156 Total 156 Table 10 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Requirement One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through Rental Assistance 0 The Production of New Units 0 Rehab of Existing Units 156 Acquisition of Existing Units 0 Total 156 Table 11 - One Year Goals for Affordable Housing by Support Type Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 26 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-60 Public Housing – 91.220(h) Introduction HACSC assists approximately 17,000 households through the federal Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8). The Section 8 waiting list contains 21,256 households (estimated to be a 10-year wait). HACSC also develops, controls, and manages more than 2,600 affordable rental housing properties throughout the County. HACSC’s programs are targeted toward LMI households and more than 80 percent of their client households are extremely low income families, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless individuals. In 2008, HACSC entered a ten-year agreement with HUD to become a Moving to Work (MTW) agency. The MTW program is a federal demonstration program that allows greater flexibility to design and implement more innovative approaches for providing housing assistance. Additionally, HACSC has used LIHTC financing to transform and rehabilitate 535 units of public housing into HACSC-controlled properties. The agency is an active developer of affordable housing and has either constructed, rehabilitated, or assisted with the development of more than 30 housing developments that service a variety of households, including special needs households. Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing Not applicable. HACSC owns and manages four public housing units, which are all located in the City of Santa Clara. Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership While the majority of their units have been converted to affordable housing stock, HACSC is proactive in incorporating resident input into the agency’s policy-making process. An equitable and transparent policy-making process that includes the opinions of residents is achieved through the involvement of two tenant commissioners, one being a senior citizen, on the HACSC board. HACSC has been a MTW agency since 2008. In this time the agency has developed 31 MTW activities. The vast majority of its successful initiatives have been aimed at reducing administrative inefficiencies, which in turn opens up more resources for programs aimed at LMI families. Annual Action Plan 2016 27 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be provided or other assistance Not applicable. Discussion Please see discussions above. Annual Action Plan 2016 28 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-65 Homeless and Other Special Needs Activities – 91.220(i) Introduction The Santa Clara region is home to the fourth-largest population of homeless individuals (6,556 single individuals) and the highest percentage of unsheltered homeless of any major city (75 percent of homeless people sleep in places unfit for human habitation). The homeless assistance program planning network is governed by the Santa Clara Continuum of Care (CoC), governed by the Destination: Home Leadership Board, who serves as the CoC Board of Directors. The membership of the CoC is a collaboration of representatives from local jurisdictions comprised of community-based organizations, the Housing Authority of Santa Clara, governmental departments, health service agencies, homeless advocates, consumers, the faith community, and research, policy and planning groups. The homeless services system utilized by the CoC is referred to as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HMIS monitors outcomes and performance measures for all the homeless services agencies funded by the County. Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness including Reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their individual needs In January 2015, a Point in Time (PIT) count was conducted for Santa Clara County by the City of San Jose in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara. The PIT is an intense survey used to count the number of homeless living throughout Santa Clara County on the streets, in shelters, safe havens or in transitional housing, or in areas not meant for human habitation. The survey was conducted by hundreds of volunteers who asked those living on the streets, as well as the residents of shelters, safe havens and transitional housing, to respond to questions related to their needs. A portion of the survey addresses the needs of those surveyed. Palo Alto financially contributed to this effort. The next PIT is scheduled for January 2017. Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons In addressing the Consolidated Plan and the Continuum of Care strategic plans, Palo Alto will provide funding for essential services and operations to local emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities. The facilities provide shelter and services to homeless families with children, single parents with children, single men and women, victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, homeless veterans, and the population living on the street. One example includes the Hotel de Zink rotating shelter, which provides overnight shelter to approximately 15 individuals every night. Annual Action Plan 2016 29 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again The City spends part of its CDBG funds and local funds toward a variety of public services to address the needs of homeless and very low income persons. Services provided include free food, clothing, medical care, legal assistance, and rental assistance. The City allocates funding to the following homeless service providers: CDBG Funded • LifeMoves - Opportunity Services Center: $35,592 The Opportunity Services Center facility in Palo Alto provides a clean, safe environment and resources for low income or homeless persons including bagged groceries, hot meals, a rotating church shelter program, information and referral, shower and laundry facilities, case management, and money management (payee) programs, clothing and health services. A daily hot meal is provided at a different location each day and bagged groceries are distributed daily at the Downtown Food Closet. The Hotel de Zink rotating church shelter program is housed at a different location each month. • Downtown Streets Team – Workforce Development Program: $290,723 This economic development program helps motivated graduates of the Downtown Streets Team programs move on to stable employment. The program includes mentoring, counseling, job readiness, job training, and assistance. HSRAP Funded • Abilities United – Disability Services: Amount Pending This organization provides services and activities for adults and children with mental and physical disabilities. • Community Technology Alliance – Shared Technical Infrastructure: Amount Pending The Community Technology Alliance provides shelter hotline and voicemail services for homeless individuals and families. The voicemail service helps case-managed clients attain individual goals such as securing health care, housing or employment. A countywide housing information and referral website Annual Action Plan 2016 30 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) and tracking system is maintained to assist service providers and those seeking shelter. • Downtown Streets Team – Downtown Streets: Amount Pending Downtown Streets Team identifies motivated homeless individuals and provides them with jobs cleaning and beautifying the downtown area in exchange for housing and food vouchers. The program includes counseling, coaching and training to help program participants build self-esteem, confidence and connections in the community. • Momentum for Mental Health – Homeless Outreach Program: Amount Pending Momentum for Mental Health outreach program provide emergency on-call services to assist local mentally ill homeless persons. The agency provides services to City departments, libraries, community centers and local homeless service providers. Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low-income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or youth needs. Palo Alto Housing Corporation – SRO Tenant Counseling: $22,893 Provides counseling and case-management services for the low-income residents and prospective residents of single room occupancy hotels in Palo Alto. Many SRO residents have a history of homelessness and special needs. The program plays a vital role in helping residents maintain their stability and housing. Avenidas – Senior Services: Agency is the main provider of senior services in the Mid-Peninsula area. La Comida de California – Hot Meals for The Elderly: Daily meal program for the elderly. May View Health Center – Health Care for Low Income & Homeless Palo Alto residents: Basic primary health care services and health education and referral services for uninsured low-income Annual Action Plan 2016 31 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) and homeless individuals from the Palo Alto area. Peninsula HealthCare Connection – Project Downtown Connect: Provider of health care services at the Opportunity Center of Palo Alto. Project Downtown Connect provides Section 8 vouchers to eligible homeless individuals and families. SALA – Legal Assistance to Elders: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides affordable legal assistance to elders. Discussion Please see discussion above. Annual Action Plan 2016 32 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-75 Barriers to affordable housing – 91.220(j) Introduction The incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within the County face barriers to affordable housing that are common throughout the Bay Area. High on the list is the lack of developable land, which increases the cost of available lands and increases housing development costs. Local opposition is another common obstacle as many neighbors have strong reactions to infill and affordable housing developments. Their opposition is often based on misconceptions, such as a foreseen increase in crime; erosion of property values; increase in parking and traffic congestion; and overwhelmed schools. However, to ensure a healthy economy the region must focus on strategies and investment that provide housing for much of the region’s workforce – for example, sales clerks, secretaries, firefighters, police, teachers, and health service workers – whose incomes significantly limit their housing choices. Even when developments produce relatively affordable housing, in a constrained housing supply market, higher income buyers and renters generally outbid lower income households and a home’s final sale or rental price will generally far exceed the projected sales or rental costs. Public subsidies are often needed to guarantee affordable homes for LMI households. Actions it planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return on residential investment The City is addressing the barriers to affordable housing through the following programs and ordinances: Context-Based Design Codes The City adopted form-based codes in 2006 to ensure and encourage residential development by following context-based design guidelines to meet increased density needs. The code encourages the creation of walkable, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, following green building design principles, and increasing density along transit corridors and in mixed-use neighborhoods. The Context-Based Design Code allows for increased density and mixed-use buildings in a way that enhances neighborhood character and walkability. Annual Action Plan 2016 33 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Density Bonus Ordinance Density bonus provisions are a tool for attracting and assisting developers in constructing affordable housing. Density bonuses allow a developer to increase the density of a development above that allowed by standard zoning regulations, as well as provide regulatory relief in the form of concessions. In exchange, a developer provides affordable units in the development. In 2004, the California State Legislature lowered the thresholds required to receive a density bonus and increased the number of concessions a developer can receive. The City adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided. As required by state law, the regulations also allow for exceptions to applicable zoning and other development standards, to further encourage development of affordable housing. Discussion Below Market Rate Housing Program Established in 1974, the City’s BMR Housing Program has been instrumental in the production of affordable housing by requiring developers to provide a certain percentage of units as BMR in every approved project of three units or more. The program originally required that for developments on sites of less than five acres, the developer must provide 15 percent of the total housing units as BMR housing units. If the site was larger than five acres, the developer was required to provide 20 percent of the units as BMR housing. However, recent court cases have drastically changed the BMR, or “inclusionary zoning”, environment in California. Two factors have received recent attention by the courts: whether inclusionary housing is considered rent control, and whether inclusionary housing and related housing mitigation fees are considered exactions. As a result of ongoing litigation, many cities have suspended or amended the portions of their inclusionary housing requirements that require affordable units to be included in market rate rental developments and many cities have turned, instead, to the use of development impact fees charged on new, market-rate housing and/or commercial development. Known as “Housing Impact Fees” and “Commercial Linkage Fees,” these fees are based on an assessment of the extent to which the development of new market-rate housing or commercial uses, respectively, generates additional demand for affordable housing. The City is currently in the process of updating its Commercial and Residential Impact Fee Nexus Studies and the estimated completion date is June 30, 2016. Annual Action Plan 2016 34 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) AP-85 Other Actions – 91.220(k) Introduction This section discusses the City’s efforts in addressing the underserved needs, expanding and preserving affordable housing, reducing lead-based paint hazards, and developing institutional structure for delivering housing and community development activities. Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs The diminishing amount of funds continues to be the most significant obstacle to addressing the needs of underserved populations. To address this, the City supplements its CDBG funding with other resources and funds, such as: • The City’s Human Service Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) provides approximately $1,099,347 million dollars from the General Fund in support of human services. The HSRAP funds, in conjunction with the CDBG public service funds, are distributed to local non-profit agencies. • The Palo Alto Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. It is funded with mitigation fees required from developers of commercial and industrial projects. • The Palo Alto Residential Housing Fund is funded with mitigation fees provided under Palo Alto’s BMR housing program from residential developers and money from other miscellaneous sources, such as proceeds from the sale or lease of City property. • The City’s Below Market Rate Emergency Fund was authorized in 2002 to provide funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • HOME Program funds are available on an annual competitive basis through the State of California HOME program, and the County’s HOME Consortium. Annual Action Plan 2016 35 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing The City will foster and maintain affordable housing by continuing the following programs and ordinances: • The Below Market Rate Emergency Fund which provides funding on an ongoing basis for loans to BMR owners for special assessment loans and for rehabilitation and preservation of the City’s stock of BMR ownership units. • The Commercial Housing Fund is used primarily to increase the number of new affordable housing units for Palo Alto’s work force. • The Residential Housing Fund is used to assist new housing development or the acquisition, rehabilitation or the preservation of existing housing for affordable housing. • The Density Bonus Ordinance, adopted by the City Council in January 2014. The density bonus regulations allow for bonuses of 20 to 35 percent, depending on the amount and type of affordable housing provided • The City’s participation in the County's HOME Consortium will allow developers of affordable housing projects to be eligible to competitively apply through an annual RFP process directly to the County for HOME funds to help subsidize affordable housing projects in Palo Alto, including acquisition, construction and rehabilitation. Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards The City’s housing and CDBG staff provides information and referral to property owners, developers, and non-profit organizations rehabilitating older housing about lead-based paint (LBP) hazards. Any house to be rehabilitated with City financial assistance is required to be inspected for the existence of LBP and LBP hazards. The City will provide financial assistance for the abatement of LBP hazards in units rehabilitated with City funding. The City also requires that contractors are trained and certified in an effort to decrease the risk of potential use of LBP in new units. All development and rehabilitation projects must be evaluated according to HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule 24 CFR Part 35. Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty-level families The City, in its continuing effort to reduce poverty, will prioritize funding agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming homeless. In FY 2016-2017, these programs will include the following: Annual Action Plan 2016 36 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) • The Workforce Development Program will provide a transition from unemployment and homelessness to regular employment and housing through case management, job training, mentoring, housing, and transportation assistance. • Downtown Streets Team is a nonprofit in the City that works to reduce homelessness through a “work first” model. Downtown Streets Team uses their community connections to provide training and job opportunities to homeless people, specifically in the downtown area. The Downtown Streets Team has helped 282 people find housing and 334 find jobs since its inception in 2005. The Downtown Streets Team has initiatives in Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, San Jose, and San Rafael. Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies The City benefits from a strong jurisdiction and region-wide network of housing and community development partners, such as the County and the CoC. To improve intergovernmental and private sector cooperation, the City will continue to participate with other local jurisdictions and developers in sharing information and resources. In addition to the actions listed above, the City will continue to coordinate with the City’s human services funding efforts to comprehensively address community needs. Discussion Please see discussions above. Annual Action Plan 2016 37 OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015) Program Specific Requirements AP-90 Program Specific Requirements – 91.220(l)(1,2,4) Introduction The following provides additional information about the CDBG program income and program requirements. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1) Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in projects to be carried out. 1. The total amount of program income that will have been received before the start of the next program year and that has not yet been reprogrammed 100,000 2. The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan. 0 3. The amount of surplus funds from urban renewal settlements 0 4. The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan 0 5. The amount of income from float-funded activities 0 Total Program Income: 100,000 Other CDBG Requirements 1. The amount of urgent need activities 0 2. The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income.Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and moderate income. Specify the years covered that include this Annual Action Plan. 100.00% Appendix A: Application for Federal Assistance Form SF-424 OMB Number: 4040-0004 Expiration Date: 8/31/2016 * 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application: * 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier: 5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier: 6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier: * a. Legal Name: * b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS: * Street1: Street2: * City: County/Parish: * State: Province: * Country: * Zip / Postal Code: Department Name: Division Name: Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: Title: Organizational Affiliation: * Telephone Number: Fax Number: * Email: * If Revision, select appropriate letter(s): * Other (Specify): State Use Only: 8. APPLICANT INFORMATION: d. Address: e. Organizational Unit: f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 Preapplication Application Changed/Corrected Application New Continuation Revision 05/15/2016 B-16-MC-06-0020 City of Palo Alto 94-6000389C 0505207820000 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA: California USA: UNITED STATES 94301 Planning & Comm. Environment Long Range Planning Ms.Eloiza Murillo-Garcia Senior Planner 650-329-2561 650-329-2154 eloiza.murillogarcia@cityofpaloalto.org * 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type: Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type: * Other (specify): * 10. Name of Federal Agency: 11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: CFDA Title: * 12. Funding Opportunity Number: * Title: 13. Competition Identification Number: Title: 14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.): * 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project: Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions. Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 C: City or Township Government U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.218 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The City of Palo Alto's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for Fiscal Year 2017. View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment * a. Federal * b. Applicant * c. State * d. Local * e. Other * f. Program Income * g. TOTAL . Prefix: * First Name: Middle Name: * Last Name: Suffix: * Title: * Telephone Number: * Email: Fax Number: * Signature of Authorized Representative:* Date Signed: 18. Estimated Funding ($): 21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001) ** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. Authorized Representative: Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 * a. Applicant Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed. * b. Program/Project * a. Start Date:* b. End Date: 16. Congressional Districts Of: 17. Proposed Project: 14th 14th Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 06/30/201707/01/2016 441,253.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 213,165.00 100,000.00 754,418.00 a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372. Yes No Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment ** I AGREE Mr.James Keene City Manager 650-329-2563 james.keene@cityofpaloalto.org * 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.) * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? If "Yes", provide explanation and attach Appendix B: Certifications CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the consolidated plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing --The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, which means it will conduct an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, take appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that analysis, and maintain records reflecting that analysis and actions in this regard. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan --It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and implementing regulations at 49 CFR 24; and it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the CDBG or HOME programs. Anti-Lobbying --To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: 1.No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; 2.If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and 3.It will require that the language of paragraph 1 and 2 of this anti-lobbying certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. Authority of Jurisdiction --The consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and the jurisdiction possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations. Consistency with plan -- The housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan. Section 3 --It will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 135. Signature/Authorized Official Date Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Citizen Participation --It is in full compliance and following a detailed citizen participation plan that satisfies the requirements of 24 CFR 91.105. Community Development Plan --Its consolidated housing and community development plan identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short-term and long-term community development objectives that provide decent housing, expand economic opportunities primarily for persons of low and moderate income. (See CFR 24 570.2 and CFR 24 part 570) Following a Plan --It is following a current consolidated plan (or Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) that has been approved by HUD. Use of Funds --It has complied with the following criteria: 1.Maximum Feasible Priority.With respect to activities expected to be assisted with CDBG funds, it certifies that it has developed its Action Plan so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. The Action Plan may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); 2.Overall Benefit.The aggregate use of CDBG funds including section 108 guaranteed loans during program year(s) _____ , ______(a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that at least 70 percent of the amount is expended for activities that benefit such persons during the designated period; 3.Special Assessments.It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds including Section 108 loan guaranteed funds by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements. However, if CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of a fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of public improvements (assisted in part with CDBG funds) financed from other revenue sources, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. The jurisdiction will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted with CDBG funds, including Section 108, unless CDBG funds are used to pay the proportion of fee or assessment attributable to the capital costs of public improvements financed from other revenue sources. In this case, an assessment or charge may be made against the property with respect to the public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds. Also, in the case of properties owned and occupied by moderate-income (not low-income) families, an assessment or charge may be made against the property for public improvements financed by a source other than CDBG funds if the jurisdiction certifies that it lacks CDBG funds to cover the assessment. Excessive Force --It has adopted and is enforcing: 1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and 2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Compliance With Anti-discrimination laws --The grant will be conducted and administered in conformity with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-3619), and implementing regulations. Lead-Based Paint --Its activities concerning lead-based paint will comply with the requirements of 24 CFR Part 35, subparts A, B, J, K and R; Compliance with Laws --It will comply with applicable laws. Signature/Authorized Official Date Title APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING: A.Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Appendix C: Public Hearing Advertisement NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PALO ALTO’S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCKGRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM This is to notify the general public and other interested parties that a 30-day public review period of the Draft Annual Action Plan for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, will begin on March 17, 2016 and end on April 15, 2016. The Draft Annual Action Plan describes the activities the City may fund under the 2017 CDBG Program. Collectively these activities are intended to meet Palo Alto’s affordable housing and community development objectives described in the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan. Copies of the Draft Annual Action Plan will be available on March 17, 2016 at the Department of Planning and Community Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, CA 94301, on the City’s website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/advance_planning/cdbg.asp or by calling Eloiza Murillo-Garcia, Senior Planner, at (650) 329-2561. Interested parties are encouraged to submit written comments on the proposed Draft Annual Action Plan during the public review period, or to comment at the public hearings and meetings described below. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS The City of Palo Alto Human Relations Commission will hold a Public Hearing on March 10, 2016 to review the Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG funding allocations recommended by the CDBG Human Relations Selection Committee. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto Finance Committee will hold a Public Hearing on April 5, 2016 to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG funding allocations identified in the Draft Annual Action Plan. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. The Palo Alto City Council will hold a Public Hearing on May 2, 2016 to adopt the Annual Action Plan and the associated Fiscal Year 2017 CDBG allocations. The Public Hearing will be held at 7:00p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, in City Hall Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto. 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: ADA Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 650-329-2550 (Voice) ada@cityofpaloalto.org Appendix D: Public Comments Finance Committee 1 Action Minutes 04/05/2016 Finance Committee Meeting Special Meeting April 5, 2016 Chairperson Filseth called the meeting to order at 6:03 P.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Filseth (Chair), Holman, Schmid, Wolbach Absent: Action Items 1.Recommendations on Proposed Fiscal Year 2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Allocations and the Draft Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Action Plan. MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by Council Member Holman that the Finance Committee recommend the City Council take the following actions: A. Allocate CDBG funding as recommended in the draft 2016/2017 Action Plan and as described in this report; B. Authorize the City Manager to execute the 2016/2017 CDBG application and 2016/2017 Action Plan for CDBG funds, any other necessary documents concerning the application, and to otherwise bind the City with respect to the applications and commitment of funds; and C. Authorize staff to submit the 2016/2017 Action Plan to HUD by the May 15, 2016 deadline. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Attachment E City of Palo Alto (ID # 6796) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Updates to the Energy Reach Code Ordinance Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Updates to the Energy Reach Code: an Ordinance Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt the 2016 California Energy Code, Title 24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations, and Local Amendments From: City Manager Lead Department: Development Services Department Recommended Motion Staff recommends that Council conduct a public hearing and then adopt an ordinance repealing and restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to adopt and amend the 2016 California Energy Code, Title 24, Chapter 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Attachment 1). Executive Summary The attached ordinance proposing Local Amendments to the 2016 California Energy Code (Title 24, Chapter 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Energy Reach Code ordinance) would continue Palo Alto’s leadership position in promoting energy efficient and high-performance building design and construction. Staff has collaborated with the Green Building Advisory Group and other city departments to develop the proposed ordinance. The criteria proposed in this ordinance were studied to be cost-effective in compliance with the California Energy Commission requirements and the results of the study are in Attachment 2. The Energy Reach Code ordinance differs from the State minimum in the following areas: 1) the ordinance includes an updated energy “reach code” requiring building design to exceed the minimum State energy code requirements by a certain percentage based on project type and scope; 2) the ordinance continues solar-ready infrastructure requirements for new residential buildings; and 3) the ordinance promotes all-electric building design by providing an exemption from “reach code” requirements above the state minimum. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background In the face of the global climate challenge, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has determined that “we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts”i from climate change, and need “substantial” greenhouse gas emissions reductions (of 40-70% or more) by mid-century. The international community of 192 nations met at the COP21 conference in Paris during December of 2015. During the conference, the community 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”ii. During the meeting, there was agreement to commit to the “highest possible ambition” to achieve these goals. Building industry experts have agreed that the loading order to achieve this Green House Gas, (GHG) reduction in buildings starts with energy efficiency. Once energy efficiency has been maximized, the application of renewable energy is appropriate to supplement the energy use within a building. Every three years, the State of California adopts new building standards that are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, referred to as the California Building Standards Code. The 2016 California Energy Code, which resides in Chapter 6 of the California Building Standards Code, contains new mandated energy efficiency measures and has a target effective date of January 1, 2017. The California Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission have set an aggressive policy goal of “Zero Net Energy” (ZNE) for all new residential structures by 2020 and all new commercial buildings by 2030iii. The definition of “Zero Net Energy” adopted by the California Energy Commission (CEC) is complex and requires computer modeling software to demonstrate. However, a simple definition of “Zero Net Energy” means that the amount of energy used on-site is equal to the amount of energy produced on-site from a renewable energy system over the course of one year. Some building energy loads, including those that are unregulated by the CEC, will be excluded from the overall ZNE calculation. Statewide regulations are currently being developed to implement these goals for 2020 and 2030, respectively. Palo Alto has a history of leadership in the area of sustainability and energy efficiency. Over the past three code cycles, Palo Alto has developed an energy efficiency ordinance that is more aggressive than the State of California requirements. The Palo Alto Green Building Advisory Group (GBAG), a group of green building and energy efficiency stakeholders including architects, engineers, energy compliance designers, and contractors have met regularly since 2013 to develop new recommendations for local green building and energy ordinances. The Green Building Advisory Group held its first annual retreat in August of 2014 to identify priorities and future policy recommendations. During this first retreat, the committee set a goal to develop a “Zero Net Energy” requirement for new single-family homes for the 2016 code cycle. At the March 10, 2015 Policy and Services Committee meeting and the April 20, 2015 City City of Palo Alto Page 3 Council meeting, staff presented a rough timeline for goals toward a Zero New Energy Ordinance for both commercial and multi-family construction. In October 2015, the GBAG held its second annual retreat to define and prioritize the green building and energy efficiency requirements that are most important to the stakeholders for the upcoming code cycle. During that retreat, the attendees revisited the “Zero Net Energy” goal for new single-family construction in-depth and with the assistance of expert ZNE consultants. Due to technical challenges associated with the definition of “Zero Net Energy” at the time of the retreat, the recommendation resulting from the retreat was to not pursue a full ZNE requirement for new single-family residential, as initially established in the 2014 goals. Instead, the committee recommended pursuing an incremental policy step towards the proposed Zero Net Energy regulation. These incremental policy steps are reflected in the proposed Energy Reach Code ordinance for new single-family, new multi-family, and new commercial construction. During the 2015 retreat, the Green Building Technical Advisory Committee (GBTAC) was formed with some members of the Green Building Advisory Group. All members of the GBAG were invited to participate. After the retreat, the (GBTAC) held six (6) meetings to implement the policy set by the GBAG by developing technical recommendations. The two policy action items that resulted from the 2015 retreat include: 1) The development of a new Energy Reach Code, which is based on the 2016 California Energy Code. The energy reach code ordinance creates an incremental step towards Zero Net Energy for new single-family residential, new multi-family residential, and new commercial “non-residential” construction; and 2) The development of the new green building ordinance, based on the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, which staff will be presenting to the City Council later in the year along with the remainder of the 2016 Building Standards Code updates. Staff is presenting the Energy Reach Code to the City Council ahead of the typical code adoption schedule due a required 60-day public comment period and approval process required by the California Energy Commission. Once staff files the adopted ordinance with the California Energy Commission, a 60-day public comment period administered by the CEC will begin. City staff will be asked to respond to public comments on an as-needed basis. After the close of the 60-day public comment period, it is normal for the Energy Commission to request revisions to the energy ordinance. In the case of necessary revisions, staff will plan to come back to the City Council to present the revisions in the fall of 2016 in preparation for a target effective date of January 1, 2017. In addition to the 60-day public comment period, the California Energy Commission requires that a cost-effectiveness study be conducted and filed in the case of a local amendment to the California Energy Code. It is required that the City demonstrate to the California Energy Commission, using the cost-effectiveness study, that the local amendments to the code are financially responsible to the applicants. To meet the California Energy Commission requirements for the cost-effectiveness study, staff conducted an informal bid process to select a consultant. Staff selected TRC Solutions based on City of Palo Alto Page 4 their ability to provide both residential and non-residential services within the same study and their ability to meet the project timeline. TRC Solutions attended the 2015 GBAG retreat and participated as an expert consultant on the Green Building Technical Advisory Committee (GBTAC). In coordination with direction from the GBAG Retreat and GBTAC meetings, TRC performed the study using CEC-approved energy modeling software. The results of this study are located in Attachment 2 of this report. Discussion With the updated Energy Reach Code ordinance, the City of Palo Alto will increase the minimum requirements for building energy performance compared to the 2016 California Energy Code. The proposed energy ordinance adopts specific cost-effective compliance options and would be triggered on permit application for the following project types: 1) new single- family residential, 2) new multi-family residential and 3) new commercial “non-residential” construction. There are two methods for demonstrating compliance with the statewide 2016 California Energy Code. The first type of compliance is called the “performance approach”. This approach is typically used for new construction projects and is the methodology selected for the proposed local Energy Reach Code, as explained later in this report. The secondary type of compliance approach, called the “prescriptive approach”, is not typically used as a compliance pathway for new construction and is more conservative. Therefore, no local amendments are proposed for this approach. Using the performance approach, projects throughout the State are required to develop an energy budget that assigns a maximum amount of energy that a building can use within the design. Each budget is unique to the project is based on many factors. Examples of the components that contribute to an energy budget include location, size, orientation, building geometry, exterior wall design, roof design, and heating and cooling system design. The allowable energy budget for a building is referred to as the “standard” design. The actual energy budget for the design of a building is referred to as the “proposed” design. Energy budgets are developed within energy modeling software approved by the California Energy Commission. The primary metric associated with measuring the energy budget in California is called Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV). TDV is a California-specific measurement system, used within the energy modeling software, and assigns a cost value to energy use associated with each hour during the year. “TDV Energy” is the term used to describe an amount of energy when expressed in TDV. Design and construction teams throughout California are required to demonstrate, using a computer simulation energy model, that the TDV Energy use of the “proposed” design does not use more energy than the TDV Energy in the “standard” design. The proposed local Energy Reach Code incorporates the “performance approach” compliance methodology for new construction described earlier in this report. Under the local code, the requirements for the “proposed” design are defined as using a percentage less TDV Energy than the “standard” design. This concept is referred to as “percent-savings” when compared to the standard design. City of Palo Alto Page 5 While developing the criteria for the ordinance, the Green Building Advisory Group recommended providing design teams with compliance options rather than one specific requirement. As a result, the proposed policy outlines two compliance options for each of the following project types: 1) new single-family residential, 2) new multi-family residential and 3) new commercial “non-residential” construction. The applicable compliance path for each project type is dependent on the presence or absence of solar photovoltaic power in the design. Of the compliance options outlined, the first option is intended for projects that are not pursuing solar photovoltaic (PV) power. The second option is intended for those projects that are pursuing solar photovoltaic (PV) power. The requirements are outlined in Figures 1a and 1b. In the case of commercial construction, the requirement structure is modified due to the lack of “PV Credit,” as explained later in this report. Previously, under the 2013 California Energy Code, installation of a photovoltaic system did not contribute towards meeting the State minimum code. However, under the 2016 California Energy Code, if a residential applicant chooses to install a photovoltaic system, the project can use a portion of the solar power as a “PV credit” to offset the efficiency requirements for minimum state compliance. There is no “PV credit” available for commercial projects. The “PV credit” is a fixed value equal to approximately 20% of the total compliance margin for single-family and approximately 12% for multi-family projects. PV system size is measured in the direct current of power rating of the photovoltaic array in kilowatts (kWdc). The PV credits may be applied towards demonstrating energy compliance once a PV system is equal to 2 kWdc in a single family building or 8 kWdc in a multifamily building. Since the PV credit is a fixed percentage, the value will not increase with size of the PV system installed over 2 or 8 kWdc. To comply with the statewide 2016 California Energy Code, a project can use energy efficiency measures plus the PV credit, to meet minimum compliance. To comply with the Reach Code, a project with PV must be able to comply with the state requirements (have a 0% or greater compliance margin) through energy efficiency alone. The two compliance paths for percent- savings are different for projects either installing or not installing a photovoltaic system. This strategy balances the compliance options. Figure 1a: New Residential Energy Reach Code Compliance Options This figure presents the proposed Energy Reach Code Compliance Options for new single-family and new multi-family residential construction outlined in section 16.17.050 of Attachment 1. New Single-Family Residential New Multi-family Residential Reach Code Option 1: The project does not include a photovoltaic system Minimum T24 Energy Code plus the TDV Energy of proposed project is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design (16.17.050.a.1) Minimum T24 Energy Code plus the TDV Energy of proposed project is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design (16.17.050.b.1) Reach Code Option 2: The project includes a photovoltaic system Minimum T24 Energy Code plus the TDV Energy of proposed project is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design¹ Minimum T24 Energy Code plus the TDV Energy of proposed project is at least 12% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design¹ City of Palo Alto Page 6 (16.17.050.a.2) (16.17.050.b.2) ¹ “PV credit” may be applied to meeting the minimum T24 Energy Code. Therefore, a higher percentage savings is required for single-family and multi-family Option 2 to balance the requirements compared to single-family and multi-family Option 1. For new single-family construction projects, two compliance options are given to project applicants, as shown in Figure 1a. Both options outline requirements using the “performance approach” methodology. The first option requires projects to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new home is at least 10% less than Standard Design if the project does not include a photovoltaic system. This first compliance option allows projects to use energy efficiency only as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. The second option requires projects to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new home is at least 20% less than the Standard Design if the project does include a photovoltaic system. This second compliance option allows projects to use both energy efficiency and/or a photovoltaic system as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. For new multi-family construction projects, two very similar compliance options are given to project applicants as with new single-family projects, as outlined in Figure 1a. Both options for multi-family outline requirements using the “performance approach” methodology. The first option requires projects to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new home is at least 10% less than the Standard Design if the project does not include a photovoltaic system. This first compliance option allows projects to use energy efficiency only as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. The second option requires projects to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new home is at least 12% less than the Standard Design if the project does include a photovoltaic system. This second compliance option allows projects to use both energy efficiency and renewable energy as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. Figure 1b: Commercial Energy Reach Code Compliance Options This figure presents the proposed Energy Reach Code Compliance Options for new commercial construction outlined in section 16.17.050 of Attachment 1. New Commercial Reach Code Option 1: The project either 1) does not include a photovoltaic system or 2) includes a photovoltaic system smaller than 5kW Minimum T24 Energy Code plus The TDV Energy of proposed project is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (16.17.050.c.1) Reach Code Option 2: The project includes a photovoltaic system equal to or greater than 5kW Minimum T24 Energy Code plus The proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system² (16.17.050.c.2) ² There is no “PV credit” available for commercial buildings. Therefore a minimum kilowatt (kW) size is proposed instead of an adjusted percentage margin. City of Palo Alto Page 7 For new commercial construction, “non-residential” projects, two compliance options are given to project applicants, as outlined in figure 1b. The options are modified because no “PV Credit” is allowed for minimum compliance by the State. Both options for commercial construction outline requirements using the “performance approach” methodology. The first option requires projects to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new building is at least 10% less than the Standard Design if the project does not include a photovoltaic system or includes a photovoltaic system that is smaller than 5 kilowatts. This first compliance option allows projects to use energy efficiency or energy efficiency combined with a small photovoltaic system as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. The second option requires projects to demonstrate minimum California Energy Code compliance plus install a minimum photovoltaic system of 5 kilowatts or greater. This second compliance option allows projects to use renewable energy only as the methodology to meet the Energy Reach Code. As aforementioned, the reasoning behind this option is that there is no “PV Credit” allowed by the Energy Commission for new commercial construction. Development Services staff is currently participating in a multi-departmental study on Electrification, also known as “Fuel Switching”, approved by City Council on August 17th, 2015. Development Services is conducting a portion of the electrification work plan with a schedule to return back to City Council in December of 2016 with an update. The study will determine the feasibility, cost effectiveness and other construction and operational challenges that need be addressed both at a policy as well as a construction level. During the early course of said study, staff has received feedback that attempting to design an all-electric building and meet the existing Energy Reach Code poses challenges and inhibits the potential application of an all- electric solution. As a result, the proposed ordinance provides for an exemption to the requirements of the Energy Reach Code if the project is pursuing an all-electric design. Due to the timing of the Electrification study related to the Building Standards Code adoption cycle, the proposed ordinance does not include an all-electric measure. All-electric compliance options must be studied for cost-effectiveness in compliance with California Energy Commissions requirements. In addition to the all-electric exemption, staff is actively working with the California Energy Commission (CEC) to amend the energy modeling compliance software, CBECC, to eliminate the penalties against heat pump water heaters that make it difficult to model the proposed Energy Reach Code. Staff has been working directly with the technical advisory team for the CEC on the software. They are aware of the heat pump water heater modeling penalty and will be addressing it in the final version of the software. Staff is committed to working with applicants that attempt to design heat pumps into their new home designs to ensure they are not adversely affected by this unintended outcome of the CEC software. These efforts will include but are not limited to coordinating with the CEC, finding creative ways to comply with the reach code and at the minimum ensure all projects comply with the minimum title 24 Part 6 energy code requirements. The proposed Energy Reach Code achieves carbon reduction in addition to energy efficiency in the construction of new buildings. For each newly constructed single-family building, 382 lbs. City of Palo Alto Page 8 of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) avoided savings is estimated, representing 5% GHG savings achieved. For each new multifamily building, 747 lbs. of CO2e avoided savings is estimated, representing 3% GHG savings achieved. For each new nonresidential building, 6,027 lbs. of CO2e avoided savings is estimated, representing 7% GHG savings achieved.iv An estimate of annual city-wide GHG savings is attained by multiplying the CO2e savings per building against the number of new buildings permitted in Palo Alto during the 2015 Calendar year. GHG savings are expressed in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). In total, the Energy Reach Code estimates a total of 71 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) avoided annually. The average GHG reductions across the City are estimated to be 6%, weighted by the new construction square footage. These GHG reduction estimates are based on complying with the 10% compliance packages in the Reach Code.. Compliance with the Reach Code may be achieved through a variety of measures, each of which will have varying electric and natural gas usages and GHG savings. Attachment 2 contains additional details on the carbon reduction estimates. The 2016 version of the California Energy Code provides for aggressive changes and in energy efficiency for existing structures compared to 2013 code. Therefore, the Energy Reach Code does not propose any requirements pertaining to existing buildings. The existing energy ordinance, passed by the City Council in April of 2015, mandates additional “solar ready” infrastructure for residential projects beyond the state regulation. Single-family residential structures are required to dedicate 500 square feet of clear roof surface for future solar panels. The applicant is also required to provide an electrical conduit for the future PV wiring. Development Services has coordinated with the Public Works Department, and Urban Forestry Division to address conditions in which shading from protective trees may impact a solar ready zone or photovoltaic system installation. In the event of a conflict between the Energy Reach Code, the Solar Shade Act, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance, the requirement most protective of existing tree canopies will prevail. Resource Impact Resource Impacts from the adoption of these ordinances will be the additional staff time in plan checking and inspection requirements. These costs will be recovered via plan check and permit fees collected. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Policy Implications The proposed 2016 Energy Reach Code ordinance is an update to the 2013 Energy Reach Code and corresponds with the proposed 2016 Energy Code. Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.17 will be amended for the proposed requirements.. Environmental Review This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines section 15308 as an action by the City for protection of the environment. Attachments:  Attachment A: Ordinance Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PDF)  Attachment B: 2016 Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness 20160331 (PDF) i Climate change threatens irreversible and dangerous impacts, but options exist to limit its effects, IPCC PRESS RELEASE, Nov 2, 2014 ii Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (decision 1/CP.17) Adoption of a protocol, another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties, Nov 30, Dec 11, 2015, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change iii California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015-­­2020, June 2015, California Energy Commission – Efficiency Division, Ca Public Utility Commission – Energy Division iv Since the cost effectiveness study was prepared to meet the CEC’s cost effectiveness study parameters these figures reflect a statewide energy portfolio. NOT YET APPROVED 1 Ordinance No. _____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Repealing and Restating Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and Local Amendments and Related Findings The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 16.17 of the Palo Alto Municipal is hereby amended by repealing in its entirety Chapter 16.17 and adopting a new Chapter 16.17 to read as follows: 16.17 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 16.17.010 2016 California Energy Code adopted. The California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations together with those omissions, amendments, exceptions and additions thereto, is adopted and hereby incorporated in this Chapter by reference and made a part hereof the same as if fully set forth herein. Except as amended herein, all requirements of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations shall apply. Unless superseded and expressly repealed, references in City of Palo Alto forms, documents and regulations to the chapters and sections of the former California Code of Regulations, Title 24, shall be construed to apply to the corresponding provisions contained within the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013. Ordinance No. 5345 of the City of Palo Alto and all other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby suspended and expressly repealed. One copy of the California Energy Code, 2016 edition, has been filed for use and examination of the public in the Office of the Building Official of the City of Palo Alto. 16.17.020 Violations -- Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in subsection (a) of Section 1.08.010 of this code. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this chapter occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable as provided in this section. 16.17.030 Enforcement -- Citation authority. The employee positions designated in this section may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations; persons employed in such positions are authorized to exercise the authority provided in Penal Code section 836.5 and are authorized to issue citations for violations of this chapter. The designated employee positions are: (1) chief building official; (2) building inspection supervisor; and (3) code enforcement officer. NOT YET APPROVED 2 16.17.040 Local Amendments. The provisions of this Chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this Chapter. 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 California Energy Code is added to read: 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code (a) New single-family residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system; or 2. Twenty percent (20%) less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (b) New multi-family residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed multi-family residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system; or 2. Twelve percent (12%) less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (c) New non-residential construction. The performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed non-residential construction is at least: 1. Ten percent (10%) less than the TDV energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system or includes a photovoltaic system smaller than 5kW; or 2. Equal to the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building includes a 5kW or greater photovoltaic system. 16.17.060 Section 100.4 Exceptions to Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code Section 100.4 of the California Energy Code is added to read: 100.4 Exceptions to Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code New single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction that is designed and built as to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3, Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For the purposes of this Chapter, construction shall be NOT YET APPROVED 3 considered “all-electric” if electricity is the only permanent source of energy for water-heating, space-heating, space cooling, cooking, and clothes-drying. Nothing in this section shall relieve a project applicant from the meeting any other requirement of the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations. 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single-family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three habitable stories or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in Climate zones 8-14 and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The potential solar zone area is the total area of any low-sloped roofs where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep-sloped roofs oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from obstructions located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the determination of annual solar access. NOT YET APPROVED 4 EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the following conditions: A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. B. Comply with one of the following measures: i. Install a dishwasher that meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR Program requirements with either a refrigerator that meets or exceeds the ENERGY STAR Program requirements or a whole house fan driven by an electronically commutated motor; or ii. Install a home automation system capable of, at a minimum, controlling the appliances and lighting of the dwelling and responding to demand response signals; or iii. Install alternative plumbing piping to permit the discharge from the clothes washer and all showers and bathtubs to be used for an irrigation system in compliance with the California Plumbing Code and any applicable local ordinances; iv. Install a rainwater catchment system designed to comply with the California Plumbing Code and any applicable local ordinances, and that uses rainwater flowing from at least 65 percent of the available roof area. (c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read: (c) Interconnection pathways. 1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single-family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel. 2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel. NOT YET APPROVED 5 3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water-heating system. (d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read: (f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Code, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail. 16.17.070 Infeasibility Exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility. (b) Application. If an applicant for a Covered Project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make it infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; (2) There is conflict with other City goals, such as those requiring historic preservation or the Architectural Review criteria; (3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter; (4) Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and Architectural Review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall provide a recommendation to the Director of Development Services or designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. (d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director of Development Services, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in NOT YET APPROVED 6 all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director of Development Services or designee determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request shall be denied and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this Chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director of Development Services. 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved Applicant may appeal the determination of the Director of Development Services or designee regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 2. The Council adopts the findings for local amendments to the California Energy Code, 2016 Edition, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it is a regulatory action for the protection of the environment. // // NOT YET APPROVED 7 SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the commencement of the thirty- first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: ____________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney City Manager ____________________________ Director of Development Services ____________________________ Director of Administrative Services NOT YET APPROVED 8 Exhibit A FINDINGS FOR LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2016 EDITION Section 17958 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the City may make changes to the provisions in the uniform codes that are published in the California Building Standards Code. Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code require that for each proposed local change to those provisions in the uniform codes and published in the California Building Standards Code which regulate buildings used for human habitation, the City Council must make findings supporting its determination that each such local change is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Local building regulations having the effect of amending the uniform codes, which were adopted by the City prior to November 23, 1970, were unaffected by the regulations of Sections 17958, 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Therefore, amendments to the uniform codes which were adopted by the City Council prior to November 23, 1970, and have been carried through from year to year without significant change, need no required findings. Also, amendments to provisions not regulating buildings used for human habitation, including amendments made only for administrative consistency, do not require findings. Code: Cal Green Section(s) Title Add Deleted Amended Justification (See below for keys) 100.3 and 100.4 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code and Exceptions  C & E 110.10 Mandatory Requirements For Solar Ready Buildings   C NOT YET APPROVED 9 Key to Justification for Amendments to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations C This amendment is justified on the basis of a local climatic condition. The seasonal climatic conditions during the late summer and fall create severe fire hazards to the public health and welfare in the City. The hot, dry weather frequently results in wild land fires on the brush covered slopes west of Interstate 280. The aforementioned conditions combined with the geological characteristics of the hills within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Energy Code is required. Failure to address and significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses, public facilities, and Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway), particularly the mapped Flood Hazard areas of the City. Energy efficiency is a key component in reducing GHG emissions, and construction of more energy efficient buildings can help Palo Alto reduce its share of the GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels used in the generation of electric power and heating of buildings contributes to climate change, which could result in rises in sea level, including in San Francisco Bay, that could put at risk Palo Alto homes and businesses 1 public facilities, and Highway 101. Due to decrease in annual rain fall, Palo Alto experiences the effect of drought and water saving more than some other communities in California. E Energy efficiency enhances the public health and welfare by promoting the environmental and economic health of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings and sites by incorporating green practices into all development. The provisions in this Chapter are designed to achieve the following goals: (a) Increase energy efficiency in buildings; (b) Increase resource conservation; (c) Provide durable buildings that are efficient and economical to own and operate; (d) Promote the health and productivity of residents, workers, and visitors to the city; (e) Recognize and conserve the energy embodied in existing buildings; and (f) Reduce disturbance of natural ecosystems. G T This amendment is justified on the basis of a local geological condition. The City of Palo Alto is subject to earthquake hazard caused by its proximity to San Andreas fault. This fault runs from Hollister, through the Santa Cruz Mountains, epicenter of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, then on up the San Francisco Peninsula, then offshore at Daly City near Mussel Rock. This is the approximate location of the epicenter of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The other fault is Hayward Fault. This fault is about 74 mi long, situated mainly along the western base of the hills on the east side of San Francisco Bay. Both of these faults are considered major Northern California earthquake faults which may experience rupture at any time. Thus, because the City is within a seismic area which includes these earthquake faults, the modifications and changes cited herein are designed to better limit property damage as a result of seismic activity and to establish criteria for repair of damaged properties following a local emergency. The City of Palo Alto topography includes hillsides with narrow and winding access, which makes timely response by fire suppression vehicles difficult. Palo Alto is contiguous with the San Francisco Bay, resulting in a natural receptor for storm and waste water run-off. Also the City of Palo Alto is located in an area that is potentially susceptible to liquefaction during a NOT YET APPROVED 10 major earthquake. The surface condition consists mostly of stiff to dense sandy clay, which is highly plastic and expansive in nature. The aforementioned conditions within the City create hazardous conditions for which departure from California Building Standards Codes is warranted. City of Palo Alto 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study March 31, 2016 TRC Energy Services 11211 Gold Country Blvd. #103 Gold River, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 962-7001 Fax: (916) 962-0101 e-mail: FFarahmand@trcsolutions.com website: www.trcsolutions.com TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................7 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................8 2.1 Life Cycle Cost and Time Dependent Valuation .......................................................... 8 2.2 Package Development ................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Residential Prototypes ..................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Nonresidential Prototypes ............................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures .......................................................................... 11 2.2.4 Solar Measures .............................................................................................. 11 2.3 Cost Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Energy Savings .............................................................................................. 12 2.3.2 Costs .............................................................................................................. 15 3. MEASURE DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS ........................................................17 3.1 Residential Measures .................................................................................................. 17 3.1.1 HERS Verification Measures ......................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Quality Insulation Installation (QII) .............................................................. 18 3.1.3 Piping Insulation for All Hot Water Lines ..................................................... 19 3.1.4 Verified Refrigerant Charge .......................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Drain Water Heat Recovery .......................................................................... 20 3.2 Nonresidential Measures ............................................................................................. 21 3.2.1 Economizer .................................................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Cool Roofs ..................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Indoor Lighting .............................................................................................. 23 3.3 Solar Measures ............................................................................................................ 26 3.3.1 Photovoltaics ................................................................................................. 26 3.3.2 Solar Thermal ................................................................................................ 27 3.3.3 Solar Ready .................................................................................................... 30 4. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS ..............................32 4.1 Residential Packages ................................................................................................... 32 4.1.1 Single Family ................................................................................................. 32 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 3 4.1.2 Multifamily ..................................................................................................... 32 4.2 Nonresidential Packages ............................................................................................. 33 4.3 Solar Measures ............................................................................................................ 33 4.3.1 Solar PV ......................................................................................................... 33 4.3.2 Solar Thermal ................................................................................................ 34 4.4 Reach Code Recommendation .................................................................................... 34 4.4.1 Compliance .................................................................................................... 35 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Savings ............................................................................................ 36 5. APPENDIX A – CURRENT REACH CODE LANGUAGE .....................................38 6. APPENDIX B – COST DETAILS .....................................................................42 7. APPENDIX C – SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS ENERGY SAVINGS ..........................49 7.1 Drain Water Heat Recovery ........................................................................................ 49 7.2 Open Office Occupancy Sensors ................................................................................ 49 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Palo Alto and California Energy Commission (CEC) require a cost effectiveness study be completed to implement a Reach Code in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Reach Code requires that residential and nonresidential new construction use less energy than a building minimally compliant with Title 24 (T24) Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The CEC Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Methodology and prototypes were used to analyze potential cost effective energy efficiency measures. The LCC methodology involves estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with measures using a Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) of energy savings. TRC developed cost effective packages at 10 percent above T24 for single family and low-rise multifamily residential buildings, and nonresidential office buildings. These packages represent sets of measures shown to attain the “10 percent better” Reach Code requirements cost effectively and are used to demonstrate the feasibility of achieving the Reach Code target. These measures are not meant to be prescriptive packages of measures adopted into the Palo Alto Municipal Code. To determine energy savings, TRC simulated residential prototypes in CBECC-Res, and nonresidential prototypes in CBECC-Com, though some measures required spreadsheet analysis. The cost effectiveness of solar photovoltaics was estimated using the CECPV calculator. The measures investigated were those studied for the 2016 and 2019 Title 24 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) process. TRC leveraged previous energy savings, market research, and cost estimates from CASE studies and other resources as much as possible. The benefit to cost ratio (B/C) is the indicator for cost effectiveness. A ratio greater than 1 indicates that the added cost of the measure is more than offset by the present value energy cost savings, and the measure is cost effective. Cost effectiveness is shown for both individual measure and packages of measures to reach at least 10 percent better than Title 24. Table 1 shows the individual impact of each measure and the impact when all measures are implemented as a package. All of the packages proved cost effective for prototypes in the City of Palo Alto; therefore, the Palo Alto Municipal Code should implement a Reach Code ordinance requiring that single family, low-rise multifamily, and nonresidential buildings exceed the Title 24 Standards by at least 10 percent. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 5 Table 1. Summary of Cost Effective Packages Single Family Residential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) 9% $971 $519 1.9 Piping Insulation, All Hot Water Lines (HERS) 1% $144 $181 0.8 Refrigerant Charge Verification (HERS) 1% $79 $76 1.0 Solar Ready - - $343 - Package 11% $1,243 $1,119 1.1 Multifamily Residential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) 5% $2,009 $1,018 2.0 Piping Insulation, All Hot Water Lines (HERS) 1% $522 $790 0.7 Verified Refrigerant Charge (HERS) 2% $764 $272 2.8 Drain Water Heat Recovery 2% $944 $774 1.2 Solar Ready - - $343 - Package 10% $4,160 $3,197 1.3 Nonresidential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Economizer 5% $4,384 $2,000 2.1 Cool Roof 0.3% $1,483 $741 2.0 Daylight Dimming Plus Off Lighting Controls 1% $5,386 - 1.0* Institutional Tuning for Lighting 3% $9,093 $2,217 4.1 Open Office Lighting Occupancy Sensors 2% $7,648 $3,833 2.0 Lighting Power Density Reduction 2% $7,557 - 1.0* Package 10% $33,052 $7,513 4.4 *Measures with no cost are cost effective; B/C ratio is set to 1.0. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 6 Solar photovoltaics (PV) were found to be cost effective, as shown in Table 2, and can be included in Reach Code requirements. The CEC allows compliance margin credits of up to 20.1% for single family and 11.8% for multifamily residential. The corresponding PV system sizes to achieve these compliance credits are 2 kW for single family and 8 kW for multifamily. The CEC does not provide any compliance margin credits for nonresidential buildings. However, all PV system sizes up to 40 kW were found to be cost effective, including 5 kW as recommended for the Palo Alto nonresidential Reach Code. Table 2. Solar PV Cost Effectiveness Size (kW) Cost Residential Present Value of Energy Savings Residential Benefit to Cost Ratio Nonresidential Present Value of Energy Savings Nonresidential Benefit to Cost Ratio 2 $5,681 $17,135 3.0 - - 5 $13,892 - - $20,843 1.5 8 $22,723 $65,530 2.9 - - Based on the findings in this report, TRC recommends the requirements below for the 2016 Palo Alto Reach Code. For each building type, Path B ensures that applicants are meeting the standard budget before use of the PV credit.  Single family residential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: A. 10% or greater compliance margin without a PV system; OR B. 20% or greater compliance margin with a PV system  Multifamily residential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: A. 10% or greater compliance margin without PV system; OR B. 12% or greater compliance margin with a PV system  Nonresidential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: A. 10% or greater compliance margin without a PV system; OR B. 0% or greater compliance margin with a 5 kW PV system or larger. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 7 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Palo Alto, California, plans to enact a Reach Code for the 2016 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (T24 Standards). The T24 Standards are the minimum energy efficiency requirements for building construction in California. Palo Alto’s Reach Code would require that residential and nonresidential buildings be constructed to consume at least 10 percent less energy than a building exactly compliant with the T24 Standards. Palo Alto has enacted a Reach Code since the 2005 T24 Standards by investigating measures that allow a building to perform 15 percent better than the Title 24 minimum requirements, while being cost effective over the lifetime of the measures, as per the requirements in Section 10-106 of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 1. The most recent Reach Code that was enforced by Palo Alto was with the 2013 T24 Standards, located in Section 16.17.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This code is partially reproduced below: The provisions of this chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this chapter. Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read: (a) For all new single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. The section of code is provided in full in Appendix A – Current Reach Code Language. Palo Alto engaged TRC to provide a cost effectiveness study to support building Reach Code requirements above 2016 T24 Standards minimum requirements. TRC found a 10 percent compliance margin to be technically and economically feasible for single family residential, low- rise multifamily residential, and nonresidential (office building) new construction. TRC has prepared energy savings and cost effectiveness analyses for measures that support the proposed Reach Code. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 8 2. METHODOLOGY TRC assessed the cost effectiveness of Palo Alto’s 2016 Reach Code by analyzing specific measures applied to building prototypes using the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) methodology approved and used by the California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish cost effective building energy standards (Title 24, Part 6). 2.1 Life Cycle Cost and Time Dependent Valuation TRC used the CEC LCC Methodology to demonstrate cost effectiveness of the proposed Reach code.1 The LCC methodology involves estimating and quantifying the energy savings associated with measures using a Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) of energy savings.2 TDV is a normalized format for comparing electricity and natural gas savings that takes into account the cost of electricity and natural gas consumed during different times of the day and year. The TDV values are based on long term discounted costs (30 years for all residential measures and nonresidential envelope measures and 15 years for all other nonresidential measures). TDV energy estimates are based on present-valued cost savings but are presented in terms of “TDV kBTUs” so that the savings are evaluated in terms of energy units and measures with different periods of analysis can be combined into a single value.3 The CEC developed the TDV values that were used in the analyses for this report, and are representative of Palo Alto’s climate zone. However, the TDV values are not representative of the characteristics of the City of Palo Alto Utility, including retail rates and emissions from generation. Developing Palo-Alto specific TDV values is outside of the scope of this report.4 1 Architectural Energy Corporation (January 2011) Life-Cycle Cost Methodology. California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/general_cec_documents/2011-01- 14_LCC_Methodology_2013.pdf 2 E3 (July 2014) Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards: 2016 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Data Sources and Inputs. California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 09_workshop/2017_TDV_Documents/ 3 kBTUs = thousands of British Thermal Units. 4 Developing local TDV values poses several challenges. Specialized analysis is necessary to adjust the TDV input factors to represent specifically Palo Alto’s utility territory. The CEC may use a higher level of scrutiny on the local TDV and method used to produce it. Additionally, even with a local TDV established, building permit applicants will need special instruction to implement the local values into compliance software. The 2016 TDV is already integrated into compliance software and practices. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 9 2.2 Package Development TRC developed cost effective packages for single family, low-rise multifamily and nonresidential (office) buildings (10% above T24). The measures in these packages represent a feasible and cost effective way to attain the Reach Code requirements, but are not meant to be prescriptive measures adopted into the Palo Alto Municipal Code. TRC used CBECC-Res 2016.1.0 (build 801) to simulate the residential prototypes and CBECC-Com 2016.1.0 (build 803) for the nonresidential prototypes. 5 TRC simulated all prototypes in Climate Zone 4 (CZ4), and initialized them to be exactly compliant with the minimum 2016 T24 requirements (0% compliance margin). The TDV of energy savings for the energy efficiency measures were derived by revising the code compliant models, as described in the Measure Descriptions and Costs. 2.2.1 Residential Prototypes The residential prototypes are fully defined by the CEC in the Residential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual.6 TRC’s prototypes are slightly revised in order to have equal geometry oriented facing north, east, south, and west. Three residential prototypes were simulated:  2,100 ft2 single family single-story home  2,700 ft2 single family two-story home  6,960 ft2 low-rise multifamily residential building, with two stories and eight dwelling units Further prototype details are provided in Table 3. Detailed requirements for the compliant building prototypes are provided in the CEC Residential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual. 5 More information on CBECC-Res available at: http://www.bwilcox.com/BEES/BEES.html. More information on CBECC-Com available at: http://bees.archenergy.com/software.html 6 2016 Residential Alternative Calculation Method, California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-024/CEC-400-2015-024-CMF.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 10 Table 3. Residential Prototypes Summary Building Type One-Story Two-Story Low-Rise Multifamily Dwelling Units 1 2 8 Area (ft2) 2,100 2,700 6,960 Roof Area (ft2) 2,520 1,740 4,176 # of floors 1 2 2 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 15% Attic/Roof Assembly Tile Roof, Wood Sheathing, R13 Below Roof Deck Insulation (air space), 2x4 @ 24” OC, SR = 0.10, TE = 0.85 Above Grade Wall Assembly R-19 Cavity Insulation, R5 Synthetic Stucco, 0.051 U-factor Cooling System Split Air Conditioner Heating System Gas Furnace HVAC Distribution System Ducts in Attic Ducts in Attic Ducts in Conditioned Space Thermal Zones 1 2 4 Domestic Water Heating Prescriptive Path 1 Natural Gas Instantaneous Water Heater, 0 Gallon Tank, EF=0.82 8x Natural Gas Instantaneous Water Heater, 0 Gallon Tank, EF=0.82 Domestic Water Heating Prescriptive Path 2 Natural Gas Small Storage, 50 Gallon Tank, EF = 0.6, plus HERS Measures Natural Gas Small Storage, 50 Gallon Tank, EF = 0.6, 40 MBH Input Rating, 0.20 Solar Fraction 2.2.2 Nonresidential Prototypes The nonresidential prototypes were developed according to the Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual.7  5,502 ft2 one-story small office building  53,600 ft2 three-story medium office building Results using these prototypes are intended to represent findings for all nonresidential buildings. Further prototype details are provided in Table 4, and detailed requirements for the compliant building prototypes are provided in the CEC Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method reference manual. 7 2016 Nonresidential Alternative Calculation Method, California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-025/CEC-400-2015-025-CMF.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 11 Table 4. Nonresidential Prototypes Summary Building Type Medium Office Small Office Floor Area (ft2) 53,628 5,502 # of floors 3 1 Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 33% 21% Roof Construction 1/16” Metal Standing Seam, R-29 Insulation Board Cool Roof SR = 0.63 (Low-sloped), TE = 0.85 0.20 (Steep-sloped), TE = 0.85 Cooling System Direct Expansion, 9.8 EER, Economizer Direct Expansion, 13 SEER, No Economizer Heating System Boiler, 80% Thermal Efficiency Furnace, 78% AFUE HVAC Distribution System 3 Packaged VAVs (1 per story) with Hot Water Reheat 5 Packaged Single Zone Systems Conditioned Thermal Zones 18 6 Regulated Lighting Power Density 0.75 Watts/ft2 Daylighting Controls Continuous, 0.20 Dimming Light/Power Fraction Occupancy Sensors Required in Private Offices, Conference Rooms, and Multipurpose Rooms. Not Required in Open Offices 2.2.3 Energy Efficiency Measures TRC investigated potential energy efficiency measures to apply to the prototype residential and nonresidential buildings. The first measures investigated were those that had been studied for the 2016 Title 24 Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) process. Additionally, TRC identified measures that are potential topics for the 2019 CASE process and, lastly, measures being investigated for green building codes such as CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11) and ASHRAE 189. The CASE studies to support Title 24 proposed updates contain detailed energy savings, market research, and cost estimates for measures, and serve as comprehensive data sources for the Reach Code analysis. For measures where no CASE study exists, TRC conducted internal market research to assess measure feasibility, costs, and potential energy impact. 2.2.4 Solar Measures The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) set goals that California residential new construction will be Zero Net Energy (ZNE) by 20208 and nonresidential new construction by 8 CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan: New Residential Zero Net Energy Action Plan 2015 – 2020, CPUC and CEC. June 2015. Available online at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 12 20309. The state will realize these goals partly through more stringent Building Energy Efficiency Standards and partly through renewable energy policy. In order to effectively reach these goals, building projects must balance energy efficiency and renewable energy. The city of Palo Alto’s Reach Code is intended to be a stepping stone to a ZNE code. TRC investigated the cost effectiveness and feasibility of photovoltaics (PV), solar thermal water heating, and sola ready for residential and nonresidential new construction. 2.3 Cost Effectiveness Using the CEC’s LCC methodology, TRC determined cost effectiveness by assessing the incremental costs of a measure and comparing them to the energy cost savings. Incremental costs represent the construction and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2016 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements. The Benefit to Cost (B/C) Ratio is the incremental TDV energy costs savings divided by the total incremental costs. When the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0, the added cost of the measure is more than offset by the discounted energy cost savings and the measure is deemed to be cost effective. 2.3.1 Energy Savings TDV energy savings are calculated in terms of per-square-foot of the building. The present value of the energy savings is calculated by multiplying the TDV savings/ft2 by the building area, and finally by the Net Present Value (NPV) factor. The NPV factor is $0.173/TDV kBtu for residential measures, $0.154/TDV kBtu for nonresidential envelope measures, and $0.089/TDV kBtu for all other nonresidential measures. When calculating the present value of packages, NPV factors were weighted by compliance margin to capture the impact of 15-year and 30-year measures. To determine overall building type energy savings, TRC used a straight average to blend the energy savings of the two single family prototypes, as well as the two office prototypes. Energy Efficiency Measures For most measures, TRC used CBECC-Com and CBECC-Res to estimate the TDV savings and percent improvement beyond the T24 Standards. CBECC is a free public-domain software developed by the CEC for use in complying with the Title 24 Standards. The software is currently used for the 2013 Standards, and preliminary versions for use with the 2016 Standards have been released. The 2016 software algorithms will be updated occasionally until the implementation date of the 2016 Standards (January 1st, 2017). CBECC-Com uses EnergyPlus v8.3 as the simulation engine to perform the analysis. Measure specific modeling parameters are described in Section 3. 9 CA Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan: Zero Net Energy Commercial Building Sector 2010-2012. Engage 360. June 2011. Available online at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 13 Due to software limitations and performance uncertainties, CBECC is not currently capable of simulating all available measures. Measures that CBECC is not currently capable of modeling include drain water heat recovery, and open office lighting occupancy sensors. For these measures, TRC conducted a spreadsheet analysis to determine potential energy savings, as described in Appendix C – Spreadsheet Analysis Energy Savings. TRC simulated multiple measures together to capture potential interactive or overlapping effects of the measures. For example, adding insulation to the hot water pipes may produce a 2% compliance margin and reducing pipe length for compact domestic hot water may produce a 3% compliance margin, but both of these measures combined may only produce a 3-4% compliance margin rather than 5%. CBECC software calculates the compliance total using loads regulated by Title 24. These loads include space heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and (for nonresidential only) pumps and indoor lighting. Building designers can easily show compliance through the software analysis using energy efficiency measures that reduce these regulated loads and can be modeled in CBECC. TRC has focused on these types of measures while developing the Reach Code. However, in order to achieve the “10% better” Reach Code, it was necessary to investigate measures that cannot currently be modeled in CBECC. The CBECC-Res output, shown in Figure 1, shows that the unregulated loads (including lighting, appliance and cooking, plug, and exterior loads) are the same for the standard and proposed design and are therefore excluded from the compliance total and compliance margin. Figure 1. CBECC-Res Output Screenshot TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 14 The CBECC-Com output, shown in Figure 2, shows that the unregulated receptacle, process, and process lighting loads are similarly excluded from the compliance total and compliance margin. Note that a 0.2 compliance margin was as close as possible that we could achieve with this prototype – this compliance margin has been subtracted from the projected improvement of the measure packages. Figure 2. CBECC-Com Output Screenshot The minimally compliant energy consumption of the residential and nonresidential prototypes are summarized in Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5. Residential Prototype TDV Energy Consumption Prototypes SF 1-story (kBtu/ft2-yr) SF 2-story (kBtu/ft2-yr) Low-Rise Multifamily (kBtu/ft2-yr) Space Heating 14.31 12.33 6.00 Space Cooling 2.28 3.69 8.99 IAQ Ventilation 1.17 1.15 2.47 Water Heating 9.81 8.44 15.88 Total Standard Design TDV 27.57 25.61 33.34 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 15 Table 6. Nonresidential Prototype TDV Energy Consumption End Use Small Office Energy Use (kBtu/ft2-yr) Medium Office Energy Use (kBtu/ft2-yr) Space Heating 6.0 10.1 Space Cooling 38.9 38.7 Indoor Fans 80.1 16.3 Pumps & Miscellaneous 0.0 0.7 Domestic Hot Water 4.7 2.2 Indoor Lighting 36.1 34.3 Total Standard Design TDV 165.8 102.3 Solar Measures The CEC currently allows a limited credit for low-rise residential buildings with PV in CZ4 (20.1% compliance margin for single family, 11.8% compliance margin for multifamily). The credit is attained by inputting PV into CBECC-Res. The PV credit does not capture the full energy benefits of PV, and is intended to promote energy efficient design before renewables. Similar modeling and credit are not currently available for nonresidential buildings in CBECC-Com. To calculate the cost effectiveness of PV as a standalone measure, TRC calculated the TDV energy savings from PV using the CECPV calculator, rather than using the limited TDV output from compliance software. The CECPV calculator is specifically designed for use in the California New Solar Homes Partnership program, and has inputs for PV module, inverter, installation heights and orientation, and climate zone.10 The software provides a TDV output that represents the total output of the array. Compliance software models solar thermal through the use of a solar savings fraction, which represents the fraction of hot water demand met by a solar thermal system. Solar thermal benefits are not explicitly limited in compliance software (a solar fraction of 1 is possible to input). However, benefits only apply to the domestic hot water heating load, and the software appears to reduce the therms savings lower than what would be expected with the solar savings fraction input. 2.3.2 Costs For several measures, CASE studies provided relevant cost data. TRC conducted further cost research to supplement CASE data and to gather costs for measures that are not addressed in 10 Note that PV arrays installed in Palo Alto homes are not eligible for New Solar Homes Partnership incentives, as the program is funded by the statewide investor-owned utilities. The CECPV Calculator is available at http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/tools/nshpcalculator/download_calculator.php TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 16 CASE studies. For the residential package, these include HERS Verified Refrigerant Charge, and Drain Water Heat Recovery; cost data for the HERS Piping Insulation is available from relevant CASE studies. For the nonresidential package, Cool Roofs and the Lighting Controls measures required supplemental data collection. Building material, equipment, and labor costs were localized when possible, and taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate, as described in Section 3. TRC used a straight average to blend the costs for the measures in the two single family prototypes, as well as the two office prototypes. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 17 3. MEASURE DESCRIPTIONS AND COSTS This section provides a description, general modeling parameters, market overview, and summarized costs for each measure. 3.1 Residential Measures TRC investigated and included the following five measures into the residential packages, four of which require Home Energy Rating System (HERS) verification:  Quality Insulation Installation (HERS)  Hot Water Piping Insulation, All Hot Water Lines (HERS)  Verified Refrigerant Charge (HERS)  Drain Water Heat Recovery 3.1.1 HERS Verification Measures Several of the residential measures require HERS verification in order to show compliance. HERS verification can range from a visual inspection and confirmation to a test requiring specialized equipment. HERS Raters typically provide a lump sum amount based the location of a project, the number of site visits required, and the number of units and measures to be verified. It is not market practice to identify the cost for an individual HERS verification, as several factors weigh in on the cost. HERS verification costs include the cost for site visits and tests by a certified HERS Rater. 2016 Title 24 has mandatory HERS measures, effectively requiring that a HERS Rater arrive on-site for every new construction project. Builders typically minimize HERS fees by scheduling HERS Raters to test and verify multiple measures during one visit. TRC assumed costs for each HERS verification, as shown in Table 7 and Table 8, which include a cost for site visits and additional verification costs for each measure. Based on discussions with multiple HERS Raters in the Palo Alto area, the cost estimates include overlap in site visits where appropriate; it is assumed multiple tests can be verified in a single visit based on standard practice. HERS verification pricing methods vary for single family and multifamily buildings. Typical single family HERS verification pricing includes a set fee for each site visit and additional fees for each HERS measure to be verified during that visit. Multifamily HERS verification pricing differs by HERS company; HERS Raters either price by the number of site visits required or by the number of dwelling units. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 18 Table 7. Single Family HERS Verification Costs Summary Component Single Family On-site visit ($/visit) $220 Standard Measure verification ($/measure) $45 Additional Measure verification ($/measure) $100 The values in Table 8 depict the two multifamily HERS pricing methods:  Method 1 is to price per site visit required. Measures that require multiple visits and large projects that cannot be verified in one visit due to construction schedules will be more costly.  Method 2 is to price per unit. This method makes general assumptions on standard number of visits per measure and averages costs amongst the number of units in a project. The cost for multiple site visits is captured in Method 1 simply by requiring a flat fee for each visit. In Method 2, QII adds an additional $50 to each unit cost due to multiple site visits required. Table 8. Multifamily HERS Verification Costs Summary Component Multifamily Method 1: On-site visit ($/visit) $220 Method 2: Per unit verification, no QII ($/unit) $198 Method 2: Per unit cost of QII ($/unit) $50 3.1.2 Quality Insulation Installation (QII) In 2016 Title 24, QII is a compliance credit for the performance path; however, QII is included in a prescriptive package to trade instantaneous water heaters for storage water heaters. QII ensures that insulation is installed properly in floors, walls, and roofs/ceilings to maximize the thermal benefit of insulation. Depending on the type of insulation used, QII can be simple to implement for only the additional cost of HERS verification. Batt insulation may require an increase in installation time over standard practice because batts may need to be cut to fit around penetrations and special joists. Although this should be standard practice, feedback from the field is that installers do not typically take the time to do it. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 19 Measure costs shown in Table 9 are drawn from the findings of the 2016 Residential High Performance Walls and QII CASE Report.11,12 Additionally, TRC spoke with over 13 HERS Raters to gather more recent cost estimates. TRC assumed an increase in labor time to account for a learning curve for insulation installers. The HERS verification costs reflect those described in Table 7 and Table 8 at the beginning of this section. Table 9. Residential QII Incremental Costs Summary Component/Material Base Case Proposed Update Single Family Multifamily Installation (labor) Standard Improved $89 $310 HERS Verification None Verified $430 $708 Total Incremental Costs $519 $1,018 3.1.3 Piping Insulation for All Hot Water Lines The 2016 Title 24 Standards include mandatory pipe insulation requirements that cover the majority of hot water pipes. To receive the credit for pipe insulation, all pipes between the water heater and fixtures that are not covered under the mandatory requirement must be insulated and verified by a HERS rater. Pipe insulation thickness varies depending on the pipe diameter and the expected temperature of water being transported through the pipe. The majority of pipes that would be triggered under this requirement are 1/2" and are transporting water from a main branch to an end-use fixture at lower temperatures. According to Table 120.3-A in 2016 Title 24, these pipes will need 1” of insulation. TRC gathered costs from several sources, including the 2013 Single Family Domestic Hot Water and Residential Solar Water Heating Ready CASE Reports, RS Means, and online retailers. 1” of insulation for pipes less than ¾” in diameter is estimated to cost $3.87 per linear foot of pipe. TRC estimated pipe lengths based on typical design practice. The costs and pipe length estimates are shown in Table 10. The cost of pipe insulation depends on the length of pipes. 11 TRC Energy Services (September 2014) Residential High Performance Walls and QII Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2016standards/prerulemaking/documents/2014-07- 21_workshop/final_case_reports/2016_T24_CASE_Report-High_Perf_Walls-Sep2014.pdf 12 Quality Insulation Installation, or QII, was found to be cost-effective as a standalone measure in the referenced CASE report. Table 31, Cost-effectiveness Summary for QII, shows a B/C Ratio of 1.5 for Climate Zone 4. This measure is not proposed for the Palo Alto Reach Code as it was not pursued for the 2016 Title 24. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 20 Table 10. Residential Pipe Insulation Incremental Costs Summary Component/ Material Base Case Proposed Update 1-Story 2-Story Multifamily Length of <3/4” diameter pipe (ft) - - 31 24 165 Insulation Cost None 1 in $118 $91 $640 HERS Verification Cost None Verified $76 $150 Average Incremental Cost $181 $790 3.1.4 Verified Refrigerant Charge This measure requires that a HERS Rater verify the amount of refrigerant in an air-cooled conditioner or air-source heat pump system is at an appropriate level. Having too much (overcharge) or too little (undercharge) can reduce the efficiency of a system and result in early failure. The correct refrigerant charge can improve the performance of a system and reduce energy wasted from an inefficient system. The costs, as shown in Table 11, assume sampling of HVAC units for multifamily buildings. Table 11. Refrigerant Charge Verification Incremental Costs Summary Component Base Case Proposed Update Single Family Cost/Bldg Multifamily Cost/Bldg HERS Verification None Verified $76 $272 3.1.5 Drain Water Heat Recovery Drain water heat recovery (DWHR) is a technology used to reduce the amount of energy needed by a water heater or fixture to heat incoming water to the required temperature. The technology utilizes a heat exchanger in the drain line to pre-heat cold water supplied to the water heater and/or to the cold water side of fixtures. Figure 3 shows a common drain water heat recovery configuration. There are three typical heat recovery configurations available on the market that can be applied to individual water heating or central water heating systems. Heat exchanger performance has been studied by a number of organizations including: Southern California Gas Company, PG&E Food Service Technology Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, FEMP Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of Wisconsin, Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), and NR Canada. IECC 2015 added a performance option for DWHR and DWHR has been adopted into local codes in Canada. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 21 Figure 3. Drain Water Heat Recovery Diagram (courtesy of PowerPipe) CBECC-Res cannot currently model the benefits of Drain Water Heat Recovery. TRC used energy performance data from technology studies, including those from the entities listed above. Additionally, ANSI/RESNET includes a procedure for calculating savings from DWHR. The additional cost to implement DWHR, as shown in Table 12 is about $774 in material and labor for every 4 dwelling units. Table 12. Drain Water Heat Recovery Costs Cost Component Multifamily Cost/ Bldg Drain Water Heat Recovery Equipment $580 Installation Labor $194 Total Incremental Cost $774 3.2 Nonresidential Measures TRC investigated and included the following three measures into the nonresidential packages:  Economizer  Indoor Lighting, which is comprised of: • Open Office Occupancy Sensors • Daylight Dimming-Plus-Off • Institutional Tuning • Light Power Density Reduction  Cool Roofs TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 22 3.2.1 Economizer Economizers use outside air to provide cooling when the outside air temperature and humidity are at levels where it makes sense to do so. Economizers reduce energy required to provide cooling to a space, which accounts for about 23% of the TDV kBTU load of a prototypical office building in Climate Zone 4. Economizers are required in 2016 Title 24 for air handlers with cooling capacity greater than 54,000 Btu/hr; therefore, there are no assumed cost increase for the medium office prototype. This measure will only impact small offices where the typical cooling capacity of each unit is below 54,000 Btu/hr. The cost shown in Table 13 is a conservative estimate, as the units specified with economizers also have improved cooling and heating efficiencies. Table 13. Economizer Costs Component Base Case Proposed Update Small Office Cost/Bldg Medium Office Cost/ Bldg Economizer Required for systems > 54,000 Btu/hr For systems <54,000 Btu/hr $1,440 N/A 3.2.2 Cool Roofs The 2013 T24 Standards have prescriptive requirements for nonresidential buildings in CZ4, proposed by the 2013 CASE Report for Nonresidential Cool Roofs.13 This measure requires a minimum 3-year aged solar reflectance (SR) based on roof pitch, where steep slope is defined as a slope of > 2:12, and low slope is ≤ 2:12. Low slope cool roofs are typically constructed of field applied coatings, modified bitumen, or single ply thermoplastic roofing. Steep slope roofs are typically constructed of asphalt or tile shingles. This measure increases the SR of roofs as per the following:  SR = 0.28 for steep slopes, compared to current SR = 0.20 prescriptive requirements  SR = 0.70 for low slopes, compared to current SR = 0.63 prescriptive requirements The small office prototype has a steep sloped roof, while the medium office prototype has a low sloped roof. Both roof slope types have modeling defaults of Thermal Efficiency (TE) = 0.85, which was maintained for both prototypes. TRC conducted interviews regarding low slope and steep slope roof products with roofers and roof supply distributors in the San Francisco Bay Area. Multiple roofers and product distributors 13 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team (October 2011) Nonresidential Cool Roofs Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Nonresidential/Env elope/2013_CASE_NR_Cool_Roofs_Oct_2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 23 made the statement that there is little or no additional labor to install cool roof products, and in some instances, there is even cost savings associated with choosing a low sloped cool roof. The cost of cool roof products meeting the Reach Code can be cheaper than their darker, non-cool roof counterparts, as evidenced by recent data collection and supported by the 2013 CASE Report: “Within the cool roof market, many of the products with [SR] values close to 0.55 are actually tinted versions of the more conventional white versions of the same product. The products with the darker reflectance can, therefore, actually have a higher initial cost while also driving higher energy costs.” Tile roofing products do not show any cost premium for cool roof products. Roofing distributors, manufacturers, and roofers also stated that cool roof designation does not affect the price of the tile and most tile products meet cool roof standards. There are costs, however, for going from regular asphalt shingles to cool roof asphalt shingles. The incremental costs of going from the base case to a cool roof are summarized in Table 14. The cost of a steep slope cool roof for a building constructed with asphalt shingles is $2,965, while there is no incremental cost for a building constructed with a tile roof. Assuming that half of the steep slope roof construction in Palo Alto is asphalt, and the other half is tile, the average cost of a steep slope cool roof for the small office prototype is $1,482. Low slope products that meet the cool roof requirements do not introduce a cost increase over non-cool roof products; there are even cost savings for some products. TRC estimated no incremental cost for low slope cool roof products. Table 14. Nonresidential Cool Roof Incremental Costs Summary Small Office Medium Office Material Base Case Proposed Update Inc. $/Unit Unit Units/ Bldg $/Bldg Units/ Bldg $/Bldg Steep Slope Asphalt Shingles ASR=0.20, TE=0.75 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0.47 ft2 roof 6,445 $2,965 - - Steep Slope Tile ASR=0.20, TE=0.75 ASR=0.34, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof 6,445 $0 - - Low Slope products ASR=0.63, TE=0.75 ASR=0.70, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof - - 17,876 $0 Average - $1,482 - $0 Average Incremental Cost $741 3.2.3 Indoor Lighting There are four proposed lighting measures as described below. All of these measures, except the lighting power density reduction measure, are Power Adjustment Factors (PAFs). PAFs allow a building to install wattages that are higher than prescriptively allowed, due to improvements in controls. Please note, when TRC analyzed measures that allow a PAF, we did not assume that higher wattages are installed. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 24 Daylight Dimming-Plus-Off This measure revises the control settings for daylight sensors to be able to shut-off completely when adequate daylight levels are provided to the space. There is no associated CASE report for this measure, but there is a related report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.14 The measure is modeled by revising the daylight control type from Continuous (with a minimum dimming light and power fractions of 0.20), to Continuous Plus Off (which effectively reduces the dimming light and power fractions to 0). There is no associated cost with this measure, as the 2013 T24 Standards already require multilevel lighting and daylight sensors in primary and secondary daylit spaces. This measure does not increase the number of sensors required, or labor to install and program a sensor, but requires a revised control strategy. Institutional Tuning Institutional tuning was introduced as a Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) in the 2013 T24 Standards through the 2013 CASE Report for Requirements for Controllable Lighting.15 To show compliance with this measure, a designer should meet the requirements of 2016 Title 24 Section 140.6(d). This measure works in conjunction with dimmable ballasts, which were adopted as a requirement in the 2013 T24 Standards. Tuning addresses the frequent practice of designing light levels in a space to exceed that needed for the tasks of the space. Based on space factors and normal lighting design practices, a lighting designer typically overdesigns the light levels specified for a space to ensure adequate lighting is provided. The higher light levels are often a result of designing a space to meet the required light levels while satisfying the luminaire spacing or ceiling layout. The resulting design provides more light (e.g. 65 footcandles) than necessary or recommended in the space (e.g. 50 footcandles). 16 Institutional tuning sets the maximum light levels in a space at a lower level than the fully installed light levels, but still at an acceptable level for occupants. The maximum power use is thus lower and energy is continuously saved. Tuning requires that lighting designers commission the lighting after installation and tune down the lighting to meet the design criteria. In the example above, the lighting designer may tune down the lighting to 60 or 55 foot candles. The designer still wants to maintain initial light levels above the minimum requirement to account for depreciation in lamp efficacy over time. 14 Pacifica Northwest National Laboratory (August 2013) Analysis of Daylighting Requirements within ASHRAE 90.1. Available at: http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-22698.pdf 15 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team (March 2011) Requirements for Controllable Lighting. Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/2011-04- 04_workshop/review/Nonres_Controllable_Lighting.pdf 16 A footcandle is the illuminance on a one square foot surface from a uniform source of light. It is a commonly used metric for lighting design. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 25 Institutional tuning has been shown to reduce lighting energy consumption in a space by 10 to 15 percent of the original design. This measure cannot currently be modeled directly as a control strategy in CBECC-Com; therefore, TRC used spreadsheet analysis to determine energy savings. This analysis conservatively assumes a 10 percent reduction in LPD for an office from 0.75 W/ft2 to 0.68 W/ft2. The additional cost for this measure is the labor required to tune the lighting in each space, as shown in Table 15. This cost is dependent on the particular design of an office and the number of unique areas that a lighting designer must address. The 2013 CASE Report estimates that the cost is about $0.10 per watt for an office space. TRC determined the total cost by calculating the total number of watts in each prototype based on the allowed LPD. Table 15. Nonresidential Institutional Tuning Incremental Costs Summary Component Base Case Proposed Update Commissioning cost Small Office Large Office Institutional Tuning 0.75 W/ft2 (no tuning) 0.68 W/ft2 (tuning) $0.10/Watt $330 $3,218 Open Office Occupancy Sensors This measure draws from the findings of the 2013 Indoor Lighting Controls CASE Report.17 This CASE report investigates the use of occupancy controls in open office spaces at various control group sizes and proposes one occupancy sensor for every four workstations (approximately 500 ft2). The energy savings associated with occupancy sensors cannot be modeled effectively in CBECC-Com, and is instead calculated in spreadsheet analysis and added to the results of the modeling analysis, as detailed in Appendix C – Spreadsheet Analysis Energy Savings. Occupancy controls have been commercially available for several decades, and the technology for this measure is readily available from a wide variety of manufacturers. Both passive infrared and ultrasonic occupancy sensors are widely accepted in office buildings, have been acknowledged to save energy successfully, and are frequently required by codes. The incremental costs for this measure include only the costs of the sensors, according to the CASE report, which is $116.13 per sensor. Costs summarized in Table 16 assume seven (7) sensors for the small office, and 59 sensors for the medium office. Though the cost estimates are from 2011, current costs for the equipment are likely to be similar or have decreased since then due to increased market adoption. 17 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team (October 2011) Nonresidential Indoor Lighting Controls Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Nonresidential/Ligh ting_Controls_Bldg_Power/2013_CASE_NR_Indoor_Lighting_Controls_Oct_2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 26 Table 16. Nonresidential Open Office Occupancy Sensors Incremental Costs Summary Component Base Case Proposed Update Small Office Medium Office Number of Sensors 0 7 59 Infrared Occupancy Sensor, Equipment and Labor to Install, in an Open Office No Sensor One Sensor for Every Four Workstations $813 $6,852 Average Incremental Cost $3,832 Lighting Power Density Reduction This measure reduces the lighting power density (LPD) from the 2016 Title 24 prescriptive requirement of 0.75 W/ft2 for open office areas to 0.70 W/ft2 assuming LED fixtures as the primary fixture. Cost research shows that some T8 fluorescent basket fixtures may be more costly than LED basket fixtures, because fluorescent fixtures require dimming ballasts to comply with Title 24, while LED fixtures do not. In many cases, the cost may be equivalent or only a small difference once the dimming ballast cost is considered. Three sources of data show cost equivalency for basket fixtures. Research shows that it is technologically feasible to achieve 0.70 W/ft2 design at no incremental cost, and further, that LED luminaires are not required to achieve this, as some fluorescent luminaires are able to achieve this power density as well. 3.3 Solar Measures 3.3.1 Photovoltaics Costs for solar PV were estimated using statewide data from the New Solar Homes Partnership (NSHP) program.18 TRC extracted costs for both small systems (less than 10 kW) and larger systems (between 10 kW and 100 kW). Average and median costs (in $/Watt installed) were extracted from the NSHP database, and median costs were found to be higher and more conservative. Although array costs ($/Watt installed) for large systems are less than costs for small systems, TRC used only the cost of small systems in cost effectiveness analysis, to remain conservative. For 2015 program data, the median cost for small PV systems was $4.90/Watt. Several studies have tracked the installation costs of PV to provide market trends. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, for example, found that national median installed prices in 2014 declined year-over- 18 Available at: https://www.newsolarhomes.org/WebPages/Public/Reports.aspx TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 27 year by 9% for both residential and nonresidential systems. This decline in cost is similar to what TRC observes in the NSHP database, and a recent CEC report.19,20 By applying this cost reduction through to 2017, the median installed cost of PV is expected to be $4.06/Watt, as shown in Table 17. PV systems installed in Palo Alto are eligible for the federal solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which rebates 30% of the cost of the system.21 When accounting for the ITC, the estimated net cost for installed solar PV in 2017 is $2.84/Watt. Table 17. Costs for Solar PV Installed Cost ($/Watt) 2015 2016 2017 Median Cost $4.90 $4.46 $4.06 Federal ITC - - -$1.22 Net Cost - - $2.84 At the time of the writing of this report, future net energy metering (NEM) policy and rates were fairly uncertain. Palo Alto’s NEM policy is expected to change sometime during 2016, this report does not attempt to estimate the potential impact of these policy changes. 3.3.2 Solar Thermal Costs for solar thermal hot water systems were based on the California Solar Initiative (CSI) program data, and represent installed costs for all components, including tanks.22 Costs for baseline systems were developed through the 2016 Instantaneous Water Heaters CASE Report and RSMeans when necessary. The City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) provides incentives for solar hot water, in addition to the Federal ITC. Incentive amounts vary depending on the therms displaced by the solar thermal system. To estimate incentive amounts, TRC estimated the size (in ft2) of a typical solar hot water system for each prototype, attained the solar savings fraction using the Solar Water Heater Calculator from the CEC23, and entered the solar fraction into 2016 Title 24 to attain the therms saved. These therms were then input into the program formulas used to determine incentive amounts. 19 E3 (May 2013) Cost-Effectiveness of Rooftop Photovoltaic Systems for Consideration in California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Prepared for the California Energy Commission. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-400-2013-005/CEC-400-2013-005-D.pdf 20 Barbose, G., et al. (August 2015) Tracking the Sun VIII: The Installed Price of Residential and Non-Residential Photovoltaic Systems in the United States. Available at: https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-188238_1.pdf 21 More information available at: http://www.seia.org/policy/finance-tax/solar-investment-tax-credit 22 Available at: http://www.csithermalstats.org/ 23 Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/swh_calculator/ TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 28 Incremental costs from baseline systems were estimated in the following ways, and summarized in Table 18:  Single family – The prescriptive baseline for single family buildings is an instantaneous tankless water. A storage water heater is an alternate prescriptive baseline, as long as Compact DHW, Pipe Insulation, and QII HERS measures are also implemented. TRC analyzed incremental costs from each of these baselines. The cost of an instantaneous water heater is one baseline, while the cost of the storage water heater serves as the second baseline. The cost of the HERS measures is not accounted for in the baseline, because they would still be prescriptively required even with a solar thermal system.  Multifamily – The prescriptive baseline for multifamily buildings is an instantaneous tankless water serving each individual dwelling unit. A central storage water with a solar thermal system with a solar savings fraction of 0.20 is an alternate compliance baseline (the prescriptive compliance path for systems serving multiple dwelling units). CBECC-Res shows that a central storage water heater with a solar thermal savings fraction of 1.0 is necessary to generate energy savings beyond that of 8 instantaneous water heaters. Even though solar fractions approaching 1.0 are challenging to design, a solar thermal array with a solar fraction of 0.80 was used for cost effectiveness analysis to demonstrate that, even with this conservative sizing, solar thermal would not be cost effective. The cost of 8 instantaneous water heaters was thus subtracted from the cost of the 0.80 solar thermal system to estimate the incremental cost. The central storage + 0.20 solar fraction baseline was subtracted from the cost of a central storage system + 0.40 solar fraction, to attain the incremental cost of the 0.40 solar fraction system.  Nonresidential – The prescriptive compliance path is for a storage water heater. The cost of the storage water heater is subtracted from the cost of the solar thermal system. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 29 Table 18. Solar Thermal System Costs Single Family Low-Rise Multifamily Nonresidential Solar Thermal System Size (ft2) 40 700 100 40 Solar Thermal Solar Savings Fraction 0.70 0.80 0.40 0.20 Solar Thermal System Therms Displaced 70 172 94 126 Solar Thermal System Gross Cost $12,778 $114,053 $21,065 $12,778 CPAU Incentive $1,301 $2,499 $1,366 $1,831 Federal Investment Tax Credit $3,833 $33,998 $5,322 $3,284 Assumed Baseline System Instantaneous Water Heater Storage Water Heater Instantaneous Water Heater Storage Water Heater + 0.20 Solar Fraction Storage Water Heater Baseline System Cost $1,979 $3,078 $15,832 $8,944 $4,378 Solar Thermal System Net Cost $5,664 $4,565 $61,724 $5,433 $3,285 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 30 3.3.3 Solar Ready Single family homes located in subdivisions with ten or more single family residences, multifamily buildings, and nonresidential buildings are required to be solar ready in the 2016 Title 24. Solar ready is defined in Title 24 Section 110.10 as having:  A solar zone with an area no less than 250 square feet  Interconnection pathways shown on construction documents  A main electric panel capable of serving a future solar electric installation Palo Alto’s 2013 Reach Code requires that new construction single family residences be solar ready in accordance with Title 24’s definition, except: 1. All new construction single family homes are required to be solar ready, not just homes located in subdivisions of ten or more homes 2. The solar zone required by the 2013 Reach Code is an area no less than 500 square feet 3. All residential buildings shall provide conduit to support installation of future solar PV Regarding items #1 and #2, the 2013 CASE Report for Solar Ready Homes and Solar Oriented Development found that the solar ready requirements are cost effective to implement for all new construction homes on a statewide basis, not just homes located in subdivisions of ten or more homes.24 Furthermore, a larger solar zone does not increase materials or labor costs and does not require cost effectiveness analysis. Therefore, a cost effectiveness analysis is not necessary as part of this report to justify these two 2013 Reach Code solar ready requirements as adoptable for the 2016 Reach Code. Regarding item #3, costs for providing conduit include materials and labor and must be included in cost effectiveness analysis. Based on prototype geometry, the length of conduit from the main electrical panel to the solar ready area is estimated to be 42 linear feet for both single family homes and multifamily homes. Costs are summarized in Table 19 below. 24 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team (September 2011) Solar Ready Homes and Solar Oriented Development Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Residential/Envelop e/2013_CASE_R_Solar_Ready_Solar_Oriented_Developments_Sept_2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 31 Table 19. Costs for Solar Ready Conduit Installation Component Incremental Cost / Foot Linear Feet / Building Cost / Residential Building Electric Metallic Tubing (EMT), 1” Diameter, Labor and Materials25 $8.16 42 $343 25 Specified based on the US Environmental Protection Agency Solar Photovoltaic Specification, Checklist and Guide. Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/residential/pdfs/rerh_pv_guide.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 32 4. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS The results for each of the three packages are presented below (single family, multifamily, and nonresidential). Results include measure compliance margin percentage, the present value of energy savings, costs, and benefit to cost (B/C) ratio. Results are first shown for a code compliant building, then for each measure when calculated independently, and finally as a package when all measures are run together. The measures described in Section 3 were combined to produce cost effective packages presented below. When the B/C ratio is greater than 1.0, the added cost of the measure is more than offset by the discounted energy cost savings and the measure is deemed to be cost effective. Some measures do not prove cost effective individually, but can still be part of a cost effective package of measures. 4.1 Residential Packages 4.1.1 Single Family The single family package achieves 11% savings with the combination of measures as shown in Table 20. Table 20. Single Family 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Single Family Residential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) 9% $971 $519 1.9 Piping Insulation, All Lines (HERS) 1% $144 $181 0.8 Verified Refrigerant Charge (HERS) 1% $79 $76 1.0 Solar Ready - - $343 - Package 11% $1,243 $1,119 1.1 4.1.2 Multifamily The multifamily package achieves 10% savings with the combination of the measures shown in Table 21. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 33 Table 21. Multifamily 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Multifamily Residential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Quality Insulation Installation (HERS) 5% $2,010 $1,018 2.0 Piping Insulation, All Lines (HERS) 1% $522 $790 0.7 Verified Refrigerant Charge (HERS) 2% $764 $272 2.8 Drain Water Heat Recovery 2% $944 $774 1.2 Solar Ready - - $343 - Package 10% $4,160 $3,197 1.3 4.2 Nonresidential Packages The nonresidential 10% package is achieved largely through low or no incremental cost lighting measures, as shown in Table 22. In combination with the cool roof and economizer measures the package remains cost effective with a B/C ratio of 4.4. Table 22. Nonresidential 10% Package Cost Effectiveness Nonresidential 10% Package Measure % Above Title 24 Present Value of Energy Savings Cost Benefit to Cost Ratio Economizer 5% $4,260 $1,440 2.2 Cool Roof 0.3% $1,493 $741 1.3 Daylight Dimming Plus Off 2% $5,386 $0 1.0* Institutional Tuning 3% $9,093 $2,217 4.1 Open Office Occupancy Sensors 2% $7,648 $3,833 2.0 Lighting Power Density Reduction 2% $7,557 $0 1.0* Package 10% $33,052 $7,513 4.4 *Measures with no cost are cost effective; B/C ratio is set to 1.0. 4.3 Solar Measures Solar PV was found to be cost effective at all sizes. Solar thermal hot water was not determined to be cost effective for any building type. 4.3.1 Solar PV Solar PV is cost effective at all sizes as shown in Table 23 below. Nonresidential benefit-to-cost ratios are lower than residential because the NPV factor for nonresidential is lower than residential, as described in Section 2.3.1. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 34 Table 23. Solar PV Cost Effectiveness Size (kW) Cost Residential Present Value of Energy Savings Residential Benefit to Cost Ratio Nonresidential Present Value of Energy Savings Nonresidential Benefit to Cost Ratio 2 $5,681 $17,135 3.0 $8,805 1.5 5 $14,202 $40,562 2.9 $20,843 1.5 8 $22,723 $65,530 2.9 $33,673 1.5 10 $28,404 $82,700 2.9 $42,496 1.5 40 $113,615 $337,401 3.0 $173,376 1.5 4.3.2 Solar Thermal Solar hot water is not cost effective under any scenario analyzed, as shown in Table 24, even in multifamily buildings with a pre-existing solar hot water system. Table 24. Solar Thermal Cost Effectiveness Building Baseline Cost Present Value of Energy Savings Benefit to Cost Ratio Single Family Instantaneous Water Heater $5,664 $1,724 0.3 Storage Water Heater $4,565 $1,981 0.4 Multifamily Instantaneous Water Heater $61,724 $843 0.0 Storage Water Heater + 0.20 Solar Fraction $5,433 $2,697 0.5 Nonresidential Storage Water Heater $3,285 $1,909 0.6 4.4 Reach Code Recommendation Energy efficiency packages and solar PV proved cost effective for prototypes in the City of Palo Alto. TRC recommends the Palo Alto Municipal Code require that single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings exceed the 2016 Title 24 Standards by at least 10%. As an alternate compliance path, TRC recommends Palo Alto require that PV be installed on buildings that meet the 2016 prescriptive requirements. If the applicant chooses to install solar power, they can use the solar PV credit allowed by the California Energy Commission for residential buildings. The credit is capped at providing a compliance margin of approximately 20.1% for single family homes and 11.8% for multifamily homes. There is no PV credit available for nonresidential buildings, so a minimum kW size is recommended instead. For each building TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 35 type, Path B ensures that applicants are meeting the standard budget first without use of the PV credit.  Single family residential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: C. 10% or greater compliance margin without a PV system; OR D. 20% or greater compliance margin with a PV system  Multifamily residential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: C. 10% or greater compliance margin without PV system; OR D. 12% or greater compliance margin with a PV system  Nonresidential new construction projects shall demonstrate either: C. 10% or greater compliance margin without a PV system; OR D. 0% or greater compliance margin with a 5 kW PV system or larger. 4.4.1 Compliance The majority of new construction T24 compliance submittals use building simulation software. CBECC-Res and CBECC-Com are CEC approved software tools which have released versions to be used with the 2016 Title 24 Standards. The compliance software outputs the TDV energy usage of a proposed building, and the percent compliance margin compared with a standard, prescriptively-compliant building. During plan check, Palo Alto building officials can confirm that building designs meet the Reach Code by reviewing the compliance margin presented in the simulation software output reports. For design strategies that cannot currently be modeled in CEC approved software, including Drain Water Heat Recovery and the PAF lighting measures (open office occupancy sensors, daylight dimming plus off, and institutional tuning), the applicant must show compliance through ancillary documentation:  To comply with drain water heat recovery, the applicant must indicate on the plans how many water heaters are installed. TRC recommends that Palo Alto estimate that the DWHR system reduces the DHW kTDV load by 10% if 100% of dwelling units are connected to a DWHR system, and use the same ratio if less than 100% of dwelling units are connected to DWHR. The overall building compliance margin should then be adjusted with the reduced DHW load.  To comply with the PAF lighting measures, building designers will need to apply for the Power Adjustment Factor (PAF) in T24 Standards Table 140.6-A, using the appropriate compliance form(s). This credit should not be used by the designer to increase installed wattage elsewhere in the building. This can be confirmed by plan checkers when reviewing the building model. The indoor lighting energy should not exceed the prescriptive T24 requirements without the PAF credit applied. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 36 4.5 Greenhouse Gas Savings New construction complying with the proposed Reach Code will result in greenhouse gas (GHG) savings through saving electricity and natural gas. Electricity and natural gas usage are estimated in CBECC simulations for each prototype building. Saved energy is multiplied by a factor of 0.65 lbs of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) per kWh, and 11.7 lbs of CO2e per therm, as per Environmental Protection Agency research.26 As shown in Table 25:  5% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed single family building  3% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed multifamily building  7% GHG savings are achieved for each newly constructed nonresidential building The average GHG reductions across the City are estimated to be 6%, weighted by the new construction square footage. These GHG reduction estimates are based on complying with the 10% packages using the measures analyzed in this study. Compliance with the 10% Reach Code may be achieved through a variety of measures, each of which will have varying electric and natural gas usages, and therefor varying GHG savings. Note also that these are percentage savings of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the buildings, including unregulated loads. An estimate of annual city-wide GHG savings is attained by multiplying the CO2e savings per building against the number of new construction buildings permitted in Palo Alto during the 2015 Calendar year, provided by the Palo Alto planning department. GHG savings are expressed in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). 26 United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. “Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/emission-factors_nov_2015.pdf. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 37 Table 25. Greenhouse Gas Savings Summary Single Family 10% Package Measure Gas Therms / Home Electric kWh / Home lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided / Home GHG Savings Homes Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Citywide Code Compliant Building 344 5,047 7,305 - - 119 21 Single Family 10% Package 313 5,013 6,923 382 5% Multifamily 10% Package Measure Gas Therms / Building Electric kWh / Building lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided / Building GHG Savings Buildings Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Citywide Code Compliant Building 1,162 23,590 28,930 - - 10 3 Multifamily 10% Package 1,106 23,450 28,183 747 3% Nonresidential 10% Package Measure Gas Therms / Building Electric kWh / Building lbs CO2e lbs CO2e Avoided / Building GHG Savings Buildings Affected / Year MTCO2e Avoided / Year Citywide Code Compliant Building 2019 95,300 85,592 - - 17 46 Nonresidential 10% Package 2088 84,800 79,565 6,027 7% Total, All Building Types 71 *GHG percentage savings include unregulated loads, such as residential lighting, plug loads, and federally pre-emptive appliances. Percentages would be higher if including only regulated loads. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 38 5. APPENDIX A – CURRENT REACH CODE LANGUAGE Below is the full section of the current Palo Alto Reach Code, contained under Title 16 – Building Regulations, Section 17 –California Energy Code. 16.17.040 – Local Amendments. The provisions of this chapter shall constitute local amendments to the cross-referenced provisions of the California Energy Code, 2013 Edition, and shall be deemed to replace the cross-referenced sections of said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 5345 § 1 (part), 2015) 16.17.050 Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. Section 100.3 Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code is added to read: (a) For all new single-family residential, multi-family residential, and non-residential construction: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 15% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design. (b) For all single-family residential, multi-family residential, and nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations, one of the following must be satisfied: (1) Performance Path: The performance approach specified within the 2013 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building exceeds the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, when expressed as a percent savings, by at least 5% for single-family residential, 10% for multi-family residential, and 5% for nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations. a. Exceptions. The requirements in this section shall not apply to the following projects: (1) Multi-family residential renovations or alterations of less than 50% of the existing unit square footage that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Single-family or two-family residential additions or rebuilds of less than 1,000 square feet. (3) Non-residential tenant improvements, alterations, or renovations less than 5,000 square feet that include replacement or alteration of only one of the following systems: HVAC system, building envelope, hot water system, or lighting system. (2) Prescriptive Path: Projects that involve any of the following building components must use the prescriptive measures described below: Residential Single-Family Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Applies to complete roof alterations that are not considered repairs. Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 39 Exterior Walls (Additions Only) High performance walls (u-factor = 0.048 or lower) Multi-Family Roofs (Alterations Only) Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥ 0.28 Non-Residential Cool Roofs (Alterations Only) Steep Slopes- Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥0.34 Low Slopes- Aged Solar Reflectance of ≥0.7 Indoor Lighting (Additions and Alterations) 15% below Title 24 Standard Lighting Energy Usage (Ord. 5345 § 1 (part), 2015) 16.17.060 Section 110.10 Mandatory requirements for solar ready buildings. Section 110.10 Mandatory Requirements for Solar Ready Buildings is amended as follows: (a) Subsection 110.10(a)1 is amended to read: 1. Single-family residences. New single family residences shall comply with the requirements of Sections 110.10(b) through 110.10(e). (b) Subsection 110.10(b)1A is amended to read: A. Single Family Residences. The solar zone shall be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. EXCEPTION 1 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed solar electric system having a nameplate DC power rating, measured under Standard Test Conditions, of no less than 1000 watts. EXCEPTION 2 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with a permanently installed domestic solar water-heating system meeting the installation criteria specified in the Reference Residential Appendix RA4 and with a minimum solar savings fraction of 0.50. EXCEPTION 3 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences with three stories or more and with a total floor area less than or equal to 2000 square feet and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 4 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences located in Climate zones 8-14 and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area as defined in Title 24, Part 2 and having a whole house fan and having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet. EXCEPTION 5 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Buildings with a designated solar zone area that is no less than 50 percent of the potential solar zone area. The potential solar zone area is the total area of any low-sloped roofs where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater and any steep-sloped roofs oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north where the annual solar access is 70 percent or greater. Solar access is the ratio of solar insolation including shade to the solar insolation without shade. Shading from TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 40 obstructions located on the roof or any other part of the building shall not be included in the determination of annual solar access. EXCEPTION 6 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences having a solar zone total area no less than 150 square feet and where all thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. EXCEPTION 7 to Section 110.10(b)1A: Single family residences meeting the following conditions: A. All thermostats comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA5 and are capable of receiving and responding to Demand Response Signals prior to granting of an occupancy permit by the enforcing agency. B. All applicable requirements of Section 150.0(k), except as required below: i. All permanently installed indoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0-B and is installed in kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms, and garages at a minimum. ii. All permanently installed lighting in bathrooms is controlled by a vacancy sensor. EXCEPTION to EXCEPTION 7Bii: One high efficacy luminaire as defined in TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0-B with total lamp wattage rated to consume no greater than 26 watts of power is not required to be controlled by a vacancy sensor. iii. Every room which does not have permanently installed lighting has at least one switched receptacle installed. iv. Permanently installed night lights complying with Section 150.0(k)1E are allowed. v. Lighting integral to exhaust fans complying with Section 150.0(k)1F is allowed. vi. All permanently installed outdoor lighting is high efficacy as defined in TABLE 150.0-A or 150.0- B and is controlled as required in Section 150.0(k)9Ai and iii. (c) Subsection 110.10(c) is amended to read: (c) Interconnection pathways. 1. The construction documents shall indicate a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service. For single-family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel. 2. Residential buildings shall provide conduit to support the installation of future solar requirements. The conduit shall be located adjacent to the solar ready area and shall extend from the roofline and terminate at the main electrical panel. 3. The construction documents shall indicate a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water-heating system. (d) Subsection 110.10(f) is added to read: (f) Existing tree canopies. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this section, the Solar Shade Act of 2009, and the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.10), the most protective of existing tree canopies shall prevail. (Ord. 5345 § 1 (part), 2015) 16.17.070 Infeasibility exemption. (a) Exemption. If an applicant for a covered project believes that circumstances exist that makes it infeasible to meet the requirements of this chapter, the applicant may request an exemption as set forth below. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the applicant to show infeasibility. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 41 (b) Application. If an applicant for a covered project believes such circumstances exist, the applicant may apply for an exemption at the time of application submittal in accordance with the Development Services administrative guidelines. The applicant shall indicate the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the covered project and the circumstances that make is infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following: (1) There is conflict with the compatibility of the currently adopted green building ordinance and/or California Building Standards Code; (2) There is conflict with other city goals, such as those requiring historic preservation or the architectural review criteria; (3) There is a lack of commercially available materials and technologies to comply with the requirements of this chapter; (4) Applying the requirements of this chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional taking of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the property. (c) Review by Architectural Review Board (ARB). For any covered project for which an exemption is requested and architectural review is required by the ARB, the ARB shall provide a recommendation to the Director or designee regarding whether the exemption shall be granted or denied, along with its recommendation on the project. (d) Granting of Exemption. If the Director, or designee, determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this chapter based on the information provided, the Director, or designee, shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project. The decision of the Director, or designee, shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted, the applicant shall be required to comply with this chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the Director or designee. (e) Denial of Exemption. If the Director determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this chapter, the request shall be denied and the Director or designee shall so notify the applicant in writing. The project and compliance documentation shall be modified to comply with this chapter prior to further review of any pending planning or building application. (f) Council Review of Exemption. For any covered project that requires review and action by the City Council, the Council shall act to grant or deny the exemption, based on the criteria outlined above, after recommendation by the Director. (Ord. 5345 § 1 (part), 2015) 16.17.080 Appeal. (a) Any aggrieved applicant may appeal the determination of the Director regarding the granting or denial of an exemption pursuant to 16.17.070. (b) Any appeal must be filed in writing with the Development Services Department not later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the determination by the Director. The appeal shall state the alleged error or reason for the appeal. (c) The appeal shall be processed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.77.070(f) of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (Ord. 5345 § 1 (part), 2015) TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 42 6. APPENDIX B – COST DETAILS Table 26. Single Family HERS Verification Base Costs Single Family On-site visit ($/visit) $220 Standard Measure verification ($/measure) $45 Additional Measure verification ($/measure) $100 Table 27. Single Family HERS Verification Detailed Costs Single Family HERS Measure Site Visit 1 Site Visit 2 Site Visit 3 Total # Visits Total Cost Duct Leakage (Mandatory) X 1 $76 Verified Airflow/ Fan Efficiency (Mandatory) X 1 $76 Whole Building Mechanical Ventilation (Mandatory) X 1 $76 Quality Insulation Installation (Additional) X X (X) 2-3 $430 Piping Insulation, All Hot Water Lines (Standard) X 1 $76 Verified Refrigerant Charge (Standard) X 1 $76 *Assuming measures that require 2 or more on-site visits can be verified on the same visit. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 43 Table 28. Multifamily HERS Verification Base Costs Multifamily Method 1: On-site visit ($/visit) $245 Method 2: Per unit verification, no QII ($/unit) $198 Method 2: Per unit verification, with QII ($/unit) $248 Table 29. Multifamily HERS Verification Detailed Costs Multifamily HERS Measure Best Case # Site Visits Mid Case # Site Visits Worst Case # Site Visits Total Average Cost Duct Leakage (Mandatory) 1 1 2 $272 Verified Airflow/ Fan Efficiency (Mandatory) 1 1 1 $150 Whole Building Mechanical Ventilation (Mandatory) 1 1 1 $150 Quality Insulation Installation 3 4 5 $708 Piping Insulation, All Hot Water Lines 1 1 1 $150 Verified Refrigerant Charge 1 1 2 $272 *Assuming measures that require 2 or more on-site visits can be verified on the same visit. TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 44 Table 30. Residential Quality Insulation Installation Detailed Costs Single Family Multifamily Component/ Material Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Home $/Home Units/ Building $/Building Installation Labor Standard +2 hrs $44.29 hour 2 $89 8 $354 HERS Verification None Verified (2-3 visits) $430 or $708 - 1 $430 1 $708 Totals $519 $1,062 Cost source: Local HERS Raters Table 31. Residential Piping Insulation for All Hot Water Lines Detailed Costs 1-story 2-story Multifamily Component/ Material Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Home $/Home Units/ Home $/Home Units/ Building $/Building 1/2” Pipes Insulation + Labor None 1” $3.87 Linear ft 31 $118 24 $91 165 $640 HERS Verification None Verified $76 or $150 Dwelling Unit - $76 - $76 - $150 Totals $194 $167 $790 Costs source: 2013 Single Family Water Heating Distribution System Improvements CASE Report: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Residential/Water_Heating/2013_CASE_R_SEMPRA_Sing le_Family_DHW_%20Sept_2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 45 Table 32. Multifamily Drain Water Heat Recovery Detailed Costs Multifamily Material/ Component Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Building $/Building Heat Recovery Equipment None Installed $580 1 per 4 dwelling units 1 $580 Installation Labor None 2-hr $96.82 hrs 2 $194 Total $774 Cost source: Online retailers, RS Means, Craftsman Cost Book: https://www.craftsman- book.com/media/static/previews/2013_NPH_book_preview.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 46 Table 33. Nonresidential HVAC Efficiency – 2.5-Ton, 38 MBH SZAC Costs Source Cost for 13 SEER, 78% AFUE, No Economizer Cost for 14 SEER, 90% AFUE, Economizer Incremental $/unit Average Inc. $/unit + 25% Contractor Markup and 10% Taxes Trane $4,500 $5,500 $1,000 $1,050 $1,444 Atlas Trillo $3,500 $4,600 $1,100 *Costs include upgrades in cooling and heating efficiency; incremental costs for economizer addition only are likely lower. Table 34. Nonresidential Cool Roof Detailed Costs Small Office Medium Office Material/ Component Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Building $/ Building Units/ Building $/ Building Steep Slope Asphalt Shingles ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0.47 ft2 roof area 6,445 $3,009 - - Steep Slope Tile ASR=0.10, TE=0.85 ASR=0.28, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof area 6,445 $0 - - Low Slope Products ASR=0.63, TE=0.85 ASR=0.70, TE=0.85 $0.00 ft2 roof area 5,502 $330 17,876 $0 Cost source: Online retailers, local distributors TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 47 Table 35. Nonresidential Institutional Tuning for Lighting Detailed Costs Small Office Large Office Material/ Component Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Building $/ Building Units/ Building $/ Building Installation Labor None Additional labor time $0.10 Watt 4,127 $413 4,221 $4,022 Cost source: 2013 Nonresidential Controllable Lighting CASE Report: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/2011-04-04_workshop/review/Nonres_Controllable_Lighting.pdf Table 36. Nonresidential Open Office Lighting Occupancy Sensors Detailed Costs Small Office Large Office Material/ Component Base Case Proposed Update Incremental $/Unit Unit Units/ Building $/ Building Units/ Building $/ Building Occupancy Sensors None 1 sensor per 4 workstations $116.13 Sensor 7 $813 59 $6,852 Cost source: 2013 Nonresidential Lighting Controls CASE Report: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Nonresidential/Lighting_Controls_Bldg_Power/2013_CA SE_NR_Indoor_Lighting_Controls_Oct_2011.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 48 Table 37. Nonresidential Lighting Power Density (LPD) Reduction Detailed Costs Source 0.75 W/ft2 Product 0.70 W/ft2 Product $/ft2 Cost for 0.75 W/ft2 $/ft2 Cost for 0.70 W/ft2 $/ft2 Incremental Cost The Lighting Agency, Chris Davis T8 Basket Fixture - e.g. Lithonia 2VT8 LED Basket Fixture - e.g. Lithonia 2BLT $1.68 $1.38 ($0.30) Associated Lighting Representatives Stated that prices are the same for some options, did not provide product pricing Online $2.18 $2.25 $0.06 Average $1.93 $1.82 ($0.11) TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 49 7. APPENDIX C – SPREADSHEET ANALYSIS ENERGY SAVINGS The energy impact of the Drain Water Heat Recovery, Open Office Occupancy Sensors, and Manual-On Time Switch Controls measures described in Section 3 could not be calculated using CBECC. TRC estimated the energy impact using spreadsheet analysis using information from the respective CASE reports. 7.1 Drain Water Heat Recovery The energy savings for this measure are based on data from RenewABILITY, a registered provider with the American Institute of Architects and the U.S. Green Building Council. RenewABILITY’s data provides estimates for DWHRs serving 4 dwelling units of multifamily residential buildings, among many other configurations, of 25-30% of the domestic water heating load.27 To be conservative, TRC assumed the following:  A recovery rate of 25%, the low end of RenewABILITY’s estimates.  Showers are the only hot water fixture that would benefit from DWHR due to their long hot water draws and high volumes. TRC assumes that 40% of the volume of hot water waste flow in a home is from showers.  Only 50% of showers are affected in the multifamily prototype, which has eight dwelling units. This is because the prototype is only 2 stories, meaning that a vertical waste line on which a DWHR system could be installed exists only below the top four dwelling units on the second story. As a result of these factors, the DHW load savings is reduced to 5%, down from the initial estimate of 25%. 7.2 Open Office Occupancy Sensors To determine the potential energy savings associated with this measure, TRC estimated the number of occupancy sensors using the floor plan provided in Figure 5 of the 2013 CASE report 27 Further information available: https://www.resnet.us/uploads/documents/conference/2012/pdfs/Buchalter- Drain_Water_Heat_Recovery_Systems.pdf & http://aceee.org/files/pdf/conferences/hwf/2011/4B%20- %20Gerald%20Van%20Decker.pdf TRC Energy Services Palo Alto Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Palo Alto Contract# S16161501 50 was used. 28 This floor plan shows that open office workstations occupies approximately 53% of the floor plan area, and each work station occupied about 120 ft2. Using the CASE savings for 4 workstations per occupancy sensor (or, one occupancy sensor per 480 ft2), TRC determined the total number of occupancy sensors for each prototype, as well as the associated costs and TDV savings. (The costs and TDV savings per sensor are provided in tables in the executive summary of the CASE report, on page 9 and 14, respectively). Since daylight sensors are required by the 2013 T24 Standards, overlapping savings were estimated to be 20% of non-daylit spaces when in primary daylight zones. Thus, the portion of the open office spaces in the floor plan that were in primary daylight zones (approximately 21% of the workstation floor area) had savings reduced by 80%. Savings were also reduced by the proportion that lighting power density would be reduced from the Reduced LPD and Tuning measures. The summary of findings is provided in Table 38. Table 38. Nonresidential Proximity Sensors TDV Energy Savings Small Office Medium Office Workstation Proportion 53% 53% Workstation Area (ft2) 2,913 28,201 # Sensors 7 59 Building Cost $813 $6,852 TDV $ Savings* $1,608* $13,553* TDV kBtu Savings* 18,068* 152,289* Percent Savings 2.0% 2.8% * Accounting for overlap with potential daylight sensor savings. 28 California Utilities Statewide Codes and Standards Team (October 2011) Nonresidential Indoor Lighting Controls Codes and Standards Enhancement Initiative. Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/prerulemaking/documents/current/Reports/Nonresidential/Ligh ting_Controls_Bldg_Power/2013_CASE_NR_Indoor_Lighting_Controls_Oct_2011.pdf City of Palo Alto (ID # 6926) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: City Transportation Tax on Businesses Title: Initial Polling Results Regarding Feasibility of a Potential City Transportation Tax on Businesses to Raise Funds to Reduce Traffic Congestion, Address the Availability of Parking, and other Transportation Improvement Options From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss initial polling results with our Pollster and related findings and provide direction to staff on any next steps. Executive Summary Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates (FM3) conducted an initial poll of 400 community members during the week of April 14-20 to gauge the level of support on the concept of a potential local business tax to be used for transportation related purposes. This poll was designed to test support for such a tax with its use directed to localized transportation improvements. FM3 continues to refine the survey results. Dave Metz, a principal with FM3 will attend the Monday Council meeting to present an overview of the initial findings and support discussion on the poll results with the Council. The poll results and FM3’s analysis will be distributed at the Council meeting on Monday. The poll tested a local tax on business related to funding City transportation improvements through an employee head count based structure. Various rates and exemptions were tested. No other local City tax approaches, such as a City sales tax was tested. The poll was designed to help assess whether a special tax requiring 2/3rds majority vote could be successful (tax for a single purpose that could be scheduled for any election). The poll also tested for support for a general tax, which requires a simple 50% majority vote but which can only be held in a general election (November every two years. 2016 or 2018 for example). As you know, the County is developing a sales tax ballot measure for transportation for the November 2016 ballot. The City has been working closely with VTA and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group on the components of that measure. 11 City of Palo Alto Page 2 One of the most important decisions the Council will need to consider at its May 2 meeting is whether placement of a local tax on the November ballot should be further explored. The ballot language would need to be adopted prior to Council’s summer break beginning July 2, 2016. In the event Council is so interested, staff reached out to TBWB, the firm who conducted outreach related to the infrastructure measure ballot measure to conduct possible community outreach from early May to early June to further inform the Council’s decision. Results of that outreach could then inform a second follow-up tracking poll in early June to provide Council with more data to inform its decision on a ballot measure for November 2016. Alternatively, Council may decide that 2016 is not the best time for a measure and, having more time, provide alternate direction to staff. Finally, the Council could decide to not proceed with any further direction. City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO May 02, 2016 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 6905) DATE: May 2, 2016 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Filseth, Council Member Holman, Council Member DuBois, Council Member Schmid SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH, HOLMAN AND SCHMID REGARDING THE CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM Goal: Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park. Background and Discussion: Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000 Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to use the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In December 2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in January 2010. The program has significantly reduced parking problems. The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for 2015 shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently over 70 percent on weekdays. Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino, 1501 California Ave., and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add increased demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015 concerned residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park requesting an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits only to residents. May 02, 2016 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 6905) Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen Park is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace because commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace, Evergreen Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the neighborhood. Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to Evergreen Park. This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California Avenue merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that protective environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees, thus putting more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must otherwise purchase additional permits. Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus lines, this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo Alto’s TDM program, and assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number of projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those buildings being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated. This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood. Recommendation: We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be: 1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of Evergreen Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue. Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking can be modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users – parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination. May 02, 2016 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 6905) 2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline for the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these businesses should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees, tracked by employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the Downtown RPPP area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially replaced by retail employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College Ave). Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial district among their own employees. Furthermore, the City should ensure that: 1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed expeditiously. 2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino Real are notified of pending changes. 3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood. Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's Comments include short updates on this project. Staff Impact: The City Manager, City Attorney, and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum and have the following comments: On May 9, 2016, the City Council will be asked to prioritize petitions submitted by Evergreen Park, Southgate, and two smaller (sub-neighborhood) areas for establishment of RPP districts consistent with the process outlined in the Citywide RPP ordinance. (The Planning and Transportation Commission will consider the petitions and provide a recommendation on April 27th.) The Department of Planning and Community Environment has requested sufficient funds in the FY17 budget to implement one new RPP district using the process outlined in the Citywide RPP ordinance, which anticipates outreach to the source of parking intrusion as well as residents, and does not pre-suppose a program with no on-street employee parking. The College Terrace May 02, 2016 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 6905) program was the City’s first foray into establishing an RPP zone. We continue to learn with each new district. Additional resources would be needed if the City were to plan for and implement more than one RPP district per year. At the same time, the RPP programs have not been established as full cost recovery programs. As the districts proliferate, externalities of program design need be considered, as well as the most efficient and cost effective structure for provide parking service, options which will be reviewed by the City Manager. The City Attorney’s Office would be involved in analyzing legal requirements and procedures associated with California Avenue parking structures and surface lots to determine the feasibility of sharing of permits. City of Palo Alto (ID # 6867) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Informational Report Meeting Date: 5/2/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Investment Activity Report Title: City of Palo Alto Investment Activity Report for the Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2016 From: City Manager Lead Department: Administrative Services Background The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the City’s investment portfolio status as of the end of the third quarter. The City’s investment policy requires that staff report quarterly to Council on the City’s portfolio composition compared to Council-adopted policy, portfolio performance, and other key investment and cash flow information. Discussion The City’s investment portfolio is detailed in Attachment B. It is grouped by investment type and includes the investment issuer, date of maturity, current market value, the book and face (par) value, and the weighted average maturity of each type of investment and of the entire portfolio. The par value of the City’s portfolio is $515.0 million; in comparison, last quarter it was $478.3 million. The growth in the portfolio of $36.7 million since the last quarter primarily results from the timing of cash flows. Such factors as the timing and seasonality of payroll periods; property tax and special assessments receipts (e.g. general obligation and parking bonds); and payment of the sales tax (“triple flip”) and in-lieu vehicle license fee tax payments (received in January and May 2015) affect cash receipts and flow. In addition, there were one-time receipts such as the cash security deposit on a power purchase agreement, legal settlement payments, a receipt from NCPA based on excess general operating reserves, and the sale of cap and trade allowances. The portfolio consists of $62.5 million in liquid accounts and $452.5 million in U. S. government treasury investments, agency securities, bonds of some State of California local government agencies, bonds of some of the fifty United States, medium-term corporate notes, and certificates of deposit. The $452.5 million includes $116.0 million in investments maturing in less than two years, comprising 25.6 percent of the City’s investment in notes and securities. City of Palo Alto Page 2 The investment policy requires that at least $50 million be maintained in securities maturing in less than two years. The current market value of the portfolio is 101.4 percent of the book value. The market value of securities fluctuates, depending on how interest rates perform. When interest rates decrease, the market value of the securities in the City’s portfolio will likely increase; likewise, when interest rates increase, the market value of the portfolio will decrease. Understanding and showing market values is not only a reporting requirement, but essential to knowing the principal risks in actively buying and selling securities. It is important to note, however, that the City’s practice is to buy and hold investments until they mature so changes in market price do not affect the City’s investment principal. The market valuation is provided by Union Bank of California, which is the City’s safekeeping agent. The average life to maturity of the investment portfolio is 3.53 years compared to 3.66 years last quarter. Investments Made During the Third Quarter During the third quarter, $46.2 million of government agency securities with an average yield of 2.4% percent matured. During the same period, government securities totaling $55.4 million with an average yield of 2.5% percent were purchased. The expectation is interest rates will remain near historically low levels; the portfolio’s yield is expected to remain around the current levels. The City’s short-term money market and pool account increased by $29.0 million compared to the second quarter. Investment staff continually monitors the City’s short- term cash flow needs and adjusts liquid funds to meet them. Availability of Funds for the Next Six Months Normally, the flow of revenues from the City’s utility billings and General Fund sources is sufficient to provide funds for ongoing expenditures in those respective funds. Projections indicate receipts will be $227.6 million and expenditures will be $214.4 million over the next six months, indicating an overall growth in the portfolio of $13.2 million. As of March 31, 2016, the City had $62.5 million deposited in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and a money market account that could be withdrawn on a daily basis. In addition, investments totaling $11.7 million will mature between April 1, 2016 and September 30, 2016. On the basis of the above projections, staff is confident that the City will have more than sufficient funds or liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. Compliance with City Investment Policy During the third quarter, staff complied with all aspects of the investment policy. Attachment C lists the major restrictions in the City’s investment policy compared with the portfolio’s actual performance. Investment Yields Interest income on an accrual basis for the third quarter was $2.4 million. As of March 31, 2016, the yield to maturity of the City’s portfolio was 1.86 percent. This compares to a yield of City of Palo Alto Page 3 1.92 percent in the second quarter; though the yield on new investments has risen in the last two quarters, the continued (historical) low interest rate is expected to put downward pressure on the portfolio yield. The City’s portfolio yield of 1.86 percent compares to LAIF’s average yield for the quarter of 0.47 percent and an average yield on the two-year and five-year Treasury bonds during the third quarter of approximately 0.83 percent and 1.37 percent, respectively. Yield Trends After seven years, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), raised the federal funds and discount rates in December 2015 by a quarter percent to 0.50 and 1.0 percent, respectively. In its March 2016 report, the FOMC cited continued improvement in the labor market and moderate economic growth, however, inflation remains below the FOMC’s long-term goal of 2 percent. The FOMC expects future rate increase to be gradual and dependent on both domestic and international market conditions. Factors such as continued low crude oil prices, weak consumer spending, poor wage growth, and global economic softness continue to worry the FOMC. Funds Held by the City or Managed Under Contract Attachment A is a consolidated report of all City investment funds, including those not held directly in the investment portfolio. These include cash in the City’s regular bank account with US Bank and Wells Fargo. The bond proceeds, reserves, and debt service payments being held by the City’s fiscal agents are subject to the requirements of the underlying debt indenture. The trustees for the bond funds are U.S. Bank and California Asset Management Program (CAMP). Bond funds with U.S. Bank are invested in federal agency and money market mutual funds that consist exclusively of U.S. Treasury securities. Bond funds in CAMP are invested in banker’s acceptance notes, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, federal agency securities, and repurchase agreements. The most recent data on funds held by the fiscal agent is as of March 31, 2016. Fiscal Impact This is an information report. Environmental Review This information report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; therefore, an environmental review is not required. Attachments:  Attachment A: Consolidated Report of Cash Management (PDF)  Attachment B: Investment Portfolio (PDF)  Attachment C: Investment Policy Compliance (PDF) Book Value Market Value City Investment Portfolio (see Attachment B)517,891,452$ 525,114,821$ Other Funds Held by the City Cash with Wells Fargo Bank 400,362 400,362 (includes general and imprest accounts) Cash with US Bank 1,517,471 1,517,471 (includes general and imprest accounts) Petty/Working Cash 12,678 12,678 Total - Other Funds Held By City 1,930,511 1,930,511 Funds Under Management of Third Party Trustees * US Bank Trust Services ** 1995 Utility Revenue Bonds Debt Service Fund 3 3 2002 Downtown Parking Impvt. (Taxable) Certificates of Participation Reserve Fund 237,328 237,328 2009 Water Revenue Bonds (Build America Bonds) Project, Debt Service, Reserve, Cost of Issuance Funds 2,646,604 2,646,604 2010 General Obligation Bonds Debt Service 4 4 2011 Utility Revenue Refunding Bonds Debt Service, Reserve, and Cost of Issuance Funds 1,504,808 1,504,808 2012 University Ave. Parking Refunding Bonds Cost of Issuance Fund 13,960 13,960 2013 General Obligation Bonds Debt Service 10,785 10,785 California Asset Management Program (CAMP) *** 2012 University Ave. Parking Refunding Bonds Reserve Fund 2,533,243 2,533,243 2013 General Obligation (Library) Bond Project Fund 2,588,105 2,588,105 Total Under Trustee Management 9,534,839 9,534,839 GRAND TOTAL 529,356,802$ 536,580,171$ * These funds are subject to the requirements of the underlying debt indenture. ** U.S. Bank investments are in money market mutual funds that exclusively invest in U.S. Treasury securities. *** CAMP investments are in money market mutual fund which invest in bankers acceptance, certificate of deposit, commercial paper, federal agency securities, and repurchase agreements. Third Quarter, Fiscal Year 2015-16 (Unaudited) (Debt Service Proceeds) Attachment A Consolidated Report of Cash Management City of Palo Alto Cash and Investments City of Palo Alto City of Palo Alto Administration Svcs. Dept. 250 Hamilton Ave., 4th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650)329-2362 March 31, 2016 Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket ValueCUSIPInvestment #Issuer PurchaseDate Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Managed Pool Accounts Fidelity Investments158 3,509,776.86SYS158 10.01007/01/2015 3,509,776.86 0.009 0.0103,509,776.86 Local Agency Investment Fund159 59,039,803.17SYS159 10.42007/01/2015 58,991,801.63 0.414 0.42059,039,803.17 Subtotal and Average 62,549,580.03 62,549,580.03 62,501,578.49 0.392 0.397 1 Negotiable CD's Comenity Capital Bank1183 NCD 245,000.0020033ABE5 05/03/2018 7621.00005/03/2013 246,171.10 0.986 1.000245,000.00 American Federal Bank1476 NCD 245,000.0002600ADE4 09/30/2022 2,3732.45009/30/2015 250,654.60 2.418 2.451245,000.00 Alpine Bank1525 NCD 245,000.0002082CBG4 08/16/2023 2,6932.40002/16/2016 248,768.10 2.367 2.400245,000.00 American Eagle Bank1371 NCD 245,000.0002554BCE9 05/28/2019 1,1521.85008/26/2014 248,263.40 1.825 1.850245,000.00 American Express Centurion Bk1178 NCD 245,000.0002587DMV7 05/02/2018 7611.10005/02/2013 246,168.65 1.084 1.100245,000.00 American Express Centurion Bk1333 NCD 245,000.0002587CAC4 07/10/2019 1,1951.95007/10/2014 248,949.40 1.923 1.950245,000.00 Barclays Bank / Delaware1187 NCD 245,000.0006740AZB8 04/30/2018 7590.70005/07/2013 247,099.41 0.690 0.699245,000.00 Bankers Bank of the West1421 NCD 245,000.0006610TDB8 12/30/2019 1,3681.85012/29/2014 249,150.30 1.824 1.850245,000.00 Compass Bank1231 NCD 245,000.0020451PAW6 07/10/2018 8301.65007/10/2013 245,235.20 1.627 1.650245,000.00 Belmont Savings Bank1280 NCD 245,000.00080515AT6 11/13/2018 9561.55005/13/2014 248,099.25 1.528 1.550245,000.00 Bar Harbor Bank & Trust1377 NCD 245,000.00066851SG2 08/27/2019 1,2431.75008/27/2014 248,807.30 1.726 1.750245,000.00 Bank Champaign1477 NCD 245,000.0006607ABD2 09/30/2022 2,3732.50009/30/2015 245,345.45 2.467 2.501245,000.00 Bank of Deerfield1396 NCD 245,000.00061785CM1 09/30/2020 1,6432.20009/30/2014 249,750.55 2.171 2.201245,000.00 Bank of Holland Michigan1302 NCD 245,000.00062649ZV3 05/21/2019 1,1451.70005/21/2014 249,128.25 1.677 1.701245,000.00 Frontier Bank Madison NE1498 NCD 245,000.00QJ6048350 11/22/2021 2,0612.00011/20/2015 244,404.65 1.974 2.001245,000.00 Bank West1472 NCD 245,000.00063615AX6 09/16/2022 2,3592.25009/16/2015 252,521.50 2.220 2.251245,000.00 BMW Bank of North America1202 NCD 245,000.0005568P3E5 05/24/2017 4180.90005/24/2013 246,068.20 0.887 0.900245,000.00 BankWest, Inc.1376 NCD 100,000.0006652CDG3 05/18/2022 2,2382.25008/19/2014 100,217.00 2.465 2.49998,615.59 BankWest, Inc.1380 NCD 150,000.0006652CEY3 09/16/2019 1,2631.90009/15/2014 152,328.00 1.873 1.900150,000.00 Bofi Federal Bank1381 NCD 50,000.0009710LAF2 08/30/2022 2,3422.25008/25/2014 50,061.50 2.493 2.52749,199.86 Bofi Federal Bank1382 NCD 100,000.0009710LAE5 08/08/2022 2,3202.35008/25/2014 100,171.00 2.592 2.62898,402.75 Bofi Federal Bank1402 NCD 100,000.0009710LAF2 08/30/2022 2,3422.25010/21/2014 100,123.00 2.462 2.49698,571.95 Banco Poplar North America1478 NCD 245,000.0005965GVP8 10/07/2020 1,6502.25010/07/2015 249,706.45 2.219 2.250245,000.00 Bridgewater Bank Bloom MN1393 NCD 245,000.00108622EA5 09/24/2019 1,2711.85009/24/2014 248,775.45 1.825 1.850245,000.00 Business Bank1531 NCD 245,000.0012325EHA3 02/10/2021 1,7761.55002/10/2016 248,305.05 1.530 1.551245,000.00 Worlds Foremost Bank1387 NCD 200,000.00981571AT9 09/04/2019 1,2512.10009/04/2014 203,130.00 2.072 2.101200,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 2 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Negotiable CD's Campbell County Bank1307 NCD 245,000.00134204BZ8 05/30/2019 1,1541.65005/30/2014 249,182.15 1.628 1.650245,000.00 Cathay Bank1194 NCD 245,000.00149159HS7 04/30/2018 7591.00005/14/2013 246,225.00 0.987 1.000244,998.97 Celtic Bank1362 NCD 245,000.0015118RJW8 08/20/2019 1,2361.90008/20/2014 248,824.45 1.875 1.901245,000.00 Central State Bank1538 NCD 245,000.0015524EAA2 02/16/2022 2,1471.70002/16/2016 248,077.20 1.678 1.701245,000.00 Centrix Bank & Trust1220 NCD 245,000.0015640ABQ3 06/27/2018 8171.30006/27/2013 245,818.30 1.282 1.300245,000.00 CIT Bank1175 NCD 245,000.0017284CCN2 04/24/2018 7531.20004/24/2013 245,183.75 1.183 1.200245,000.00 Citizens State Bank1541 NCD 250,000.0017670BAQ1 02/17/2023 2,5131.75002/19/2016 251,812.50 1.727 1.751250,000.00 Enerbank USA1246 NCD 245,000.0029266NYZ4 01/30/2020 1,3992.05001/30/2014 250,255.25 2.021 2.050245,000.00 Community State Bank1536 NCD 245,000.0020404YBQ7 02/24/2022 2,1551.95002/24/2016 246,425.90 1.924 1.951245,000.00 Capital One Bank USA NA1384 NCD 250,000.00140420NR7 09/04/2019 1,2511.80009/04/2014 253,840.00 1.775 1.800250,000.00 Capital One Bank USA NA1457 NCD 245,000.0014042E5M8 08/12/2020 1,5942.30008/12/2015 250,380.20 2.268 2.300245,000.00 Commuincity Finl Svcs Bank1530 NCD 245,000.0020364ABA2 02/17/2021 1,7831.60002/17/2016 248,268.30 1.579 1.601245,000.00 Commercial Bank1369 NCD 245,000.0020143PDB3 05/20/2019 1,1441.85008/19/2014 248,290.35 1.824 1.850245,000.00 Community State Bank, IA1471 NCD 245,000.0020404MAN1 09/12/2022 2,3552.25009/11/2015 252,526.40 2.224 2.255245,000.00 Discover Bank / Delaware1176 NCD 245,000.00254671NJ5 05/01/2018 7601.15005/01/2013 246,168.65 1.134 1.150245,000.00 East Boston Savings Bank1463 NCD 245,000.0027113PAL5 08/24/2020 1,6061.90008/24/2015 250,735.45 1.876 1.902245,000.00 Ever Bank1454 NCD 245,000.0029976DZK9 07/30/2020 1,5812.00007/30/2015 249,417.35 1.972 2.000245,000.00 Farmers & Merchants Bank1439 NCD 245,000.00308862DH1 08/19/2021 1,9662.15002/19/2015 245,149.45 2.120 2.150245,000.00 Farmer's and Merchants Bank1360 NCD 250,000.00308702BQ1 02/16/2021 1,7822.20008/15/2014 256,940.00 2.169 2.200250,000.00 First Bank of Highland1330 NCD 245,000.00319141BV8 07/03/2019 1,1881.85007/03/2014 245,727.65 1.824 1.850245,000.00 First Business Bank1250 NCD 245,000.0031938QF25 02/19/2020 1,4192.00002/19/2014 250,367.95 1.972 2.000245,000.00 First Choice Bank / NJ1297 NCD 245,000.00319464AR4 05/28/2019 1,1521.70005/28/2014 249,184.60 1.677 1.701245,000.00 State Bank of Fenton (MI)1283 NCD 245,000.00856188AU1 02/15/2019 1,0501.65005/15/2014 246,969.80 1.630 1.653245,000.00 1st Financial Bank1485 NCD 245,000.0032022RFD4 03/16/2022 2,1752.10010/19/2015 244,828.50 2.120 2.150244,316.83 Flushing Bank1413 NCD 245,000.0034387ABA6 12/10/2018 9831.80012/10/2014 247,327.50 1.776 1.801245,000.00 First General Bank1222 NCD 245,000.00320337AR9 07/03/2018 8231.30007/03/2013 245,806.05 1.282 1.300245,000.00 First Eagle National Bank1400 NCD 245,000.0032008JAG8 10/15/2021 2,0232.45010/17/2014 253,758.75 2.416 2.449245,000.00 First National Bank of America1391 NCD 240,000.0032110YEF8 08/03/2022 2,3152.35009/09/2014 241,305.60 2.665 2.703235,185.44 First Nationnal Bank / KS1537 NCD 245,000.00334342BU5 02/26/2021 1,7921.55002/26/2016 243,179.65 1.530 1.551245,000.00 The FNB of Mcgregor1480 NCD 245,000.0032112UBW0 09/30/2021 2,0082.00010/01/2015 250,794.25 1.972 1.999245,000.00 First Nat. Bank of Park Falls1473 NCD 245,000.0032114RAQ9 09/17/2021 1,9952.20009/17/2015 245,129.85 2.171 2.201245,000.00 First Premier Bank1255 NCD 245,000.0033610RNX7 03/08/2021 1,8022.50003/07/2014 253,785.70 2.465 2.500245,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 3 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Negotiable CD's First Merchants Bank1351 NCD 245,000.0032082BDH9 08/06/2019 1,2221.90008/06/2014 248,942.05 1.873 1.900245,000.00 Community First Bank1555 NCD 250,000.0020369JAA9 03/17/2022 2,17603/17/2016 250,120.00 1.676 1.700250,000.00 Farmer's & Merchant's SVG Bank1551 NCD 245,000.00308863AH2 02/26/2021 1,7921.55002/29/2016 245,671.30 1.525 1.546245,000.00 First Neighbor Bank, NA1469 NCD 245,000.0033581VAF6 09/03/2021 1,9812.40009/03/2015 251,458.20 2.367 2.400245,000.00 First Savings Bank Northwest1335 NCD 245,000.0033621JAB4 07/18/2019 1,2031.80007/18/2014 245,107.80 1.776 1.801245,000.00 First State Bank1366 NCD 245,000.0033648RAT6 08/20/2019 1,2361.85008/20/2014 248,907.75 1.825 1.851245,000.00 First State Bank of Purdy1475 NCD 248,000.0033646TAE7 04/13/2022 2,2032.35009/25/2015 249,148.24 2.321 2.353247,977.16 First National Bank & Trust1468 NCD 245,000.0031904JAA8 08/19/2020 1,6011.90008/25/2015 245,129.85 1.873 1.899245,000.00 Fox Chase Bank1305 NCD 245,000.0035137QAV6 06/06/2019 1,1611.70006/06/2014 249,157.65 1.677 1.700245,000.00 Gulf Coast Bank & Trust1462 NCD 200,000.00402194ES9 05/20/2021 1,8752.00008/13/2015 200,382.00 1.972 1.999200,000.00 Gold Coast Bank1375 NCD 245,000.0038058KDA1 08/05/2019 1,2211.80009/04/2014 248,640.70 1.775 1.800245,000.00 GE Capital Bank1184 NCD 245,000.0036161TJR7 05/03/2018 7621.00005/03/2013 244,159.65 0.986 1.000245,000.00 GE Capital Bank1262 NCD 245,000.0036157PXV6 03/22/2021 1,8162.65003/21/2014 253,726.90 2.613 2.650245,000.00 Goldman Sachs Bank USA1177 NCD 245,000.0038147JEC2 05/01/2018 7601.15005/01/2013 244,916.70 1.134 1.150245,000.00 Dubuque Bank & Trust1372 NCD 245,000.00263849BD2 08/21/2019 1,2371.90008/21/2014 248,809.75 1.873 1.900245,000.00 Iroquois Federal Sav Loan Asso1535 NCD 245,000.0046355PBV9 08/12/2020 1,5941.60002/12/2016 247,295.65 1.578 1.600245,000.00 Investors Bank1460 NCD 245,000.0046176PEJ0 08/25/2020 1,6072.00008/25/2015 250,387.55 1.972 2.000245,000.00 Inst. for Sav in Newburyport1455 NCD 245,000.0045780PAN5 07/30/2021 1,9462.30007/31/2015 251,004.95 2.269 2.301245,000.00 Iowa State Bank1343 NCD 250,000.0046256YAB5 07/23/2019 1,2081.80007/23/2014 253,997.50 1.775 1.800250,000.00 JP Morgan Chase BAnk NA1200 NCD 245,000.0048124JD39 12/05/2018 9781.25006/05/2013 244,632.50 1.232 1.250245,000.00 LCA Bank Corporation1306 NCD 245,000.00501798FJ6 05/30/2019 1,1541.65005/30/2014 249,169.90 1.627 1.650245,000.00 Leader Bank1364 NCD 245,000.0052168UCN0 08/22/2019 1,2382.00008/22/2014 246,310.75 1.973 2.001245,000.00 Legends Bank1533 NCD 245,000.0052465JGM3 02/11/2022 2,1421.70002/12/2016 248,939.60 1.678 1.701245,000.00 Luana Savings Bank1367 NCD 245,000.00549103QA0 09/07/2021 1,9852.25009/05/2014 253,273.65 2.219 2.250245,000.00 Machias Savings Bank1358 NCD 245,000.00554479DN2 08/28/2019 1,2441.80008/28/2014 248,964.10 1.776 1.801245,000.00 Mascoma Savings Bank1319 NCD 248,000.0057461PAG1 01/15/2019 1,0191.80006/20/2014 252,213.52 1.627 1.650248,998.74 Medallion Bank - Salt Lake1238 NCD 245,000.0058403BJ31 01/10/2019 1,0141.85001/10/2014 249,101.30 1.825 1.850245,000.00 Merrick Bank1464 NCD 245,000.0059013JHE2 08/20/2020 1,6021.90008/20/2015 246,259.30 1.876 1.902245,000.00 Merchants National Bank OH1534 NCD 245,000.00588806AV1 02/17/2022 2,1481.80002/17/2016 248,062.50 1.776 1.801245,000.00 Mifflinburg Bank & Trust Co.1321 NCD 132,000.00598580AB4 04/30/2019 1,1241.65006/20/2014 134,253.24 1.627 1.649132,000.00 Marlin Business Bank1483 NCD 245,000.0057116AKU1 10/21/2020 1,6641.75010/21/2015 249,733.40 1.727 1.751245,000.00 MutualOne Bank1407 NCD 250,000.0062847HAA7 11/21/2019 1,3291.85011/21/2014 254,400.00 1.825 1.850250,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 4 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Negotiable CD's MY Safra Bank FSB1467 NCD 245,000.0055406JAL6 09/03/2020 1,6161.90009/03/2015 250,485.55 1.873 1.900245,000.00 NBT Bank1322 NCD 156,000.00628779FJ4 06/06/2019 1,1611.80006/20/2014 158,586.48 1.775 1.799156,000.00 NBT Bank1373 NCD 94,000.00628779FN5 08/20/2019 1,2362.10008/20/2014 95,457.00 2.071 2.10094,000.00 Customers Bank1388 NCD 250,000.0023204HCA4 09/10/2019 1,2572.10009/10/2014 253,795.00 2.071 2.100250,000.00 NCB Savings Bank1344 NCD 245,000.00628825JL6 07/25/2019 1,2101.80007/25/2014 249,390.40 1.775 1.800245,000.00 Nebraska State Bank & Trust1466 NCD 245,000.0063969ABL7 08/26/2022 2,3382.25008/26/2015 253,300.60 2.220 2.251245,000.00 Lake Sunapee Bank FSB1309 NCD 245,000.00510868AG7 06/05/2019 1,1601.75006/05/2014 249,155.20 1.727 1.750245,000.00 Connectone Bank1355 NCD 245,000.0020786AAT2 08/13/2019 1,2291.85008/13/2014 248,922.45 1.824 1.850245,000.00 Bank of Northern Michigan1298 NCD 245,000.0006414TNW9 05/21/2020 1,5112.00005/21/2014 250,198.90 1.972 2.000245,000.00 Northfield Bank1365 NCD 245,000.0066612AAA6 08/12/2019 1,2281.85008/13/2014 248,760.75 1.824 1.850245,000.00 Northstar Bank1326 NCD 245,000.0066704MEG2 07/18/2019 1,2031.75007/18/2014 249,030.25 1.727 1.751245,000.00 Naqtional Bank of NY City1312 NCD 245,000.00634116CB1 06/18/2019 1,1731.65006/18/2014 249,040.05 1.627 1.650245,000.00 Oostburg State Bank1532 NCD 245,000.00683430BU5 02/09/2021 1,7751.55002/09/2016 247,614.15 1.530 1.551245,000.00 Williamette Valley Bank1524 NCD 245,000.00969294BY2 02/06/2023 2,5022.10002/04/2016 250,100.90 2.072 2.101245,000.00 Orrstown Bank1465 NCD 245,000.00687377DR9 08/20/2020 1,6022.00008/20/2015 246,599.85 1.974 2.002245,000.00 Peoples United Bank1378 NCD 245,000.0071270QGB6 08/27/2019 1,2431.95008/27/2014 248,782.80 1.923 1.950245,000.00 People's Bank1415 NCD 250,000.00710665CE8 12/12/2019 1,3501.85012/12/2014 250,612.50 1.825 1.851250,000.00 Peapack-Gladstone Bank1275 NCD 245,000.00704692AK8 04/17/2019 1,1111.80004/17/2014 249,204.20 1.776 1.801245,000.00 Planters Bank1363 NCD 245,000.0072741PCU9 08/20/2021 1,9672.50008/20/2014 245,614.95 2.467 2.501245,000.00 Prime Alliance Bank1331 NCD 245,000.0074160NED8 07/11/2019 1,1961.70007/11/2014 248,976.35 1.677 1.701245,000.00 Park National Bank1395 NCD 250,000.00700654AV8 03/26/2019 1,0892.10009/26/2014 252,715.00 2.070 2.099250,000.00 Providence Bank1445 NCD 245,000.00743738BQ8 02/25/2022 2,1562.10002/26/2015 252,984.55 2.072 2.101245,000.00 Peoples State Bank, WI1304 NCD 245,000.00712515GY5 05/23/2019 1,1471.70005/23/2014 249,108.65 1.676 1.700245,000.00 Private Bank & Trust Co.1293 NCD 245,000.0074267GUN5 11/21/2018 9641.65005/21/2014 248,143.35 1.627 1.650245,000.00 Ohio Valley Bank1338 NCD 250,000.00677721CE0 07/23/2019 1,2081.80007/23/2014 254,092.50 1.776 1.801250,000.00 Sallie Mae Bank1350 NCD 245,000.00795450SC0 07/30/2019 1,2152.05007/30/2014 248,954.30 2.021 2.050245,000.00 Sawyer Savings Bank1389 NCD 250,000.00805508AW8 03/18/2020 1,4472.00009/18/2014 250,130.00 1.973 2.000250,000.00 State Bank Definace1233 NCD 245,000.00855736CX0 07/19/2018 8391.65007/19/2013 248,211.95 1.628 1.650245,000.00 State Bank of India1390 NCD 245,000.00856284Z98 09/11/2019 1,2582.15009/11/2014 248,792.60 2.120 2.150245,000.00 State Bank of Texas1230 NCD 245,000.00856528CG7 07/17/2018 8371.60007/17/2013 245,088.20 1.578 1.600245,000.00 Security National Bank1499 NCD 245,000.008144114AC2 11/19/2021 2,0582.00011/19/2015 247,555.35 1.974 2.001245,000.00 Bell State Bank & Trust1223 NCD 245,000.0007815AAG2 06/28/2018 8181.30006/28/2013 245,759.50 1.282 1.300245,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 5 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Negotiable CD's Sterns Bank NA1221 NCD 245,000.00857894NG0 06/28/2018 8181.30006/28/2013 245,815.85 1.282 1.300245,000.00 Stockman Bank1557 NCD 245,000.0086128QBX5 03/30/2023 2,5542.00003/30/2016 245,796.25 1.973 2.000245,000.00 Sutton State Bank Ohio1484 NCD 245,000.00869478EU7 02/28/2022 2,1592.25010/19/2015 245,249.90 2.218 2.249245,000.00 Third Federal Savings and Loan1242 NCD 245,000.0088413QAF5 10/22/2018 9341.75001/22/2014 248,878.35 1.726 1.750245,000.00 Tioga State Bank1386 NCD 245,000.00887768BL2 09/12/2019 1,2591.85009/12/2014 245,347.90 1.825 1.850245,000.00 Thomasville Natl Bank1266 NCD 245,000.00884693BJ0 04/12/2021 1,8372.40004/11/2014 253,768.55 2.367 2.400245,000.00 United Bankers' Bank1379 NCD 245,000.00909557EA4 04/29/2019 1,1231.80008/29/2014 247,989.00 1.776 1.800245,000.00 Unity Bank1529 NCD 245,000.0091330ABF3 02/26/2021 1,7921.60002/26/2016 247,643.55 1.579 1.601245,000.00 Valley Central Savings Bank1422 NCD 245,000.0091944RAF5 12/30/2019 1,3681.85012/29/2014 249,150.30 1.824 1.850245,000.00 Washington Trst Westerly1345 NCD 245,000.00940637GJ4 07/31/2019 1,2161.90007/31/2014 248,961.65 1.873 1.900245,000.00 Webster Bank NA1252 NCD 245,000.0094768NJM7 02/12/2019 1,0471.90002/12/2014 248,684.80 1.873 1.900245,000.00 Northwest Bank1308 NCD 245,000.0066736AAK5 05/29/2019 1,1531.65005/29/2014 249,184.60 1.628 1.650245,000.00 Western State Bank1392 NCD 245,000.0095960NJA6 03/26/2020 1,4552.10009/26/2014 248,790.15 2.071 2.100245,000.00 Woodford State Bank1459 NCD 245,000.00979424AA6 07/29/2022 2,3102.35008/12/2015 252,550.90 2.317 2.349245,000.00 Zions First National Bank1417 NCD 250,000.0098970TU79 12/10/2019 1,3481.90012/08/2014 252,597.50 1.873 1.899250,000.00 Subtotal and Average 32,448,267.29 32,458,000.00 32,886,940.74 1.834 1.859 1,474 Medium Term Notes Apple, Inc.1342 MTN 2,000,000.00037833AQ3 05/06/2019 1,1302.10007/15/2014 2,056,040.00 1.982 2.0102,005,269.04 Apple, Inc.1461 MTN 750,000.00037833AX8 02/07/2020 1,4071.55008/13/2015 755,400.00 1.980 2.008737,402.34 Apple, Inc.1497 MTN 1,500,000.00037833BD1 05/06/2020 1,4962.00011/05/2015 1,528,245.00 1.854 1.8791,507,042.87 Apple, Inc.1543 MTN 700,000.00037833BS8 02/23/2021 1,7892.25002/23/2016 713,174.00 2.141 2.171702,549.03 Johnson & Johnson1411 MTN 2,000,000.00478160BM5 12/05/2019 1,3431.87511/24/2014 2,052,760.00 1.874 1.9001,998,245.39 Johnson & Johnson1418 MTN 1,500,000.00478160BM5 12/05/2019 1,3431.87512/08/2014 1,539,570.00 1.824 1.8501,501,303.00 Microsoft Corporation1448 MTN 2,000,000.00594918AV0 02/12/2020 1,4121.85002/12/2015 2,043,460.00 1.785 1.8102,002,903.95 Microsoft Corporation1496 MTN 2,000,000.00594918BG8 11/03/2020 1,6772.00011/05/2015 2,049,100.00 1.914 1.9402,005,145.27 Microsoft Corporation1515 MTN 900,000.00594918BG8 11/03/2020 1,6772.00001/07/2016 922,095.00 1.887 1.913903,391.55 Stanford University1336 MTN 300,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 1,1254.75007/10/2014 331,221.00 1.966 1.993324,194.34 Stanford University1347 MTN 150,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 1,1254.75007/24/2014 165,610.50 1.896 1.922162,433.68 Stanford University1349 MTN 225,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 1,1254.75007/25/2014 248,415.75 1.895 1.921243,661.39 Stanford University1419 MTN 105,000.00854403AC6 05/01/2019 1,1254.75012/11/2014 115,927.35 1.893 1.920113,744.94 Subtotal and Average 14,207,286.79 14,130,000.00 14,521,018.60 1.898 1.924 1,419 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 6 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Agricultural Mortgage1028 3,000,000.0031315PPC7 02/21/2019 1,0561.79002/21/2012 3,051,690.00 1.765 1.7903,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1031 2,000,000.0031315PQC6 09/06/2018 8881.55003/06/2012 2,032,600.00 1.528 1.5502,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1052 1,500,000.0031315PTW9 04/10/2019 1,1041.87004/10/2012 1,529,925.00 1.844 1.8701,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1055 1,500,000.0031315PTQ2 04/10/2017 3741.26004/10/2012 1,507,065.00 1.242 1.2601,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1090 2,000,000.0031315PZQ5 06/05/2017 4301.11006/05/2012 2,005,580.00 1.094 1.1102,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1096 2,000,000.0031315PZQ5 06/05/2017 4301.11006/20/2012 2,005,580.00 0.998 1.0122,002,242.33 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1098 2,000,000.0031315PPK9 07/03/2017 4581.02007/03/2012 2,009,260.00 1.006 1.0202,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1109 2,000,000.0031315PSX8 08/23/2017 5091.03008/23/2012 2,008,540.00 1.015 1.0302,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1122 Call 1,000,000.0031315PNY1 11/21/2022 2,4252.19011/21/2012 1,002,100.00 2.163 2.193999,834.03 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1123 Call 1,500,000.0031315PQL6 11/29/2021 2,0682.00011/29/2012 1,504,590.00 1.972 2.0001,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1124 Call 1,750,000.0031315PNY1 11/21/2022 2,4252.19011/21/2012 1,753,675.00 2.166 2.1961,749,419.10 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1130 1,500,000.0031315PPX1 07/05/2022 2,2862.20012/13/2012 1,525,815.00 1.930 1.9571,520,715.26 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1134 750,000.0031315PB32 11/21/2022 2,4252.00012/19/2012 756,442.50 2.081 2.110745,077.15 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1136 1,500,000.0031315PTY5 12/27/2019 1,3651.48012/27/2012 1,524,270.00 1.395 1.4151,503,453.13 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1137 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,4612.18001/04/2013 1,533,030.00 2.165 2.1961,498,550.68 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1138 740,000.0031315PEY1 12/30/2019 1,3684.50001/04/2013 820,778.40 1.514 1.535817,662.72 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1139 500,000.0031315PWN5 06/01/2021 1,8873.84001/04/2013 545,150.00 1.946 1.973544,232.61 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1141 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,4612.18001/08/2013 1,533,030.00 2.195 2.2251,495,883.44 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1142 1,200,000.0031315PTW9 04/10/2019 1,1041.87001/09/2013 1,223,940.00 1.400 1.4201,215,573.04 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1143 451,000.0031315PPC7 02/21/2019 1,0561.79001/09/2013 458,770.73 1.372 1.392455,953.04 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1144 1,500,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,4612.18001/23/2013 1,533,030.00 2.111 2.1411,503,522.93 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1147 2,595,000.0031315PUE7 12/27/2022 2,4612.18001/28/2013 2,652,141.90 2.199 2.2292,587,185.79 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1152 2,000,000.0031315PPF0 01/30/2019 1,0341.32002/11/2013 2,018,340.00 1.220 1.2372,004,514.14 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1155 1,500,000.0031315PPF0 01/30/2019 1,0341.32002/21/2013 1,513,755.00 1.262 1.2801,501,623.54 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1160 1,500,000.0031315PQM4 03/06/2018 7040.94003/07/2013 1,501,560.00 0.925 0.9371,500,056.44 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1163 1,500,000.0031315PQM4 03/06/2018 7040.94003/08/2013 1,501,560.00 0.987 1.0011,498,272.16 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1179 1,500,000.0031315PXM6 05/02/2018 7610.85005/02/2013 1,499,565.00 0.864 0.8771,499,175.15 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1186 1,450,000.0031315PXH7 01/09/2019 1,0132.10005/01/2013 1,496,182.50 1.055 1.0701,490,056.69 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1199 1,500,000.0031315PZZ5 03/09/2018 7070.77005/15/2013 1,493,100.00 0.961 0.9751,494,185.35 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1209 1,500,000.0031315PZZ5 03/09/2018 7070.77005/30/2013 1,493,100.00 1.151 1.1671,488,802.16 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1224 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 8021.18006/21/2013 1,506,840.00 1.549 1.5701,487,650.07 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1225 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 8021.18006/21/2013 1,506,840.00 1.575 1.5971,486,816.67 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 7 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Agricultural Mortgage1226 1,500,000.0031315PC98 06/12/2018 8021.18006/25/2013 1,506,840.00 1.783 1.8081,480,287.63 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1243 1,500,000.0031315PQT9 03/06/2020 1,4351.41001/15/2014 1,500,855.00 2.462 2.4961,440,932.87 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1244 1,500,000.0031315P3G2 09/09/2020 1,6222.80001/15/2014 1,590,390.00 2.635 2.6721,507,739.69 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1256 1,500,000.0031315PXH7 01/09/2019 1,0132.10003/05/2014 1,547,775.00 1.702 1.7261,514,841.24 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1257 300,000.0031315PTU3 03/09/2021 1,8034.16003/06/2014 328,737.00 2.574 2.609320,865.60 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1258 1,500,000.0031315P6P9 03/05/2024 2,8953.40003/07/2014 1,613,760.00 3.325 3.3721,502,796.10 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1259 1,500,000.0031315P6P9 03/05/2024 2,8953.40003/10/2014 1,613,760.00 3.424 3.4711,492,855.08 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1264 1,500,000.0031315PK40 03/26/2021 1,8202.50003/26/2014 1,568,835.00 2.495 2.5301,497,916.52 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1265 1,800,000.0031315PJ67 02/28/2019 1,0631.70003/28/2014 1,830,330.00 1.784 1.8091,794,553.83 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1271 1,000,000.0031315P4B2 01/30/2024 2,8603.46004/09/2014 1,089,980.00 3.297 3.3431,007,688.18 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1279 1,250,000.0031315PPX1 07/05/2022 2,2862.20004/23/2014 1,271,512.50 2.889 2.9301,199,520.42 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1399 500,000.0031315PVF3 04/03/2020 1,4631.47510/15/2014 501,595.00 1.857 1.882492,269.77 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1406 1,500,000.0031315PA58 11/20/2019 1,3281.31011/07/2014 1,514,160.00 1.854 1.8801,470,466.27 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1408 2,000,000.0031315PM22 11/20/2019 1,3281.84011/20/2014 2,056,380.00 1.814 1.8402,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1410 1,500,000.0031315PM22 11/20/2019 1,3281.84011/20/2014 1,542,285.00 1.848 1.8731,498,254.67 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1423 1,500,000.0031315PZ85 12/23/2019 1,3611.85012/23/2014 1,543,335.00 1.851 1.8761,498,579.72 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1427 675,000.0031315P2C2 05/05/2021 1,8602.51001/09/2015 704,166.75 2.110 2.140686,830.15 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1428 404,000.0031315PL23 03/27/2024 2,9173.33001/09/2015 446,286.68 2.540 2.575425,536.20 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1430 Call 500,000.0031315PC23 01/24/2023 2,4892.30001/21/2015 500,050.00 2.605 2.641489,577.09 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1433 1,604,000.0031315PD89 06/12/2023 2,6282.61001/22/2015 1,653,980.64 2.269 2.3011,636,254.13 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1447 1,450,000.0031315PD89 06/12/2023 2,6282.61002/09/2015 1,495,182.00 2.377 2.4101,468,778.49 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1452 1,000,000.003130H0AJ2 03/01/2022 2,1602.15003/05/2015 1,017,910.00 2.120 2.1501,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1470 Call 2,000,000.003132X0BX8 09/08/2025 3,4473.23009/08/2015 2,007,700.00 3.185 3.2302,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1488 Call 2,000,000.0031315PC23 01/24/2023 2,4892.30010/23/2015 2,000,200.00 2.398 2.4321,983,558.98 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1493 Call 1,000,000.003132X0CV1 10/28/2025 3,4972.98010/28/2015 1,001,720.00 2.956 2.997998,563.75 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1495 Call 1,500,000.003132X0CV1 10/28/2025 3,4972.98010/30/2015 1,502,580.00 2.985 3.0261,494,251.81 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1504 Call 1,500,000.003132X0BN0 07/15/2025 3,3923.20011/16/2015 1,506,660.00 3.047 3.0901,513,120.32 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1552 Call 1,500,000.003132X0EU1 01/27/2026 3,5882.93002/26/2016 1,500,330.00 2.831 2.8701,507,515.61 Federal Agricultural Mortgage1554 Call 1,500,000.003132X0EU1 01/27/2026 3,5882.93003/02/2016 1,500,330.00 2.878 2.9181,501,487.80 Federal Agricultural Mortgage839 1,500,000.0031315PEY1 12/30/2019 1,3684.50012/30/2009 1,663,740.00 4.438 4.5001,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage840 2,000,000.0031315PGE3 01/19/2017 2934.12501/19/2010 2,049,540.00 4.068 4.1252,000,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage866 1,000,000.0031315PAT6 05/17/2017 4113.75005/17/2010 1,032,220.00 3.698 3.7501,000,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 8 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Agricultural Mortgage923 1,500,000.0031315PNM7 12/28/2017 6363.15012/28/2010 1,558,305.00 3.106 3.1501,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage942 1,500,000.0031315PTU3 03/09/2021 1,8034.16003/09/2011 1,643,685.00 4.103 4.1601,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage951 1,500,000.0031315PUN7 04/29/2016 282.41004/29/2011 1,501,635.00 2.376 2.4101,500,000.00 Federal Agricultural Mortgage975 1,000,000.0031315PA25 07/27/2016 1172.00007/27/2011 1,005,620.00 2.063 2.092999,719.67 Federal Farm Credit Bank1006 2,000,000.0031331KK90 10/26/2016 2081.35010/26/2011 2,011,420.00 1.331 1.3502,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank1092 1,500,000.003133EAUF3 06/14/2019 1,1691.50006/14/2012 1,520,835.00 1.479 1.5001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank1205 575,000.0031331JQM8 06/04/2018 7943.40005/23/2013 602,272.25 1.045 1.060603,424.15 Federal Farm Credit Bank1206 950,000.0031331YW63 06/12/2018 8024.90005/23/2013 1,029,002.00 1.045 1.0601,027,842.80 Federal Farm Credit Bank722 2,000,000.0031331YCJ7 10/30/2017 5774.90010/30/2007 2,134,800.00 4.832 4.9002,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank725 2,000,000.0031331YHQ6 12/15/2017 6234.62512/12/2007 2,129,340.00 4.561 4.6242,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank850 2,000,000.0031331JFZ1 03/08/2017 3413.37503/08/2010 2,053,980.00 3.328 3.3752,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank870 1,000,000.0031331JQB2 06/02/2017 4273.00006/02/2010 1,026,120.00 2.958 3.0001,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank872 2,000,000.0031331YEL0 11/15/2016 2285.00006/04/2010 2,055,460.00 3.027 3.0702,021,636.94 Federal Farm Credit Bank903 1,000,000.0031331JN90 09/29/2020 1,6422.87509/29/2010 1,063,300.00 2.835 2.8751,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank910 2,000,000.0031331JX32 10/28/2016 2101.70010/28/2010 2,013,600.00 1.676 1.7002,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank918 2,000,000.0031331J5F6 12/16/2020 1,7203.62512/16/2010 2,199,840.00 3.575 3.6252,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank925 1,500,000.0031331JX32 10/28/2016 2101.70001/04/2011 1,510,200.00 2.576 2.6111,492,744.82 Federal Farm Credit Bank932 3,000,000.0031331J2M4 11/22/2016 2351.87501/14/2011 3,023,700.00 2.483 2.5182,988,553.01 Federal Farm Credit Bank937 2,000,000.0031331KBX7 02/10/2017 3152.87502/10/2011 2,037,740.00 2.835 2.8752,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank959 1,500,000.0031331KQD5 06/27/2017 4522.30006/27/2011 1,527,915.00 2.268 2.3001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1117 Call 1,500,000.003133EA3N6 07/09/2020 1,5601.72010/09/2012 1,500,210.00 1.696 1.7201,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1181 Call 1,500,000.003133EA4J4 10/11/2018 9231.15004/30/2013 1,500,015.00 1.137 1.1531,499,860.79 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1189 Call 1,500,000.003133ECMF8 04/24/2018 7530.98005/06/2013 1,496,505.00 0.986 1.0001,499,376.68 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1227 1,500,000.003133ECTM6 07/02/2018 8221.90007/02/2013 1,533,105.00 1.873 1.9001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1241 500,000.003133ECRH9 06/06/2023 2,6222.45001/09/2014 520,920.00 3.383 3.430470,135.50 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1444 Call 1,000,000.003133EAVV7 06/27/2024 3,0092.70002/06/2015 1,000,030.00 2.713 2.750996,315.53 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1506 Call 1,500,000.003133EE4B3 07/21/2025 3,3983.17011/18/2015 1,503,360.00 3.067 3.1101,507,141.47 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1511 Call 1,500,000.003133EFBU0 09/02/2025 3,4413.10012/16/2015 1,502,790.00 3.057 3.0991,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1512 Call 1,100,000.003133EFBU0 09/02/2025 3,4413.10012/24/2015 1,102,046.00 3.060 3.1021,099,732.65 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1514 Call 2,000,000.003133EFUW5 01/05/2026 3,5663.12001/05/2016 2,000,340.00 3.084 3.1271,998,828.67 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1517 Call 1,000,000.003133EFUW5 01/05/2026 3,5663.12001/07/2016 1,000,170.00 3.077 3.1191,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1521 Call 1,000,000.003133EFUW5 01/05/2026 3,5663.12001/22/2016 1,000,170.00 3.030 3.0721,003,922.97 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 9 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Farm Credit Bank .1527 Call 2,000,000.003133EFYC5 11/05/2024 3,1402.73002/05/2016 2,000,060.00 2.692 2.7302,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1539 Call 1,500,000.003133EFZX8 08/17/2020 1,5991.70002/17/2016 1,492,680.00 1.676 1.7001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1540 Call 1,500,000.003133ECH56 03/06/2023 2,5302.39002/12/2016 1,500,000.00 2.357 2.3891,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1542 Call 1,500,000.003133EFA98 02/18/2025 3,2452.80002/18/2016 1,500,090.00 2.761 2.8001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1545 Call 1,800,000.003133EFA98 02/18/2025 3,2452.80002/19/2016 1,800,108.00 2.767 2.8061,799,111.67 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1553 Call 1,500,000.003133EFA98 02/18/2025 3,2452.80002/29/2016 1,500,090.00 2.757 2.7951,500,490.09 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1559 Call 1,250,000.003133EFA98 02/18/2025 3,2452.80003/09/2016 1,250,075.00 2.757 2.7951,250,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1563 500,000.0031331XSS2 03/14/2022 2,1735.16003/17/2016 598,445.00 1.876 1.902591,219.57 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1565 Call 1,000,000.003133EFT98 03/28/2025 3,2832.62003/28/2016 1,001,410.00 2.596 2.632999,000.93 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1567 Call 1,500,000.003133EFS32 09/24/2025 3,4632.75003/24/2016 1,500,075.00 2.712 2.7501,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1569 Call 1,500,000.003133EFS32 09/24/2025 3,4632.75003/30/2016 1,500,075.00 2.711 2.7481,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1572 Call 1,500,000.003133EFU47 12/28/2023 2,8272.40003/30/2016 1,500,030.00 2.367 2.4001,500,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1578 Call 1,000,000.003133EFR90 12/28/2023 2,8272.44003/28/2016 1,000,210.00 2.406 2.4401,000,000.00 Federal Farm Credit Bank .1579 Call 2,000,000.003133EFS32 09/24/2025 3,4632.75003/24/2016 2,000,100.00 2.728 2.7661,997,205.73 Federal Home Loan Bank1012 2,000,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 9871.75012/16/2011 2,046,540.00 1.725 1.7492,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1017 2,000,000.00313376V36 01/25/2017 2991.00001/25/2012 2,005,780.00 0.986 1.0002,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1021 2,000,000.00313376VN2 12/22/2016 2651.10001/30/2012 2,007,040.00 1.084 1.1002,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1027 2,000,000.003133787M7 02/27/2017 3321.05002/21/2012 2,007,600.00 1.035 1.0492,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1038 1,500,000.003133782N0 03/10/2017 3430.87503/08/2012 1,503,105.00 0.999 1.0131,498,100.89 Federal Home Loan Bank1039 1,500,000.003133782M2 03/08/2019 1,0711.50003/08/2012 1,524,840.00 1.574 1.5961,496,004.79 Federal Home Loan Bank1041 1,500,000.00313378LA7 02/25/2022 2,1562.33003/20/2012 1,565,940.00 2.298 2.3301,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1045 2,000,000.00313378QP9 03/28/2017 3611.26003/28/2012 2,013,620.00 1.242 1.2602,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1049 1,500,000.00313378VG3 05/22/2019 1,1461.85004/09/2012 1,539,135.00 1.824 1.8501,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1057 1,500,000.00313378ZW4 04/17/2017 3811.05004/17/2012 1,507,095.00 1.035 1.0501,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1058 1,500,000.003133792L2 10/20/2017 5671.23004/20/2012 1,511,385.00 1.213 1.2301,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1068 1,500,000.00313379BL2 12/29/2017 6371.25004/30/2012 1,509,045.00 1.232 1.2501,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1070 1,500,000.00313379BG3 04/27/2017 3911.07004/27/2012 1,507,200.00 1.055 1.0701,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1073 2,000,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,6922.00005/18/2012 2,054,800.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1089 2,000,000.00313379PD5 09/20/2017 5371.09006/07/2012 2,010,300.00 1.075 1.0902,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1101 Call 1,500,000.003133805L7 08/08/2022 2,3202.25008/08/2012 1,488,990.00 2.219 2.2501,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1104 Call 1,500,000.003133807E1 08/15/2022 2,3272.29008/15/2012 1,500,000.00 2.258 2.2901,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1105 Call 1,500,000.00313380E86 11/30/2018 9731.33008/30/2012 1,500,045.00 1.311 1.3301,500,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 10 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Home Loan Bank1116 Call 1,500,000.00313380WT0 10/11/2022 2,3842.25010/11/2012 1,500,000.00 2.227 2.2581,499,265.63 Federal Home Loan Bank1121 Call 2,000,000.00313381AY1 11/21/2022 2,4252.25011/21/2012 2,000,000.00 2.224 2.2551,999,336.11 Federal Home Loan Bank1125 1,500,000.00313381C94 12/13/2019 1,3511.25011/30/2012 1,502,670.00 1.196 1.2121,501,974.57 Federal Home Loan Bank1126 Call 1,500,000.00313381DA0 12/05/2022 2,4392.19012/05/2012 1,500,015.00 2.165 2.1951,499,499.17 Federal Home Loan Bank1127 1,500,000.00313381GB5 11/30/2018 9731.00011/30/2012 1,503,165.00 0.986 1.0001,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1128 Call 2,000,000.00313381HW8 12/19/2022 2,4532.19012/19/2012 2,000,000.00 2.168 2.1981,998,992.50 Federal Home Loan Bank1129 Call 1,500,000.00313381HW8 12/19/2022 2,4532.19012/19/2012 1,500,000.00 2.176 2.2061,498,488.75 Federal Home Loan Bank1131 1,500,000.00313381C94 12/13/2019 1,3511.25012/13/2012 1,502,670.00 1.232 1.2491,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1135 1,500,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 9871.75012/19/2012 1,534,905.00 1.075 1.0901,525,834.17 Federal Home Loan Bank1140 1,500,000.00313376BR5 12/14/2018 9871.75001/08/2013 1,534,905.00 1.117 1.1321,524,133.68 Federal Home Loan Bank1146 Call 425,000.00313381DA0 12/05/2022 2,4392.19001/25/2013 425,004.25 2.201 2.232423,920.74 Federal Home Loan Bank1154 1,500,000.003133XRFZ8 06/08/2018 7984.75002/21/2013 1,624,620.00 1.020 1.0351,618,230.76 Federal Home Loan Bank1156 1,315,000.003133XHRJ3 12/10/2021 2,0795.00002/25/2013 1,560,116.00 1.825 1.8501,531,601.93 Federal Home Loan Bank1157 2,000,000.003133XSR59 12/14/2018 9873.75002/25/2013 2,151,760.00 1.128 1.1442,135,872.53 Federal Home Loan Bank1168 530,000.003133XSR59 12/14/2018 9873.75003/11/2013 570,216.40 1.165 1.182565,456.49 Federal Home Loan Bank1182 Call 1,500,000.00313381C29 06/04/2018 7941.05004/30/2013 1,497,690.00 1.039 1.0541,499,871.92 Federal Home Loan Bank1185 Call 2,445,000.00313382LB7 03/28/2023 2,5522.45004/30/2013 2,445,073.35 2.415 2.4482,445,172.48 Federal Home Loan Bank1204 Call 557,958.01313383EP2 06/20/2018 8101.25006/20/2013 556,585.43 1.232 1.250557,958.01 Federal Home Loan Bank1212 1,500,000.00313379DT3 06/08/2018 7981.25006/05/2013 1,512,465.00 1.222 1.2391,500,347.01 Federal Home Loan Bank1213 2,000,000.00313379DT3 06/08/2018 7981.25006/06/2013 2,016,620.00 1.191 1.2082,001,774.51 Federal Home Loan Bank1216 Call 1,500,000.00313382Y98 05/16/2018 7751.00006/12/2013 1,495,365.00 1.412 1.4321,486,739.71 Federal Home Loan Bank1217 Call 1,000,000.00313382FP3 03/20/2018 7181.00006/12/2013 1,000,000.00 1.372 1.391992,571.59 Federal Home Loan Bank1228 1,500,000.00313373UU4 06/08/2018 7982.75007/01/2013 1,562,175.00 1.605 1.6271,535,231.65 Federal Home Loan Bank1240 1,500,000.00313371U79 12/11/2020 1,7153.12501/09/2014 1,621,545.00 2.615 2.6511,530,232.83 Federal Home Loan Bank1248 1,500,000.003130A0J27 01/07/2020 1,3762.22001/23/2014 1,559,970.00 2.194 2.2251,499,724.88 Federal Home Loan Bank1253 1,500,000.003130A12B3 03/13/2020 1,4422.12502/24/2014 1,547,535.00 2.095 2.1241,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1261 1,500,000.00313382K69 03/12/2021 1,8061.75003/13/2014 1,525,740.00 2.418 2.4511,452,413.57 Federal Home Loan Bank1267 1,500,000.00313370US5 09/11/2020 1,6242.87504/02/2014 1,605,240.00 2.271 2.3031,535,239.33 Federal Home Loan Bank1270 200,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,6922.00004/08/2014 205,480.00 2.263 2.295197,477.09 Federal Home Loan Bank1272 550,000.00313379EC9 11/18/2020 1,6922.00004/09/2014 565,070.00 2.263 2.295543,059.07 Federal Home Loan Bank1278 325,000.003133XTYY6 06/14/2019 1,1694.37504/22/2014 358,982.00 1.889 1.916349,259.61 Federal Home Loan Bank1314 1,500,000.00313379EE5 06/14/2019 1,1691.62506/04/2014 1,529,820.00 1.700 1.7241,495,442.15 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 11 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal Home Loan Bank1318 1,500,000.00313379EE5 06/14/2019 1,1691.62506/16/2014 1,529,820.00 1.774 1.7991,492,039.07 Federal Home Loan Bank1324 Call 1,250,000.003133836A4 05/22/2019 1,1460.80006/24/2014 1,244,250.00 1.766 1.7911,212,817.10 Federal Home Loan Bank1332 1,500,000.003130A2FH4 06/14/2019 1,1691.75007/02/2014 1,534,560.00 1.686 1.7101,501,824.61 Federal Home Loan Bank1353 Call 335,000.00313380WT0 10/11/2022 2,3842.25007/25/2014 335,000.00 2.801 2.840323,548.12 Federal Home Loan Bank1451 Call 1,500,000.003130A4F49 03/11/2025 3,2663.00003/11/2015 1,500,435.00 2.958 3.0001,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1453 Call 600,000.00313381HW8 12/19/2022 2,4532.19007/22/2015 600,000.00 2.505 2.540587,205.54 Federal Home Loan Bank1501 Call 750,000.003130A3VN1 01/21/2025 3,2173.00011/10/2015 741,607.50 2.992 3.034748,025.33 Federal Home Loan Bank1507 Call 2,000,000.003130A6SB4 11/26/2025 3,5262.25011/30/2015 2,000,720.00 3.101 3.1451,999,033.65 Federal Home Loan Bank1544 Call 500,000.00313381MM4 12/26/2025 3,5563.00002/19/2016 499,485.00 2.958 2.999500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank1570 Call 1,750,000.00313381HW8 12/19/2022 2,4532.19003/30/2016 1,750,000.00 2.159 2.1891,750,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank822 3,000,000.003133XUMS9 09/13/2019 1,2604.50008/12/2009 3,352,020.00 4.437 4.4993,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank832 3,000,000.003133XVRJ2 12/09/2016 2523.50011/19/2009 3,057,090.00 3.325 3.3723,002,328.44 Federal Home Loan Bank833 1,200,000.003133MJQF0 08/15/2016 1365.50011/19/2009 1,223,700.00 3.304 3.3501,208,529.16 Federal Home Loan Bank860 1,500,000.003133XHVS8 12/09/2016 2525.00004/26/2010 1,544,610.00 3.430 3.4781,513,934.00 Federal Home Loan Bank911 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 2521.62511/09/2010 1,510,290.00 1.602 1.6241,500,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank920 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 2521.62512/15/2010 1,510,290.00 2.550 2.5851,490,851.98 Federal Home Loan Bank924 1,500,000.003133MJQF0 08/15/2016 1365.50001/04/2011 1,529,625.00 2.516 2.5501,515,247.56 Federal Home Loan Bank926 1,500,000.00313371PV2 12/09/2016 2521.62501/04/2011 1,510,290.00 2.592 2.6291,490,447.74 Federal Home Loan Bank931 3,000,000.003133XFPR1 06/10/2016 705.37501/14/2011 3,029,070.00 2.363 2.3963,015,973.89 Federal Home Loan Bank940 2,000,000.003133X0PF0 08/15/2018 8665.37502/17/2011 2,207,380.00 3.423 3.4702,078,942.77 Federal Home Loan Bank982 2,000,000.00313375KP1 03/15/2017 3481.50009/15/2011 2,021,480.00 1.479 1.5002,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank985 2,000,000.00313375M87 10/14/2016 1961.27009/14/2011 2,006,940.00 1.252 1.2702,000,000.00 Federal Home Loan Bank990 2,000,000.00313370TW8 09/09/2016 1612.00009/13/2011 2,013,700.00 1.163 1.1802,006,969.24 Federal Home Loan Bank992 2,000,000.00313371ZX7 12/08/2017 6162.62509/13/2011 2,061,060.00 1.526 1.5472,034,489.50 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1036 1,500,000.003137EABA6 11/17/2017 5955.12503/01/2012 1,605,405.00 1.227 1.2441,591,166.32 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1106 1,500,000.003134G3A91 08/22/2019 1,2381.40008/22/2012 1,517,610.00 1.380 1.4001,500,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1113 1,500,000.003134G3L73 12/26/2019 1,3641.50009/26/2012 1,520,070.00 1.479 1.5001,500,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1153 1,500,000.003137EADP1 03/07/2018 7050.87502/11/2013 1,502,235.00 0.960 0.9731,497,223.62 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1162 Call 1,500,000.003134G36X3 03/28/2018 7261.12503/28/2013 1,500,405.00 1.109 1.1251,500,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1166 1,500,000.003137EADN6 01/12/2018 6510.75003/15/2013 1,499,475.00 0.948 0.9621,494,478.99 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1180 Call 2,000,000.003134G44L9 05/22/2023 2,6072.40005/22/2013 2,000,440.00 2.367 2.4002,000,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1203 Call 1,500,000.003134G46D5 06/12/2018 8021.20006/12/2013 1,500,435.00 1.183 1.2001,500,000.00 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 12 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1273 2,000,000.003134G45T1 12/10/2021 2,0792.00004/10/2014 2,049,580.00 2.564 2.6001,938,411.22 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1277 1,000,000.003134G45T1 12/10/2021 2,0792.00004/22/2014 1,024,790.00 2.643 2.680965,193.84 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1282 300,000.003134G3A91 08/22/2019 1,2381.40005/01/2014 303,522.00 1.914 1.941294,786.31 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1286 300,000.003134G35V8 03/13/2020 1,4421.65005/02/2014 305,199.00 2.053 2.082295,198.48 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1287 300,000.003134G3U40 11/21/2019 1,3291.45005/02/2014 302,157.00 1.938 1.965294,691.85 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1291 1,000,000.003134G3K58 03/19/2020 1,4481.50005/06/2014 1,010,220.00 2.041 2.070978,806.40 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1292 1,000,000.003134G44G0 05/22/2020 1,5121.50005/06/2014 1,003,670.00 2.091 2.120976,011.07 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1301 1,000,000.003134G3L73 12/26/2019 1,3641.50005/13/2014 1,013,380.00 1.945 1.972983,378.65 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1352 1,000,000.003134G43G1 05/07/2019 1,1311.20007/25/2014 998,060.00 1.765 1.790982,541.58 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1549 Call 1,500,000.003134G8MZ9 03/30/2021 1,8241.85003/30/2016 1,501,890.00 1.824 1.8501,500,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1566 Call 1,500,000.003134G8UQ0 03/30/2021 1,8241.80003/30/2016 1,500,795.00 1.775 1.8001,500,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.1568 Call 1,000,000.003134G8N70 03/30/2021 1,8241.60003/30/2016 1,000,310.00 1.578 1.6001,000,000.00 Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.993 2,000,000.003137EAAY5 08/23/2017 5095.50009/13/2011 2,132,740.00 1.415 1.4352,108,291.25 Federal National Mortgage Asso1022 2,000,000.0031398ADM1 06/12/2017 4375.37501/25/2012 2,112,080.00 1.317 1.3362,093,008.78 Federal National Mortgage Asso1023 2,590,000.003136FPXN2 11/24/2017 6022.30001/25/2012 2,652,393.10 1.406 1.4262,625,649.16 Federal National Mortgage Asso1033 3,000,000.003135G0JA2 04/27/2017 3911.12503/01/2012 3,014,070.00 1.134 1.1502,999,220.10 Federal National Mortgage Asso1035 2,000,000.0031398ALG5 01/23/2018 6624.37703/01/2012 2,126,820.00 1.388 1.4082,102,839.02 Federal National Mortgage Asso1048 2,000,000.003136G0AW1 10/16/2020 1,6592.35004/16/2012 2,085,520.00 2.317 2.3502,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1059 2,000,000.003136G0DU2 04/30/2020 1,4902.00004/30/2012 2,058,000.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1061 1,500,000.003136G0EC1 04/30/2020 1,4902.05004/30/2012 1,548,585.00 2.021 2.0501,500,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1066 2,000,000.003136G0FJ5 10/30/2020 1,6732.00004/30/2012 2,063,320.00 1.972 2.0002,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1082 450,000.003136FPYB7 05/23/2017 4172.05005/11/2012 456,880.50 1.070 1.085454,823.26 Federal National Mortgage Asso1118 500,000.003136FPXN2 11/24/2017 6022.30010/18/2012 512,045.00 0.927 0.940510,911.15 Federal National Mortgage Asso1119 Call 1,500,000.003136G02Z3 11/15/2022 2,4192.25011/15/2012 1,499,985.00 2.235 2.2661,498,510.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1120 Call 1,000,000.003135G0RC9 10/25/2022 2,3982.20010/25/2012 1,000,060.00 2.196 2.226998,424.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1149 1,500,000.003135G0TG8 02/08/2018 6780.87501/31/2013 1,503,450.00 1.019 1.0341,495,703.44 Federal National Mortgage Asso1159 Call 1,500,000.003135G0VL4 03/20/2018 7181.12503/20/2013 1,500,405.00 1.109 1.1251,500,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1169 Call 1,500,000.003136G1JG5 04/17/2023 2,5722.50004/17/2013 1,500,240.00 2.471 2.5051,499,471.67 Federal National Mortgage Asso1173 Call 2,000,000.003135G0TN3 01/23/2023 2,4882.33004/11/2013 2,000,120.00 2.326 2.3581,996,519.02 Federal National Mortgage Asso1174 1,500,000.003135G0WJ8 05/21/2018 7800.87504/15/2013 1,501,845.00 0.905 0.9171,498,653.76 Federal National Mortgage Asso1188 Call 1,500,000.003135G0TN3 01/23/2023 2,4882.33005/06/2013 1,500,090.00 2.312 2.3441,498,685.30 Federal National Mortgage Asso1190 Call 1,000,000.003135G0XD0 05/21/2018 7801.00005/21/2013 999,220.00 0.996 1.010999,786.11 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 13 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Federal National Mortgage Asso1191 Call 2,000,000.003135G0XA6 05/21/2018 7801.03005/21/2013 2,000,000.00 1.015 1.0302,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1197 1,500,000.003135G0WJ8 05/21/2018 7800.87505/21/2013 1,501,845.00 0.986 1.0001,496,097.38 Federal National Mortgage Asso1210 Call 1,500,000.003135G0XK4 05/25/2018 7841.05005/30/2013 1,500,120.00 1.035 1.0501,500,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1214 Call 1,500,000.003135G0XD0 05/21/2018 7801.00006/07/2013 1,498,830.00 1.262 1.2791,491,324.55 Federal National Mortgage Asso1268 1,500,000.003136FTR43 08/28/2020 1,6102.00004/08/2014 1,543,995.00 2.172 2.2021,487,569.65 Federal National Mortgage Asso1276 1,000,000.003136G0U58 04/30/2021 1,8551.75004/16/2014 1,016,480.00 2.364 2.397969,901.62 Federal National Mortgage Asso1288 250,000.003136G0M57 04/09/2021 1,8341.75005/02/2014 252,982.50 2.452 2.486241,550.12 Federal National Mortgage Asso1290 1,000,000.003136G0Y70 01/30/2019 1,0341.08005/05/2014 1,001,840.00 1.633 1.656984,377.33 Federal National Mortgage Asso1315 1,200,000.003136G0YK1 08/28/2019 1,2441.50006/05/2014 1,216,836.00 1.815 1.8401,186,785.15 Federal National Mortgage Asso1317 1,000,000.003136G02P5 04/29/2019 1,1231.20006/12/2014 1,005,310.00 1.765 1.790982,682.68 Federal National Mortgage Asso1429 Call 2,000,000.003136G0S93 04/30/2021 1,8551.80001/15/2015 1,999,980.00 2.081 2.1101,970,606.80 Federal National Mortgage Asso1446 Call 1,000,000.003133EAXY9 07/16/2024 3,0282.62502/09/2015 1,000,020.00 2.761 2.800987,311.33 Federal National Mortgage Asso1487 Call 1,000,000.003135G0SG9 12/14/2022 2,4482.36010/20/2015 1,001,970.00 2.327 2.3591,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1502 Call 1,000,000.003136G13X5 12/27/2023 2,8262.25011/10/2015 1,000,250.00 2.569 2.605975,262.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1526 625,000.003133EAA65 07/26/2023 2,6722.12501/27/2016 632,012.50 2.024 2.052628,075.31 Federal National Mortgage Asso1546 Call 1,000,000.003136G3AN5 03/16/2021 1,8101.50003/16/2016 999,210.00 1.978 2.0061,000,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1560 Call 1,000,000.003136G03F6 11/15/2022 2,4192.25003/15/2016 1,000,180.00 2.243 2.275998,455.37 Federal National Mortgage Asso1561 Call 1,965,000.003133EA2F4 09/26/2022 2,3692.35003/16/2016 1,965,039.30 2.317 2.3491,965,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso1573 Call 1,000,000.003135G0SG9 12/14/2022 2,4482.36003/31/2016 1,001,970.00 2.295 2.3271,002,000.00 Federal National Mortgage Asso928 1,500,000.0031359MS61 07/15/2016 1055.37501/04/2011 1,521,810.00 2.422 2.4551,511,759.94 Federal National Mortgage Asso991 2,000,000.0031359M4D2 02/13/2017 3185.00009/13/2011 2,074,980.00 1.272 1.2902,061,913.60 Tennessee Valley Authority1132 500,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,7813.87512/14/2012 556,055.00 1.596 1.618551,296.00 Tennessee Valley Authority1133 1,010,000.00880591EN8 08/15/2022 2,3271.87512/14/2012 1,019,069.80 1.893 1.9201,007,360.90 Tennessee Valley Authority1145 1,500,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,7813.87501/23/2013 1,668,165.00 1.647 1.6691,650,180.96 Tennessee Valley Authority1170 1,500,000.00880591EC2 04/01/2018 7304.50003/25/2013 1,610,160.00 0.913 0.9261,604,530.37 Tennessee Valley Authority1260 1,160,000.00880591EL2 02/15/2021 1,7813.87503/12/2014 1,290,047.60 2.427 2.4611,233,044.64 Tennessee Valley Authority1508 1,000,000.00880591CJ9 11/01/2025 3,5016.75011/20/2015 1,366,270.00 2.807 2.8461,323,775.90 Tennessee Valley Authority1519 750,000.00880591ER9 09/15/2024 3,0892.87501/15/2016 788,655.00 2.564 2.600765,505.37 Tennessee Valley Authority861 2,000,000.00880591EA6 07/18/2017 4735.50004/26/2010 2,120,920.00 3.602 3.6522,041,760.78 Tennessee Valley Authority954 2,000,000.00880591CU4 12/15/2017 6236.25005/23/2011 2,179,420.00 2.624 2.6612,111,642.98 Subtotal and Average 371,675,354.08 369,726,958.01 377,596,074.08 2.049 2.078 1,443 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 14 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Treasury Securities - Coupon U.S. Treasury1201 TB 2,000,000.00912828UJ7 01/31/2018 6700.87505/16/2013 2,005,160.00 0.779 0.7902,003,041.47 U.S. Treasury1237 TB 2,000,000.00912828SD3 01/31/2019 1,0351.25001/07/2014 2,022,260.00 1.682 1.7051,975,348.82 U.S. Treasury1284 TB 1,500,000.00912828TH3 07/31/2019 1,2160.87505/02/2014 1,496,430.00 1.726 1.7501,458,396.53 U.S. Treasury1285 TB 1,500,000.00912828TN0 08/31/2019 1,2471.00005/02/2014 1,502,115.00 1.755 1.7801,462,059.68 U.S. Treasury1289 TB 1,500,000.00912828SX9 05/31/2019 1,1551.12505/05/2014 1,510,020.00 1.692 1.7161,473,251.26 U.S. Treasury1299 TB 1,500,000.00912828SX9 05/31/2019 1,1551.12505/13/2014 1,510,020.00 1.654 1.6771,474,970.24 U.S. Treasury1316 TB 1,500,000.00912828TC4 06/30/2019 1,1851.00006/10/2014 1,504,050.00 1.687 1.7111,466,975.79 Subtotal and Average 11,314,043.79 11,500,000.00 11,550,055.00 1.536 1.557 1,071 Municipal Bonds Acalanes Union High School Dis1494 MUN 1,000,000.00004284B38 08/01/2021 1,9482.38110/30/2015 1,026,810.00 2.120 2.1501,011,514.44 Burlingame School District1548 MUN 730,000.00121457EQ4 08/01/2025 3,4096.23802/24/2016 866,437.00 3.557 3.606880,816.30 Carlsbad Unified School Dist .1547 MUN 300,000.00142665DH8 08/01/2021 1,9484.58402/24/2016 337,917.00 2.130 2.159336,412.39 Carlsbad Unified School Dist .1556 MUN 1,250,000.00142665DH8 08/01/2021 1,9484.58403/04/2016 1,407,987.50 2.138 2.1681,401,004.50 Cerritos Community College Dis1523 MUN 500,000.00156792GV9 08/01/2021 1,9482.78101/27/2016 523,485.00 2.012 2.040518,595.16 Mtn. View-Whisman School Dist.1348 MUN 500,000.0062451FFK1 08/01/2021 1,9482.97307/24/2014 522,295.00 2.893 2.933505,371.75 Mt. San Antonio Community Coll1489 MUN 1,335,000.00623040GX4 08/01/2023 2,6784.10310/26/2015 1,494,986.40 2.490 2.5251,474,450.23 State of Ohio1550 MUN 1,500,000.00677522HZ0 05/01/2021 1,8561.57003/09/2016 1,502,895.00 1.548 1.5701,500,000.00 Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1192 MUN 2,000,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,9482.44105/10/2013 2,065,980.00 2.031 2.0602,037,180.95 Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1193 MUN 1,800,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,9482.44105/13/2013 1,859,382.00 2.031 2.0601,833,461.74 Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1195 MUN 1,990,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,9482.44105/15/2013 2,055,650.10 2.051 2.0802,025,028.31 Palo Alto Unified School Dist.1437 MUN 200,000.00697379UE3 08/01/2021 1,9482.44101/27/2015 206,598.00 2.041 2.070203,682.73 City & County of San Francisco1441 MUN 360,000.00797646NL6 06/15/2022 2,2664.95002/09/2015 415,537.20 2.416 2.450410,816.66 City & County of San Francisco1509 MUN 1,000,000.00797646NC6 06/15/2025 3,3625.45011/27/2015 1,239,850.00 3.067 3.1101,185,113.60 San Jose Unified School Dist.1435 MUN 580,000.00798186C83 08/01/2023 2,6782.50001/29/2015 588,160.60 2.663 2.700572,444.01 San Mateo Union High School Dt1516 MUN 245,000.00799017KT4 09/01/2019 1,2482.19301/08/2016 251,257.30 1.775 1.800248,167.27 San Mateo Union High School Dt1518 MUN 180,000.00799017KV9 09/01/2021 1,9792.72001/19/2016 187,203.60 2.046 2.075185,903.81 State of Texas1482 MUN 920,000.00882723PP8 10/01/2021 2,0092.58910/14/2015 969,440.80 1.864 1.890953,292.77 University of California1340 MUN 1,875,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,1861.79607/14/2014 1,904,512.50 2.007 2.0351,861,201.59 University of California1356 MUN 425,000.0091412GGU3 05/15/2020 1,5053.34807/31/2014 451,996.00 2.281 2.313441,872.13 University of California1368 MUN 250,000.0091412GGT6 05/15/2019 1,1393.04808/08/2014 261,795.00 1.982 2.010257,685.36 University of California1383 MUN 955,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,1861.79608/27/2014 970,031.70 1.972 2.000948,977.59 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a March 31, 2016 Par Value Days To Maturity Maturity Date Current RateMarket Value Fund ALL - Portfolio Listings Investments by Fund Page 15 CUSIP Investment #Issuer Purchase Date Book Value YTM 360 YTM 365 Municipal Bonds University of California1414 MUN 750,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,1861.79611/28/2014 761,805.00 1.923 1.950746,422.05 University of California1420 MUN 1,500,000.0091412GSB2 07/01/2019 1,1861.79612/12/2014 1,523,610.00 1.943 1.9701,491,915.65 University of California1481 MUN 260,000.0091412GQB4 05/15/2020 1,5051.99510/08/2015 263,684.20 1.824 1.850261,480.95 State of Vermont1456 MUN 2,000,000.00924258TT3 08/15/2023 2,6924.25008/06/2015 2,115,740.00 3.275 3.3202,119,388.66 West Valley-Mission Community1479 MUN 250,000.0095640HBT4 08/01/2024 3,0446.09010/01/2015 284,107.50 4.030 4.086284,719.34 Subtotal and Average 25,696,919.94 24,655,000.00 26,059,154.40 2.285 2.316 2,020 Total Investments and Average 517,891,451.92 515,019,538.04 525,114,821.31 1.832 1.857 1,290 Portfolio CPA AP Run Date: 04/13/2016 - 19:51 FI (PRF_FI) 7.1.1 Report Ver. 7.3.3a 1 General Investment Guidelines: a) The max. stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio should be 10 years.Full Compliance b) A max. of 30 percent of the par value of the portfolio shall be invested in securities with maturities beyond 5 years.28.6% c) The City shall maintain a minimum of one month's cash needs in short term investments.Full Compliance d) At least $50 million shall be maintained in securities maturing in less than 2 years. Plus two managed pool accounts which provide instant liquidity: - Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) - maximum investment limit is$50 million $29.7 million - Fidelity Investments e) Should market value of the portfolio fall below 95 percent of the book value, report this fact within a reasonable time to the City Council and evaluate if there are risk of holding securities to maturity.99.5% d) Commitments to purchase securities newly introduced on the market shall be made no more than three (3) working days before pricing.Full Compliance f) Whenever possible, the City will obtain three or more quotations on the purchase or sale of comparable securities (excludes new issues, LAIF, City of Palo Alto bonds, money market accounts, and mutual funds).Full Compliance 2 U.S. Government Securities:Full Compliance a) There is no limit on purchase of these securities. b) Securities will not exceed 10 years maturity. 3 U.S. Government Agency Securities:Full Compliance a) There is no limit on purchase of these securities except for: Callable and Multi-step-up securities provided that: - The potential call dates are known at the time of purchase;Full Compliance - the interest rates at which they "step-up" are known at the time of purchase; and Full Compliance - the entire face value of the security is redeemed at the call date.Full Compliance - No more than 25 percent of the par value of portfolio.22.3% b) Securities will not exceed 10 years maturity. 4 Bonds of the State of California Local Government Agencies Full Compliance a)Having at time of investment a minimum Double A (AA/AA2) rating as provided by a nationally 4.2% recognized rating service (e.g., Moody’s and/or Standard and Poor’s). b)May not exceed 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio. 5 Certificates of Deposit:Full Compliance a) May not exceed 20 percent of the par value of the portfolio; b) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio in collateralized CDs in any institution. c) Purchase collateralized deposits only from federally insured large banks that are rated by a nationally recognized rating agency (e.g. Moody's, Standard & Poor's, etc.). d) For non-rated banks, deposit should be limited to amounts federally insured (FDIC) e) Rollovers are not permitted without specific instruction from authorized City staff. 6 Banker's Acceptance Notes:None Held a) No more than 30 percent of the par value of the portfolio. b) Not to exceed 180 days maturity. c) No more than $5 million with any one institution. Attachment C Investment Policy Compliance As of December 31, 2015 Investment Policy Requirements Compliance Check $109.9 million $3.8 million 2.4% Attachment C Investment Policy Compliance As of December 31, 2015 Investment Policy Requirements Compliance Check 7 Commercial Paper:None Held a) No more than 15 percent of the par value of the portfolio. b) Having highest letter or numerical rating from a nationally recognized rating service. c) Not to exceed 270 days maturity. d) No more than $3 million or 10 percent of the outstanding commercial paper of any one institution, whichever is lesser. 8 Short-Term Repurchase Agreement (REPO):None Held a) Not to exceed 1 year. b) Market value of securities that underlay a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102 percent or greater of the funds borrowed against those securities. 9 Money Market Deposit Accounts Full Compliance a) Liquid bank accounts which seek to maintain a net asset value of $1.00. 10 Mutual Funds:None Held a) No more than 20 percent of the par value of the portfolio. b) No more than 10 percent of the par value with any one institution. 11 Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (NCD):Full Compliance a) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio.6.6% b) No more than $5 million in any one institution.FDIC Insured 12 Medium-Term Corporate Notes:Full Compliance a) No more than 10 percent of the par value of the portfolio.2.6% b) Not to exceed 5 years maturity. c) Securities eligible for investment shall have a minimum rating of AA from a nationally recognized rating service. d) No more than $5 million of the par value may be invested in securities of any single issuer, other than the U.S. Government, its agencies and instrumentality. e) If securities owned by the City are downgraded by either rating agencies to a level below AA it shall be the City's policy to review the credit situation and make a determination as to whether to sell or retain such securities. 13 Prohibited Investments: a) Reverse Repurchase Agreements b) Derivatives as defined in Appendix B of the Investment Policy 14 All securities shall be delivered to the City's safekeeping custodian, and held in the name of the City, with the exception of : - Certificates of Deposit, Mutual Funds, and LAIF Full Compliance None Held Full Compliance